OS 0 1 2, Global Dialectic for the Internet

[Bubblefish]

hello. Nice to see a section to share links. I am new here, and my interests here are regarding a possible challenge to Randi and Co regarding 'Qi', as i am working with a Theoritical Physicist formally from Cal Tech who can manipulate 'Qi' and can also explain it through a hypothesis he put together using QM to explain this mysterious concept.

So! A challenge is forthcoming, and as soon as I get the time, i will introduce more of this topic.

But until then, I thought perhaps some of you would enjoy my favorite link on the net, and a perspective that I adopt rather effeciently.

http://www.highintelligence.com

[Donks]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
hello. Nice to see a section to share links. I am new here, and my interests here are regarding a possible challenge to Randi and Co regarding 'Qi', as i am working with a Theoritical Physicist formally from Cal Tech who can manipulate 'Qi' and can also explain it through a hypothesis he put together using QM to explain this mysterious concept.

So! A challenge is forthcoming, and as soon as I get the time, i will introduce more of this topic.
I can't wait. I'm sure a Theoritical Physicist formally from Cal Tech will win the million easily with his amazing Qi powers. And once he wins, he can provide his QM explanation, too.

But until then, I thought perhaps some of you would enjoy my favorite link on the net, and a perspective that I adopt rather effeciently.

http://www.highintelligence.com
Is that you favorite link or your homepage?

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Donks
I can't wait. I'm sure a Theoritical Physicist formally from Cal Tech will win the million easily with his amazing Qi powers. And once he wins, he can provide his QM explanation, too.

yes, that is the hope. I proposed to him the challenge as a novel way to aquire grant money, and he wants to move forward!



Is that you favorite link or your homepage?

well, although it is certainly a website i sponser, it is not my homepage. I assume you mean homepage as a website that is about 'me', correct?

I have one of those, if your interested, but I dont think it's very interesting to most people, as it's mainly for buisness.

BF

[Soapy Sam]

I bet homepage.
It all looks so familiar.
Where have I seen that writing style before?
Not a native English speaker I would guess.
Fasten your seatbelts. There may be turbulence ahead.

The heck with it.

Hello Bubblefish.

I think your site is full of meaningless blarney. Before writing a universal grammar, I suggest brushing up your English.
(There are many non English speakers here and I would not normally be so impolite to a newbie. But I'm in a grumpy mood and you come across as an arrogant whippersnapper.)

So is English your first language?
Tell us about the challenge.
I could do with a laugh.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
well, although it is certainly a website i sponser, it is not my homepage. I assume you mean homepage as a website that is about 'me', correct?

I have one of those, if your interested, but I dont think it's very interesting to most people, as it's mainly for buisness.

BF
Well, I guess homepage may not have been the word for it, but I meant a website that you made. After all, the email on that website is also bubblefish.

Edit: What does the OS stand for? I started reading the about page and it seemed to be more about some problems at a message board than about OS 012.

[Bubblefish]

[i]Originally posted by Soapy Sam ]I bet homepage.

not a very enticing bet



It all looks so familiar.
Where have I seen that writing style before?
Not a native English speaker I would guess.
Fasten your seatbelts. There may be turbulence ahead.

lol, well, there most certainly is turbulence ahead, but so far your 'premonitions' are, ahem, false! I am ONLY an english speaker



The heck with it.

Hello Bubblefish.

hello soapy, and how are you today?




I think your site is full of meaningless blarney. Before writing a universal grammar, I suggest brushing up your English.

My friend, i did not come here to discuss OS 012, rather the challenge I mentioned above. If you wish to discuss OS 012, please go to the forum site, and challenge it there. I will inform you, however, that OS 012 is a highly effective dialectic, completly undefeated. So go over there if you want to have fun.



(There are many non English speakers here and I would not normally be so impolite to a newbie. But I'm in a grumpy mood and you come across as an arrogant whippersnapper.)

lol, well, the arrogance is equally percieved on your end, my friend.



So is English your first language?

yes


Tell us about the challenge.

i will on a new thread in the appropiate forum. This forum is for 'links', so I posted a 'link' that i enjoy very much. I wish to follow forum rules and engage in respectful and rational debate.

If you dont enjoy the link, then dont go to it anymore. If your feeling 'spicy', then please go challenge it on the other forum


I could do with a laugh. [/B]

me too! I just get the giggles when I think about this challenge between a Theoritical Physicist who has proof (along with a few others) that there is something more to 'qi' than mere imagination and bringing that challenge here to Randi.

I think it is going to be fun! stay tuned. and please, I am not here to discuss OS 012, as that will only be a distraction to the goal mentioned. however, I will use it, and any and all are welcome to discuss or challenge it's effeciency at the OS 012 forum.

if you want my homepage, it's here

www.highintelligence.info

THAT's my homepage. you just lost your bet, your not off to a good start, eh friend?

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Donks
Well, I guess homepage may not have been the word for it, but I meant a website that you made. After all, the email on that website is also bubblefish.

yes, I am the administrator for the site.



Edit: What does the OS stand for? I started reading the about page and it seemed to be more about some problems at a message board than about OS 012.

OS is a playful signifier meaning more than one thing. Operating System. Open Source. And Objective/Subjective.

I recommend finish reading the introduction page, and read 'OS 012 in Theory' for further questions. really, now I regret posting it! I dont want this to be the distraction.

thanks for the questions though. Neat forum, I like it here.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
really, now I regret posting it! I dont want this to be the distraction.
Well, if you didn't want it discussed, maybe you shouldn't have posted it. And if you get a thread going in the Challenge section, maybe something to discuss the protocol for testing Qi, I'm sure it will get very busy regardless of any other discussion about os 012.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Donks
Well, if you didn't want it discussed, maybe you shouldn't have posted it.

yes, agreed. this may have been a poor choice on my part. However, i dont mind discussing it, just not here. An OS 012 discussion usually turns into a continuous discussion that often last months, even years.

Anyway, thanks for the hello's. We will chat soon.

[Bubblefish]

here is the link posted to the discussion on 'qi'

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59768

[Wudang]

I am ONLY an english speaker


Strange way of phrasing that sentence. And I think you mean "formerly" rather than "formally"? I'm with Sam. Work on English grammar first before working on a universal grammar.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Wudang
Strange way of phrasing that sentence. And I think you mean "formerly" rather than "formally"? I'm with Sam. Work on English grammar first before working on a universal grammar.

Howz this? Me say to you that you confuse grammar with dialectic, and then me say, hey, even if grammar wrong, the contained or inherint logic of the proposition is still applicable, even if ti is spilled wrong or tooo mani typos from writing to fast in internet.

You still get my point, right? amazing how that happens, eh?

If you wish to see the effectivness of the dialectic in debate, come by the forum, glad to see you i will.

Bubblefish

[Zep]

Bubblefish idea silly. Homepage shows Bubblefish in LA, home of most nutty things. Not disappointed now. Understand.

Zep really need drink now.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Howz this? Me say to you that you confuse grammar with dialectic, and then me say, hey, even if grammar wrong, the contained or inherint logic of the proposition is still applicable, even if ti is spilled wrong or tooo mani typos from writing to fast in internet.

You still get my point, right? amazing how that happens, eh?

If you wish to see the effectivness of the dialectic in debate, come by the forum, glad to see you i will.

Bubblefish

Anyone claiming expertise in a universal grammar who displays a poor grasp of, and little respect for, the grammar of the only language they speak has a lot of ground to make up. And, no, I am not confusing grammar and dialectic, thank you.

If your message isn't important enough to you to take the time to scan it once before posting it, what on earth makes you think I, or anyone else, should consider it any more important?

[ingoa]

From hist "favourite web site":

Any idea that is opposed to OS 012 and the Human Union is irrational and crazy by default,...

Definitely no discussion needed here, we have to agree as he said so. ;)

No discussion, no challenge, no content.

:bs:

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Wudang
Anyone claiming expertise in a universal grammar who displays a poor grasp of, and little respect for, the grammar of the only language they speak has a lot of ground to make up.

lol. never claim expertise in universal grammar i did not.






And, no, I am not confusing grammar and dialectic, thank you.
appears that way it does when read the logic in post of yours



If your message isn't important enough to you to take the time to scan it once before posting it, what on earth makes you think I, or anyone else, should consider it any more important?

wasnt thinking of you when wrote it I. Assume that most people understand quick replies on internet during busy day is irrelevant to topic of discussion.

Either way still read it you do, and understanding still same.

grammar is not message, only presentation of message. dialectic of OS 012 is about learning to read real message in dialogue, beyond presentation.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
Bubblefish idea silly.

lol. sometime, irrational people try to ad hominem debate, wish to use charge words to imply logical falsity when they no can argue using logic or reason.


Homepage shows Bubblefish in LA, home of most nutty things. Not disappointed now. Understand.

irrational people reason funny. If Venice Beach/Hollywood in LA is nutty, then they think that means all ideas in Los Angeles nutty and false by default.

bubblefish think irrational people who think they smart are silly. they have education, but no reasoning or logic ability.

haha. that funny funny



Zep really need drink now.

dont think that drink will make you understand, but enjoy it none the less

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by ingoa
From hist "favourite web site":



Definitely no discussion needed here, we have to agree as he said so. ;)

No discussion, no challenge, no content.

:bs:

haha. that funny. glad you agree and back out of debate gracefully. best to save face that way.

enjoy this little exchange bubblefish did.

[bignickel]

Just recently, to my utter amazement and delight, OS 012, a ternary dialectic for the internet and an artistic conceptual object, was banned and censored from discussion in a philosophy and logic forum called The Ponderer's Guild’ after almost a year of remaining the most popular topic.

OS 012 was deleted, banned, and censored because the moderators that be at The Ponderers’ Guild were unable to find a rational or logical flaw in her system after publicly going on record as accusing OS 012 as being complete and utter B. S. 012.

http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguildfrm29.showMessage?topicID=263.topic

Generally speaking, since it's their board they can pretty much do what they want to. But on most popular boards, they generally stick by their Code of Conduct. When they banned any further discussion of OS 012, did they mention which rule that you had broken?

Perhaps, this one?:
3. No Spam. Spam will be removed without notice. Anything that looks like spam will be removed without notice. Any thread attempting to proselytize will be removed without notice. If the same new topic is posted to two different forums, both copies will be removed without notice.

Or, maybe, this one?
# If a member is repeatedly annoying, they may be asked to stop or have their allowed posts limited (but not banned), even if the particular way in which they are annoying is not covered in these rules.

EDITED: their search function seems slightly broken. I can't even find the word 'dialectic' in their forums.

EDITED FURTHER: AH, Ok, you're Tumbleman. Now I can see your posts. Ah. Ok. Yeesh.

[bignickel]

Ah, here's the thread I was looking for:

http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguildfrm29.showMessage?topicID=267.topic

Repeated trolling. Well, we've had our share of those before. "Do what thou wilt, buster."

[Bubblefish]

Generally speaking, since it's their board they can pretty much do what they want to. But on most popular boards, they generally stick by their Code of Conduct. When they banned any further discussion of OS 012, did they mention which rule that you had broken?

Perhaps, this one?:
3. No Spam. Spam will be removed without notice. Anything that looks like spam will be removed without notice. Any thread attempting to proselytize will be removed without notice. If the same new topic is posted to two different forums, both copies will be removed without notice.


dear sir. I was discussing a dialectic on a philosophy forum for almost a year. I dont see how you can define discussing a dialectic on a philosophy forum for over a year as spam. I am not selling anything, nor am I apart of any organization.

In case you dont know, dialectic is a tool often used by philosophers in debate, so it is natural that i would discuss dialectic on such a forum.

also, the moderator and owner of the forum posted his own thread about OS 012 challenging it. I met his challenge and resolved Zeno's paradox per his request, as well as argued his other assumptions to the place where there simply was no rational rebuttal.

lol, so if I am guilty of spam, sir, so is he.



Or, maybe, this one?
# If a member is repeatedly annoying, they may be asked to stop or have their allowed posts limited (but not banned), even if the particular way in which they are annoying is not covered in these rules.

I was never asked to stop anything ever. I engaged in polite discussion in a novel and funny way. My thread was the most popular thread there, being at the top for 11 months straight.

sorry, try again.



EDITED: their search function seems slightly broken. I can't even find the word 'dialectic' in their forums.

EDITED FURTHER: AH, Ok, you're Tumbleman. Now I can see your posts. Ah. Ok. Yeesh.

yes. I posted as tumbleman and I discussed this dialectic in relationship to western philosophy on a philosophy forum, so?

troll appears to be a meaningless term that anyone can throw at someone in a deceptive manner to identify them as not having anything valuable or worthwhile to say. Since I contributed and began the most popular thread at that forum, and have many friends made there, your post here sir is what is commonly called 'false and misleading'.

If you wish to see the effectivness of the dialectic, or challenge it's princaples, go the the forum on the site, challenge it's princaples using the soundest of reason and critical thinking. If you cant or you wont, then I can assume then that your unable to back your words with any relevancy.

Usually people who do that are refrenced as trolls, oddly enough.



__________________

[bignickel]

BubbleTumble, what happened to this page:?
www.highintelligence.com/discussion.htm

Could you put it back up please?

Then, when Bubblefish would try to instigate them into FURTHER discussion about OS 012, they would just say how much they loved his antics and asked him to stick around. Bubblefish even accused some of them of being ‘hip-hop’ Muslims. I think they got a kick out of that. I tried to push as many buttons as I could!

I'm curious: how's this NOT trollish behaviour? Or has OS 012 allowed you to redefine words so they no longer apply to you?

[Bubblefish]

Repeated trolling. Well, we've had our share of those before. "Do what thou wilt, buster." [/B]

Like I said, anyone can call anyone a troll. Discussing philosophy on a philosophy forum on my thread that i started that included discussion with the majority of the members many of who protested my banning is not trolling.
If you can come up with a good working definition of what troll is, then try to see how it applies to what i do. you wont.

Next, I imagine I will be accused of being a 'flip-flopper' and 'unpatriotic' or any other bizarre political spin to disqualify the ideas being discussed by assosciating the person discussing them with a charged word.

tsk tsk tsk. I would expect more from a forum member on a board that includes critical thinking as an ideal.

start using it.

[Bubblefish]

I'm curious: how's this NOT trollish behaviour? Or has OS 012 allowed you to redefine words so they no longer apply to you? [/B]

first off, that was a copy and paste from something I WROTE on MY website on ANOTHER forum a year previously. So let's say that was 'trolling', are you telling me that TPG banned me because I trolled another forum a year previously? that's absurd. In addition to that, the moderator there didnt bother to paste the rest of what was on my site, which was written to me by the moderator at that muslim forum: "'asalaamu'alaikum, Bubblefish, What a pleasure to read your posts . I have seldom witnessed such a dismantling via logic in many years of observing and sometimes practicing "the debating trade". I hope you stick around here for awhile. We could sorely use a dose of rationality. "

I doesnt look like they defined it as trolling now, does it?

Secondly, if you were paying attention, a point was being made. Even when I 'pressed buttons', which is precisely what you are doing to me right now, that particular forum, a Muslim BBS, was the most calm and rational in regards to discussing the dialectic, which was me pointing out an IRONY, considering that most americans assume that Muslims are irrational, and from my experience, discussion with them involved more rational thinking than most americans I discussed with.



Since I use creative writing mixed with critical thinking to explain how the dialectic works, that confuses many people, and I certainly use their confusion to further explain the dialectic and then address those concerns using the dialectic.

Some people would rather ban or censor that just simply admit they were mistaken.

Anyone can go to the site and read the formal presentation of the dialectic to see that much critical work and development has been done through this process, and to me, anyone unable to critique the work and only address their own erratic image in thier head of what I am doing is certainly not in a clear mind enough to be calling me a 'troll' and have it stick.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by bignickel
[B]BubbleTumble, what happened to this page:?
www.highintelligence.com/discussion.htm

Could you put it back up please?



It's already up on the site. look under 'essays' and there you will find it.

You dont need to go looking under rocks, my friend, just look what is in front of your very eyes.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Originally posted by Zep
Bubblefish idea silly.
lol. sometime, irrational people try to ad hominem debate, wish to use charge words to imply logical falsity when they no can argue using logic or reason.No ad hom at all. It was just a small exercise to see if you could work out the grammar I used. Was I referring to the idea alone being silly, or Bubblefish alone being silly, or is the proper noun a qualifier to the concept that is being labelled silly. Is the word "silly" actually used in a perjorative sense? Consider the context - in Australia, the word "silly" can mean "acting like a clown", as well as "idiotic". It can also mean "unhinged lunacy". Can you decide which is the applicable sense? Is there enough information? How should I have phrased it such that the grammar is unambiguous?

But no, you took only one interpretation, which shows you have a long way to go if only three simple words, one of which was your own handle, can confound you. Clearly you cannot be the great Dr Lo - he would not have made such a hash out of it as you have.

[MRC_Hans]

Trollfeeding is fun, yes?

Hans

[Bubblefish]

No ad hom at all. It was just a small exercise to see if you could work out the grammar I used. Was I referring to the idea alone being silly, or Bubblefish alone being silly, or is the proper noun a qualifier to the concept that is being labeled silly.

by default it meant both. Bubblefish Idea Silly is a 'string'.

If that is not what you meant, then you can clarify.

Watch, let's look at my sentence above, and rearrange the grammar.

Clarify you can if not what you meant.

See?

Now, what do you think I mean?




Is the word "silly" actually used in a perjorative sense? Consider the context - in Australia, the word "silly" can mean "acting like a clown", as well as "idiotic". It can also mean "unhinged lunacy". Can you decide which is the applicable sense? Is there enough information? How should I have phrased it such that the grammar is unambiguous?

it is irrelevant, since the necessary truth associated with your phrase is that the idea is 'false' and not worth merit. You can all it silly or lunacy, the same logic still applies. You can spell 'silly' like sillly or reverse the grammar all you want.

Your intention reads the same regardless.



But no, you took only one interpretation, which shows you have a long way to go if only three simple words, one of which was your own handle, can confound you.

Lol, try again. And then while you are at it, meditate and use critical thinking to see how necessary truths can logically show inference without the author's intention.

And then meditate or use critical thinking to understand the simple, common, and basic process of dialectical clarification can remove all misunderstandings via communication through simple question and answer, assuming of course both parties are rational.



Clearly you cannot be the great Dr Lo - he would not have made such a hash out of it as you have. [/B]

Ah, I see you can at least understand, crudely, the role of necessary truths, however, your defining an uncertainty, or a logical mystery, as a truth based on a conceptual image you have in your head. So even though your conclusion is true, your method is faulty and only produces more error than logical conclusion.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Trollfeeding is fun, yes?



Yes, Hans, it most certainly is! I can feed these guys all day and spin them around my finger like no tommorow.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Yes, Hans, it most certainly is! I can feed these guys all day and spin them around my finger like no tommorow. http://www.dof.virginia.gov/images/wildlife-turkey-1.jpg

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
by default it meant both. Bubblefish Idea Silly is a 'string'.

If that is not what you meant, then you can clarify.

Watch, let's look at my sentence above, and rearrange the grammar.

Clarify you can if not what you meant.

See?

Now, what do you think I mean?

it is irrelevant, since the necessary truth associated with your phrase is that the idea is 'false' and not worth merit. You can all it silly or lunacy, the same logic still applies. You can spell 'silly' like sillly or reverse the grammar all you want.

Your intention reads the same regardless.

Lol, try again. And then while you are at it, meditate and use critical thinking to see how necessary truths can logically show inference without the author's intention.

And then meditate or use critical thinking to understand the simple, common, and basic process of dialectical clarification can remove all misunderstandings via communication through simple question and answer, assuming of course both parties are rational.

Ah, I see you can at least understand, crudely, the role of necessary truths, however, your defining an uncertainty, or a logical mystery, as a truth based on a conceptual image you have in your head. So even though your conclusion is true, your method is faulty and only produces more error than logical conclusion. What complete and utter bullsh1t! Have you been eating dictionaries? Have you ever thought of writing for comics? What are you ON, feller? I'd get your medication changed, if I were you.

Incidentally, I was designing grammars before you were born, and I've probably forgotten more about the subject than you'll ever know. And there are others here who can leave me in the dust on the subject, so you're just not even in the hunt. And if you think this pile of steaming dung is in any way convincing of how intellectually superior you are, then forget it. It makes you look remarkably foolish. Turn your head sideways before going through doorways, OK?

Pillock.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]What complete and utter bullsh1t! Have you been eating dictionaries? Have you ever thought of writing for comics? What are you ON, feller? I'd get your medication changed, if I were you.

Incidentally, I was designing grammars before you were born, and I've probably forgotten more about the subject than you'll ever know. And there are others here who can leave me in the dust on the subject, so you're just not even in the hunt. And if you think this pile of steaming dung is in any way convincing of how intellectually superior you are, then forget it. It makes you look remarkably foolish. Turn your head sideways before going through doorways, OK?

Pillock.


thus, Zep ended his discussion with ol Bubblefish devoid of any rational rebuttal and lacking any critical thinking, merely splattering the page with verbal ad hominem and a funny picture of a turkey.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
thus, Zep ended his discussion with ol Bubblefish devoid of any rational rebuttal and lacking any critical thinking, merely splattering the page with verbal ad hominem and a funny picture of a turkey. So easy, so predictable...
<center>The Institute of Noetic Sciences ~ Los Angeles
I O N S ~ L.A.
presents
Dr. Shui-Yin Lo
IN
the second of a series of workshops on
The Quantum Theory of Life
or "What The Bleep Do We Know?!"

What is the Classical World? What is the Quantum World?

How does the Quantum world address crisis' such as the threat of nuclear war, bio-terror, global warming?

How does the Quantum world solve the spiritual crisis?

Come join us in exploring the quantum world view ~

the result of the last hundred years of the most intense scientific effort!

How can we integrate science and spirituality?

What do we need to know to survive, to thrive, and to be meaningful?

Saturday, February 5TH, 10 AM TO 3 PM $20</center>Your "mentor" sells scientific-sounding quackery at $20 per head to crackpot loonies at pot-luck lunches, cashing in on his cachet as a physicist. And he is claiming to be able to solve some looming spiritual crisis using quantum ... something. Mechanics? Energy? Water?

Shall I go on to the more looney claims he makes regarding acupuncture and such? Makes your feeble attempts at mangling grammar look positively academic in comparison.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
So easy, so predictable...
Your "mentor" sells scientific-sounding quackery at $20 per head to crackpot loonies at pot-luck lunches, cashing in on his cachet as a physicist. And he is claiming to be able to solve some looming spiritual crisis using quantum ... something. Mechanics? Energy? Water?

Shall I go on to the more looney claims he makes regarding acupuncture and such? Makes your feeble attempts at mangling grammar look positively academic in comparison.

Next, ladies and gentleman, Zep wishes to confuse others by now attacking an assosciate and friend of Bubblefish with ad hominem in the mystical hope that somehow, someway, this will refute rationally or logicaly Bubblefish's posts.

this theory of Zep's states that there must be some sort of mystical transference between his perception regarding a respected professional academic, a former sitting professor with tenure in physics at Melbourne university, which he mystically is conjuring up as a quack now to support his argument, and the actual logical inference of Bubblefish's posts.

I don’t know, I am skeptical about such claim, Zep, but I am curious about hearing more of this theory. Your suggesting that a physics professor who gives a seminar regarding his life work sponsored by an organization founded by a former NASA astronaut, which is providing a de-mystified and rational explanation for the foundation of Taoist practices using science and synthesizing it into a philosophical framework, is actually a formal proof of the logical inconstancies of what I write?

My lord man, this is radical stuff! I wouldn’t release too much of this theory on this forum at first if I were you, I don’t think this is a welcoming crowd that believes in mysticism or magick, but perhaps you have a rational proof for such things, and I certainly wish to give you the space to explain it.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Yes, Hans, it most certainly is! I can feed these guys all day and spin them around my finger like no tommorow. You can? That's gonna be cool, I'm sure. Give me a PM whenever you start. I wouldn't wanna miss that.

Hans

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
You can?

yes indeed, Hans, I am quite notorious for it.



That's gonna be cool, I'm sure.

Is cool, was cool, and is going to continue to be, yes.



Give me a PM whenever you start. I wouldn't wanna miss that.



Well, I already started with you, and you certainly cant miss what you experience directly now, eh?

So consider this then your heads up. I would send you a PM, but I would rather conserve server space.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
yes indeed, Hans, I am quite notorious for it.

Oh? Where?

Is cool, was cool, and is going to continue to be, yes.

Ehr, I was not referring to the weather :rolleyes:.

Well, I already started with you, and you certainly cant miss what you experience directly now, eh?

You mean the intense boredom? Sure, that is quite evident.

So consider this then your heads up. I would send you a PM, but I would rather conserve server space.

If this is the best you can do, I have an even better suggestion for saving server space. You know, we have seen this type of trolls before. They will verbally masturbate, then say "See how I f*cked you!". :nope:

Hans

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
[B]You know, we have seen this type of trolls before.


yes, me too. it's so funny, right? look at poor troll Zep as an example. I have encountered about a million of them.

They will verbally masturbate, then say "See how I f*cked you!". :

yes, but I usually, actually, always get them to stop, since they usually have only one rebuttal, name calling, and they usually are not even funny at that.

Gee Hans, how long does it take these trolls who come on threads and dont address the topics rationally to get the message?

If you dont respond to me, I wont respond to you.

I can assure you that you will tire of this far quicker than myself.

But, yep, you can be sure that no troll here will understand that simple premise, so until then, I just have fun with them and let them defeat their own arguements.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Next, ladies and gentleman, Zep wishes to confuse others by now attacking an assosciate and friend of Bubblefish with ad hominem in the mystical hope that somehow, someway, this will refute rationally or logicaly Bubblefish's posts.What's to refute? There's nothing in them, so content-free posts need no refutation.

:slp:

Originally posted by Bubblefish
this theory of Zep's states that there must be some sort of mystical transference between his perception regarding a respected professional academic, a former sitting professor with tenure in physics at Melbourne university, which he mystically is conjuring up as a quack now to support his argument, and the actual logical inference of Bubblefish's posts.What theory? I've given you facts. How you (fail to) address them is up to you, bozo.

:slp: :slp:

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I don’t know, I am skeptical about such claim, Zep, but I am curious about hearing more of this theory. Your suggesting that a physics professor who gives a seminar regarding his life work sponsored by an organization founded by a former NASA astronaut, which is providing a de-mystified and rational explanation for the foundation of Taoist practices using science and synthesizing it into a philosophical framework, is actually a formal proof of the logical inconstancies of what I write?De-mystifying? Taoist practices? Formal proofs? Boy, you HAVE got it bad, haven't you! You do know that the Noetic Institute is (in)famous for its (lack of) scientific reputation versus its (outlandish) claims? It's a home for wannabe-famous-agains who have lost their marbles, but mainly a means of bilking the public out of money. How much have YOU paid them recently, hmmm?

The list of "famous names" who have abandoned their former rationality in favour of laughable and clearly unscientific woo-wooism is far longer than you know. Next you will be trotting out the one about Isaac Newton being a Creationist Christian. Or Darwin recanting on his deathbed. But does this make your point any more valid?

:slp: :slp: :slp:

Originally posted by Bubblefish
My lord man, this is radical stuff! I wouldn’t release too much of this theory on this forum at first if I were you, I don’t think this is a welcoming crowd that believes in mysticism or magick, but perhaps you have a rational proof for such things, and I certainly wish to give you the space to explain it. Oh no! The stage is all yours to keep right on going demonstrating your inadequacies and delusions. You have already exposed enough of your own agenda here to have us tag you as a looney of the first water.

Y'know, bubblebrain, if you were in any way rational you would have produced proper references to Dr Lo's reputable scientific work in a flash...we got nothing. If you were serious about the JREF challenge (and Dr Lo should be - $1,000,000 sure beats $20 per head lecturing at a looney convention) you would have had an application in already...again, nothing we know of, and plenty of paltry excuses why not. As Hans has rightly pointed out, you are a verbally masturbating troll.

:slp: :slp: :slp: :slp:

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
yes, me too. it's so funny, right? look at poor troll Zep as an example. I have encountered about a million of them....who tagged you as a troll also.



Originally posted by Bubblefish
yes, but I usually, actually, always get them to stop, since they usually have only one rebuttal, name calling, and they usually are not even funny at that.

Gee Hans, how long does it take these trolls who come on threads and dont address the topics rationally to get the message?

If you dont respond to me, I wont respond to you.

I can assure you that you will tire of this far quicker than myself.

But, yep, you can be sure that no troll here will understand that simple premise, so until then, I just have fun with them and let them defeat their own arguements. Have you actually MADE a proposal we can even begin to discuss? Something worth discussing?

[MRC_Hans]

Bubblefish: Thanks for proving my point.

*yawn*

Hans

[Zep]

Oh ho! A little research goes such a LONG way, doesn't it?

Bubblebrain, I now know your real name and what you do for a living, although that wasn't going to be difficult, was it!

So here's a film review we can all share:Oh, I suppose if your "Dark Side of the Moon" CD is scratched and you need something to accompany your herbal habit, director [bubblefish]'s self-important foray into meaningless nothingness would do in a pinch. Otherwise, "[name of bubblefish's film]" won't even open off-off-off Broadway.So this notion of your own self-aggrandisement is not new to you, is it, bubblebutt.

Oh, I'm sorry - I'm calling you names again. Forgive me - childish, I know, but I'm having some (OS 0 1 2) playful fun with you, that's all.

[edit: spel]

[Bubblefish]

See what I mean, Hans? The trolls just dont get it.



Originally posted by Zep
What's to refute? There's nothing in them, so content-free posts need no refutation.

If there is no logic in one's phrasing, then it is simple to point out the contradiction.

Your claim that nothing is in them is unsubstantied by logic or reason, merely supported by wishful thinking and a strong desire to save face after your own contradictions were exposed.


What theory?

the theory that association or proximity to another human being somehow refutes the logical inference in my posts



I've given you facts. How you (fail to) address them is up to you, bozo.

I dont see how posting a seminar given by Dr. Lo supports that theory. Can you explain?



:
De-mystifying?

yes, it means removing the 'woo-woo' and providing a rational framework to explain a very old philosophical system that founded an entire civilization.



Taoist practices?

yes, taoist practices would fall under that guidline.



Formal proofs?

You havent provided any.



Boy, you HAVE got it bad, haven't you!

me? nah, I am doing great! i am about to be father in about a week or two, and have a few rather exciting projects on my table.



You do know that the Noetic Institute is (in)famous for its (lack of) scientific reputation versus its (outlandish) claims?

I understand that a few scientific materialists make that claim. But I am skeptical about all claims until I can verify them for myself.



It's a home for wannabe-famous-agains who have lost their marbles, but mainly a means of bilking the public out of money.

yeah, that's what some people say about Randi too, but I dont believe them any more than I believe you.



How much have YOU paid them recently, hmmm?

zilch. I dont know much about them, other than the founder is pissed that the film 'What the Bleep do we know' contained crappy science.



The list of "famous names" who have abandoned their former rationality in favour of laughable and clearly unscientific woo-wooism is far longer than you know.

hmm, that sounds like a conspiracy theory, care to elaborate on another thread?



Next you will be trotting out the one about Isaac Newton being a Creationist Christian.

Oh! Your making a prediction! I suppose if I do, that may make you eligible for collecting the million dollar prize...



Or Darwin recanting on his deathbed.

Nah, next I am going to go to sleep and laugh at how silly your irrational ideas read on a discusion forum.



But does this make your point any more valid?

Yes, the point I made to hans in my previous posts were that trolls never seem to get the message, and you validating it perfectly.



Oh no!

yes, it's true, your validating just about everything I have said about trolls



The stage is all yours to keep right on going demonstrating your inadequacies and delusions.

Doenst look that way to me, I have given you every oppurtunity to use simple rational exchange to explain your point of view, and, being a troll, you continue to use ad hominem, pictures, and other childlike forms of communication which apparently dont relate to anything that i have written in this thread so far in any meaningful sense.



You have already exposed enough of your own agenda here to have us tag you as a looney of the first water.

lol, well, my friend, trolls try to 'tag' anybody using ad hominem when they have nothing rational to contribute.



Y'know, bubblebrain, if you were in any way rational you would have produced proper references to Dr Lo's reputable scientific work in a flash...we got nothing.

really? how did you come to that conclusion? the title of the thread and my opening post laid out the grounds of the discussion and I asked simple questions and recieved rational responses from a few members.

i dont see how not getting what you want means I am irrational, can you explain?

lol, as if I was to hand you over the research papers of a accomplished theortical physcist you would have understood them anyway.


If you were serious about the JREF challenge (and Dr Lo should be - $1,000,000 sure beats $20 per head lecturing at a looney convention) you would have had an application in already...

really? your saying that when one has a serious intention, then they immedialty follow through on a resulting action without properly planning thier steps or finish other projects before hand?

I dont know, Zep, that sounds pretty impetious. I dont see how performing a task according to another persons value system = seriousness, can you explain?


again, nothing we know of, and plenty of paltry excuses why not.

oh, so sorry Zep, I know your excited, but didnt your parents ever teach you the value of patience?



As Hans has rightly pointed out, you are a verbally masturbating troll.



ahh, more mythological refrences. Apparently both you and Hans have quite a naughty imagination!

[Zep]

Porr child, poor child...

Do you know who the father is?

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
[B]Bubblefish: Thanks for proving my point.



No worries, hans, no worries. your point about trolls was well taken, and if Zep didnt help me, well, I would not have been able to prove it!



*yawn*



yeah, your posts sounded a little tired, get some good rest my friend, and come back when you can post coherently!

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
Porr child, poor child...

Oh my god, does someone need assistance?



Do you know who the father is?

Michael Landon?

[Zep]

You mean you DON'T know who the father is? And now you're picking TV actors' names out of a hat?

Oh deary deary me. How sad...

[Bubblefish]

Oh ho! A little research goes such a LONG way, doesn't it?

It most certainy does, Zep! I look forward to your research on assosciative fellowships that interfer with logical communications!



Bubblebrain, I now know your real name and what you do for a living, although that wasn't going to be difficult, was it!

NO! since I posted a link myself on this very thread!



So here's a film review we can all share:So this notion of your own self-aggrandisement is not new to you, is it, bubblebutt.

Ahh yes, A bad review from film threat is certainly an honor. Can you believe that their favorite film at slamdance that year was about a clown assasin? hehe, what a bunch of boobs.



Oh, I'm sorry - I'm calling you names again.

Apparently that is all you have done.




Forgive me - childish, I know, but I'm having some (OS 0 1 2) playful fun with you, that's all.

and I with you my friend, and I with you!

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
does someone need assistance?Now you mention it, you have stated that Dr. Lo has published his evidence for the existence of qi in peer-reviewed journals. Could you assist us to find them by providing references, please?

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]You mean you DON'T know who the father is?

Well, i dont know the father of the 'porr poor' child. Is a 'porr poor' child a friend of yours? you would seem to assosciate with many children

And now you're picking TV actors' names out of a hat?

Ahh, I see your trying your 'remote viewing' trick again,eh? hehe, no, I just wrote the first name that came to my head, it seems to have done the trick and it appears to mimic your method of discussion.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
Now you mention it, you have stated that Dr. Lo has published his evidence for the existence of qi in peer-reviewed journals. Could you assist us to find them by providing references, please?

Google?

[Zep]

Oh, it's no problem for me. All I'm really doing is keeping my post count up by engaging in inanities with you. So in that way, you are doing me a service.

How long did it take you to make an 11 minutes film? Also, what is the Slamdance Festival?

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]Oh, it's no problem for me. All I'm really doing is keeping my post count up by engaging in inanities with you. So in that way, you are doing me a service.

Well I certainly dont mind being of service, and now we have identified the win win component in discussion!

Good show, Zep, good show!



How long did it take you to make an 11 minutes film?

hmm, that one took about three months, but not consistantly, I took time off allot in between.


Also, what is the Slamdance Festival?

Slamdance is a pretty big film festival in Park City, Utah that takes place the same time as Sundance film festival. Last time I checked, Slamdance was the number 4 most influencial film festival in the country. That same film, Penny Theatre, was in another festival, Digi Dance, at the same time, and won best short film.


thanks for asking. Can i put my clothes back on now?

[Zep]

Ah, we ARE in a question-answering mood now, are we? Good!

Can you provide a reference to Dr Lo's reputable publications, as requested earlier in this thread?

And can you show us any evidence of your application for the JREF $1,000,000 Challenge?

[Zep]

Who said this:In a world of spirituality, there's a strong tendency for people to cross over the line from having an open mind to having a hole in the head.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
Ah, we ARE in a question-answering mood now, are we? Good!

lol, and how long did it take you to come to that conclusion after I have been answering all questions you have asked me for the past 45 minutes?



Can you provide a reference to Dr Lo's reputable publications, as requested earlier in this thread?


First off, and this reply is serious and respectful, so please take it as such, I am not Dr. Lo's agent or publicist. If you cant find any of his work on the web, I dont have any to offer you.

He did say, and i informed you of this on the thread, that in a few months there is going to be something published regarding this current project in a peer reviewed journal, and when it is published, I will provide the links.

the man has something like 8 patents and a distinguished career, so if you disagree with him philosophically, at least respect his level of accomplishment as a scientist, and his cultural background (he is chinese, and taoism is part of his culture) and be patient. I can assure you no one is up to trickery or anything of the sort.

I am the one whom brought up Randi to him to see if he would do it, and he asked me to look into it and I came here to look into it. I am not a paranormal X files person, so this is how I choose to get more i nformation.

He asked me to discontinue the other discussion, as it served it's purpose and began to become a discussion irrelevant to the topic.

And can you show us any evidence of your application for the JREF $1,000,000 Challenge? [/B]

We are interested and intend, like I said, to move forward with the challenge, however, he has to finish what he is working on before we can begin, and I dont have much time now myself. Also, his current research is very professional, and he doesnt want to sully it with Randi hype. Already, someone on this forum contacted a collegue of his about all of this, I mean, come on, be a bit respectful, these are professional people.

It is our honest intention to do the challenge, but both me and him want to do it right. I am sorry, but I just dont blindly jump into things before a clear plan of action is arrived at. taking the challenge is a big deal, we dont take it lightly.

I am afraid that is all I can say on the matter.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
Who said this:

Michael Landon?:p

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
lol, and how long did it take you to come to that conclusion after I have been answering all questions you have asked me for the past 45 minutes?You haven't answered a thing, you have simply corresponded. And I'm not surprised.
Originally posted by Bubblefish
First off, and this reply is serious and respectful, so please take it as such, I am not Dr. Lo's agent or publicist. If you cant find any of his work on the web, I dont have any to offer you.

He did say, and i informed you of this on the thread, that in a few months there is going to be something published regarding this current project in a peer reviewed journal, and when it is published, I will provide the links.

the man has something like 8 patents and a distinguished career, so if you disagree with him philosophically, at least respect his level of accomplishment as a scientist, and his cultural background (he is chinese, and taoism is part of his culture) and be patient. I can assure you no one is up to trickery or anything of the sort.

I am the one whom brought up Randi to him to see if he would do it, and he asked me to look into it and I came here to look into it. I am not a paranormal X files person, so this is how I choose to get more i nformation.

He asked me to discontinue the other discussion, as it served it's purpose and began to become a discussion irrelevant to the topic.Ah, so he WAS reading it, and you were merely his mouthpiece. Fine. What can I say that isn't pointing out the bleeding obvious about who played who...

Originally posted by Bubblefish
We are interested and intend, like I said, to move forward with the challenge, however, he has to finish what he is working on before we can begin, and I dont have much time now myself. Also, his current research is very professional, and he doesnt want to sully it with Randi hype. Already, someone on this forum contacted a collegue of his about all of this, I mean, come on, be a bit respectful, these are professional people.

It is our honest intention to do the challenge, but both me and him want to do it right. I am sorry, but I just dont blindly jump into things before a clear plan of action is arrived at. taking the challenge is a big deal, we dont take it lightly.

I am afraid that is all I can say on the matter. "WE" are interested? Is he seriously considering you as a partner in this little escapade? Or do you just think that's what he is going to do.

Would you care to buy a bridge? Also, did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Michael Landon?:p Bzzzt.

Try again.

Perhaps some research might be good exercise for you. Go on - try it! You'll like it!

[ingoa]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Can you believe that their favorite film at slamdance that year was about a clown assasin?

Cool!

A clown assassin! :jedi:


The first thing that makes sense in this thread.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
First off, and this reply is serious and respectful, so please take it as such, I am not Dr. Lo's agent or publicist. If you cant find any of his work on the web, I dont have any to offer you.

He did say, and i informed you of this on the thread, that in a few months there is going to be something published regarding this current project in a peer reviewed journal, and when it is published, I will provide the links. In the other thread you claimed that his evidence for qi had already been published in peer-reviwed journals. If, as is implicit in your posts, you are in regular communication with him, it should be a simple matter for you to ask him for the references. If the articles exist, I'm sure he'll know where they were published.

[Bubblefish]

Ah, so he WAS reading it, and you were merely his mouthpiece. Fine. What can I say that isn't pointing out the bleeding obvious about who played who...

Probably not much



"WE" are interested?

yes. I am helping Dr. Lo translate his project into media, and we are looking for the proper direction to go in.



Is he seriously considering you as a partner in this little escapade?

It appears that way.



Or do you just think that's what he is going to do.


I can only take the man at his word. It's his decision to do this, or not. I just pitched him the idea.



Would you care to buy a bridge?

sure. have any cheap offers you know of? maybe we can go in 50/50




Also, did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? [/B]

I thought the only word not in the dictionairy is 'supercaliffadulousexpealitouscous'

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
In the other thread you claimed that his evidence for qi had already been published in peer-reviwed journals.

Dr. Lo has a theory regarding Qi that he calls 'water clusters'. According to him, he had his research paper published and reviewed a few years back. I have no more information than that. I brought that up in the other forum because someone asked if he ever published any of his work, and from what he told me, he has.

I dont know much about how that all works, but as I understand it, he does not own the copyright on the paper. He has a hard copy of the review, and it clearly is not available on the web, so I dont know what to tell you.

Dr. Lo doesnt really care if anyone here believes it or not, nor I, and there is no need for him to prove the research he has done to an online community that has already overstepped their bounds and contacted one of his peers with a deluge of email, which is disrespectful.




If, as is implicit in your posts, you are in regular communication with him, it should be a simple matter for you to ask him for the references.

I could ask him allot of things. but since he already asked me to close out the discussion on his research, then that would clearly violate his request, now wouldnt it?

Perhaps if this was a more respectful community, and the members here didnt spend so much time trying to trash a man and contact his peers, dr. lo would be more open to addressing your questions. Since this appears as a hostile community that is only interested in trashing a respected man's character, I really dont see why he should go out of his way to digitize a copy of his work and go through all that effort so you can just trash him further.

this is not a community that can be trusted. There were only two members here that were polite and respectful, the rest of you are vulgar, rude, and only interested in proving your own convictions, nothing more.


If the articles exist, I'm sure he'll know where they were published.

Yeah, me too.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by ingoa
[B]Cool!

A clown assassin! :jedi:




I am happy you found something you can relate to in the topic of discussion.

[Frinkiak7]

The only references that I can find to the good Doctor as he relates to the topic at hand are reviews of his book, The Biophysics Basis for Acupuncture & Health, published in 2004 by Dragon Eye Press. Here's the review from the Research Council for Complimentary Medicine (http://www.rccm.org.uk/camrn/books.aspx?id=78):

"Dr Shui Yin Lo provides a long awaited and important bridge between Western science and Chinese medicine. He brings together massive scientific evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture and meridian theory, from current studies done in Japan, the US, China, the UK, Sweden and Germany, and puts it into a quantum physics framework. The result is a unified molecular biological and quantum physical view. This book sheds new light on the interconnectedness of mind, body and spirit. Meridians are seen to be the most fundamental system of human being, governing all other systems. It is proposed that meridians are made up of a polarized media which is likely to be water clusters. These water clusters align to form an electric field throughout the network of meridians. When the water clusters align to form an electric field throughout the network of meridians. When the water clusters fall out of allignment, qi is blocked and the body is in pain ir becomes sick. Acupuncture, moxibustion and qigong can align the water clusters. Once they are aligned, qi flows and the body heals. Through conscious interaction with the meridian system, as in the practice of qi gong, one can attain higher levels of energy and vibrant health."

A brief mention of his research is made at the bottom of this article: http://www.healthyroads.com/mylibrary/data/pelletier/chapter8/p_homeopathy.asp

ETA: On first glance, this seems like kind of a mish-mash of several different topics and alternative health practices. I don't mean to impugn the good doctor's name or work, but without being willing or able to shell out $60 US for the book, what is different about this approach to the others that it resembles?

ETAagain: I just CANNOT spell today.

[Bubblefish]

ETA: On first glance, this seems like kind of a mish-mash of several different topics and alternative health practices. I don't mean to impugn the good doctor's name or work, but without being willing or able to shell out $60 US for the book, what is differnet about this approach to the others that it resembles?

I dont know, I have not read the book. It is a fascinating topic, and Dr. Lo has done a lifetime of research on it.

But since he is a research scientist, he may be aware that much of his writing is not for the 'gentle reader', and I am certainly not qualified to comment on his research, or how it relates to other studies and tests.

I do know that every question based in skepticism that I have asked Dr. Lo he has answered to my satisfaction.

thank you for posting that link.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
If there is no logic in one's phrasing, then it is simple to point out the contradiction.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=dates+incoherence+principle

[scribble]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I thought the only word not in the dictionairy is 'supercaliffadulousexpealitouscous' [/B]

I'm afraid that word IS in the Oxford English Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/l/longestword.html


Did you really think that's the ONLY word not in the Dictionary?

REALLY? Because that's a just plain naieve and ridiculous position to hold.

Or are you trying to be a smartass? You're not very good at it; being smart is a prerequisite.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Dr. Lo has a theory regarding Qi that he calls 'water clusters'. According to him, he had his research paper published and reviewed a few years back. I have no more information than that. I brought that up in the other forum because someone asked if he ever published any of his work, and from what he told me, he has.

I dont know much about how that all works, but as I understand it, he does not own the copyright on the paper. He has a hard copy of the review, and it clearly is not available on the web, so I dont know what to tell you.

Dr. Lo doesnt really care if anyone here believes it or not, nor I, and there is no need for him to prove the research he has done to an online community that has already overstepped their bounds and contacted one of his peers with a deluge of email, which is disrespectful.



I could ask him allot of things. but since he already asked me to close out the discussion on his research, then that would clearly violate his request, now wouldnt it?

Perhaps if this was a more respectful community, and the members here didnt spend so much time trying to trash a man and contact his peers, dr. lo would be more open to addressing your questions. Since this appears as a hostile community that is only interested in trashing a respected man's character, I really dont see why he should go out of his way to digitize a copy of his work and go through all that effort so you can just trash him further.

this is not a community that can be trusted. There were only two members here that were polite and respectful, the rest of you are vulgar, rude, and only interested in proving your own convictions, nothing more.I'm not asking for references in order to "trash" anyone's reputation or character. I'm asking for the references so that people can judge his work on this matter for themselves. That, as I'm sure Dr. Lo will confirm, is how science works.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by scribble
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=dates+incoherence+principle

there is a disctinction between 'incoherence' and 'illogical'. Something that is illogical contains logical contradiciton by default.

To many , e=mc2 is incoherent. few understand Derrida.

funny links though.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by scribble
I'm afraid that word IS in the Oxford English Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/l/longestword.html



i didnt see that word there.

Also, 'aint aint a word cuz it aint in the dictionairy too..




Did you really think that's the ONLY word not in the Dictionary?

you tell me.



REALLY? Because that's a just plain naieve and ridiculous position to hold.

ahh, thank you for enlightening me.



Or are you trying to be a smartass?

moi?



You're not very good at it; being smart is a prerequisite.

apparently, my humor is incoherent to you. to get my humor, being smart is a prerequisite. until then, your part of the show.

say cheeze.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
I'm not asking for references in order to "trash" anyone's reputation or character. I'm asking for the references so that people can judge his work on this matter for themselves. That, as I'm sure Dr. Lo will confirm, is how science works.

Yes, and as i said previously, in a few months, a published peer reviewed paper will be posted, thus granting your request.

Hope that finally resolves this issue.

[bignickel]

I employed a personality that was designed to talk about world peace and rational thinking that was a bit obnoxious and over the top and playful. Tricks.

Who is Bubble Tumbleman exactly? The world may never know...

http://p088.ezboard.com/fponderersguildfrm29.showMessage?topicID=267.topic

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by bignickel
[B]Who is Bubble Tumbleman exactly? The world may never know...


Michael Landon?

[Chris O.]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Michael Landon?

Hey, say it one more time...I bet it'll be funny then.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Chris O.
Hey, say it one more time...I bet it'll be funny then.

Michael Landon?

[Chris O.]

hmm, I was wrong. It will never be funny.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Chris O.
hmm, I was wrong. It will never be funny.

well, you just lost one bet, so I wouldnt make another so soon..

[Chris O.]

See, I learn from my mistakes, and recognise patterns. The first one was based on foolish hopes, the second was based on observation.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Chris O.
See, I learn from my mistakes, and recognise patterns. The first one was based on foolish hopes, the second was based on observation.


I'm sure your very talented.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I'm sure your very talented. We're certain you're not.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
We're certain you're not.

Your mother thinks I am very talented.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Your mother thinks I am very talented. I'm so glad. Have you ever met yours?

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
I'm so glad. Have you ever met yours?

No, she was killed in Vietnam when ugly american soldiers come and take my home.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
No, she was killed in Vietnam when ugly American soldiers come and <strike>take</strike> took my home. Really? Where did they take it? Out for a picnic?

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
Really? Where did they take it? Out for a picnic?


lol. that was a good one. good job.

[Frinkiak7]

Gosh, things are getting pretty heated out here on the playground. Careful one of the kindergarten teachers doesn't start handing around time-outs.

ETA: Sorry, that was kind of mean-spirited. Okay, what were we talking about again?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Yes, and as i said previously, in a few months, a published peer reviewed paper will be posted, thus granting your request.

Hope that finally resolves this issue. No, it doesn't. Because what you originally said, in response to the question "Has Dr. Lo published any evidence for the actuality of Qi in any peer-reviewed journals," was this: Originally posted by Bubblefish
Dr. Lo has published his evidence in peer reviewed journals. I am not sure if they are available on the web or not. Would you care to read them?No mention of their being published "in a few months" there, was there? Just a statement that Dr. Lo has already published his evidence for qi in more than one peer reviewed journal. And, implicit in the last sentence ("Would you care to read them?"), a statement that you have access to them.

Was the statement that Dr. Lo has published this evidence in peer-reviewed journals true? If so, please provide the references.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
Because what you originally said, in response to the question "Has Dr. Lo published any evidence for the actuality of Qi in any peer-reviewed journals," was this:

Yes, I did say that because that is what Dr. Lo informed me.





No mention of their being published "in a few months" there, was there?

not in that sentence or response, no.



Just a statement that Dr. Lo has already published his evidence for qi in more than one peer reviewed journal.

Yes, agreed.




And, implicit in the last sentence ("Would you care to read them?"), a statement that you have access to them.

Well, here is where we have uncovered the communication error. That statement can imply that, but does not neccesarly include that as a reasoning.



Was the statement that Dr. Lo has published this evidence in peer-reviewed journals true?

Yes.




If so, please provide the references. [/B]

When I asked Dr. Lo about his papers, he said he would refer to the new publication coming up. I assume because that one will be online. Apparently the other(s) are not.

Again, I hope that finally resolves this issue.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Yes, I did say that because that is what Dr. Lo informed me.

not in that sentence or response, no.

Yes, agreed.

Well, here is where we have uncovered the communication error. That statement can imply that, but does not neccesarly include that as a reasoning.

Yes.

When I asked Dr. Lo about his papers, he said he would refer to the new publication coming up. I assume because that one will be online. Apparently the other(s) are not.

Again, I hope that finally resolves this issue. It certainly does: You were talking through your hat. No papers were available that you know of. Most likely none exist.

Hans

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Again, I hope that finally resolves this issue. Again, no it doesn't.

But I suppose this is the best we'll get from you.

We'll just have to accept that Dr. Lo would prefer to draw a discreet veil over his earlier research.

His reasons for doing this are, of course, a matter of conjecture. ;)

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
[B] You were talking through your hat. No papers were available that you know of. Most likely none exist.



I never said the papers were to be readily availble. I said he published peer reviewed work (not surprising have sitting tenure as a physics professor with 8 or so patents) and asked if someone here wanted to review them.

Perhaps I did assume that they would be readily avialable, but apparently they are not. You have to wait for them to be ready.

If you wish to conclude that none exist because of this, so be it. It is your loss, not mine nor Dr. Lo's.

lack of proof is not proof of absence. I find determinists often make that logical error in their reasoning.

[Zep]

Dr Yin Lo, PhD, at least up to 1998.

Dr. Shui-Yin Lo of ATG: Unauthorized Biography
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/lo.html

Immediately available scientific publications:

"ANOMALOUS STATE OF ICE", Modern Physical Letters, 1996
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/lo-ice.html

"PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF WATER WITH IE STRUCTURES", Modern Physical Letters, 1996
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/lo-iestru.html

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I never said the papers were to be readily availble. I said he published peer reviewed work (not surprising have sitting tenure as a physics professor with 8 or so patents) and asked if someone here wanted to review them.

Perhaps I did assume that they would be readily avialable, but apparently they are not. You have to wait for them to be ready.You stated that Dr. Lo has published evidence that qi exists in peer-reviewed journals.

Can you provide any evidence that this is the case?

If this is the case, why are you (and Dr.Lo) so reluctant to provide the references?

[Zep]

Also interesting... Oregon, 1997:



Financial Fraud/Consumer Protection

CIRCUIT COURT OF OREGON

MARION COUNTY

...

# I have reviewed Structure Probe Report #34674, Exhibit "1" to the Affidavit of Andrew W. Blackwood, Ph.D., and the materials authored or co-authored by Dr. Lo, mentioned in that report. I have also consulted standard reference materials in my field. The existence of "IE Crystals" around ions, as described by Dr. Lo, is not supported by theory. One of Dr. LoÃ_s calculations violates one of the three fundamental laws of thermodynamics and one of the four fundamental equations of electromagnetic theory.

# Dr. Lo did not use appropriate controls in his experiments. Structure Probe used strict controls in the procedures described in its Report #34674.And more.

http://www.doj.state.or.us/FinFraud/engelking.htm

[Zep]

So it goes on...
Lo claims in his articles to present a theoretical basis for believing "le" exists, and also presents experimental and "direct," i.e., photographic, evidence for the existence of "le" as he describes it. It turns out that the purported theoretical basis is at odds with several well established physical laws; at least some of the experimental "evidence" Lo presents contradicts-his own theory; and even the bona fides of the publication in which Lo�_s articles appeared and its publisher may be somewhat dubious.

As University of Oregon chemistry professor Dr. Paul Engelking put it, if "le" were real, its discovery, and Lo�_ s description of it, would be Nobel Prize material, disproving several fundamental principles of physics and warranting publication in Nature or Science, not in an obscure letters journal like Modern Physics Letters B. It is nevertheless in Modern Physics Letters B that Lo chose to publish his work [and, significantly, there has been no follow-up publication in any more thoroughly peer-reviewed journal.

...

However, Structure Probe also found no evidence of "le" in the vial supplied by ATG, and perhaps most tellingly, did find, and photograph, in West Chester, Pennsylvania, tap water, evidence of structures similar to those offered by ATG as proof of the existence of "le."And more! :)

http://www.doj.state.or.us/FinFraud/theforce.htm

[ETA: last para of quote]

[Zep]

Even the homeopathic literature has a problem with Dr Lo: The thematic focus in this area is on so-called clusters, which are ordered collections of water molecules. Work done by Shui Yin-Lo is currently very much in vogue, and is heralded in homeopathic circles as a breakthrough in the scientific explanation of homeopathy. From this perspective I can understand why Gray included it in the book. Unfortunately, there are several issues with Lo's work which diminish its credibility and scientific value.

Through several references, Shui Yin-Lo, in his papers from 1996, is portrayed as the main perpetrator and discoverer of clusters in water, which he calls "IE crystals." Unfortunately, the notion of clusters is anything but a novel idea; it ranges back to the second half of the previous century. What Gray refers to as 11 quantum electrodynamic calculations" performed by Lo is in fact 19th century knowledge of electromagnetism. To be absolutely clear about it: Lo offers nothing in terms of novel theory, and the experiments he describes are basic measurements, which, to me and others, yield very unconvincing results. Yes, there is cluster fornmation in water. But not just in water, in many other gases, liquids and solids as well-science has known about it for decades. Research in this area is, in fact, very active. The mere fact that neither Lo nor Gray acknowledge this work is telltale.
http://www.minimum.com/reviews/science-myth.htm

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
You stated that Dr. Lo has published evidence that qi exists in peer-reviewed journals.

Can you provide any evidence that this is the case?

in three months I can, until then no



If this is the case, why are you (and Dr.Lo) so reluctant to provide the references? [/B]

Well, we feel it will interfer with our overall plans for world domination and the aquirment of young women, ages 18-23.

In addition to that, it is against our cult's rules to share links with those whom we refer to as 'weebies'. Weebies are those whom are not in our cult, and by default, can not share in our plans for world domination and young women. (however, all women over the ages of 23 can be made available to you, but for a price!)

Also, we have this great scam going where we actually charge 20 dollars for a seminar. Yes, can you believe it? We charge money for our work and time! hahahaha! No one ever shall stop us. We also will charge money for books!

Of course, if you join our cult, then you will no longer be a weebie. Our rules of the cult state that you cannot eat hot dog buns on fridays, and if you can agree to follow such rules, perhaps you will be tapped at the appropiate time.

PM me for more information. we have a few openings.

[Bubblefish]

as to these links regarding fraud and all sorts of things, well, there are two sides to every story. I would imagine that you will believe what already supports your current convictions.

The astute observer will simply state 'let's wait and see'.

If dr. lo was a quack, I dont think he would have had sitting tenure at University of melbourne in physics. I dont see why all of you need to trash a man because his suggestions rub against your belief system.

And if he made an error as a scientist, that does not condem him as a human being.

Einstein made rediculous claims towards the end of his career too. That doesnt discount his real claims and theories as a scientist.

Me personally, I cant wait to read Zep's next brilliant book about his research and life's work.

What's it on again, Zep? Assosciative fellowships that effect logical outcomes? One sided internet links from the late 90's that disprove current research in another field? That sounds like some fascinating stuff man, you go!

[Chris O.]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
as to these links regarding fraud and all sorts of things, well, there are two sides to every story.
That's why we have courts, and judges who decide these things. They hear both sides, including experts in the fields pertaining to both claims, and make a ruling, in this case, the ruling was "Fraud"
I would imagine that you will believe what already supports your current convictions.

I have no doubt that you would imagine that, but I come and read these forums hoping the skeptics will be wrong about something, especially when it comes to the spiritual world. But more often than not, they make a clear case and site references, while the people making paranormal claims make assurances, site testimonials, and fail to back them up with experts outside of the group making the claim, ie. unbiased, peer review. That's all it takes.

The astute observer will simply state 'let's wait and see'.

I see evidence and rulings against a claim, and a group of credible professionals standing up against fraud. I'm seeing, not prejudging.

If dr. lo was a quack, I dont think he would have had sitting tenure at University of melbourne in physics. I dont see why all of you need to trash a man because his suggestions rub against your belief system.

Quakery is fairly good at hiding itself in reputable societies. (I'm not calling him a quack, I'm just refuting that particular line of reasoning. As you said earlier Association is not necissarily damning or uplifting.) And they're not "trashing" him. You came here with a claim, it seemed suspect to people who study these sorts of things, so they did some research and posted it. They're trashing the claim. The evidence is "trashing" him. They did not call him a fraud, a court did, and the scientific community that was asked to investigate his claims did.

And if he made an error as a scientist, that does not condem him as a human being.

If the case in those links are to be trusted, those are not mistakes, those are cut and dry cases of false reporting, and fraudulant claims. If a court decides that a phenomenom you're describing does not exist, and cannot be used to sell a product, you cannot turn around and attempt to sell another product on the same claims as before. That's not a mistake. That's lying to the consumer. If he truly believed in this effect, he should have seen it proven and accepted in the science community and had the court reverse it's ruling before trying to sell another product that opperates under the same theory.

Einstein made rediculous claims towards the end of his career too. That doesnt discount his real claims and theories as a scientist.
Dr. Lo isn't Einstein, and if the situations were similar, he would have solid evidence to back up his claims, rather than a paper that contradicts itself. From the article: "If water molecules group together to form larger structures such as the [IE] structure that is proposed, then the resulting structured water should have a larger dielectric constant." Lo, "Physical Properties of Water with Ie Structures," p. 923 (emphasis added). Yet Lo's own experimental finding is that "the [IE] structured water has a twenty percent smaller dielectric constant." (Id.; emphasis added.)
He said it himself.

Me personally, I cant wait to read Zep's next brilliant book about his research and life's work.

What's it on again, Zep? Assosciative fellowships that effect logical outcomes? One sided internet links from the late 90's that disprove current research in another field? That sounds like some fascinating stuff man, you go!

Just because Zep himself has not published a book, doesn't mean he can't spot bad science when it's presented to him. As well as recognising that ONE person is trying to make money on a claim which the rest of the science community is refuting as impossible, and is backed up by bad scientific practices, and what can only be seen as "doctored" results. In a balanced judgement, their reports vs. unbacked assertions, the reports win. Your position is looking very bleak indeed.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Chris O.
That's why we have courts, and judges who decide these things. They hear both sides, including experts in the fields pertaining to both claims, and make a ruling, in this case, the ruling was "Fraud"

I cant comment on the case because I know nothing about it. However, it doesnt appear Dr. Lo was charged with fraud, merely the company if that was the case. It doenst show Dr. Lo intended to fraud anybody.




I have no doubt that you would imagine that, but I come and read these forums hoping the skeptics will be wrong about something, especially when it comes to the spiritual world.

no one here is making any claims about the spiritual world.



But more often than not, they make a clear case and site references, while the people making paranormal claims make assurances, site testimonials, and fail to back them up with experts outside of the group making the claim, ie. unbiased, peer review. That's all it takes.

yes, and I said it was coming. I never ONCE came here claiming to have and argue for proof, I came here saying there was a possible challenge.



I see evidence and rulings against a claim, and a group of credible professionals standing up against fraud. I'm seeing, not prejudging.

of course your prejudging, be honest, that case has NOTHING to do with what I have talked about or what we are going to do. absolutly nothing.



Quakery is fairly good at hiding itself in reputable societies. (I'm not calling him a quack, I'm just refuting that particular line of reasoning. As you said earlier Association is not necissarily damning or uplifting.)

Humpf, quakery does not qualify one for a phd or a respected academic position. Let's assume that dr lo made one case of bad science and let's call that quakery. It is also apparent that he understands empirical method as well and can formulate thesis, and his work obviously must have been accepted as sound in those regards for him to have those positions.

Consider.




And they're not "trashing" him. You came here with a claim, it seemed suspect to people who study these sorts of things, so they did some research and posted it. They're trashing the claim.

By trying to assosciate Dr lo as a fraud, thus rebuking any other claim the man could make in his life BEFORE you have gone over the research or it has been presented to you.


The evidence is "trashing" him. They did not call him a fraud, a court did, and the scientific community that was asked to investigate his claims did.

the court did not call him a fraud. the court said or agreed that his evidence was not substancial to qualify as a scientific claim. The company ATG was charged, not Dr. Lo

Dr. Lo isn't Einstein, and if the situations were similar, he would have solid evidence to back up his claims, rather than a paper that contradicts itself.


Your assuming because dr lo may have performed sloppy science is proof of what? that he performed sloppy science in that instance. that's it.

it has NOTHING to do with anything I have posted, at all, ever.



Just because Zep himself has not published a book, doesn't mean he can't spot bad science when it's presented to him.


lol, your telling me Zep understood the science in the paper, or Zep is simply repeating what he read someone write on the internet about it?



As well as recognising that ONE person is trying to make money on a claim which the rest of the science community is refuting as impossible, and is backed up by bad scientific practices, and what can only be seen as "doctored" results. In a balanced judgement, their reports vs. unbacked assertions, the reports win. Your position is looking very bleak indeed. [/B]

huh? it has nothing to do with what I am posting about. absolutly nothing. my claims about what? Did I make claims about IE crystals? no

I said there is a phd who is perhaps interested in taking the randi challenge, which was my idea to him, not his. Go read my first post, please. I asked a very specific question about the challenge. Would we be considered if we dont think there is anything paranormal about Qi? Because dr lo doesnt, he thinks it has a rational explanation. that was my intent, and that was my question.

That is my claim, that's it man. Dr Lo has a real PHD, not a fake one. And it was real enough to give him a respected sitting. He has a professional life.

I dont know all the details about that case, not at all, but he was not charged with fraud. at worst, bad science.

and so what? what does this have to do with my original post? NOTHING.

your trying to make assosciations and assumptions. the only thing left for you to do is latch onto this case that happened inthe 90's with a company trying to cash in on the internet stock boom. and because Dr Lo was the science officer, he has to take responsiblity for his science,but not the claims of the company.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
lol, your telling me Zep understood the science in the paper, or Zep is simply repeating what he read someone write on the internet about it? I have a degree in Science with a double major from one of the world's foremost technology-based universities. My colleagues and associates here are doctors of physics, computing and medical research, among many others. And there are many more people here on this forum with far better qualifications than I whom I can go to for assistance if I need to and are kind enough to provide it. I don't need to write a book. I don't know a lot about the profession of making films or directing theatre or acting, so I won't lecture you on that. You might care to reciprocate on science.

Yes, I understood what was written, although it took me a while to work my way through it. I thought that was because I may have been through lack of understanding the subject. However it turns out that once you discover that it's based on poor research practices, the rest becomes obvious. Alas for me, subsequent research shows my revelation was trumped many times by better than I some time ago - I could have saved all my effort for something else.

Incidentally, I shall be checking into the business of "sitting tenure" for Dr. Lo at Melbourne University. He was last seen there in 1976, according to a number of sources. So a tenure now, especially when he is so involved in the Institute of Noetics in California, seems somewhat dubious. However it may yet be valid, so I'll let you know what they tell me when they get back to me.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I never said the papers were to be readily availble. I said he published peer reviewed work (not surprising have sitting tenure as a physics professor with 8 or so patents) and asked if someone here wanted to review them.

Perhaps I did assume that they would be readily avialable, but apparently they are not. You have to wait for them to be ready.

If you wish to conclude that none exist because of this, so be it. It is your loss, not mine nor Dr. Lo's.

lack of proof is not proof of absence. I find determinists often make that logical error in their reasoning. [b]Peer reviewed papers ARE readily available. That is sort of the idea about publishing them. We don't demand that you provide an internet link to them, but if they exist, it should be no problem to provide a reference.

Refusing to provide a reference to papers published for peer review can really only be for one of the following reasons:

- They don't exist.

- They are irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

- They have been shredded by the peer review

Hans

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
You have to wait for them to be ready.I take it that they haven't been published yet then, and your statement that they have been is false.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Mojo
I take it that they haven't been published yet then, and your statement that they have been is false. Congratulations, Mojo! You have just beaten Bubblefish's "unbeatable idea", the very backbone of his grand "OS 0 1 2" concept.

That didn't seem too difficult either, did it.



[scratches]




Shall we watch the cricket instead?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Let's assume that dr lo made one case of bad science and let's call that quakery. It is also apparent that he understands empirical method as well and can formulate thesis, and his work obviously must have been accepted as sound in those regards for him to have those positions.

Consider.

Yes, it's possible for a scientist to make an error of science. Of course it all depends on just how bad the error is, and also how many errors there were, doesn't it?

I mean, an error of science is one thing. Demonstrating almost complete and total ignorance of the very basics of science would be another, no? Let's put it to the test.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
he has to take responsiblity for his science,but not the claims of the company.

So you agree that he has to take responsibility for any bad science - excellent, we're in complete agreement, let's begin then...

From the links that Zep provided to the papers:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/lo-ice.html

Firstly he mentions something about very dilute ions in water and then proceeds to perform a calculation using a dielectric constant of 80 for water. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the presence of foreign ions will by definition change the dielectric constant of water, so the calculation is immediately invalid. Not to mention that the exact concentration of foreign "ions" isn't stated.

Then we have this gem:

However if the next layer of water molecules around an ion are packed in a regular, spherical symmetric rigid fashion, the pressure experienced by the water molecule immediately outside this layer will be boosted by a factor of 80. This is because the electric field determined from Gauss law is given by the total charge Q enclosed by a closed surface; and the surface is chosen to include the ion and the next layer of water molecules completely. The polarized positive and negative charge of any water molecule is all inside the same closed surface and they cancel out one another. The total charge Q is that of the ion and does not contain polarization from water molecules.

My immediate impression is... huh???? If the next layer of water molecules were to be arranged in spherically symmetric rigid fashion around the ion, the inter electronic repulsion between the poles of the water ions would be concentrated at both ends and the structure would automatically break apart! It most certainly would not become more rigid. The "boosted by a factor of 80" bit doesn't even remotely make any sense.

Then we have a "creative" interpretation of Gauss's law based on the above. Gauss's law states that the electric flux through an enclosing surface is equal to the charge contained within the surface divided by the permittivity. Since the "dielectric constant" is the permittivity (at DC - see below), what it means is that the electric flux would be divided by 80, not "boosted by 80" - and that is assuming that the dielectric constant is in fact 80, which it almost certainly isn't due to the presence of the ion!

Now, if the ions were arranged as he says then he is correct that the total flux from the water would cancel leaving only the ion flux (although he doesn't say flux, he says "field" - he doesn't know the difference between field and flux? :eek: ). However, the structure is thermodynamically impossible because the inter electronic repulsion wouldn't allow it, therefore the whole premise is fundamentally flawed and shows an appalling lack of understanding of basic electrical and thermodynamic principles.

He then proceeds to continue to misapply the theory claiming that successive "layers" of water molecules will arrange themselves around the first (thermodynamically impossible) layer - and assuming the electric force of the ion (which would be swamped by the immediate layer of adjacent water poles and diffused by the permittivity) is actually multiplied each time a layer is applied! In other words, he claims that the system will spontaneously generate energy out of nothing.

Not to mention this: http://www.spectroscopynow.com/Spy/basehtml/SpyH/1,1181,6-1-1-0-3867-news_detail-0-3867,00.html

Next comes this:

It is, however, not the ordinary ice VI where the unit cell has a translational invariance. One expects that the crystalline structured water surrounding the ion would have special symmetry due to the spherical symmetrical nature of pressure. There is no study on what properties a spherical symmetric ice crystal should have. The unit cell probably is not rectangular. For lack of a better reliable alternative, it is assumed that the spherical symmetric icy structures surrounding ions have similar properties as that of ordinary ice VI and ice VII. We will call it IE structure indicating that it is an icy structure formed under the effect of an electric field.

"Spherically symmetrical nature of pressure"? I suppose he means in his hypothetical structure, as the general proposition is so obviously absurd as to require no comment. And then we have the key words, "probably is not rectangular" - translation "I don't know what shape it is". And "it is assumed" - translation, "I don't know". In other words, we have a purely hypothetical (and thermodynamically impossible) structure which is assumed to have a particular structure, but even assuming that the properties are unknown so we'll just assume it's something like ice... Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

And why consider "rectangular"? Does he mean cubic perhaps? A rectangle is two dimensional. And why even cubic? Ice is tetrahedral...

And then this:

The IE structure formed around ions is influenced by the movement of ions in water. When two similar charged ions come close together, the pressure on water molecules between them decreases and the IE structure previously formed will melt.

What? The similarly charged ions which have their "electric fields" (allegedly) multiplied by factors of 80? So we have two similarly charged ions (which will repel each other) and which (allegedly) have enormously enhanced electrostatic field (which means they will repel even more) that just happen to "come close together"...? :rolleyes: This is an insult to the intelligence, doesn't this guy even know basic electrostatics?

Enough of that one, let's look at the other paper.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/lo-iestru.html

The physical hypothesis behind these IE structures is that the electric dipole moment of water molecules play a dominant role to attract themselves together to form IE structures, which itself may have some electric dipole moment. To justify such an hypothesis, it is necessary to look for electrical and other properties of these IE structures. We have measured five different properties: dielectric constants; the electromotive force (emf) using two identical electrodes; resistivity; fluorescence; stability as a function of temperature. We find these properties are different from pure water. Pure water shall be defined to be used in this paper as having 18 megaohms of resistance and having less than several parts per billion Total Dissolved Solids, which for our experiment is supplied by Millipore RO Plus system.

O.Kaaay. So "pure water" has "18 megaohms of resistance" does it? So if I place one electrode in the atlantic ocean at say Iceland, and another at say South Georgia, measure the resistance and find that it's more than 18 megaohms, I guess that proves that the atlantic ocean is pure water... Let me spell this out, the resistance of a material between two electrodes depends on the path length that the resistance is measured over.

Water molecule has a very large electric dipole moment and is forced to rotate to respond to an alternate external electric field. Hence water as a liquid has a very large dielectric constant 80. If water molecules group together to form larger structures such as the IE structure that is proposed, then the resulting structured water should have a larger dielectric constant. When an external AC field is applied, these IE structures will respond and cause a change of the dielectric constant. We use the Hewlett Packard Corp. 4192A LF Impedance Analyzer (5Hz ~ 13 MHz) to measure the pure and the imaginary parts of the dielectric constant of structured water and pure water. This is shown in Fig. 1. The absolute value of dielectric constant and its phase of IE structured water is also presented separately in Fig. 1b. There is a minimum value of the phase at around 1 kHz. The distilled water has a dielectric value 80 at frequency ~ 106 Hz, and the IE structured water has a twenty percent smaller dielectric constant.

What a nice job of contradiction! Firstly we have "then the resulting structured water should have a larger dielectric constant" (correct) followed by "the IE structured water has a twenty percent smaller dielectric constant". Right, so it's both larger and smaller at the same time... :rolleyes:

Note also "to measure the pure and the imaginary parts of the dielectric constant" - uh, no, water doesn't have "real and imaginary" parts to its dielectric constant, water has a scalar dielectric constant at DC or a complex frequency dependent permittivity under AC. Anyway, that is then followed by "The distilled water has a dielectric value 80 at frequency ~ 10⁶ Hz". Uh, oh, now you see it, now you don't! That complex "dielectric constant" suddenly changed into a real scalar!

And let's just get this clear - at DC water has a dielectric constant - at AC it has a varying complex permittivity. This is a physicist who doesn't appear to know the difference between a dielectric constant and a varying permittivity.

It is well known in electrochemistry that an emf is generated between two different electrodes in a solution and no emf is generated between same electrodes in a solution. We immerse a pair of stainless electrodes in IE structured water, and we have found that a finite emf of 10 mV or more is generated

"Stainless" what exactly? Stainless steel perhaps? The same stainless steel which happens to consist of an alloy of different metals...? Well, duh!

We immerse a pair of stainless electrodes in IE structured water, and we have found that a finite emf of 10 mV or more is generated. In Fig. 2 (a), we have shown one typical curve for a concentrated IE structured water that lasts for an hour. The first 2 to 3 minutes irregular reading, then approaches a maximum of 38 mV, and then drops slowly over the next hour. Figure 2 (b) shows emf for a variety of IE structure water. The physical explanation of these figures is that the electric dipoles of the IE structures are pointing at different direction randomly in water in the beginning. As the first electric dipole attaches to the electrodes an emf is set up between the electrodes. This emf will force a more regular alignment of IE structures in water between the two electrodes. The more aligned the electric dipoles are, the higher the emf. However as time goes on the thermal vibration of water molecules will tend to cause disorder in the alignment of IE structures. The emf will decrease as a result.

So these "stainless" electrodes suddenly acquire an emf. Which does what exactly? Electrolyse perhaps? Funny how simple weak electrolysis would give exactly this kind of result. And doesn't "IE structured water" contain foreign ions? According to the initial definition it does. I suppose those foreign ions don't actually do anything...

Anyway, let me propose an hypothesis. The electrodes are undergoing simple electrolytic chemical reactions with the water. The result will be that there will be a surface layer of electrolysed material on the electrodes which will lead to eventual depolarisation of the electrodes. If the electrodes were to be cleaned, the process would start over again.

Then we have this:

When we wash the electrodes with nitric acid for cleaning purpose, we get a larger emf with the same IE structured water.

Oops! Well, "duh" again!

And the coup de grace:

We insert the same electrodes in pure water (reverse osmosis water from Ultrapure Millipore plus system). An emf of 3 ~ 7 mV is also seen.

Well, it was a nice theory while it lasted! :) So what we have is a claim that water with foreign ions in it is more likely to cause a potential difference between dissimilar metals than "pure" water. Well, double duh!

Here is someone who clearly doesn't even understand the very basics of electrochemistry!

These flickering water clusters the electric dipole moment of their constitute water molecules probably do not completely cancel one another; therefore, these water clusters have some residue electric dipole moment. These small amount of electric dipole moment probably constitute the emf that is observed here.

Nor does he seem to understand the difference between a moment and an EMF...

Here is another gem:

If the IE structures in water are electric dipoles, any ion moving close to them in water will be attracted to them.

What? Even the ones with the same charge polarity...? :rolleyes: Remember that the IE structure as defined above has a net singular charge (remember the basic lesson in how to misapply Gauss's law?) and it was electrically "spherically symmetric" - now suddenly the IE structure is a dipole... Amazing stuff this IE, its very definition changes to match the theory! :)

It is, in general, easy to conceive a background mechanism that increases conductivity of pure water because most dirt contains some soluble materials that produce more ions in water and hence bigger conductivity. It is difficult to construct some simple background signal that decreases conductivity measurement. We have performed our experiment in a clean room environment, which is confirmed by the constant value of conductivity of pure water.

The pure water has constant conductivity - the same pure water which had variable conductivity above... And it's not difficult to do something which decreases conductivity measurement - it's called depolarisation of electrodes and is something which should be covered in chemistry 101.

I can't be bothered to analyse any more of this nonsense. All I can say is that I find it very hard to believe that this guy is really a physicist. In fact I find it very hard to believe he studied anything much beyond elementary level...

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Peer reviewed papers ARE readily available. That is sort of the idea about publishing them. We don't demand that you provide an internet link to them, but if they exist, it should be no problem to provide a reference.

Well I am CLEARLY unable to provide one!



Refusing to provide a reference to papers published for peer review can really only be for one of the following reasons:

- They don't exist.

- They are irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

- They have been shredded by the peer review

Hans [/B]

- or I am unable to provide you with them

I am NOT dr. lo nor his publicist nor agent.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
I take it that they haven't been published yet then, and your statement that they have been is false.

CLEARLY the one which will be made avialable to you by the person who can PROVIDE them hasnt been.

[Bubblefish]

I can't be bothered to analyse any more of this nonsense.

THANK GOD



All I can say is that I find it very hard to believe that this guy is really a physicist.

Who cares.



In fact I find it very hard to believe he studied anything much beyond elementary level... [/B]

yeah, he's in the third grade. It was a big scandal at the University of Melbourne. His thesis paper which garnished him his Phd in physics from the University of Chicago was on basic arthimetic.

Gimme a break.

Nice diversion though.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
Congratulations, Mojo! You have just beaten Bubblefish's "unbeatable idea", the very backbone of his grand "OS 0 1 2" concept.


huh? You do know that the dialectic has nothing to do with Dr. Lo, right?



That didn't seem too difficult either, did it.

I am sure it didnt since it has A.) nothing to do with my original post here and B.) nothing to do with OS 0 1 2

so sure, any imaginairy 'beating' is simple. It is the real ones which are clearly avoided by all of you that are.



[scratches]

STD?






Shall we watch the cricket instead? [/B]

please go find something to do with your time that is valuable.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
CLEARLY the one which will be made avialable to you by the person who can PROVIDE them hasnt been. And if, as you state, we have to wait for the papers "to be ready," then it's obvious that they can't have been published yet, despite your claim that they have been.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
And if, as you state, we have to wait for the papers "to be ready," then it's obvious that they can't have been published yet, despite your claim that they have been.

CLEARLY the one which Dr. Lo wishes to be made availabe or can make readily available HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET.


Mojo, I understand your thrill seeking here about wanting to be right at all costs, but check this out.

On that other thread, I was a MESSENGER.

Do you understand what that means? It means that I can only repeat or have access to knowledge that Dr. Lo informs me of. Since Dr. Lo has informed me he had his work published on water clusters for peer review inthe past, I assume that he HAD HIS WORK PUBLISHED IN THE PAST, and passed that information onto the parties who asked if he did.

Since he told me that a peer review paper is soon to be published on this subject which will be made available to any and all soon, i ASSUME THAT A PEER REVIEW PAPER WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU SOON.

I am NOT his agent, publicist, manager, administrator, or ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

My only interest here was about the RANDI challenge. I am NOT a scientist, have NO understanding of how peer reviewed material works or does not work, and NEVER once said I was here to discuss and prove objective verifiable PROOF of Qi. Indeed, before I met Dr. Lo, I was under the impression that Qi would not be objectivly verifiable (yet) because it is a subjective truth qualifier.

Ironically, I AM qualified to discuss the ontological or philosophical nature of Qi in relationship to what I posted.

Funny that what I am qualified to discuss, you all dont bring up and avoid, yet you continue to hound me about something I have repeated over and over and over.

Pokey pokey pokey.

Your inferences, although a pain in the ol ass, are also amusing.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I am NOT dr. lo nor his publicist nor agent.

Oh, so you were lying when you posted this then...?

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986357#post1870986357

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Hello. I am representing a theoretical physicist, Dr. Shui Yin Lo, regarding a possible challenge to Randi and the JREF.

:rolleyes:

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Oh, so you were lying when you posted this then...?

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986357#post1870986357



:rolleyes:

NO! That is STILL true regarding the Randi Challenge. I was representing Dr. Lo relative to inquiring about the RANDI CHALLENGE.

please note the word 'INQUIRING'

it means to seek an answer to a question or group of questions

A 'messenger' represents the 'message'

the 'message' was that there was a phd whom may be willing to take the Randi challenge.

the phd was dr. lo

if I was deceptive, it would mean there was no dr. lo, he does not have a phd

pokey pokey pokey

You need to RE-READ very carefully my opening words on that thread, and my ORIGINAL QUESTION, which was the only thing I was looking to have answered, and WAS answered until the goon squad (you guys) trolled and hi-jacked it with irrelevancy.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I am NOT a scientist, have NO understanding of how peer reviewed material works or does not work, and NEVER once said I was here to discuss and prove objective verifiable PROOF of Qi.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986300#post1870986300

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I just get the giggles when I think about this challenge between a Theoritical Physicist who has proof (along with a few others) that there is something more to 'qi' than mere imagination and bringing that challenge here to Randi.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
NO! That is STILL true regarding the Randi Challenge. I was representing Dr. Lo relative to inquiring about the RANDI CHALLENGE.

please note the word 'INQUIRING'

it means to seek an answer to a question or group of questions

A 'messenger' represents the 'message'

the 'message' was that there was a phd whom may be willing to take the Randi challenge.

the phd was dr. lo

if I was deceptive, it would mean there was no dr. lo, he does not have a phd

pokey pokey pokey

You need to RE-READ very carefully my opening words on that thread, and my ORIGINAL QUESTION, which was the only thing I was looking to have answered, and WAS answered until the goon squad (you guys) trolled and hi-jacked it with irrelevancy.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870987435#post1870987435

GAYLE: That leads me to ask if you are the official representative of Dr. Lo in this discussion?

BUBBLEFISH: yes.

GAYLE: Does he know and approve of your interest in The Challenge on his behalf? Has he authorized you to negotiate? Or is this something you are doing on your own?

BUBBLEFISH: yes, I am authorized to both begin and end this discussion.

GAYLE: If you are not Dr. Lo's official representative, it would be best if you engaged him to communicate directly with the JREF and to submit an application.

BUBBLEFISH: We are going to submit the application after we publish the next peer reviewed paper.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870987442#post1870987442

Originally posted by Bubblefish
In the next three months, we are going to be publishing some results in an online peer-respected journal about this study. After this, we will move forward with the challenge.


O.K. It seems you have a bit of a communication problem.

You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's work, nor make claims about having proof of qi, yet you make comments like the one above about him having proof of the existence of qi.

You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's scientific bona fides but you start two threads where you make a big issue of announcing him as a distinguished PhD etc.

When you answered "yes" to the question about your being authorised to negotiate, you really meant that you only wanted to inquire not to negotiate.

You never wanted to offer evidence of peer reviewed papers yet you constantly refer to peer reviewed papers and tell us that you are going to submit an application after we publish the next peer reviewed paper. You're going to publish that paper but you have nothing to do with Lo's papers. You only assume that he has ever published a peer reviewed paper at all.

You have nothing to do with his scientific work but you and he are going to publish a peer reviewed paper together.

You don't want to be confrontational but you get the giggles about how you are going to trash Randi with your challenge. And you're not here to publicise.

So, I think I understand now, some translation is required for your postings:

"we" means "he" - except when it means "we"

"proof" doesn't mean "proof" except when it means "proof"

"representative" doesn't mean "agent" as long as the agent only inquires not negotiates.

a person who inquires is only a messenger - provided he doesn't become an agent - and if he negotiates, the representative (who is not an agent) may represent himself as being part of the work yet claim that the work is nothing to do with him.

You know something? I think your dialectic skills need some work...

[Bubblefish]

O.K. It seems you have a bit of a communication problem.

moi?



You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's work, nor make claims about having proof of qi, yet you make comments like the one above about him having proof of the existence of qi.

correct, with a slight correction.

I didnt make the claim that i have proof. I said I thought it was FUNNY that a phd whom does wants to take the Randi challenge. I am personally tickled over the concept.



You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's scientific bona fides but you start two threads where you make a big issue of announcing him as a distinguished PhD etc.

I am not qualified to discuss his scientific bona fides. This thread was not about the challenge. the other thread I stopped participating in because I was requested to by dr.lo



When you answered "yes" to the question about your being authorised to negotiate, you really meant that you only wanted to inquire not to negotiate.

No, negotiate relative to the challenge and if it goes through, i will negotiate or assist in negotiating the terms with Randi.

I cannot negotiate things irrelevant to the randi challenge, can I?






You never wanted to offer evidence of peer reviewed papers yet you constantly refer to peer reviewed papers and tell us that you are going to submit an application after we publish the next peer reviewed paper.

Your mistaken. I would love to offer them, so your inference that I never wanted to offer them is FALSE and misleading, mostly to yourself. I do not 'constantly refer to them' YOU are.




You're going to publish that paper but you have nothing to do with Lo's papers. You only assume that he has ever published a peer reviewed paper at all.

No, your mistaken once again. I assume that because he TOLD me, it wasnt a blind answer like your suggesting.



You have nothing to do with his scientific work but you and he are going to publish a peer reviewed paper together.

Good lord man, are you daft? If a press secretary refers to the current administration as 'we are moving forward with Plans to Invade Iraq' we dont assume the press secretary is going to don a helmet or sits in on Planning sessions at the Pentagon



You don't want to be confrontational but you get the giggles about how you are going to trash Randi with your challenge.

Who said I didnt want to be confrontational? I love being confrontational.




And you're not here to publicise.

no, I am not here to 'publicise' in the way a publicist would use the term. however, it appears I am getting attention by default.



So, I think I understand now, some translation is required for your postings:

apparently you need to translate your interpretations of them.



"we" means "he" - except when it means "we"

We means the collective assosciative with the Randi challenge.



"proof" doesn't mean "proof" except when it means "proof"

lol, sure. proof means proof. When I say proof, I mean proof. When I say I am not here to show the proof or prove the proof, that does not mean I cant ever signify 'proof' in the discussion.



"representative" doesn't mean "agent" as long as the agent only inquires not negotiates.

It means RELATIVE to the RANDI challenge, that's it man. I do not negotiate Dr. Lo's papers or research, other than relative to taking the challenge.



a person who inquires is only a messenger - provided he doesn't become an agent - and if he negotiates, the representative (who is not an agent) may represent himself as being part of the work yet claim that the work is nothing to do with him.

Sir, does your attorney represent you legally, or does he also do your taxes?



You know something? I think your dialectic skills need some work... [/B]

I think I'm doing fine.

[Chris O.]

Originally posted by Bubblefish


I think I'm doing fine.

I think you're alone in this opinion.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Chris O.
I think you're alone in this opinion.

I dont think I am.


http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/os012-about21-0.html

[Chris O.]

They enjoy how you've gotten everyone's attention, but no one has commented on the validity of your points or counters to the questions over here.

While you may not have started the hostility, you chose to answer flippantly and sarcatically to it, rather than buckling down to honest debate. And when somone points out your logical flaws, you make a joke, and try to turn it around as misunderstanding on their part, rather than the poor use of language on your part.

That post by Pragmatist sums it up fairly nicely. You're unclear, and your comments contradict themselves. And when he pointed it out, you acted like he was a fool, and should been able to decipher your contradicting statements in your favor.

If you want to be understood, you must speak clearly.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I dont think I am.


http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/os012-about21-0.html This is all starting to look vaguely reminiscent of another recent visitor to this forum.

You wouldn't like to explain how homeopathy works while you're at it, would you?

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Chris O.
They enjoy how you've gotten everyone's attention, but no one has commented on the validity of your points or counters to the questions over here.

if your comments contain validity that negates mine, then you should be able to negate my last exchange to you without saying 'no you havent' and leaving it at that.



While you may not have started the hostility, you chose to answer flippantly and sarcatically to it, rather than buckling down to honest debate.

Apparently the crowd here doesnt know the meaning of the phrase 'honest debate' or if it does, does not apply it to it's sphere of relevancy as to what I write.



And when somone points out your logical flaws, you make a joke, and try to turn it around as misunderstanding on their part, rather than the poor use of language on your part.

miscommunication that requires clarification is not a logical flaw, at all.

Sure, I can see how some of you may misinterpret my statements in the beginning, but simply questions without inference to ad hominem would have cleared up those exchanges rather simply.



That post by Pragmatist sums it up fairly nicely. You're unclear, and your comments contradict themselves.

Such as? what comment was contradictory after I clarified?



And when he pointed it out, you acted like he was a fool, and should been able to decipher your contradicting statements in your favor.

he was foolish to waste his time debating me on something that I wasnt referring to.



If you want to be understood, you must speak clearly. [/B]

agreed.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo

You wouldn't like to explain how homeopathy works while you're at it, would you? [/B]

I dont know how homeopathy works, or even if it does work.

[chipotle]

Folks, remember that Bubble's first post in the challenge forum referred to Lo's bio at a debunker's page: http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/. So it's obvious that Bubble's a prankster or a troll. Now we get this post.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Well, we feel it will interfer with our overall plans for world domination and the aquirment of young women, ages 18-23.

In addition to that, it is against our cult's rules to share links with those whom we refer to as 'weebies'. Weebies are those whom are not in our cult, and by default, can not share in our plans for world domination and young women. (however, all women over the ages of 23 can be made available to you, but for a price!)

Also, we have this great scam going where we actually charge 20 dollars for a seminar. Yes, can you believe it? We charge money for our work and time! hahahaha! No one ever shall stop us. We also will charge money for books!


Sound familiar? Maybe a little more familiar if it was young women 16-21? This is an old jref troll.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
huh? You do know that the dialectic has nothing to do with Dr. Lo, right?

I am sure it didnt since it has A.) nothing to do with my original post here and B.) nothing to do with OS 0 1 2

so sure, any imaginairy 'beating' is simple. It is the real ones which are clearly avoided by all of you that are.

STD?

please go find something to do with your time that is valuable. Evasion noted...again.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
correct, with a slight correction.

I didnt make the claim that i have proof. I said I thought it was FUNNY that a phd whom does wants to take the Randi challenge. I am personally tickled over the concept.

I didn't say that you had said you have proof, did I? Therefore there is no correction because I didn't make any error.

However, that aside you have made the positive assertion that Lo has proof - that's a claim. Given that by your own admission you don't understand the science, you are operating purely on assumption because he told you that he had proof. You believe him. Fine, nobody can argue with that. But to make it an assertion in its own right when you don't know it to be so is simply dishonest. Do you always make definite assertions based on what people tell you? If I were to insist that Santa Claus exists, would you believe me and assert to others that it was true? And if not, why not?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I am not qualified to discuss his scientific bona fides. This thread was not about the challenge. the other thread I stopped participating in because I was requested to by dr.lo.

Then why did you open this thread with comments about the challenge and about Lo? You already said that the purpose of this thread was not to discuss your "OS 0 1 2", you said, quote: "My only interest here was about the RANDI challenge". Clearly if your only interest was in the challenge and then you posted this thread, it implies that this thread is part of whatever you are doing in relation to the challenge does it not?

Again, it shows dishonesty. Were you being dishonest about your intention for this thread or were you being dishonest in your statement above?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
No, negotiate relative to the challenge and if it goes through, i will negotiate or assist in negotiating the terms with Randi.

I cannot negotiate things irrelevant to the randi challenge, can I?

Let me refer you to your own words:

I was representing Dr. Lo relative to inquiring about the RANDI CHALLENGE.

please note the word 'INQUIRING'

it means to seek an answer to a question or group of questions

So when you said that you were only inquiring, and that you were not acting as an agent, that was not true either. Because you were here to negotiate (if necessary) - and since you were acting as Lo's representative you were his agent in that respect. I can't really mistake what you actually meant since you were kind enough to spell it out to me above - or was that a lie or a half truth (and is there much of a difference between the two)?

I'm not concerned in the slightest what you can or cannot negotiate - I am more interested in the fact that you seem to contradict yourself time and again. Clearly this is not a complex issue so the contradictions have to be indications of something don't they? Such as difficulty keeping one's lies straight?

You don't seem to be doing too well in the honesty game so far...

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Your mistaken. I would love to offer them, so your inference that I never wanted to offer them is FALSE and misleading, mostly to yourself. I do not 'constantly refer to them' YOU are.

Oh dear. You would love to offer them - in fact you would love to do it so much that when someone asked you politely for them, your only reply was "Google?" That sure shows the depths of your love doesn't it?

Was it honest to make the assertion that said publications existed when you didn't actually know if they did or not? You said that Lo told they did - but you weren't honest with us initially. You didn't say, "Lo claims to have published peer reviewed papers but I don't know if that is true and I only assume it to be so", did you? You said, "Lo has published peer reviewed papers".

And isn't it a matter of simple courtesy to at least attempt to locate them? How difficult could it be? You'd only have to ask Lo - who you assure us is watching proceedings and yet remains curiously silent when asked for the most trivial verification... Hmmm.

I don't have to infer that you didn't want to offer them - the fact that you didn't is self-evident from your answers.

And please feel free to point out where I have "constantly referred to them". I have only referred to them once, briefly, in my previous posting. So who exactly is making false and misleading assertions here?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
No, your mistaken once again. I assume that because he TOLD me, it wasnt a blind answer like your suggesting.

Either you know that he has published such papers and that they have been peer reviewed or you don't. You said you don't know that for a fact, and you said you assumed that he had because he had told you so. Now, if you were being honest that you haven't verified the existence of such papers yourself, then it follows that you have taken his word on blind faith and have represented it to us (initially) as a factual assertion. Regardless of whether they do or do not exist, you were not honest with us in the first place. Or if you were honest with us in the first place and do know for a fact that such papers exist then you were not being honest with us when you explicitly said you didn't know. Either way, however you work it you were not being honest somewhere.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Good lord man, are you daft? If a press secretary refers to the current administration as 'we are moving forward with Plans to Invade Iraq' we dont assume the press secretary is going to don a helmet or sits in on Planning sessions at the Pentagon

So you're his press secretary are you? If not, then what precisely is your role in his publication of peer reviewed papers? Please spell it out so we can understand. Since you have already claimed that you don't know anything about the science or the peer review process I find it hard to understand exactly what your role is. Peer reviewed papers don't need publicity or press secretaries - in fact peer reviewers positively hate press involvement or publicity with papers under review.

Alternatively, if you do not have a role in the publication of his (alleged) peer reviewed papers then there is no "we" in that context is there. What you mean is "he", not "we" - which what I said.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Who said I didnt want to be confrontational? I love being confrontational.

My mistake. I interpreted some of your remarks such as this one:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986686#post1870986686

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I will no longer respond to political and deceptive ad hominem attacks on a man you know nothing about. Please stop, it's disgusting. If you cant address this thread on topic, please leave.

...as a desire to avoid confrontation on certain issues. My apologies - although nobody could accuse you of being clear...

So if I now understand you correctly, it's O.K. for you to take a cheap shot at Randi (by giggling at what you assume an "expert" will do to him) but if anyone questions the bona fides of your alleged "expert" it's political and deceptive ad hominem.... Riiight! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Bubblefish
no, I am not here to 'publicise' in the way a publicist would use the term. however, it appears I am getting attention by default.

I submit you are not getting attention "by default". If you simply logged on to this board and said nothing, you would get no attention. Your comments were designed to provoke people on here and you are getting the attention you deserve as a result. The fact that you are getting attention however is no indication of popularity. Train wrecks and plane crashes get attention too, but they are hardly popular...

Originally posted by Bubblefish
apparently you need to translate your interpretations of them.

Hardly. You are being wilfully deceptive, the evidence above is quite clear and unmistakeable.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
We means the collective assosciative with the Randi challenge.

Evasion. So what does publishing a peer reviewed paper have to do with the Randi challenge? That was the context in which you used (and I raised) the "we" as you well know.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
lol, sure. proof means proof. When I say proof, I mean proof. When I say I am not here to show the proof or prove the proof, that does not mean I cant ever signify 'proof' in the discussion.

You have made the definite assertion that objective proof exists and that Lo has it. But you have also made the assertion that you haven't seen it and are skeptical of it. Remember?

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986686#post1870986686

I too am skeptical of Dr. Lo's testing. I am naturally skeptical until I can prove it to myself.

So you are not being honest when you claim that the proof exists because you don't know that to be true. All the rest is just evasion and weasel words to get out of taking responsibility for what you say - exactly like a dishonest politician (to use your own analogy above).

Originally posted by Bubblefish
It means RELATIVE to the RANDI challenge, that's it man. I do not negotiate Dr. Lo's papers or research, other than relative to taking the challenge.

O.K. I was just taking you literally at your word. When you said, "I am not his agent" - I assumed that meant, "I am not his agent - period" - I did not assume that meant, "I am only his agent in certain things but not in others"

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Sir, does your attorney represent you legally, or does he also do your taxes?

I'm not sure of the relevance, but I don't mind answering. As a matter of fact my attorney does just happen to do my taxes...

All it comes down to is this: you said, "I am not his agent". But you also said that you were representing him and that you were negotiating for him. Which in any reasonable interpretation of the term means that you are his agent. So what you said wasn't strictly true. You now claim that you are only effectively his agent in certain matters. Fine. It doesn't alter the fact that you didn't make yourself clear in the first place.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I think I'm doing fine.

Well, that is half the problem isn't it?


Edited to add a missing "y"

[Zep]

Thanks for that, Pragmatist. And I think I've found who we are talking with here...

http://www.fortunecity.com/bennyhills/pun/190/wizardking.gif

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
I didn't say that you [b]had said you have proof, did I? Therefore there is no correction because I didn't make any error.

I took this statement of yours "You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's work, nor make claims about having proof of qi, yet you make comments like the one above about him having proof of the existence of qi."

to mean that I have somehow misrepresented myself in my intentions here. Since I never said i was going to argue or present proof of Qi, ever, indeed, clarifying otherwise, your statement reads to me that I should 'back' something up.

And it still reads that way to me, but fine, you clarified, now I am satisfied.



But to make it an assertion in its own right when you don't know it to be so is simply dishonest.

How is the statement " i think it to be funny that a phd has proof regarding qi and taking the Randi challenge" an assertion of ANYTHING other than I am ASSERTING I find it funny?

Yes, I assume he has proof for reasons other than I am not disclosing here, and since I said my intention here is NOT to provide that arguement, I am now back at square one with you. You just argued yourself into a circle.

READ THIS ASSERTION: I came here inquiring about the randi challenge in relationship to a phd who claims he can prove it using empirical testing.


Do you always make definite assertions based on what people tell you?

Now your assuming how I came to a conclusion.



If I were to insist that Santa Claus exists, would you believe me and assert to others that it was true?

non-sequitor.



And if not, why not?

because santa claus DOES NOT EXIST, and even if he did, I am not arguing for his existence, just like I was not arguing for the existence of Qi.






Then why did you open this thread with comments about the challenge and about Lo?

As an hello and introduction.



You already said that the purpose of this thread was not to discuss your "OS 0 1 2", you said, quote: "My only interest here was about the RANDI challenge".

yes, HERE meaning the JREF forum. Since I clearly posted a link to the relevant discussion, your comment does not apply.



Clearly if your only interest was in the challenge and then you posted this thread, it implies that this thread is part of whatever you are doing in relation to the challenge does it not?

no. you should also then read my first post here.



Again, it shows dishonesty.

really? how so? can you explain?



Were you being dishonest about your intention for this thread or were you being dishonest in your statement above?

lol, hey, catch up pokey. look at the date and time when I started this thread, and then look at the date and time when I started the other one, k?



Let me refer you to your own words:

Please do





So when you said that you were only inquiring, and that you were not acting as an agent, that was not true either. Because you were here to negotiate (if necessary)

huh? is this really the critical thinking man's minefield?

Look, when I said 'negotiate' that means to RANDI and the application process, not with you goons here.

consider:

- and since you were acting as Lo's representative you were his agent in that respect.
YES, I dont see how you can confuse that I meant to negotiate the application process with you lunatics! Are you all really that dense here? my lord.

No matter what you confuse it to be, I said I am not the man's representative except for the randi challenge. Which means that anything about his work, papers, taxes, women on the side, drug use, political leanings, or grocery list is NOT WHAT I represent!



I can't really mistake what you actually meant since you were kind enough to spell it out to me above - or was that a lie or a half truth (and is there much of a difference between the two)?

let me make it REAL SIMPLE

Dr. Lo and Bubblefish =inquiring about Randi Challenge=JREF THREAD
Dr.Lo and Bubblefish=negotiate Application process with appropiate parties

Dr.Lo=Phd, peer reviews, research, proof of Qi

I am and have been UBER consistant.

i would recommend you stop talking to the bubblefish in your head, your clearly being confused by the wrong bubblefish



I'm not concerned in the slightest what you can or cannot negotiate - I am more interested in the fact that you seem to contradict yourself time and again.

such as?



Clearly this is not a complex issue so the contradictions have to be indications of something don't they? Such as difficulty keeping one's lies straight?

you first have to point the contradiction, not the percieved contradiction in your mind BEFORE the clarification.

Until then, your arguing a false contradiction that does not exist



You don't seem to be doing too well in the honesty game so far...

I'm doing fine.



Oh dear. You would love to offer them - in fact you would love to do it so much that when someone asked you politely for them, your only reply was "Google?" That sure shows the depths of your love doesn't it?

it shows the depth of my ability to be sarcastic after I have addressed the same question about a zillion times spun about a million ways.



Was it honest to make the assertion that said publications existed when you didn't actually know if they did or not? You said that Lo told they did - but you weren't honest with us initially. You didn't say, "Lo claims to have published peer reviewed papers but I don't know if that is true and I only assume it to be so", did you? You said, "Lo has published peer reviewed papers".

Yes, and I clarified that because I assume if he tells me that, he has.

ANd then I clarified that again, and now I am clarifiying that AGAIN.

and I STILL ASSUME HE HAS.



And isn't it a matter of simple courtesy to at least attempt to locate them?

google?



How difficult could it be?

www.google.com.... type in dr.lo's name...not difficult at all



You'd only have to ask Lo - who you assure us is watching proceedings and yet remains curiously silent when asked for the most trivial verification... Hmmm.

oh my god I cant believe this is a critical thinking crowd. your really giving the bunch of us a bad name. I did ask him, and he told me he would make avialable the paper relevant to THIS topic when it is published in THREE MONTHS.

Go read how many times I wrote that, Johnny Cochran.



I don't have to infer that you didn't want to offer them - the fact that you didn't is self-evident from your answers.


here we go again, back in the stange loop circle inference that I have clarified about a million times....


And please feel free to point out where I have "constantly referred to them". I have only referred to them once, briefly, in my previous posting. So who exactly is making false and misleading assertions here?

Your right, I should have said 'you all'. correction noted. my bad.

gee, you have just scored one official bubblefish point. go buy yourself a coke.



Either you know that he has published such papers and that they have been peer reviewed or you don't. You said you don't know that for a fact, and you said you assumed that he had because he had told you so.

Yes, and I still do. I take the man for his word. i dont have time to hire a friggin private eye for every answer he gives me. and I dont need to even explain myself to you my reasons for trusting him. Since I have made that clarification not one but numerous times, your simply badgering me and are being a troll.



Now, if you were being honest that you haven't verified the existence of such papers yourself, then it follows that you have taken his word on blind faith and have represented it to us (initially) as a factual assertion.

wow. how long did it take you to come to that conclusion? I take my friends words on blind faith all the time in simple conversation when there is no reason to distrust otherwise.


Regardless of whether they do or do not exist, you were not honest with us in the first place.

and your on crack.



Or if you were honest with us in the first place and do know for a fact that such papers exist then you were not being honest with us when you explicitly said you didn't know. Either way, however you work it you were not being honest somewhere.

you just created a false bivalency that does not properly model environment.

Let me make it simple for you.

Someone asked me if he has published work. Dr. Lo told me he has published work on water crystals. I assume that means that he has published work. i say he has published work. I ask if some of you would like to review it, because I assumed it could be made available. I asked Dr. Lo, he said in three months the next peer review on this study will be made available. I said that to you (all). Get it? cuz I am a messenger. And I will also assist in negotiating with the appropiate parties when the time is right regarding the challenge.

YOU ARE NOT THE APPROPIATE PARTIES. you are a bunch of goons on a discussion forum harassing me. I dont OWE you ANY papers to read. I simply ASKED if you want to read them!

It is clear you do. And you can read them when they are available to you in three months.


Dont like the answer? Who cares. that is the answer you get and that is what i have been consistant with.





So you're his press secretary are you?


Oh my god this is the slowest bunch i have ever encountered. Where did you get that idea? from my METAPHORIC EXAMPLE?


If not, then what precisely is your role in his publication of peer reviewed papers?

ZILCH! good lord man, do you pay attention at all?

I assume that you have at least followed this thread or the other one somewhat to give yourself a background so you dont look like an ass when you post to me. I guess i assumed wrong. I am not going to keep repeating myself ad infinitum with the conspiracy crowd here.



Please spell it out so we can understand.

I hope this time I am spelling it you read it.



Since you have already claimed that you don't know anything about the science or the peer review process I find it hard to understand exactly what your role is.

I DONT CARE if you dont understand what it is, get it? i dont have to explain it. But if a say I am representing him regarding a possible challenge, I am sure you can figure it out. (wait, after reading this bizarre post of yours, I should not assume that either)



Peer reviewed papers don't need publicity or press secretaries - in fact peer reviewers positively hate press involvement or publicity with papers under review.

I ASSUME you know what your talking about here. Do I have to go research the net to prove it or can I simply take your statement at face value, asking you to clarify where I dont understand?



Alternatively, if you do not have a role in the publication of his (alleged) peer reviewed papers then there is no "we" in that context is there. What you mean is "he", not "we" - which what I said.

We=parties concerned with challenge to Randi on Qi. Since I naturally distinguish US from YOU, I mean 'we' for simplicity's sake.

Confusing? fine, then I have clarified. About a million times.

oh! gee, ask your self, when I say a 'million times' am I using metaphor or am I lying and your about to go recount all my posts?

Your now wasting my time. Go recount my posts and waste yours instead, please.

I dont need to readdress the rest of your post since your asking and infering the same thing over and over and over.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]Thanks for that, Pragmatist. And I think I've found who we are talking with here...


Michael Landon?:p

[chipotle]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Michael Landon?:p
Genghis Pwn

[Bubblefish]

Here is a post from a link on Dr. Lo's paper that was addressed by pragmatist. I am posting this as refrence. I am not qualified to discuss it or clarify it.

I simply note that all of you find all of this information about him, but you dont seem to find where he may have addressed some of your concerns.


Dr. Lo responded to the critique on his work, and here is a copy of that below.

Profesor Paul Engelking
University of Oregon.

Dear Professor Engelking:

Recently I became aware of a piece written by you critical of a paper I published in Modern Physics Letters. I appreciate your taking the time to write this critical assessment. I wish however that you would have afforded me the professional courtesy of sending me a copy of what you made public before doing so.

As you well know, as a scientist one of the means by which we advance the cause of science is through publishing our findings as I have done my entire scientific career. I not only expect but welcome criticism of my work. It is one of the reasons why scientists publish their work. As you know, I had delivered this paper at a convention rather than publishing you might well have delivered your paper disagreeing with me and the audience would have been afforded the opportunity to join the scientific argument and discussion. Publications offer the same opportunity. After you have had a
chance to review my response to your criticism I would very much like for you to call me so that we can discuss these issues further.

As you may know, the internet is a vehicle which can be used to distort scientific findings, inflict economic damage on individuals and companies for any number of motives which are not always legitimate. American Technologies Group has done a great deal of independent testing on its various catalysts. The results of the tests stand on their own merits regardless of whatever detractors may have as their personal
agendas.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely.

Shui-Yin Lo Ph.D.

[note:accordng to dr.lo, he never heard back from him]

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

Rebuttal of Professor Engelking's Argument
By Shui-Yin Lo

An E-Mail from Professor Paul Engelking, University of Oregon, was posted on the Internet with a commentary from the bulletin board host ``IE Crystals Debunked!'' Professor Engelking apparently was responding to a query from Mark Dallara and his E-Mail is presumed to be a commentary on the Shui-Lin Lo paper ``Anomalous State of Ice'' published in Modern Physics Letters B, 10(19):909-919, 1996. Professor Engelking
stated he found the theory to be erroneous in several places and cited two problems with one of the basic calculations.

Problem 1, E & M

The crucial point of Prof. Engelking's critique is which is the correct form of Gauss law to use in the problem being addressed:

Equation 1 * D ds = Q ** Or
Equation 2 * E ds = Q **
· * closed surface (I could not find the symbol for this J. Collins)
· ** quantum of charge.

Professor Engelking stated that the correct form to use for a polarizable medium such as water is equation one and that use of the second equation was not correct. He went on to say ``If Lo's statement of Gauss? law would be true, it would be true only in a vacuum; it is incorrect in a polarizable medium such as water.''

Gauss' law as stated in equation 2 is certainly true in a vacuum. However, a water molecule consists of one nucleus of oxygen and two nuclei of hydrogen plus ten electrons surrounding them, all of which are in vacuum. Since all water molecules consist of nuclei, hydrogen and electrons in vacuum, Gauss' law as expressed in equation 2 is fundamentally correct in any situation, contrary to Professor Engelking's assertion.

The quantity of D in equation one is a derived one and has meaning only in a macroscopic medium. The definition of D and derivation of equation 1 from equation 2 are found in published papers (J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Section 4.2,
p. 103: L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, Chapter 2,
Section 6, p.36).

Considering the published work of Jackson, and Landau and Lifshitz, equation 1 may be used when considering a macroscopic medium of water liquid but not in a small water cluster. Equation 2 is used when counting the layer of water molecules around an ion with only two or three layers. The number of water molecules is small. It is not correct to use equation 1 as it would be likely to yield an incorrect result, as pointed out in the paper ``Anomalous State of Ice''.

Another point that is crucial in the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that is has to be applied to an isolated system. For a system that interacts with its surroundings, entropy can actually decrease, e.g., A human being is more ordered than his surrounding entropy. In order to maintain such order, entropy inside a human actually has to decrease to enable him to grow. This does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the entropy of his surroundings increases. Since the crystals occupy only a small percentage of the aqueous solution, they are by no means
isolated. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to IE crystals unless the surrounding water solution are also taken into account, which was apparently not considered by Professor Engelking when he critiqued the Anomalous State
of Ice.

The Professor mentions, ``For a spontaneous phase change to occur, this would have to be made up by an ever greater decrease in the internal energy.'' The possible existence of such a phase transition in very dilute solutions has actually been measured [Lo and Li, Onsager's Formula, Conductivity, and Possible New Phase Transition, Modern Physics
Letters B, 13(25)885-893, 1999].

Professor Engelking is incorrect when he stated that, ``when Lo calculates the field around a charge he neglects this contribution to the field E by the polarization of water'' because polarization is an average of the quantities of dipole moment of the water molecules and is not valid for a small number of water molecules. The origin of polarization comes from the existence of the dipole moment in water molecules, which is already accounted for in equation 2.2 (Anomalous State of Ice).

Further scientific research has been conducted since the 1996 published paper, verifying the importance of the dipole moment. Some of this work is documented in the Proceedings of the First International Symposium of the Physical, Chemical and Biological Properties of Water clusters (IE), (World Scientific, 1998). This volume contains pictures showing the electric field emitting from the electric dipole moment.
Numerical values were measured to give the dipole potential coming from the dipole moment.

Recently, there has been large scale use if IE solutions in the printing industry and in the electricity generating industry to solve some of their problems. The successful use in both of these industries rests on the electric properties of the IE solutions, and validates the correctness of the theory as presented in Anomalous State of Ice.

Problem 2. Thermodynamics

Professor Engelking stated ``Lo's crystals don't spontaneously form is the same reason that water at room temperature doesn't spontaneously freeze: although energetically allowed, the process is entropically forbidden. The entropy of the world would have to spontaneously decrease, violating the second law of thermodynamics.''. While this point is apparently not covered in Anomalous State of Ice, in another published paper A.W
Adamson Physical Chemistry, 3rd ed. (Academic Press 1956) there is discussion of some of the measurements taken wherein the amount of the IE solutions made is estimated to be approximately 3% of the total volume of the water solution. The volume of the prepared aqueous solutions will not entirely become IE crystals as presented by Professor Engelking. The analogy the professor makes with ordinary ice is also
incorrect up to two orders of magnitude.

The Professor stated that water molecules are ``normally able to move about 4 ð steradians, this is a constraint of about 1/125th of free motion of the water dipoles.'' It is true that water molecules can rotate freely in the gas phase but in liquid phase the water molecules are not free. They are connected by the hydrogen bonds with neighboring water molecules and the amount of orientation for each water molecule is
greatly restricted by the geometric configuration of neighboring water molecules. In all liquid water models, water molecules are not free, and they do form water clusters. The model investigated by Pauling ( G.W.Robinson.S.B Zhu. S.Singh and
M.W.Evans, Water in Biology, Chemistry and Physics. World Scientific, Singapore 1996) has a cage and another model examined by Robinson et. al. (F. Francis ed Water A Comprehensive Treatise, V, 1-4 Plenum, New York. 1972) had a hard core. Another model
had a flickering cluster (P.G. Debenedetti, Metasiable liquid, Concepts and Principle Princeton University Press, 1996). There is no consensus on how much of a solid angle a water molecule can rotate in a liquid phase. It is certain that it is not 4r that
Professor Engelking stated and is most likely a value much less than 4 ð.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by chipotle
Genghis Pwn

eh, that was a bit of a dud. At least Zep can be funny.

(funny looking that is):p

[Bubblefish]

For the record, a correction on my end. In this thread I mentioned Dr. Lo had tenure at Melbourne University. I dont know if that is true, I wrote that heatedly. He was a professor of physics there, and what his exact title was, sitting or tenure or visiting, I dont know for certain. I think I saw where it was tenure, but I look back and may have been mistaken.

I have made that CLARIFICATION after going back and reading this rather humorous discussion with all of you.

Although I laughed plenty reading this thread just now, You all should be embarressed. Such sloppy reasoning, so many knee jerk reactions and blindness, completly overriding any knowledge or skill you all have spent so much time to work on in your education and pursuits.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
For the record, a correction on my end. In this thread I mentioned Dr. Lo had tenure at Melbourne University. I dont know if that is true, I wrote that heatedly. He was a professor of physics there, and what his exact title was, sitting or tenure or visiting, I dont know for certain. I think I saw where it was tenure, but I look back and may have been mistaken.

*snip* Careful when running backwards at this speed. You might stumble.

So far you have succeeded in eroding what credibility you had into non-existence.

I notice with interest that you are aware who Genghis Pwn is. Not bad if you're a newcomer ;).

Hans

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

So far you have succeeded in eroding what credibility you had into non-existence.


Well since you all gave me absolutly zero credibility in the beginning, I take that somewhat as gaining some ground.:p

I assume now from your response that 'gengis pwn' was a previous poster. I thought it was a play on words used to denote my relationship with dr.lo, him being Asian.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Well since you all gave me absolutly zero credibility in the beginning, I take that somewhat as gaining some ground.:pEr, no. I think most of the people on this forum actually take new posters at something like face value, until they make claims they cannot back up.

As you have.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
Er, no. I think most of the people on this forum actually take new posters at something like face value, until they make claims they cannot back up.

Oh, right, I see. Well that certainly was my experience here. Why, one can simply read the threads to see that is exactly what happened.

[insert sarcasm for the theatrically challenged members ]



As you have. [/B]

Oh, yeah, right. Those 'mysterious' claims you keep imaging and invoking in your head to make yourself right. Got it.

Well I guess it's settled then. The bubblefish in your head made claims that he is not backing up. Doesn't appear that phantom is going to either.

The best way, I suggest, to rid yourself of all of this trauma of someone making claims they cannot back up (oh the horror) is to forget then all of this ever happened.

Remember, Dr. Elmer, I respond to you when you respond to me.

The quickest way to rid yourself of the bubblefish in your head is to simply not respond to this post of mine. Otherwise, he is sure to continue to plague you, that rascal.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Here is a post from a link on Dr. Lo's paper that was addressed by pragmatist. I am posting this as refrence. I am not qualified to discuss it or clarify it.

I simply note that all of you find all of this information about him, but you dont seem to find where he may have addressed some of your concerns.

Dr. Lo responded to the critique on his work, and here is a copy of that below.

Well, thank you for that, I wasn't aware of Prof Engelking's critique. However, Dr Lo's rebuttal doesn't exactly address my concerns - in fact it only increases them! Let me address the scientific issues, I'll address your other post when I get some more time.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Rebuttal of Professor Engelking's Argument
By Shui-Yin Lo

An E-Mail from Professor Paul Engelking, University of Oregon, was posted on the Internet with a commentary from the bulletin board host ``IE Crystals Debunked!'' Professor Engelking apparently was responding to a query from Mark Dallara and his E-Mail is presumed to be a commentary on the Shui-Lin Lo paper ``Anomalous State of Ice'' published in Modern Physics Letters B, 10(19):909-919, 1996. Professor Engelking
stated he found the theory to be erroneous in several places and cited two problems with one of the basic calculations.

Problem 1, E & M

The crucial point of Prof. Engelking's critique is which is the correct form of Gauss law to use in the problem being addressed:

Equation 1 * D ds = Q ** Or
Equation 2 * E ds = Q **
· * closed surface (I could not find the symbol for this J. Collins)
· ** quantum of charge.

Professor Engelking stated that the correct form to use for a polarizable medium such as water is equation one and that use of the second equation was not correct. He went on to say ``If Lo's statement of Gauss? law would be true, it would be true only in a vacuum; it is incorrect in a polarizable medium such as water.''

Gauss' law as stated in equation 2 is certainly true in a vacuum. However, a water molecule consists of one nucleus of oxygen and two nuclei of hydrogen plus ten electrons surrounding them, all of which are in vacuum. Since all water molecules consist of nuclei, hydrogen and electrons in vacuum, Gauss' law as expressed in equation 2 is fundamentally correct in any situation, contrary to Professor Engelking's assertion.

The quantity of D in equation one is a derived one and has meaning only in a macroscopic medium. The definition of D and derivation of equation 1 from equation 2 are found in published papers (J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Section 4.2,
p. 103: L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, Chapter 2,
Section 6, p.36).

Considering the published work of Jackson, and Landau and Lifshitz, equation 1 may be used when considering a macroscopic medium of water liquid but not in a small water cluster. Equation 2 is used when counting the layer of water molecules around an ion with only two or three layers. The number of water molecules is small. It is not correct to use equation 1 as it would be likely to yield an incorrect result, as pointed out in the paper ``Anomalous State of Ice''.

What a load of nonsense! Let's get this clear.

Firstly, Lo is absolutely correct that the actual medium between the molecules is vacuum. However, that doesn't justify his assumption. What he says would be true, if and only if you were dealing with a single isolated water molecule and an ion both in an absolute ideal vacuum free from electromagnetic fields. The electric field of a charged body in vacuum extends to infinity in all directions. When two charged bodies are brought into proximity their respective fields overlap and combine. If the two bodies are isolated, then it is easy to calculate the fields and forces involved between them. We only need to consider the scalar magnitudes of the fields and the distance between the bodies.

However, if there are other charges present, regardless of where they are located in space, those charges will affect the net fields and forces acting on the two bodies. As soon as one extra body (i.e. 3 total) is introduced the problem becomes vectorial in nature with respect to the effective distribution of charges. For example, in water, we refer to a "dipole" moment - but water isn't actually a dipole, it's a tripole (2 H's and one O) and so the dipole moment is a vector which is an approximation of the major axis of the effective charge distribution. However, even though we have considered the major axis of charge distribution, the fact remains that the actual field around the molecule is not spherically symmetrical and there is a uneven distribution of the field which varies with radial position. So the "dipole moment" of water is simply a convenient approximation when we are dealing with the net effect of a molecule on something which is at a relatively great distance away. The dipole moment is totally meaningless at very short range (i.e. at the magnitude of bond lengths).

Anyway, let's imagine a real water molecule, which is in proximity to other water molecules, and it is hydrogen bonded to them (as is the case in water). We now introduce a single free ion into this field of pure water. Whilst the actual net charge of the ion is fixed the effective charge of the entire water molecule considered as a whole will be an approximation derived from the composite fields of the component particles. And not only that, it will also be dependent on the fields of the other water molecules around it. Note: I really mean around - not just between. The effective net charge of the water molecule as presented to the ion, will be influenced by other water molecules even if they are not between the ion and the water molecule under consideration, because the fields of the particles involved cover the whole of space, not just the space between the ion and the water molecule, and because the ion will not couple only to one single water molecule!

The ion will couple to all particles in the whole of space - i.e. the entire universe. Of course we can discount the effect of particles at great distances away because their effects will be negligible. But we cannot discount the local environment of multiple water molecules in relative proximity to the ion.

There is however a problem if we want to calculate the actual fields and forces. Firstly the actual problem is a quantum problem at this scale, so we are not necessarily dealing with absolutely fixed and rigid positions and geometries. We cannot possibly know the exact geometries because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. So the best we can do is approximate. But even with that constraint the problem still cannot be solved analytically (even if we knew the wavefunctions) because it's a classic example of what is known as the 3 Body Problem. It is currently believed to be impossible to analytically solve dynamic systems which involve more than two bodies - and it is impossible to analytically solve the quantum wavefunctions. So no exact calculation is possible. However, in reality we can get round problems of this type using dynamic approximations (for example the Self Consistent Field method) which is a series of recursive approximations which can sometimes give a numerical answer in such cases.

But even approximations like SCF have their limits. In the case of many water molecules you can't even practically get away with things like SCF. So what we do, when there are many bodies involved is we use overall approximations based on the macroscopic environment that we are able to measure. And in that case, we say that the dielectric constant of water is 80. That is a macroscopic approximation, that takes into account the effect of many water molecules and their combined fields and forces on any point within the grouping under consideration. It makes no difference that there is a vacuum between the ion and the water molecule - the effective environment that both objects are in, affects both in such a way that the best approximation is to simply take the permittivity as being 80 at all points in space within the body of water.

Now, in practice, of course the actual permittivity will be inhomogeneous within a polar medium. It may well drop to less than 80 at specific points but the exact value cannot be known and also we do know that it will always be considerably more than that of free space in a polar solvent like water. It's possible to use things like the Lorentz-Debye-Sack theory and the Born approximation to give estimates. And of course, the actual value will also depend on the charge of the ion. But either way it's totally inappropriate to use free space permittivity. Engelking is quite correct in what he says.

So to summarize, there are two ways of approaching such a calculation such as the one Lo tried to do. The first is to take it as a discrete quantum problem, derive the composite wavefunctions and solve them by approximation (because it's impossible to do it analytically in any event, and even the quantum approximation is far too difficult to do in practice if there are a great many bodies involved). The second is to use an overall macroscopic classical approximation that will gve us a crude but approximately accurate model of the overall environment - and we do that by using the displacement field (not the true E field) and by using relative permittivities.

What Lo did however, was to take a group of figures related to macroscopic approximations (such as the dipole moment) and then tried to derive a classical (not quantum) analytical solution for a many body quantum problem (which is impossible) - and then discarded specific elements of the macroscopic model he was using in order to fit his strange idea. Which is a total travesty. He claims to be a quantum physicist yet appears not to be familiar with elementary classical physics, let alone quantum physics!

And if that is not enough, even his arithmetic is suspect! For example he uses a dipole moment of 2.45 Debyes for water. The measured (and internationally recognised) experimental value of the dipole moment for water at room temperature and pressure is roughly 1.85 Debyes. Of course it varies with the degree of hydrogen bonding and the state of the water. A value of 2.45 Debyes is around the value for ice. But the entire calculation is just so far removed from reality as to beggar belief, this is not the work of someone who understands physics.

This is in addition to the points I raised before about the total misapplication of Gauss's Law. Gauss's Law relates to flux not field - a physicist would know the difference. And in addition Gauss's Law does not assume that all fluxes are spherically symmetrical, all it takes into account is that the total flux crossing the surface of integration is a certain value - it does not mean that there are not local variations in the field, or that the surface of integration has to be the surface of a sphere. It's usually drawn like that in high school textbooks because it's easier to understand it like that - but that is a simplified version for kiddies, not people purporting to be physics professors.

I didn't mention his idea of equating the "pressure" on the water molecule to the energy density. Of course dimensionally the energy density is equivalent to a pressure. Energy divided by distance gives force, and force over area is pressure. So energy over volume (energy density) is dimensionally the same as force over area. But that doesn't mean that it can be directly, qualitatively interpreted in the same way. The idea of a "spherically symmetric" pressure on a water molecule arising from a net linear moment of electrostatic force doesn't make any sense at all. As I said before, it's just so absurd I didn't even think it necessary to comment further. It's like saying that shooting someone in the foot is the same as crushing them to death from all directions!

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Another point that is crucial in the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is that is has to be applied to an isolated system. For a system that interacts with its surroundings, entropy can actually decrease, e.g., A human being is more ordered than his surrounding entropy. In order to maintain such order, entropy inside a human actually has to decrease to enable him to grow. This does not violate the second law of thermodynamics because the entropy of his surroundings increases. Since the crystals occupy only a small percentage of the aqueous solution, they are by no means
isolated. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics cannot be applied to IE crystals unless the surrounding water solution are also taken into account, which was apparently not considered by Professor Engelking when he critiqued the Anomalous State of Ice.

Any individual process or action or reaction has to obey the Second Law. Which means in practice that every reaction has to have a net increase in entropy. If Lo now insists that a localised internal decrease of entropy is offset by an external increase, then it follows that the two actions have to be coupled. In which case his equations are wrong because they don't show the external effect coupled and how it influences the reaction. In effect, the argument that "my calculations are correct because there are more things going on than my calculations show" is absurd in itself! It doesn't need much more comment than that.

And talk about shooting yourself in the foot - Lo ignores the effect of hydrogen bonding on the permittivity and argues that his molecules act in isolation in free space above - then when confronted by an argument against a breach of the second law, he tries to convince us that normal water molecules are rigidly hydrogen bonded and are not free and cannot move in isolation which is the very thing assumed in his calculations! The contradiction is absurd.

I note that Engelking doesn't argue against Lo's proposition on energetic grounds, solely on entropy - but I believe it's not energetically feasible either, for the reasons which I stated last time. Either way, energetically or entropically it doesn't make any sense.

[Bubblefish]

Pragmatist,

Well it sure would be nice if you could debate that with Dr. Lo himself, as to me, it just reads like he said she said.

There are always arguements amongst academics, thinkers and scientists regarding work and interpretations of data. Godel and Wittenstein were bitterly opposed to each others propositions, yet both contributed greatly to human understanding.

Who is right? Unfortunatly, for the layman, we simply cannot verify for ourselves what is true or untrue because we now have what appears to be two opposing points of view claiming to have proper knowledge in a field we know nothing about.

It would be unwise for me to assume that either you or Dr. Lo is correct on the matter. To me, this is still a mystery, and one to be honest I am not at all concerned about nor interested in, since it does not relate to a field of current interest for me, nor is it certainly the topic of any discussion that I have introduced to this community.

In short, it is irrelevant. You have made your point, you wish the reader to accept that Dr. Lo is not as smart as you in matters related to physics, and because you have found one paper of his that you can find contention with, then that must mean that all work or ideas proposed to him must also be defaulted to or accept as false or quakery so you can be right and maintain your determistic materialist paradigm, which is a belief system, just like I have a belief system and Dr. Lo that includes probability as a constant.

My underlying point in all of this is that your (this community) trying to 'fill in a blank' where you should keep it open as simply mystery.

Notice how all of you here need to define me or Dr. Lo in your minds as something 'ill' to make false something that has not yet been presented to you (the peer review or Randi Challenge). Your over spending your mental energy trying to define something which is simply currently beyond your ability to understand as either true or false.

This is where bivalency in logic fails human being. We are simply presented with to much information to try to force all of it into true or false before we can determine for any relevant certainty. The uber standard of certainty is experience, and it is the role of science to make sure the facts fit the experience. Anything beyond the facts or the experience is simply mystery, and to try to determine it's true or false nature is simply irrational and a waste of time.

See, you spent your sunday evening addressing a topic that is not even relevant to this discussion, which is Dr. Lo's research in the 90's on something that is not relevant to him taking the Randi challenge. I would imagine that took you time to write.

Pity, now I imagine your going to try to see if you can force me into an image in your head of being dishonest or something to inforce the idea that what you speak is 'true' and what I speak is 'false'

There are so many more interesting things that we could be doing with our time, eh?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Oh, yeah, right. Those 'mysterious' claims you keep imaging and invoking in your head to make yourself right. Got it.

Well I guess it's settled then. The bubblefish in your head made claims that he is not backing up. Doesn't appear that phantom is going to either.

The best way, I suggest, to rid yourself of all of this trauma of someone making claims they cannot back up (oh the horror) is to forget then all of this ever happened.

Remember, Dr. Elmer, I respond to you when you respond to me.

The quickest way to rid yourself of the bubblefish in your head is to simply not respond to this post of mine. Otherwise, he is sure to continue to plague you, that rascal. Leaving aside your claims about the peer-reviewed papers, as I'm aware that you dont want to discuss those, I suppose I imagined this as well: Originally posted by Bubblefish
In this thread I mentioned Dr. Lo had tenure at Melbourne University. I dont know if that is true, I wrote that heatedly.

I'll stop responding to the Bubblefish in my head when you give an undertaking to stop posting on that rascal's behalf. You'll also, of course, need to review all your posts here first, and indicate which ones were his.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Well since you all gave me absolutly zero credibility in the beginning, I take that somewhat as gaining some ground.:p

Then you have understood very little. We usually expect a newcomer to be credible till they prove otherwise. You have certainly not been gaining any ground. A few of your posts seem reasonably sincere, but you make too many claims you cannot back up or even have to back out of, and you trolling tactics are duly noted.

I assume now from your response that 'gengis pwn' was a previous poster. I thought it was a play on words used to denote my relationship with dr.lo, him being Asian.

Mmmmm ..... okay.

Hans

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
For the record, a correction on my end. In this thread I mentioned Dr. Lo had tenure at Melbourne University. I dont know if that is true, I wrote that heatedly. He was a professor of physics there, and what his exact title was, sitting or tenure or visiting, I dont know for certain. I think I saw where it was tenure, but I look back and may have been mistaken.

I have made that CLARIFICATION after going back and reading this rather humorous discussion with all of you.Was this post in in response to this one of mine?Incidentally, I shall be checking into the business of "sitting tenure" for Dr. Lo at Melbourne University. He was last seen there in 1976, according to a number of sources. So a tenure now, especially when he is so involved in the Institute of Noetics in California, seems somewhat dubious. However it may yet be valid, so I'll let you know what they tell me when they get back to me.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Pragmatist,

Well it sure would be nice if you could debate that with Dr. Lo himself, as to me, it just reads like he said she said.

There are always arguements amongst academics, thinkers and scientists regarding work and interpretations of data. Godel and Wittenstein were bitterly opposed to each others propositions, yet both contributed greatly to human understanding.

Who is right? Unfortunatly, for the layman, we simply cannot verify for ourselves what is true or untrue because we now have what appears to be two opposing points of view claiming to have proper knowledge in a field we know nothing about.

It would be unwise for me to assume that either you or Dr. Lo is correct on the matter. To me, this is still a mystery, and one to be honest I am not at all concerned about nor interested in, since it does not relate to a field of current interest for me, nor is it certainly the topic of any discussion that I have introduced to this community.

According to you, Dr Lo is reading these threads - he can see it for himself can't he? Nothing is stopping him from logging on and addressing the issue or passing any relevant comments to you for you to pass on - is there?

Yes, there are always arguments between people (even scientists) regarding interpretation of data. But there are few arguments between genuine scientists as to basic physical properties - which are a matter of observation not "interpretation". For example, it is generally agreed that things fall down under gravity - someone can always argue that things really fall up by redefining the words "up" and "down" and claiming that it's all a matter of "interpretation". But we don't take bare assertions like that very seriously for good reason. And this is not a matter of philosophy where all kinds of vague, fuzzy concepts can be argued indefinitely without resolution - this a simple matter of cold, hard, logical physics, there is only one correct set of data which actually matches physical observation, and while there are multiple models, it is not legitimate to simply pick and choose bits of opposed models and randomly combine them while rejecting the basis of the models themselves and simply ignoring the blatant contradictions that result.

Now, the layman may not be able to immediately see who is right or wrong. But an intelligent lay person, especially one who claims to be a critical thinker, will make an effort to attempt to understand the issues - he will read up on it, look at textbooks, check the web, speak to other scientists as necessary until he does understand the issue - because he is interested in finding the truth. Not just for his own benefit, but to ensure that he doesn't pass on false and dishonest information to others. It is called taking responsibility.

Yes, it would be unwise for you to assume that either I or Lo are correct. Please don't. How about making an effort to find out for yourself instead? And regardless of whether you introduced the specific topic or not, you did represent Lo as an expert physicist in various areas (such as quantum mechanics for one) and you did post his comments to Engelking which is what I am addressing. Are you saying that we shoudl just believe what you say without challenging it - especially when it is so utterly self-contradictory?

In law there is a whole field concerned with "torts" - which literally means "civil wrongs" in context. Included in that are the concepts of fraud, deception, etc. But areas like fraud are just simplistic sub sets of more wide ranging concepts such as misrepresentation. And in law there are several subsets of "misrepresentation" with various degrees of seriousness as regards the degree of wrong. Outright misrepresentation, or negligent misrepresentation is one of the very serious "wrongs" - and it is defined as, "asserting something to be true, either knowing it to be false, or not knowing or not caring whether it is true or false". And you have certainly committed the latter several times already on here. Spreading lies, not caring whether they are true or false is not a very honorable position.

So in effect, you are saying you are not interested in finding the truth, nor do you care whether you pass on false or fraudulent information to others and mislead them. Sorry, but I don't have much respect for that kind of attitude.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
In short, it is irrelevant. You have made your point, you wish the reader to accept that Dr. Lo is not as smart as you in matters related to physics, and because you have found one paper of his that you can find contention with, then that must mean that all work or ideas proposed to him must also be defaulted to or accept as false or quakery so you can be right and maintain your determistic materialist paradigm, which is a belief system, just like I have a belief system and Dr. Lo that includes probability as a constant.

It is not irrelevant. You introduced the matter of Lo's credibility as a physicist, now you are just back paddling to avoid taking responsibility. You've been called out on the facts and you're not answering - you think that makes us believe you to be an honest person?

And I never said anything about how "smart" I am in relation to Lo, nor did I comment at all on his general intelligence. I do challenge his knowledge of the areas he claims expertise in. This is just a straw man. And I have not found "one paper of his that I can find contention with" - I have already addressed two papers of his and one "rebuttal" - scientifically, in detail - where I see basic and fundamental errors of science in all of them, and I see various claims and statements made by him that simply don't make sense. And as I said before, the issue of whether he is absolutely correct in one or two derived items is not the point. The point is that I see errors and misconceptions of science that are so basic and fundamental that it leads me to actually question his bona-fides as a scientist. So I certainly don't make the error that I simply dismiss everything he says simply because I disagree with one theory of his - to claim I do is blatant misrepresentation in itself.

Let's make it clear. If someone is presented to me as a true catholic and an expert in catholicism, and then makes the claim that God and Jesus don't exist, that the pope is gay, that Satan is the true God, that the true practice of the catholic church is to sacrifice virgins and kill chickens - then I think I am quite justified in saying, "I don't believe this person is really a true catholic, because everything he says is at odds with what I know about the subject of catholicism". I don't say that this person is automatically wrong in anything he says - I do say that I don't trust his opinions about what constitutes catholicism.

You have represented Lo as an expert in physics and specifically in quantum mechanics. You have told us that he has scientific proofs based on his expertise of the existence of "qi". However we can see that firstly his expertise in very basic physics and scientific procedure is highly questionable, as also is his apparent knowledge of quantum mechanics. So I should just take your and his word for it that his work on "qi" is totally sound, when his other work in similar and related areas is so badly flawed?

And please don't come out with the tired old "deterministic materialist paradigm" crap - that is the fall back position of just about every liar when they're cornered on facts. It's a ridiculous and overused straw man that simply indicates that the person in question has lost the argument.

You claimed that Lo was a legitimate physicist. Physics is a mainstream discipline with well established rules and procedures. It is not a question of "belief systems" to see his pronouncements are at odds with physics any more than I have to have a catholic belief system to see that my Satanist above doesn't qualify as a "true catholic".

Originally posted by Bubblefish
My underlying point in all of this is that your (this community) trying to 'fill in a blank' where you should keep it open as simply mystery.

Notice how all of you here need to define me or Dr. Lo in your minds as something 'ill' to make false something that has not yet been presented to you (the peer review or Randi Challenge). Your over spending your mental energy trying to define something which is simply currently beyond your ability to understand as either true or false.

And this is an example of your honesty? After criticising me above by falsely claiming that I wanted to simply reject anything against my "paradigm", you now compound the error further by trying to lump me in with every other critic so we can be conveniently dismissed as a group. Our individual and rational arguments can be safely lumped together and rejected in entirety without consideration because we're all just evil skeptics. Which is pretty much what racists tend to do incidentally. You have no idea what my ability to understand anything is, but that doesn't stop you making claims about it does it?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
This is where bivalency in logic fails human being. We are simply presented with to much information to try to force all of it into true or false before we can determine for any relevant certainty. The uber standard of certainty is experience, and it is the role of science to make sure the facts fit the experience. Anything beyond the facts or the experience is simply mystery, and to try to determine it's true or false nature is simply irrational and a waste of time.

See, you spent your sunday evening addressing a topic that is not even relevant to this discussion, which is Dr. Lo's research in the 90's on something that is not relevant to him taking the Randi challenge. I would imagine that took you time to write.

Pity, now I imagine your going to try to see if you can force me into an image in your head of being dishonest or something to inforce the idea that what you speak is 'true' and what I speak is 'false'

There are so many more interesting things that we could be doing with our time, eh?

Dr Lo's understanding of basic physics is extremely relevant to the claim that he has a scientific "proof" of anything that involves physics. I cannot and do not say he is wrong about "qi" - I haven't seen any evidence yet. I can and do say that I don't trust that he is an authority on certain areas of physics as claimed. It's quite simple and I cannot see why you cannot understand such a simple concept.

And you can fantasize all you like about what we do in our heads. The simple fact is that you are dishonest. You have been caught out several times already and your little tirade above only confirms the fact.

I took a look at your web site to see what "OS 0 1 2" was all about. And I saw your comments about the Iraq war and the behaviour of dishonest politicians who make false claims about weapons of mass destruction etc. I took a look because although I doubted that there was anything to it, I was nonetheless interested and I wanted to find out about it and also to give it fair chance to see whether it stood up logically and on its own merits. I also note that you have claimed that what you do is an example of it. Well, congratulations, you have proved it to be unmitigated crap! You don't actually do what you claim on that site, instead you lie, evade and distort like the best of the dishonest politicians.

You complain that politicians mislead people by presenting false information about WMD and presenting it as though it were true by misrepresenting claims of alleged experts etc. Then you come on here and do exactly the same thing by bringing in a highly dubious alleged "expert" on physics and representing his claims as fact. When challenged on the actual facts, your response is "I don't know, nor do I care whether what he says is true or not". Oh what a fine example of honesty you are!

And you know something? The politicians are better than you are. Because you know it's wrong to misrepresent information, you are well aware of the dangers of false and misleading information, and the danger of not checking the facts before speaking. You have the benefit of hindsight, knowing how much harm misrepresentation can do. I have no way of knowing if the politicians were aware of these things, but you certainly are. And in spite of all of that, you come on here and do exactly the same thing, and all you have to say when someone challenges the "facts" you present is - to use your own words - "To me, this is still a mystery, and one to be honest I am not at all concerned about nor interested in, since it does not relate to a field of current interest for me". You claim that Lo has published peer reviewed papers on "qi" - but in reality we later find out that you don't know if that's true (nor do you care if it's true). You claim that Lo has a tenure at Melbourne, then we find out later that you also don't know if that's true - nor do you care, because if you did you would have made an effort to check your facts before speaking wouldn't you?

So please cut all the self-righteous crap - you have shown yourself for what you are, and it's not pretty from this angle.

[Zep]

I was in the process of composing a short essay on Bubblebrain's "OS 0 1 2" waffle, but I do believe that it would not come close to matching Pragmatist's effort above.

:th:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
Leaving aside your claims about the peer-reviewed papers, as I'm aware that you dont want to discuss those, I suppose I imagined this as well:


He may have had. I just am not sure what I saw now. Either way, he was at University of Melbourne as a professor of physics.



I'll stop responding to the Bubblefish in my head when you give an undertaking to stop posting on that rascal's behalf.You'll also, of course, need to review all your posts here first, and indicate which ones were his.

According to you, they are all his. You sift through them. I have made my clarifications where posts of mine may have led to confusion.


Since only I can know for certain my intentions here, only I therefore can know what my claims are.

[Bubblefish]

We usually expect a newcomer to be credible till they prove otherwise. You have certainly not been gaining any ground. A few of your posts seem reasonably sincere, but you make too many claims you cannot back up or even have to back out of, and you trolling tactics are duly noted.

I have gone on record stating what I am qualified to speak of and not speak of, and have been consistant. I have clarified where there was confusion.

My 'trolling tactics' are what I assume are my responses to ad hominem and irrelevant attacks from the hostile community whom wishes to 'pre disprove' the existence of Qi on a report that they have not yet been presented.

If you wish to define that as trolling because we disagree on something philosophically and I am funny about it, so be it.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
Was this post in in response to this one of mine?

YES ZEP! You are loved and now your famous. Ol Bubblefish has responded to one of your posts.

Let it be written that Zep is the student Bubblefish loves most!

I am looking forward to reading what you come up with. I may have been correct.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Since only I can know for certain my intentions here, only I therefore can know what my claims are. Anyone can tell what the claims you have made on this forum are by reading your posts. If you have posted a claim on a forum, then you have made that claim. It is reasonable to assume that you mean what you say.

If you're going to take the Humpty Dumpty approach to language, and insist that what you post means whatever you want it to mean regardless of its actual content, then it's a complete waste of time trying to communicate with you.

[Bubblefish]

Ahh, I see Pragmatist would rather introduce another strawman and avoid the previous rebuttal to him.

So be it.


Originally posted by Pragmatist
According to you, Dr Lo is reading these threads - he can see it for himself can't he? Nothing is stopping him from logging on and addressing the issue or passing any relevant comments to you for you to pass on - is there?

Not for me to say.

Irrelevant



Yes, there are always arguments between people (even scientists) regarding interpretation of data. But there are few arguments between genuine scientists as to basic physical properties - which are a matter of observation not "interpretation". For example, it is generally agreed that things fall down under gravity - someone can always argue that things really fall up by redefining the words "up" and "down" and claiming that it's all a matter of "interpretation". But we don't take bare assertions like that very seriously for good reason. And this is not a matter of philosophy where all kinds of vague, fuzzy concepts can be argued indefinitely without resolution - this a simple matter of cold, hard, logical physics, there is only one correct set of data which actually matches physical observation, and while there are multiple models, it is not legitimate to simply pick and choose bits of opposed models and randomly combine them while rejecting the basis of the models themselves and simply ignoring the blatant contradictions that result.

he said she said. irrelevant



Now, the layman may not be able to immediately see who is right or wrong. But an intelligent lay person, especially one who claims to be a critical thinker, will make an effort to attempt to understand the issues - he will read up on it, look at textbooks, check the web, speak to other scientists as necessary until he does understand the issue - because he is interested in finding the truth. Not just for his own benefit, but to ensure that he doesn't pass on false and dishonest information to others. It is called taking responsibility.

I dont see how I have to take responsibility to a claim Dr. Lo made in the 90's.

I dont have the interest to do the 'math', I already mentioned that. I am not going to get sucked into your strawman.



Yes, it would be unwise for you to assume that either I or Lo are correct.
Thank you



Please don't. How about making an effort to find out for yourself instead?

Lack of interest in doing so. Irrelevant to why I came here.



And regardless of whether you introduced the specific topic or not, you did represent Lo as an expert physicist in various areas (such as quantum mechanics for one) and you did post his comments to Engelking which is what I am addressing. Are you saying that we shoudl just believe what you say without challenging it - especially when it is so utterly self-contradictory?



I never said 'expert' I said respected. I would imagine a Physics professor whom has held some sort of position, whatever they are classified as, be it lecturing, sitting, tenure, or visiting, at cal tech, oxford, university of chicago and melbourne to be a respected physicist.



In law there is a whole field concerned with "torts" - which literally means "civil wrongs" in context. Included in that are the concepts of fraud, deception, etc. But areas like fraud are just simplistic sub sets of more wide ranging concepts such as misrepresentation. And in law there are several subsets of "misrepresentation" with various degrees of seriousness as regards the degree of wrong. Outright misrepresentation, or negligent misrepresentation is one of the very serious "wrongs" - and it is defined as, "asserting something to be true, either knowing it to be false, or not knowing or not caring whether it is true or false". And you have certainly committed the latter several times already on here. Spreading lies, not caring whether they are true or false is not a very honorable position.

lol, well pragmatist, if I am guilty of doing that in these threads, then most certainly are all of you.

And I still dont see what I have claimed, via clarification, that has warranted that response.

I have clarified where I have come from, and now your trying to spin and reintroduce the entire arguement all over from another angle, trying to attach me to a paper Dr. Lo wrote in the 90's.



So in effect, you are saying you are not interested in finding the truth, nor do you care whether you pass on false or fraudulent information to others and mislead them. Sorry, but I don't have much respect for that kind of attitude.

get real. I posted dr. lo's response to a critique because I found it on the internet in the links you all posted to me. I did the same thing you all did.

Many of you accused him of fraud, and where does it say that? All you have done if is found contention on an irrelevant topic.





It is not irrelevant. [?QUOTE]


IT IS IRRELEVANT TO MY DISCUSSION

[QUOTE] You introduced the matter of Lo's credibility as a physicist, now you are just back paddling to avoid taking responsibility.

I am not back peddling at all. I still say he is. Your trying to force this argument in an area where you have expertise and I dont. Nice trick. wont work



You've been called out on the facts and you're not answering - you think that makes us believe you to be an honest person?

I am not answering? huh? I have responded to all of your questions! it is you whom did not respond to my second to last rebuttal to YOU!

I think what you mean is that I am not giving you the answers you would like.

I dont care what you think about me.



And I never said anything about how "smart" I am in relation to Lo, nor did I comment at all on his general intelligence.

You dont need to. It is inferred in your entire arguement. It's called shadow logic. It's a political method of debate.




I do challenge his knowledge of the areas he claims expertise in.

Yes you do, and even when it is unrelated to MY DISCUSSION HERE. You want to start a new thread about his work? go for it. just dont expect me to join in, and dont accuse me of not backing anything up when I have clarified.



. And I have not found "one paper of his that I can find contention with" - I have already addressed two papers of his and one "rebuttal" - scientifically, in detail - where I see basic and fundamental errors of science in all of them, and I see various claims and statements made by him that simply don't make sense.


Then next time you see him, ask him about that.



And as I said before, the issue of whether he is absolutely correct in one or two derived items is not the point. The point is that I see errors and misconceptions of science that are so basic and fundamental that it leads me to actually question his bona-fides as a scientist.

What thinker things the prover proves. Your on a mission to discredit him in one area to PROVE ME FALSE in another.



So I certainly don't make the error that I simply dismiss everything he says simply because I disagree with one theory of his - to claim I do is blatant misrepresentation in itself.

Then why bring it into the discussion TO ME when I have clarified the topic?

Who cares? I dont care if you disagree with him, nor do I care if Dr. Lo has written four or five papers on bad science.

I came here to find information regarding the Randi Challenge, and your introducing more strawmen than the prop department on the wizard of oz.




Let's make it clear. If someone is presented to me as a true catholic and an expert in catholicism, and then makes the claim that God and Jesus don't exist, that the pope is gay, that Satan is the true God, that the true practice of the catholic church is to sacrifice virgins and kill chickens - then I think I am quite justified in saying, "I don't believe this person is really a true catholic, because everything he says is at odds with what I know about the subject of catholicism". I don't say that this person is automatically wrong in anything he says - I do say that I don't trust his opinions about what constitutes catholicism.

Ok, who cares? If I say he is a TRUE catholic and is also a priest, and he prints a story refuting the crusifiction, that doesnt mean the man was never baptized, nor does it have to do with him taking the Randi Challenge and my intentions here.




You have represented Lo as an expert in physics and specifically in quantum mechanics.

Please copy and paste my exact words on Dr. Lo. I represent as such no more than his own phd.




You have told us that he has scientific proofs based on his expertise of the existence of "qi". However we can see that firstly his expertise in very basic physics and scientific procedure is highly questionable, as also is his apparent knowledge of quantum mechanics. So I should just take your and his word for it that his work on "qi" is totally sound, when his other work in similar and related areas is so badly flawed?

I never said you had to believe me at all, now your introducing another strawman. I dont expect you to beleive me, and I stated over and over that arguing for proof is NOT WHY I CAME HERE.

Your a bit naft, my friend



And please don't come out with the tired old "deterministic materialist paradigm" crap - that is the fall back position of just about every liar when they're cornered on facts. It's a ridiculous and overused straw man that simply indicates that the person in question has lost the argument.

lol, I am sure I would lose the false and irrelevant arguement you wish to draw me in on.



You claimed that Lo was a legitimate physicist.

yes I did.





Physics is a mainstream discipline with well established rules and procedures. It is not a question of "belief systems" to see his pronouncements are at odds with physics any more than I have to have a catholic belief system to see that my Satanist above doesn't qualify as a "true catholic".

Since dr. lo is not available to argue his work, your arguement against his reads like he said she said, and now you wish to provide commentary on your critique as if that was objective. that's funny.





And this is an example of your honesty?

It is an example of your imagination and deceptive way of trying to pull me into an argument where you have expertise and I dont.


After criticising me above by falsely claiming that I wanted to simply reject anything against my "paradigm", you now compound the error further by trying to lump me in with every other critic so we can be conveniently dismissed as a group.

since you all are i nferring the same thing and providing the same debate tactic, yes, you are in a set called 'Dr. Lo detractors' and I am in a set called 'Representing the Randi Challenge by a phd'



Our individual and rational arguments can be safely lumped together and rejected in entirety without consideration because we're all just evil skeptics. Which is pretty much what racists tend to do incidentally. You have no idea what my ability to understand anything is, but that doesn't stop you making claims about it does it?

YOUR TELLING ME YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND by the way you argue and infer irrationally and irrelevantly.





Dr Lo's understanding of basic physics is extremely relevant to the claim that he has a scientific "proof" of anything that involves physics.
I would imagine so, yes




I cannot and do not say he is wrong about "qi" - I haven't seen any evidence yet. I can and do say that I don't trust that he is an authority on certain areas of physics as claimed. It's quite simple and I cannot see why you cannot understand such a simple concept

Yes, you can say that. but to ARGUE it with me is IRRELEVANT. Why dont you go start a new thread to discuss it?



And you can fantasize all you like about what we do in our heads. The simple fact is that you are dishonest. You have been caught out several times already and your little tirade above only confirms the fact.

again, I have stated my intentions, clarified, and have been consistant.



I took a look at your web site to see what "OS 0 1 2" was all about.

good, I am glad you did



And I saw your comments about the Iraq war and the behaviour of dishonest politicians who make false claims about weapons of mass destruction etc. I took a look because although I doubted that there was anything to it, I was nonetheless interested and I wanted to find out about it and also to give it fair chance to see whether it stood up logically and on its own merits. I also note that you have claimed that what you do is an example of it.

yes



Well, congratulations, you have proved it to be unmitigated crap!

huh? let's say I was dishonest here, how does that make OS 012 false in the logical sense again? can you explain?

Sir, even if I fail at applying it does not make it false.



You don't actually do what you claim on that site, instead you lie, evade and distort like the best of the dishonest politicians.

I have been consistant and have OVER clarified my consistancy. You wish me to argue something irrelevant to my intentions and outside of why i came here, so it is YOU who is being deceptive.



You complain that politicians mislead people by presenting false information about WMD and presenting it as though it were true by misrepresenting claims of alleged experts etc.

yes i do



Then you come on here and do exactly the same thing by bringing in a highly dubious alleged "expert" on physics and representing his claims as fact.

Sir, your a naft one, here you go trying to REINTRODUCE another misleading statement. I came here to discuss the Randi challenge and CLARIFIED I am NOT HERE to discuss PROOF OF Qi.

If I state that Einsten has proof of relativity in 1910, but I dont claim to argue it, am I lying or misrepresenting or just trying to get the man a grant?



When challenged on the actual facts, your response is "I don't know, nor do I care whether what he says is true or not". Oh what a fine example of honesty you are!

You mean when challenged on what you present as actual facts IRRELEVANT to my STATED and CLARIFIED intentions.





And you know something? The politicians are better than you are.

your funny funny



Because you know it's wrong to misrepresent information, you are well aware of the dangers of false and misleading information, and the danger of not checking the facts before speaking.

I am not a reporter and am not here to present an official presentation of anything. If I make a common mistake, I clarify. what are you a fascsist or something? your previous rebuttal to me accuses me over and over deceptivly of all sorts of things your accusing me of now.



You have the benefit of hindsight, knowing how much harm misrepresentation can do. I have no way of knowing if the politicians were aware of these things, but you certainly are. And in spite of all of that, you come on here and do exactly the same thing, and all you have to say when someone challenges the "facts" you present is - to use your own words - "To me, this is still a mystery, and one to be honest I am not at all concerned about nor interested in, since it does not relate to a field of current interest for me".


Sir, again, your wishing to mislead the audience. I have CLARIFIED my intentions here over and over.

I didnt bring up Dr. Lo's previous research, you all did. I never stated any 'facts' about it, you all did. Some of you have called the man a fraud, and do ANY of you know Dr. lo is a fraud? no.


You claim that Lo has published peer reviewed papers on "qi" - but in reality we later find out that you don't know if that's true (nor do you care if it's true).

Since I clarifed that I assume it is true because he told me and I have no reason to distrust the man, your misleading the arguement again.



You claim that Lo has a tenure at Melbourne, then we find out later that you also don't know if that's true - nor do you care, because if you did you would have made an effort to check your facts before speaking wouldn't you?

I clarified that 'facts' that I speak of. If I make a clerical error, I state it. He WAS at university of melbourne as a physics professor, that is my FACT, his exact position I am unclear of, but perhaps it WAS tenure, I dont know.

Lol, if you guys want to fine me for spitting on the sidewalk to prove your point, go for it. It is MISLEADING especially since you are trying to represent MY INTENTIONS here, which I know CLEARLY WHAT THEY ARE, and have made the HONEST attempt to EXPLAIN THEM and clarify.



So please cut all the self-righteous crap - you have shown yourself for what you are, and it's not pretty from this angle. [/B]

You have tried in numerous deceptive ways to paint an image of me in your head which is misleading, yes, I accuse you of because you are trying to defend your BELIEF SYSTEM.

It's an old trick that doesnt work. try again, go waste more of your time.

Funny not ONE of you try to argue or discuss ANY ISSUE I say I am qualified to discuss, not one.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
[B]I was in the process of composing a short essay on Bubblebrain's "OS 0 1 2" waffle, but I do believe that it would not come close to matching Pragmatist's effort above.


lol, well, he needs all the help he can get, even from the little brains. Go for it

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Mojo
[B]Anyone can tell what the claims you have made on this forum are by reading your posts.

indeed.



If you have posted a claim on a forum, then you have made that claim. It is reasonable to assume that you mean what you say.

indeed



If you're going to take the Humpty Dumpty approach to language, and insist that what you post means whatever you want it to mean regardless of its actual content, then it's a complete waste of time trying to communicate with you.

lol, hey dr Elmer, if you wish to invoke Humpty Dumpty to back up your point, I can clearly point out that your only addressing one of his broken shells, and NOT THE REST IN RELATIONSHIP to them.

It is you whom is being selective about what 'claims' I am making.

the BIGGEST CLAIM i have made is my intention here which was to find info and research the Randi challenge and NOT discuss proof of Qi. I have also claimed to CLARIFY my intentions to the effect.

Catch up, Dr. Elmer, and go sit on the wall, eh?

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
the BIGGEST CLAIM i have made is my intention here which was to find info and research the Randi challenge and NOT discuss proof of Qi.You may feel that this was your "BIGGEST CLAIM." To me, your biggest (certainly your most astonishing) was this one: Originally posted by Bubblefish
Since only I can know for certain my intentions here, only I therefore can know what my claims are. This despite the fact that we are discussing claims that you have made on this forum, and which can therefore be read by anyone here! I have also claimed to CLARIFY my intentions to the effect. Another claim that you have conspicuously failed to back up. ;)

[Bubblefish]

Oh Dr. Elmer

Apparently that Bubblefish in your head is just at it again. My he is a tricky fellow!

Allow the real bubblefish to clarify for the cartoons your running.

Only I can know for certain what my intentions are. If my intention was to decieve, I would know that. I know my intentions were expressed via my original post, or via clarifications on minutiae that you all seem to pick on like hungry vultures, trying so so so so hard to justify all of this time your spending dealing and dancing with ol bubblefish.

Since I have clarified my intentions (the controversial 'claims') over and over and over, ad nauseum, I can only assume that I will keep you all coming to this thread for weeks, months, years even,til you cant accept that simple fact, or tire of this silly game.

So! Until then, I guess that means a sort of nurturing bond is developing between us, sort of like Abbot and Costello, (your the fat one).

When's your birthday?

[pmurray]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Since I have clarified my intentions (the controversial 'claims') over and over and over, ad nauseum
It seems we have a problem with language here. When we say "what is your claim", we are not asking "why did you post". That is not what "claim" means.

The million dollar challenge is a challenge to do a paranromal thing. It can be any paranormal thing. But you must say what paranormal thing you can do, and then you must do it.

This saying of what you can do is what the "claim" is. In english, we say "I claim I can levitate", or "I claim I can predict the future".

Now that I have explained what the words mean, you will understand better why people here are asking you what you claim is.

Perhaps it is interesting that you are working on a theoretical understanding of Qi, but the JREF is not really interested in that. You must show thar you can do a thing.

[Bubblefish]

Wow, an actual rational poster.

So far I have found about 3 of them here.


Hello Pmurry

Originally posted by pmurray
It seems we have a problem with language here.

ahh,yes, the eternally recapitulating culprit. I agree. I dont think many here understand the english language to well.



When we say "what is your claim", we are not asking "why did you post". That is not what "claim" means

Yes.




The million dollar challenge is a challenge to do a paranromal thing. It can be any paranormal thing. But you must say what paranormal thing you can do, and then you must do it.

Yes, I agree. And like I said, we are looking forward to moving ahead with doing it. That is our intention. My thread on the other forum, as stated, was to 'recon' the situation abit relative to our approach.

If that is simply not how things are done here, then I apologize for making that error. However, I stated my intentions in what I believed to be clear and rational language.



This saying of what you can do is what the "claim" is. In english, we say "I claim I can levitate", or "I claim I can predict the future".

lol. yes, I can follow. Apparently, there is a 'claim' that Qi can be measured, and it's effects recorded empirically.



Now that I have explained what the words mean, you will understand better why people here are asking you what you claim is.

there is or has been no confusion here, at least on my end, but I appreciate your willingness to help resolve the matter.

The claim is that there will be someone who not only can manipulate Qi and use it for healing, but also holds a Phd in Theoritical Physics, who will prove the recorded effects of Qi, and then take the Randi Challenge.

That is the claim.



Perhaps it is interesting that you are working on a theoretical understanding of Qi, but the JREF is not really interested in that. You must show thar you can do a thing. [/B]

Agreed. And this will happen. That is one of the reasons why I am not here to discuss the proof. I came here to ask a few questions and get some background. That was accomplished.

Next, only the most perfect steps will be taken to show that there is nothing mystical or paranormal about Qi at all, using reason, logic, empirical method, and rational explanation. Which was related to my original question, I wondered if we would still qualify for the challenge if the concered parties finds a rational explanation for Qi too.

See, our side doesnt believe in the paranormal either, thus, we can't honestly say relative to our POV that we can prove something paranormal exists. We can only show that Qi is not paranormal, and that it can be measured and tested.

Or so goes the 'claim'.

So let's all wait and see, shall we?

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I took this statement of yours "You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's work, nor make claims about having proof of qi, yet you make comments like the one above about him having proof of the existence of qi."

to mean that I have somehow misrepresented myself in my intentions here. Since I never said i was going to argue or present proof of Qi, ever, indeed, clarifying otherwise, your statement reads to me that I should 'back' something up.

And it still reads that way to me, but fine, you clarified, now I am satisfied.

Yes, I am saying you should back something something up. You have claimed that Lo has proof of "qi". You have offered no evidence in support of that claim. The statement "I'll show it sometime, eventually", doesn't exactly meet the criterion. At the present moment in time you have made a claim which you can't back up. I assume that a honest person would not make such a claim unless he had already seen the proof himself - but if you haven't seen the proof, or you don't understand it, then it was rather unwise to make the claim, no?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
How is the statement " i think it to be funny that a phd has proof regarding qi and taking the Randi challenge" an assertion of ANYTHING other than I am ASSERTING I find it funny?

Yes, I assume he has proof for reasons other than I am not disclosing here, and since I said my intention here is NOT to provide that arguement, I am now back at square one with you. You just argued yourself into a circle.

READ THIS ASSERTION: I came here inquiring about the randi challenge in relationship to a phd who claims he can prove it using empirical testing.

That statement is also an assertion that the PhD has proof - Jeez! You claim to be developing a rational dialectic but you have trouble with simple logic?

You assume he has proof - in other words you don't know if he has proof. So your statement that he has proof is not necessarily true. I didn't argue myself into any circle, my argument is perfectly logical and stands on its own merit.

I can accept your last assertion - but it means that I cannot trust the veracity of your previous assertions which contradict that.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Now your assuming how I came to a conclusion.

How can I possibly be assuming that when that is what you explicitly said! You said quite clearly that you believed that Lo had proof because he told you that he did. Now that latter statement is either true or false - if it is true then I cannot be assuming anything about how you came to the conclusion because I am taking you at your word. If it is false then my error is assuming that you are actually telling the truth! Do you really want to argue that I am wrong because you are actually a liar? :rolleyes:

The fact remains that you made a definite assertion, but we now discover that your assertion was based on what you were told and what you assumed - you said so yourself.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
non-sequitor.

Nonsense, of course it follows. I note only that you've evaded the point. If I tell you one improbable thing you wouldn't believe me - but if Lo tells you an improbable thing you believe him without question. It's legitimate to ask why you indulge in such an inconsistency.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
because santa claus DOES NOT EXIST, and even if he did, I am not arguing for his existence, just like I was not arguing for the existence of Qi.

Irrelevant. I asked you why you believe an improbable thing on faith alone from Lo, but not from me. I didn't say you were arguing for its existence.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
As an hello and introduction.

Certainly an odd way saying hello and introducing oneself but hey, you're from California, so I forgive you. :)

Originally posted by Bubblefish
yes, HERE meaning the JREF forum. Since I clearly posted a link to the relevant discussion, your comment does not apply.

So this thread is about the challenge and your associated claims.

And just in case there is any doubt:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986300#post1870986300


My friend, i did not come here to discuss OS 012, rather the challenge I mentioned above.



Originally posted by Bubblefish
no. you should also then read my first post here.

I did. It mentioned claims about a PhD having proof of qi.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
really? how so? can you explain?

Because your statements are contradictory, as I have already mentioned in detail. If you make multiple statements that are mutually contradictory then it means that one or more of said statements must be false. A person who knowingly makes false statements is a liar.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
lol, hey, catch up pokey. look at the date and time when I started this thread, and then look at the date and time when I started the other one, k?

And the relevance of that is...?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
huh? is this really the critical thinking man's minefield?

Look, when I said 'negotiate' that means to RANDI and the application process, not with you goons here.

Where did I say you had to negotiate with us? I repeat - you said that you were not Lo's agent. But you also said that you were his representative who was authorised to negotiate on his behalf with whomever - it is irrelevant who you were supposed to negotiate with - the fact remains that you claimed in one place that you were his agent and that you claimed in another that you were not his agent.

Regardless of what kind of agent you were, the fact is that you were not telling the truth when you said you were not his agent. Now, of course I have no problem with you being his agent in some things and not others - all I note is that you didn't tell the whole truth the first time round. Now, I assumed that it was simply the case that you had a communication problem and couldn't make yourself clear, that was my original point if you recall. But as you have insisted that you do not have a communication problem, or a problem making yourself clear - I can only assume then that the ambiguity in your remarks was intentional in which case you are being deceptive. Or that you do have a communication problem and are in denial in which case you are being deceptive with yourself as well as us. It's real simple...

Originally posted by Bubblefish
consider:

YES, I dont see how you can confuse that I meant to negotiate the application process with you lunatics! Are you all really that dense here? my lord.

No matter what you confuse it to be, I said I am not the man's representative except for the randi challenge. Which means that anything about his work, papers, taxes, women on the side, drug use, political leanings, or grocery list is NOT WHAT I represent!

I didn't make any such confusion. I never was under the impression you had to negotiate anything with us. Nor did I confuse what you were his representative in respect of after you explained it. I merely commented that if you insist you do not have a communication problem, you must be deceptive, because either you are being deceptive about your lack of a communication problem, or you were being wilfully deceptive when you made statements like "I am not his agent". Like I said, it's real simple...

Originally posted by Bubblefish
let me make it REAL SIMPLE

Dr. Lo and Bubblefish =inquiring about Randi Challenge=JREF THREAD
Dr.Lo and Bubblefish=negotiate Application process with appropiate parties

Dr.Lo=Phd, peer reviews, research, proof of Qi

I am and have been UBER consistant.

i would recommend you stop talking to the bubblefish in your head, your clearly being confused by the wrong bubblefish

Oh I get it, don't worry. But you have not been consistent let alone UBER consistent. I don't need to talk to the "bubblefish" in my head because firstly I don't have bubblefish in my head (thank goodness), secondly I don't want bubblefish in my head, thank you. The only confusion I have is in relation to the contradictory posts on here made by a person calling himself "bubblefish". Capish?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
such as?

Such as the specific examples I've already given.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
you first have to point the contradiction, not the percieved contradiction in your mind BEFORE the clarification.

Until then, your arguing a false contradiction that does not exist

My original point to you was that your statements appeared to be contradictory and that I believed you had not expressed yourself clearly and that you seemed to have a communication problem. You insisted that you did not have a communication problem and so I was left with various bits of data:

1. Various contradictory statements
2. A statement that you were communicating clearly and without any problem.

Now, it is self evident that if 2 is true, then 1 implies that those were real contradictions not simply perceived ones. If however I take your new position that there were no contradictions but that you had simply not communicated yourself clearly then of course 2 must be false and as such represents a real contradiction in its own right.

So it doesn't particularly matter whether there is a real contradiction in 1 or a real contradiction in 2 - either way there is a real contradiction which is not merely a false perception.

You're the one arguing in circles - I guess I ought to give you a piece of advice that is a particular favorite of mine (and Hans's as well) - when in a hole, stop digging. Every time you try to wriggle out of one of your contradictions you just compound the situation by contradicting yourself further.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I'm doing fine.

And just how long have you been having these delusions? :D

Originally posted by Bubblefish
it shows the depth of my ability to be sarcastic after I have addressed the same question about a zillion times spun about a million ways.

So you were being sarcastic to Mojo. Why? I checked you know. You were asked the question by 3 posters, Sezme, Mojo and Ashles. The question posed by Mojo and Ashles was more specific and somewhat different to the question asked by Sezme. You only responded to Sezme. You ignored Mojo completely and didn't reply to his (very polite) questions at all, nor did you respond to Ashles, who only asked because you were ignoring Mojo - and who even gave you an example of what we were looking for. So Sezme asked you once and you responded to the question once, but you can count that as twice if you want since you replied once, he replied and you replied again. So your addressing the same question "about a zillion times spun about a million ways" - refers to a maximum of two responses that you actually made.

And I still don't know why you ignored and were sarcastic to Mojo who initially was extremely polite toward you.

Are you always prone to such extreme exaggeration?

And to clarify further, you did not follow up on this:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986560#post1870986560

Dr. Lo has published his evidence in peer reviewed journals. I am not sure if they are available on the web or not. Would you care to read them?

It terms of Dr. Lo's peer reviewed papers, if you are serious, I will see if I can get you a copy.


Originally posted by Bubblefish
Yes, and I clarified that because I assume if he tells me that, he has.

ANd then I clarified that again, and now I am clarifiying that AGAIN.

and I STILL ASSUME HE HAS.

O.K. so you insist that there is nothing dishonest about asserting things to be true that you don't know to be true. Funny, courts of law wouldn't agree, they call that misrepresentation.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
google?

No such papers show up on Google. Nor do any such papers show up on any journal search or publication list. Therefore, I will now assert that such papers do not exist and I am calling you directly a liar. Go ahead - prove me wrong.

And of course, you refuse to discuss the papers which do show up on Google - and on the very site that you initially provided. I see claims but no evidence in support of them.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
www.google.com.... type in dr.lo's name...not difficult at all

No, not difficult at all - and totally irrelevant since no such papers appear on a Google search. Put up or shut up.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
oh my god I cant believe this is a critical thinking crowd. your really giving the bunch of us a bad name. I did ask him, and he told me he would make avialable the paper relevant to THIS topic when it is published in THREE MONTHS.

Go read how many times I wrote that, Johnny Cochran.

So if the paper will only be published in 3 months time, then your claim that it had already been published was false. And you have proven yourself to be a liar. I was being generous and assuming that I was merely misunderstanding you due to the communication problem which you insist you don't have. I thought it was better to assume that, than simply assume you were a liar. But if you want it to be the latter, then so be it.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
here we go again, back in the stange loop circle inference that I have clarified about a million times....

More exaggeration.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Your right, I should have said 'you all'. correction noted. my bad.

gee, you have just scored one official bubblefish point. go buy yourself a coke.

Just an observation. It may help if you stop addressing the monolithic skeptic strawman in your head and actually addressed individuals and the actual points they make.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Yes, and I still do. I take the man for his word. i dont have time to hire a friggin private eye for every answer he gives me. and I dont need to even explain myself to you my reasons for trusting him. Since I have made that clarification not one but numerous times, your simply badgering me and are being a troll.

More exaggeration and straw men. It would take 10 seconds to simply ask him for a list of references to the alleged papers. If he's a scientist then he knows what they are and also that we want them given that he has been reading these threads (or were you lying about that?). The fact that he can't or doesn't want to give them is very very telling indeed.

I'm not badgering you at all, I'm replying to your various claims and assertions. We have now established that you don't know various things which you originally asserted you did know and that you can't actually back up your claims with any evidence - that is the purpose of skeptical enquiry - to discover the truth. You thought you could come on to a skeptic site and throw around claims without anybody challenging you and asking for evidence...? Now that really is funny! :D

And nobody is saying you shouldn't trust him. I have asked however why you should trust him enough to blatantly ignore the evidence presented that implies that he is not all that he seems to be. And whether you trust him or not does not justify you making assertions that what he says is true when in reality you don't actually know if it's true or not, and you're not even qualified to assess whether it is or not.

By the way, did you honestly believe that you could be his representative and negotiator in respect of a skeptic challenge when you consider simple skeptical questions to be "trolling and badgering"? Perhaps you're not qualified to be his representative either.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
wow. how long did it take you to come to that conclusion? I take my friends words on blind faith all the time in simple conversation when there is no reason to distrust otherwise.

Oh, that is truly sad... :(

Originally posted by Bubblefish
and your on crack.

Ad hominem and evasion noted.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
you just created a false bivalency that does not properly model environment.

Let me make it simple for you.

Someone asked me if he has published work. Dr. Lo told me he has published work on water crystals. I assume that means that he has published work. i say he has published work. I ask if some of you would like to review it, because I assumed it could be made available. I asked Dr. Lo, he said in three months the next peer review on this study will be made available. I said that to you (all). Get it? cuz I am a messenger. And I will also assist in negotiating with the appropiate parties when the time is right regarding the challenge.

YOU ARE NOT THE APPROPIATE PARTIES. you are a bunch of goons on a discussion forum harassing me. I dont OWE you ANY papers to read. I simply ASKED if you want to read them!

It is clear you do. And you can read them when they are available to you in three months.

Dont like the answer? Who cares. that is the answer you get and that is what i have been consistant with.

No I didn't. And I don't believe that you "simply asked if we wanted to read them" without intending to imply that they actually existed. And since you did say that they did explicitly there's no contest. You lied, you were caught out. Wriggle, bluster and evade all you like, the evidence is clear for all to see.

And as for "who cares", that really sums up your attitude - "truth - who cares?"... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Oh my god this is the slowest bunch i have ever encountered. Where did you get that idea? from my METAPHORIC EXAMPLE?

Now your deceptive tactics are showing up well. You know perfectly well that was part of a compound statement - and it is a legitimate question in any event - you have some objection to me asking if you're his press secretary? I don't know what you are - which is why I followed that statement with the rest of the compound which explicitly asked what you were, if you were not his press secretary.

Plus, this sounds pretty much like a press secretary to me:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870992236#post1870992236

yes. I am helping Dr. Lo translate his project into media, and we are looking for the proper direction to go in.


Originally posted by Bubblefish
ZILCH! good lord man, do you pay attention at all?

I assume that you have at least followed this thread or the other one somewhat to give yourself a background so you dont look like an ass when you post to me. I guess i assumed wrong. I am not going to keep repeating myself ad infinitum with the conspiracy crowd here.

I note that your answer consists solely of ad-hominem and evades answering my simple question. Why don't you just answer the question? What are you scared of? I repeat - "what precisely is your role in his publication of peer reviewed papers?"

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I hope this time I am spelling it you read it.

Yet another evasion - interesting...

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I DONT CARE if you dont understand what it is, get it? i dont have to explain it. But if a say I am representing him regarding a possible challenge, I am sure you can figure it out. (wait, after reading this bizarre post of yours, I should not assume that either)

And yet more evasion... very interesting indeed. Hit a sore point did I?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I ASSUME you know what your talking about here. Do I have to go research the net to prove it or can I simply take your statement at face value, asking you to clarify where I dont understand?

DON'T assume - check!!!!! Yes, you should research it for yourself (on the net or otherwise as you wish), and no you should not take my statement at face value - that is the whole point of critical and skeptical thinking - not simply believing things and following like a sheep but actually checking things out for yourself and actually learning something along the way. Get it now?

And of course nothing in that precludes you asking as well if necessary.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
We=parties concerned with challenge to Randi on Qi. Since I naturally distinguish US from YOU, I mean 'we' for simplicity's sake.

Confusing? fine, then I have clarified. About a million times.

oh! gee, ask your self, when I say a 'million times' am I using metaphor or am I lying and your about to go recount all my posts?

Your now wasting my time. Go recount my posts and waste yours instead, please.

I dont need to readdress the rest of your post since your asking and infering the same thing over and over and over.

Whilst I understand it's a metaphor it might also be a ridiculous exaggeration, so yes, maybe I'll go and recount your posts. :) And no you didn't clarify it before, you still haven't explicitly, although reading between the lines I take it that you are saying that you do not have any role in Lo's work at all, and that all your references to what "we" were doing refer only to what Lo (may possibly be) doing, and your references to what "we" had done refer only to things that Lo may possibly do at some speculative time in the future. And in summary, you don't have anything to do with his work. You don't have anything to do with his publication of papers or peer review. You don't know anything about his work. You don't understand his work and you're not qualified to even begin to understand it. And you're too lazy to even attempt to make an effort to understand it. You don't know whether what he told you is true or false, and you don't care whether or not it is true or false. Furthermore you have made various claims but you don't actually know if those claims are true or not, and once again you don't even care if they are true or false or whether you mislead anyone into believing that they are true.

I guess it begs the question, what use are you? You have nothing of substance to offer.

And no I didn't ask and "infer" the same thing over and over - I did explain the same thing over and over because you were obviously not understanding it.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Ahh, I see Pragmatist would rather introduce another strawman and avoid the previous rebuttal to him.

So be it.

Liar. I said I would address your other posting when I had more time, I've been busy and just replied to your latest one before the other because it was more interesting at that moment in time.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Not for me to say.

Irrelevant

It was you who raised the point, if it's irrelevant why did you raise it... :rolleyes:

Anyway, evasion noted, no substantive answer to my question.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
he said she said. irrelevant

Again, I was answering a point that you raised. So once again, evasion noted.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I dont see how I have to take responsibility to a claim Dr. Lo made in the 90's.

I dont have the interest to do the 'math', I already mentioned that. I am not going to get sucked into your strawman.

You might like to go look up the definition of a straw man argument, you don't seem to understand what it is - I am not resorting to such tactics, I don't need to. You however are...

I did not say you had to take responsibility for a claim that Lo made in the 90's. I said that you should take responsibility for the claims you made in 2005 - on this very forum no less. You claimed that Lo had "scientific proof". You now admit that you don't know if that's true and you cannot offer any evidence to support your own claim. Who exactly is throwing straw around here?

I didn't say anything about having to do math, the issue can be understood quite easily without any math.

And you admit that you are not interested in making any effort to find out if your claims are true or not. That tells us everything we need to know about you and your regard for the truth.

And none of that takes into account the fact that you claimed that Lo's work on qi was based on his work on "water clusters" - so the "water clusters" papers are very relevant.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986535#post1870986535

Dr. Lo's says it can be measured with QM through what he calls water clusters.

and

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870992255#post1870992255

Dr. Lo has a theory regarding Qi that he calls 'water clusters'. According to him, he had his research paper published and reviewed a few years back.


Originally posted by Bubblefish
Lack of interest in doing so. Irrelevant to why I came here.

Yes, you're here to make easy money out of Randi (newsflash: it ain't going to be that easy!). You don't care whether Lo's stuff is true or false or whether what you say may mislead anyone, you just want the cash. I understand. ;)

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I never said 'expert' I said respected. I would imagine a Physics professor whom has held some sort of position, whatever they are classified as, be it lecturing, sitting, tenure, or visiting, at cal tech, oxford, university of chicago and melbourne to be a respected physicist.

Crap! You're now trying to say he's not an expert? You were crowing about his expertise:


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986357#post1870986357

It is the argument of Dr. Lo, (who in addition to holding a PhD in Theoretical Physics from The University of Chicago, as well as a sitting or lecturing academic at Cal Tech, University of Melbourne, and Oxford, is also a doctor of Oriental Medicine) that ‘Qi’ is an actual substance that can be measured using QM.


http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1870986388

i dont know if this may go over Randi's head or not, after all, I dont know if he would be qualifed, in the scientific sense, to challenge the data on these machines.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986546#post1870986546

Ririon: As for QM, if you mean quantum mechanics, it has nothing to do with Qi as far as I know. And I use quantum mechanics on a daily basis.

So does Dr. Lo, as he has lectured extensively on it. He apparently disagrees with you.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986649#post1870986649

Dr. James Fallon is in charge of interpreting all test results from this ongoing study. He is famous for showing that brain cells can regenerate and his research has made stem cell research viable in this regard. His credentials are impecable, I am sure he understands the method properly and I can assure you when it comes to empirical testing, we are in the right hands.


yes, and that is also Dr. Lo's position and everyone else involved. These are distinguished men of science that are working on this, I do hope you understand that.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870991530#post1870991530

a former sitting professor with tenure in physics at Melbourne university


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870991670#post1870991670

the man has something like 8 patents and a distinguished career, so if you disagree with him philosophically, at least respect his level of accomplishment as a scientist,

Also, his current research is very professional, and he doesnt want to sully it with Randi hype. Already, someone on this forum contacted a collegue of his about all of this, I mean, come on, be a bit respectful, these are professional people.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870994135#post1870994135

I said he published peer reviewed work (not surprising have sitting tenure as a physics professor with 8 or so patents) and asked if someone here wanted to review them.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870994258#post1870994258

If dr. lo was a quack, I dont think he would have had sitting tenure at University of melbourne in physics.


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870994388#post1870994388

Humpf, quakery does not qualify one for a phd or a respected academic position.

That is my claim, that's it man. Dr Lo has a real PHD, not a fake one. And it was real enough to give him a respected sitting. He has a professional life.


Originally posted by Bubblefish
lol, well pragmatist, if I am guilty of doing that in these threads, then most certainly are all of you.

And I still dont see what I have claimed, via clarification, that has warranted that response.

I have clarified where I have come from, and now your trying to spin and reintroduce the entire arguement all over from another angle, trying to attach me to a paper Dr. Lo wrote in the 90's.

So you make a claim, you get called on it, you back down and change your story, contradicting what you originally said and that is a "clarification" but there is no misrepresentation involved even when what you say is provably false... gotcha!

And as far as straw men go, I haven't tried to attach you to Lo's paper, that is your straw man. I've addressed Lo's papers (plural) in the interests of scientific accuracy and for the benefit of anyone who wanted to consider the issues further - and that is quite independent of my specific comments to you except in instances where you have made related claims. You think you are the only person reading this? But guess what? Critiques like mine have a name in science, it's called peer review - the whole idea of publishing a paper for peer review is in the hope that it will attract criticism in order to arrive at the truth - and if you think my criticism is harsh then you would be horrified at what usually goes on in peer review, I'm a pussycat compared to some others! The simple fact that you don't want me to address Lo's paper speaks volumes!

You've already said that you are not the slightest bit interested in making any effort to determine whether Lo's science is reputable, but you still represent the man in the hope of getting money and make claims about his work.

And finally, you yourself said that his work on qi which you raised here was based on the "water clusters" work. Now that it's being shown to be B.S. you suddenly want to disassociate yourself from it.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
get real. I posted dr. lo's response to a critique because I found it on the internet in the links you all posted to me. I did the same thing you all did.

Many of you accused him of fraud, and where does it say that? All you have done if is found contention on an irrelevant topic.

No you didn't do the same thing we all did. You claimed that he had "scientific proof" of qi based on water clusters. You claimed he had published (already) peer reviewed papers on qi. You claimed he had sitting tenure at Melbourne. And so on. You now admit that you don't know and don't care if those things are true or not. That defines you.

And I did not accuse him of fraud. In fact I don't actually recall anyone accusing him of fraud. Please would you point out where anyone actually accused him of fraud? The only similar comment that I can find is that Zep called him a quack. So please show the evidence in support of your claim that "many of you accused him of fraud".

I have been perfectly clear in what I said. I have said that I find his science to be highly suspect and that I find it hard to believe that he has real knowledge of the scientific areas in which he claims expertise. Now, of course, if in fact he doesn't have knowledge of those areas but claims that he does, then that is fraud. But unless/until some further evidence is shown I cannot and do not accuse him of fraud.

But what Lo did and what you have claimed about him and his work are two different things that I have never confused. Your attempt to represent my comments out of context are the real straw man arguments in all this. I have called him on his science and I have called you on your claims about his science - the fact that your response to my doing so is to say, "I don't know and I don't care whether Lo's science is valid or not" shows that you are irresponsible and that you don't care if you mislead others. That makes you a fraud, not Lo.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
IT IS IRRELEVANT TO MY DISCUSSION

Crap! I repeat: you introduced the issue of Lo's credibility at the outset. You were chortling at the idea that your scientist could make a fool of Randi. Now you're back peddling at full speed as you begin to realise that your "scientist" may not be as credible as you originally thought. It's just one big face saving exercise for you which unfortunately is having precisely the opposite effect!

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I am not back peddling at all. I still say he is. Your trying to force this argument in an area where you have expertise and I dont. Nice trick. wont work

You still say he is. You also say you don't know if he is and you don't care if he is. Yeah, right! :) It doesn't take any special expertise to smell the B.S. here.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I am not answering? huh? I have responded to all of your questions! it is you whom did not respond to my second to last rebuttal to YOU!

I think what you mean is that I am not giving you the answers you would like.

I dont care what you think about me.

"Responding" and "answering" are two different things. I didn't ask you for responses I asked you for answers the fact that your responses don't contain many answers speaks for itself. And I hadn't got round to answering your other post yet, I was busy and a bit out of sync. I've answered it already and it contains a few fine examples of where you haven't answered.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
You dont need to. It is inferred in your entire arguement. It's called shadow logic. It's a political method of debate.

Oh jeez! Please get a dictionary and look up the meaning of words before you use them. I think you mean it is implied in my argument. No, it is not. I specifically addressed his knowledge and nothing else. You can try to read into it what you like, but what I actually did is a matter of record.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Yes you do, and even when it is unrelated to MY DISCUSSION HERE. You want to start a new thread about his work? go for it. just dont expect me to join in, and dont accuse me of not backing anything up when I have clarified.

Your claims and comments on here are predicated on the idea that you are representing a legitimate scientific attempt to prove the existence of qi. If however you do not believe that it is legtimately scientific and yet maintain nonetheless that it is, then you are committing fraud. And as long as you maintain that it is legitimate science, by a properly qualified and legitimate scientist, then the scientific credibility of that alleged scientist is perfectly and completely related and relevant to your discussion here. It's quite simple.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Then next time you see him, ask him about that.

That's all you have to say? You're not prepared to retract the lie you told that I had only addressed one paper of his? O.K. your loss not mine - credibility wise that is.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
What thinker things the prover proves. Your on a mission to discredit him in one area to PROVE ME FALSE in another.

Oh the naivety! You really don't get it do you? I'll tell you a secret. I don't need to prove you false you've already done that yourself without any help from me! :D

And no, I am not a mission to discredit Lo. I am analysing the scientific credibility of his work. The process is called peer review and you were very much in favour of it when you thought it supported your claims, now that you know better the story has changed.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Then why bring it into the discussion TO ME when I have clarified the topic?

Who cares? I dont care if you disagree with him, nor do I care if Dr. Lo has written four or five papers on bad science.

I came here to find information regarding the Randi Challenge, and your introducing more strawmen than the prop department on the wizard of oz.

Well duh! Because you're the one making claims about it!!!!!

And we are well aware now that you don't care if Lo's science is legitimate or not, your only interest is screwing money out of Randi even if you have to commit fraud to do it.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Ok, who cares? If I say he is a TRUE catholic and is also a priest, and he prints a story refuting the crusifiction, that doesnt mean the man was never baptized, nor does it have to do with him taking the Randi Challenge and my intentions here.

It does matter if you go around spreading his "faith" for him.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Please copy and paste my exact words on Dr. Lo. I represent as such no more than his own phd.

Done. See above. And you're a liar...

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I never said you had to believe me at all, now your introducing another strawman. I dont expect you to beleive me, and I stated over and over that arguing for proof is NOT WHY I CAME HERE.

Your a bit naft, my friend

No you didn't tell me I had to believe you. How does anyone tell someone they have to believe them and enforce it? Ridiculous. You asserted a claim that you do not know to be true and which I believe is false. You offer no evidence to support that claim. Let's get this clear - if that is not why you came here then why did you start throwing ridiculous claims around?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
lol, I am sure I would lose the false and irrelevant arguement you wish to draw me in on.

So now you can read my mind and tell the future as well! Fantastic! So when will you be applying for the challenge on the basis of your fabulous psychic powers?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Since dr. lo is not available to argue his work, your arguement against his reads like he said she said, and now you wish to provide commentary on your critique as if that was objective. that's funny.

Mighty strange that! Lo publishes his work but is not available to argue it? Oh well, so much for peer review. And that is a straw man on your part. You accused me of being tied to a "belief system" I argued that spotting discrepancies between what someone says and what someone does doesn't require a belief system. But you can't answer that point can you? Because it's irrefutable.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
It is an example of your imagination and deceptive way of trying to pull me into an argument where you have expertise and I dont.

I was answering to your claim that you can read the minds of the people on here. I don't have any expertise in reading minds, I don't believe in psychic powers, since you're the one who claims to be able to, then you're the "expert" and it's something of a stretch to claim I am trying to draw you into an argument where I have expertise and you don't!

Originally posted by Bubblefish
since you all are i nferring the same thing and providing the same debate tactic, yes, you are in a set called 'Dr. Lo detractors' and I am in a set called 'Representing the Randi Challenge by a phd'

Do you mean "implying" again? :rolleyes: And like I said, trying to pigeonhole people into convenient denigratory groups so you can dismiss their individual arguments is a nasty and disturbing tactic that is most usually associated with racism and religious fundamentalism.

Anyway, thank you for admitting that is what you are trying to do. But shame on you...

Originally posted by Bubblefish
YOUR TELLING ME YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND by the way you argue and infer irrationally and irrelevantly.

You wouldn't know "rational" if it bit you on the nose mate...but then again that's exactly what it keeps doing, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Yes, you can say that. but to ARGUE it with me is IRRELEVANT. Why dont you go start a new thread to discuss it?

I am arguing with you about the claims you made about various issues including Lo's scientific credibility. Boy, talk about dense... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Bubblefish
again, I have stated my intentions, clarified, and have been consistant.

Consistently dishonest....well....yes...!

:dl:

Originally posted by Bubblefish
huh? let's say I was dishonest here, how does that make OS 012 false in the logical sense again? can you explain?

Sir, even if I fail at applying it does not make it false.

You have claimed that what are doing here is OS 012. You have agreed with me that is what you are doing here. What you are doing here has been shown to be illogical, irrational and dishonest. Therefore if what you are doing here is OS 012, then OS 012 is illogical, irrational and dishonest.

Now of course what you are doing here may not be OS 012 - but since you're the one who defines what it is, and since you're claiming that this is what it is, then I can't see how it can be considered any other way.

Let me quote an extract from your manifesto:

OS 0 1 2 will win all of the time because OS 0 1 2 always upgrades to the dominant idea won in honest discussion amongst global citizens.

So basically, whatever the outcome of any discussion, you automatically declare the winners argument as consisting of OS 012 and define the losers argument as being not OS 012. So you claim that what you are doing on here is OS 012 - but now that you're losing the argument badly, suddenly what you're doing is not OS 012. And if my argument "wins", you declare that what I have been doing is OS 012 and as a result you have really "won" because you introduced OS 012 in the first place.

It's not a logical flaw so much as it is an outright confidence trick. It's a way to pretend you can save face when you are shown to be in error.

This bit I find particularly amusing with respect to your performance on here:

OS 0 1 2 can produce profound results. This is only accomplished in one way and one way only.

Total and complete ruthless honesty. Self honesty and honesty with others is the fuel that operates the mechanisms of OS 012.

Dishonesty in any form is a sign of irrational and poor thinking, a thing of the past.

When performing the dialectic, we are not afraid of making mistakes or being in error, for we rely on our opponents to make our corrections and point out our errors. Thus, pure honest and creative thinking is involved inside of an OS 0 1 2 discussion. OS 0 1 2 can be likened to the art of finding truth by making mistakes.

KEY: Honesty = Integrity. Integrity is a classification of 'synergy'. Human perception has a exalted synergy that functions when human being is honest.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I have been consistant and have OVER clarified my consistancy. You wish me to argue something irrelevant to my intentions and outside of why i came here, so it is YOU who is being deceptive.

Not true as your numerous self-contradictions demonstrate. And all I have done is called you on specific claims you made. I will repeat that indefinitely if necessary because that is the truth and is self-evident upon examination of the record here. Of course you will not admit that you have been inconsistent and contradictory. You change what you say and call it "clarification". Clarification is when someone misinterprets what you say because what you said was ambiguous and you give additional information that supports what you originally said. Clarification is not when you say something false, and then say the opposite.

For example, let's take the statement, "Dr Lo has proof of qi". In reply someone asks the question, "what kind of proof?"

Clarification is when someone says in response to the question, "Dr Lo has scientific proof that was peer reviewed and critically acclaimed when it was published in Nature on the 10th December 1999, issue no, xxxx pages yyy through zzz"

Clarification is not when someone says, "Well I haven't actually seen any proof", and "I wouldn't actually understand the proof even if I saw it", and "I don't actually know if the proof exists, I just assume it does", and "I don't care if the proof even exists or not and I can't be bothered to check".

The latter responses are not clarification they are equivocation that completely contradicts the original assertion that proof exists.

You have not been consistent and you have clarified nothing - other than that we cannot take what you say as being true without extensive interrogation, because what you say is not what you mean - according to your own words.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Sir, your a naft one, here you go trying to REINTRODUCE another misleading statement. I came here to discuss the Randi challenge and CLARIFIED I am NOT HERE to discuss PROOF OF Qi.

If I state that Einsten has proof of relativity in 1910, but I dont claim to argue it, am I lying or misrepresenting or just trying to get the man a grant?

You still don't get it do you? Regardless of what you claim you came here to do, we are responding to what you actually did - get it now? Your intentions are irrelevant, your actions are entirely relevant.

And if you state that Einstein had proof of relativity in 1910, you'd be lying because he didn't get proof until 1918...!

Can you understand that we don't like it when people lie to us? When you make a definite statement it is either true or false. If you make a definite statement as though it were true, and if you do so knowing it to be false, or not caring whether it is true or false, that is misrepresentation in the full legal sense of the word.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
You mean when challenged on what you present as actual facts IRRELEVANT to my STATED and CLARIFIED intentions.

Your intentions have no relevance to your actions. The facts of your actions are in dispute. Trying to constantly divert attention away from what you actually did to what you claim you intended is deceptive in itself.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I am not a reporter and am not here to present an official presentation of anything. If I make a common mistake, I clarify. what are you a fascsist or something? your previous rebuttal to me accuses me over and over deceptivly of all sorts of things your accusing me of now.

So it only matters if reporters or officials lie? It doesn't matter if common people publish lies on the web? And no, if you make a mistake you don't clarify, you equivocate, which is not the same thing at all as I demonstrated above.

I accuse you over and over because I hope that sooner or later you will understand that what you did is not open to subjective interpretation, it is clear and unequivocal, and the sooner you admit it and take responsibility for it, the sooner we'll leave you alone.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Sir, again, your wishing to mislead the audience. I have CLARIFIED my intentions here over and over.

I didnt bring up Dr. Lo's previous research, you all did. I never stated any 'facts' about it, you all did. Some of you have called the man a fraud, and do ANY of you know Dr. lo is a fraud? no.

No I'm not, no you didn't, see above.

Sigh...you made claims about his current research including that he had proof based on his previous research on "water clusters". You introduced the matter of his credibility as a scientist and we found his previous "research" which goes to his credibility. I don't recall anyone calling him a fraud, please show where someone did and also explain how that applies to the rest of us, if someone did in fact do so, and finally the last bit assumes facts not in evidence. You have no way of knowing whether any of us know he's a fraud or not, so you're not in any position to state that we don't. Clear and simple enough?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Since I clarifed that I assume it is true because he told me and I have no reason to distrust the man, your misleading the arguement again.

How am I "misleading the argument". Spell it out. Let's break my words down and please point out which statement I made is false:

1. You claimed that Lo had published peer reviewed papers on qi. Yes or no? True or False?
2. We found out later (from you) that you don't know if he has or hasn't published said papers, you only assume he did, but you don't know he did for a fact. Yes or no? True or False?
3. You later said that you didn't care whether he had or hadn't published such papers. Yes or no? True or False?

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I clarified that 'facts' that I speak of. If I make a clerical error, I state it. He WAS at university of melbourne as a physics professor, that is my FACT, his exact position I am unclear of, but perhaps it WAS tenure, I dont know.

Lol, if you guys want to fine me for spitting on the sidewalk to prove your point, go for it. It is MISLEADING especially since you are trying to represent MY INTENTIONS here, which I know CLEARLY WHAT THEY ARE, and have made the HONEST attempt to EXPLAIN THEM and clarify.

Talk about "politician speak"! Wonderful! The 'facts' that you speak of (with "facts" in scare quotes). A "clerical error". How many other ways do you want to re-express, "I lied"?

Let me remind you of what you said originally. You said he has sitting tenure at Melbourne. You even used it against other posters in argument in a deliberate attempt to mislead. It doesn't do you any credit.

And forget the "INTENTIONS" game - it won't wash, we don't fall for facile attempts at misdirection. Your intentions are irrelevant, your actions are not.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
You have tried in numerous deceptive ways to paint an image of me in your head which is misleading, yes, I accuse you of because you are trying to defend your BELIEF SYSTEM.

It's an old trick that doesnt work. try again, go waste more of your time.

Funny not ONE of you try to argue or discuss ANY ISSUE I say I am qualified to discuss, not one.

You don't know anything about my belief system, you assume you do - but then again we already know you have trouble distinguishing your assumptions from facts.

And what issue can we discuss with you? We can't believe a word you say because you keep contradicting yourself. And so far, you don't seem to be qualified to discuss anything of consequence judging by past performance. That aside, I'm sure there are plenty of people on here who would willingly discuss other issues with you - but that doesn't get you off the hook for the things you've already done. Until you take responsibility for what you claim you won't get much respect on here.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Zep
I was in the process of composing a short essay on Bubblebrain's "OS 0 1 2" waffle, but I do believe that it would not come close to matching Pragmatist's effort above.

:th:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks Zep. You should do yours anyway, it's bound to be more interesting than his drivel.

By the way, did you notice his sig? Hilarious! :D

[Bubblefish]

double post

[Bubblefish]

Pragmatist,




I find this little tit for tat exchange going on on your end to be a bit delusional and paranoid. You don’t appear to be able to integrate reality too well. Certainly not discussion. Since your arguments are about meaninglessness, I don’t have the time to continually readdress the same inference ad infinitum.

Your wasting my time.

I am not going to restate again what I already have a million times. It’s a waste of time.

I am not here to convince you of anything. I don’t care what you believe or not. I have made my point over and over.

You don’t know how to read or relate to others via discussion, and I don’t have the time to teach you.

Sentences you write like

You claimed that Lo had "scientific proof". You now admit that you don't know if that's true and you cannot offer any evidence to support your own claim. Who exactly is throwing straw around here?

are stupid. I don’t admit I don’t know if it is true that Dr. Lo has proof of Qi, I say I accept, for reasons I am not mentioning, that he does, and have signified that over and over.

You arguing with a character in your head. Your not cognitive fully of this discussion.

Yes, you're here to make easy money out of Randi (newsflash: it ain't going to be that easy!). You don't care whether Lo's stuff is true or false or whether what you say may mislead anyone, you just want the cash. I understand.


I don’t need Lo’s science to prove to me the existence of Qi, I already experience and accept it as a true phenomena.

Crap! You're now trying to say he's not an expert? You were crowing about his expertise:

Your quite lost in language, and are unable to address a rational discussion. I don’t have time to address such silly claims of yours as this.

Let me repeat my points to you once more.

There is a Phd in physics who claims to have proof of Qi. Bubblefish accepts that he has proof of Qi, and presented the idea of him taking the Randi Challenge.

Bubblefish came to the JREF forum to gather information regarding the challenge and not discuss the proof. The information was gathered. Mission accomplished.

The respected parties are willing to move forward now with the Randi Challenge to PROVE THE CLAIM.


The above is TRUE, and argued as true, but I wont repeatedly argue it with a delusional obsessive individual on a discussion forum. Go argue against Bigfoot.

If you wish to argue OS 012, then do so on the OS 012 forum.

I am not going to argue the nature of what YOU think our discussion is about. That is a stupid waste of my time, and will not participate in your delusions or argue them.

[scribble]

With Bubblehead well and truly defeated, may I now ask:

What the heck has this discussion to do with "Computers," "links" *or* "the internet?"

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by scribble

What the heck has this discussion to do with "Computers," "links" *or* "the internet?" [/B]

about as much as it has to do with Bubblefish's thread on the randi challenge. zip

Since i am still claiming the EXACT same thing now as when I did when I arrived, I certainly am not defeated, nor is my claim.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I certainly am not defeated, nor is my claim.


http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-04.htm

:dl:

[Bubblefish]

I find the monty python media clip more accuratly descripts my posts rather than yours. Since I already defeated your arguements two or three times, I dont have the time to continue to re-address the same point over and over.

Although a physical body only has a few limbs to hack off, a delusional mind can reproduce them ad infinitum.

If you wish for delusion to triumph in your mind, so be it.

See you at the Randi Challenge next year.

[jellerbee]

Emphasis Mine.

BubbleFish at 6:12 PM 7/17/05

"Being a practioner, I know Qi exists, I dont need Dr. Lo to prove it to me. I can manipulate it and prove it to myself.

BubbleFish at 10:09 PM 7/17/05

I too am skeptical of Dr. Lo's testing. I am naturally skeptical until I can prove it to myself.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Originally posted by Zep
Originally posted by Bubblefish
For the record, a correction on my end. In this thread I mentioned Dr. Lo had tenure at Melbourne University. I dont know if that is true, I wrote that heatedly. He was a professor of physics there, and what his exact title was, sitting or tenure or visiting, I dont know for certain. I think I saw where it was tenure, but I look back and may have been mistaken.

I have made that CLARIFICATION after going back and reading this rather humorous discussion with all of you.

Was this post in in response to this one of mine?
Incidentally, I shall be checking into the business of "sitting tenure" for Dr. Lo at Melbourne University. He was last seen there in 1976, according to a number of sources. So a tenure now, especially when he is so involved in the Institute of Noetics in California, seems somewhat dubious. However it may yet be valid, so I'll let you know what they tell me when they get back to meYES ZEP!Then your triple reverse backflip in the piked position is noted. Once again.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
Thanks Zep. You should do yours anyway, it's bound to be more interesting than his drivel.

By the way, did you notice his sig? Hilarious! :D That would be a waste of effort all round - you covered my points better than I had written at the time.

To me, Poissons De Bulle has yet to pass from being a self-important but annoyingly ignorant pre-teen to being a functional adult. So I just ignore the insults...which leaves almost no other content, really. :con2:

And a little research shows BubbleBrat actually does personal promotions work in LA, hence the the talk about being an "agent" for Dr Lo, I expect. But with BB's flair for personal harmony, talk about a recipe for disaster! Total FIGJAM.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
I find the monty python media clip more accuratly descripts my posts rather than yours. Since I already defeated your arguements two or three times, I dont have the time to continue to re-address the same point over and over.

Although a physical body only has a few limbs to hack off, a delusional mind can reproduce them ad infinitum.

If you wish for delusion to triumph in your mind, so be it.

See you at the Randi Challenge next year. Eh, yeah. Bring it on. Just like you did here.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Zep
And a little research shows BubbleBrat actually does personal promotions work in LA Something like this guy (http://www.phoneboothmovie.com/), perhaps?

ETA: Maybe not: I think he was in NY.

[Bubblefish]

Gentleman and delusional academia,


Although i would normally be able to rip through your rediculously posted ideas about me with the grace and charm of the princes and with the logic of the elders, I really dont have time.

You see, I have just given birth to a beautiful baby boy, 6 pounds and 9 ounces, perfectly health and loving his father.

If you all wish to assume that I am not addressing delusional and misleading Pragmatists arguements because he 'got me', guess again. I can assure all of you that I could rip apart every single one of his last posts false ideas exactly like I did his first two. But since his apparently obssessive nature inspired him to post with the length of the US constitution, I dont have the time to tit for tat with a delusional man who forces the world into a false bivalent model and then accuses anyone else of lying to fit his map.

So, take that as you will. You are already convinced of what you wish to believe.

All of my claims here I am STILL claiming, and one day you will see for yourself.


until then......




scroll down






















keep scrolling.......................






















you can blow me



Love,

Bubblefish

[MRC_Hans]

Pure, uninteresting troll. Won't even offer you congratulations. Perhaps being a parent will make you grow up. Your're now on my ignore list.

Hans

[Bubblefish]

Then your triple reverse backflip in the piked position is noted. Once again. [/B]



Oh Zep,

At least when your delusional innuendo is made, you keep it short and sweet. And if you go back and try to pull a sherlock holmes to find clues in my posts to back up your innuendo, you shouldnt leave out the information that explains what I write in context.

Dr. Lo's theoritcal QM proof of Qi I may be skeptical of, just like I am skeptical of Danniel Dennets 'Consciousness explained' as a proof of consciousness.
However, I am not skeptical that Dr. Lo can manipulate Qi, and there is a distinction between his theoritical proof explaining Qi and what he can do with Qi

That doesnt mean I am skeptical of Qi, just like I am not skeptical about the existence of consciousness. I dont need Daniel Dennet to prove to me that consciousness exists and for him to prove his theory empirically for me to know that I exist.

iF you read my posts, you would note that I clarify the distinctions between a subjective truth qualifier and empirical proof.


tootles.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Won't even offer you congratulations.

Wasnt expecting the anti human crowd here to anyway.


. Your're now on my ignore list.



good, one less delusional troll for me to worry about.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Oh Zep,

At least when your delusional innuendo is made, you keep it short and sweet. And if you go back and try to pull a sherlock holmes to find clues in my posts to back up your innuendo, you shouldnt leave out the information that explains what I write in context.

Dr. Lo's theoritcal QM proof of Qi I may be skeptical of, just like I am skeptical of Danniel Dennets 'Consciousness explained' as a proof of consciousness.
However, I am not skeptical that Dr. Lo can manipulate Qi, and there is a distinction between his theoritical proof explaining Qi and what he can do with Qi

That doesnt mean I am skeptical of Qi, just like I am not skeptical about the existence of consciousness. I dont need Daniel Dennet to prove to me that consciousness exists and for him to prove his theory empirically for me to know that I exist.

iF you read my posts, you would note that I clarify the distinctions between a subjective truth qualifier and empirical proof.


tootles. ...with triple-twist for that added degree of delusion on top of evasion.

PS. Would you like me to critique your previous "blow me" post? I think you managed at least one major spelling error and one grammar error per paragraph. Not counting the aforementioned delusions, the ongoing lack of content, and the initial total evasion. You almost qualify to be Kumar, if it weren't for the fact you are trying to be an idiot.

PPS. Please keep it up! You're my current post-count accelerator! ;)

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
.with triple-twist for that added degree of delusion on top of evasion.

oh cute Zep, if you read my thread, you would see that is what I have been saying all along.



PS. Would you like me to critique your previous "blow me" post?

would love you to!


I think you managed at least one major spelling error and one grammar error per paragraph.

hehe, sounds like my style.



Not counting the aforementioned delusions,

ahhh Zep, just go re read the randi challenge thread, k?




the ongoing lack of content, and the initial total evasion.

evasion? oh, you mean when I dont respond the way you wish I would, or with the presumed response you THOUGHT I would write....got it, that is what the delusional crowd here calls evasion.




You almost qualify to be Kumar, if it weren't for the fact you are trying to be an idiot.

that was a dud!



PPS. Please keep it up! You're my current post-count accelerator! ;) [/B]

you got it buddy. you too! your my favorite here.

[SmooveK]

Bubblefish:

You have said nothing of actual note and resorted to attacks since your initial post was criticized and your own ignorance shown.

To continue as you have shows that you are a troll.

There is no other explanation.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
However, I am not skeptical that Dr. Lo can manipulate Qi, and there is a distinction between his theoritical proof explaining Qi and what he can do with Qi

That doesnt mean I am skeptical of Qi, just like I am not skeptical about the existence of consciousness. I dont need Daniel Dennet to prove to me that consciousness exists and for him to prove his theory empirically for me to know that I exist.
Have you provided evidence of Qi? I don't have the time at the moment to read your threads and was wondering if you have.

[Pragmatist]

Just a quick summary:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986535#post1870986535

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Dr. Lo's says it can be measured with QM through what he calls water clusters.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870992255#post1870992255

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Dr. Lo has a theory regarding Qi that he calls 'water clusters'. According to him, he had his research paper published and reviewed a few years back.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986560#post1870986560

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Dr. Lo has published his evidence in peer reviewed journals. I am not sure if they are available on the web or not. Would you care to read them?

It terms of Dr. Lo's peer reviewed papers, if you are serious, I will see if I can get you a copy.


I say that these papers don't exist. I say that the only thing that exists is Lo's papers on "water clusters" which I already criticized - in a non-peer reviewed letters journal (i.e. Modern Physics Letters B). Bubblefish says that these papers are not relevant to his claims.

I say that Lo has never published peer reviewed papers on either qi or "water clusters".

I say that such papers don't exist.

I say that Bubblefish is a liar.

Put up or shut up.


From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870996742#post1870996742

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Many of you accused him of fraud, and where does it say that? All you have done if is found contention on an irrelevant topic.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870997974#post1870997974

Originally posted by Pragmatist
And I did not accuse him of fraud. In fact I don't actually recall anyone accusing him of fraud. Please would you point out where anyone actually accused him of fraud? The only similar comment that I can find is that Zep called him a quack. So please show the evidence in support of your claim that "many of you accused him of fraud".


I say that nobody accused him of fraud, and only Zep accused him of being a quack.

I say that "many of us" did not accuse him of fraud.

I say that Bubblefish is a liar.

Put up or shut up.


A summary of reponses so far to these and other questions:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870998295#post1870998295

Originally posted by Bubblefish

1. I find this little tit for tat exchange going on on your end to be a bit delusional and paranoid.
2. You don’t appear to be able to integrate reality too well.
3. Certainly not discussion.
4. You don’t know how to read or relate to others via discussion, and I don’t have the time to teach you.
5. Sentences you write like ... are stupid.
6. I don’t admit I don’t know if it is true that Dr. Lo has proof of Qi, I say I accept, for reasons I am not mentioning, that he does, and have signified that over and over.
7. You arguing with a character in your head.
8. Your not cognitive fully of this discussion.
9. I don’t need Lo’s science to prove to me the existence of Qi, I already experience and accept it as a true phenomena.
10. Your quite lost in language,
11. and are unable to address a rational discussion.
12. The above is TRUE, and argued as true, but I wont repeatedly argue it with a delusional obsessive individual on a discussion forum.
13. That is a stupid waste of my time, and will not participate in your delusions or argue them.


1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13 constitute 11 cases of ad-hominem. 6, 9 and 12 constitute 3 claims.

Answers so far, 0.
Evidence so far, 0.

Originally posted by Bubblefish

1. Gentleman and delusional academia,
2. Although i would normally be able to rip through your rediculously posted ideas about me with the grace and charm of the princes and with the logic of the elders, I really dont have time.
3. If you all wish to assume that I am not addressing delusional and misleading Pragmatists arguements
4. I can assure all of you that I could rip apart every single one of his last posts false ideas
5. But since his apparently obssessive nature
6. I dont have the time to tit for tat with a delusional man
7. who forces the world into a false bivalent model
8. All of my claims here I am STILL claiming, and one day you will see for yourself.
9. you can blow me

1,3,5,6,9 constitute 5 cases of ad-hominem. 2,4,7,8 constitute 4 claims.

So in response to various questions of which I've extracted just 2 above, the grand total to date of Bubblefish's responses are:

16 cases of argumentum ad-hominem
7 claims
Answers 0
Evidence 0

:rolleyes:

Time for a Larsen list perhaps...?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
oh cute Zep, if you read my thread, you would see that is what I have been saying all along.



would love you to!



hehe, sounds like my style.



ahhh Zep, just go re read the randi challenge thread, k?



evasion? oh, you mean when I dont respond the way you wish I would, or with the presumed response you THOUGHT I would write....got it, that is what the delusional crowd here calls evasion.



that was a dud!



you got it buddy. you too! your my favorite here. http://www.cs.umd.edu/~dekhtyar/pics/ea.jpg

[Bubblefish]

My old friend SmooveK


Originally posted by SmooveK
Bubblefish:

You have said nothing of actual note and resorted to attacks since your initial post was criticized and your own ignorance shown.

I have clarified and addressed concerns, and used novel theatre and honest expression to denote my state of mind.



To continue as you have shows that you are a troll.

lol, you guys look at me as a troll no matter what I do. However, since YOURE coming onto my thread, it appears that your more the troll than me.



There is no other explanation. [/B]


oh the delusional mind that always wants to be 'true'.

[Bubblefish]

Pragmatist! You have learned to quell your passions for Bubblefish! By keeping your posts more consise, you have given me the oppurtunity to respond!


Originally posted by Pragmatist
[B]Just a quick summary:


Bubblefish wrote:Dr. Lo's says it can be measured with QM through what he calls water clusters.

Yes, I wrote that

I say that these papers don't exist.

who cares?



I say that the only thing that exists is Lo's papers on "water clusters" which I already criticized - in a non-peer reviewed letters journal (i.e. Modern Physics Letters B). Bubblefish says that these papers are not relevant to his claims.

correct. they are irrelevant to my claims regarding the Randi Challenge





I say that Lo has never published peer reviewed papers on either qi or "water clusters".

who cares?



I say that such papers don't exist.

who cares?



I say that Bubblefish is a liar.

who cares?



Put up or shut up.

I dont have to 'put up' anything, especially when I have clarified my intentions and have stated about a kazillion times I am not here to explain EMPIRICAL proof of Qi, however I can discuss the philosophical or ontological implications of my posts, the relevancy of Qi as a subjective truth qualifier, which in your delusion you dont address.




I say that nobody accused him of fraud, and only Zep accused him of being a quack.

There was someone here that accused him of fraud, and even came over to my forum to use those very same words.



I say that "many of us" did not accuse him of fraud.

perhaps 'many of you' did not use the word 'fraud'.



I say that Bubblefish is a liar.

who cares?



Put up or shut up.

I dont have to 'put up' anything and will continue to post at my leisure.




A summary of reponses so far to these and other questions:

[1. I find this little tit for tat exchange going on on your end to be a bit delusional and paranoid.]

Yes, you dont appear to me to be able to properly model a discussion environment, you jump to conclusions, and seek to prove your convictions by mangling my words instead of asking for clarification.

So, let's highlight it again:

[2. You don’t appear to be able to integrate reality too well.
3. Certainly not discussion.
4. You don’t know how to read or relate to others via discussion, and I don’t have the time to teach you.]


Another thing you do is confuse words with intention. You do this over and over. I never claimed Dr. Lo is an expert. Expert is a relative term. To me, he is an expert, to someone else who is a physicist, perhaps, I dont know, that is why I simply stated he was 'respected'. I assume to have the positions he has means he is respected.

So when you write that "Now your saying he's NOT an expert" I say:

5. Sentences you write like that ... are stupid.

because they ARE stupid. It is stupid to assume another human beings intention other than what they clarify it to be. You use this false bivalency in your arguements that is rather easy to sift through and pick apart. However, since you post with the length of the US constitution, going through every exchange with you is a bore and a waste of time, because all your mind is doing is trying to re-arrange the discussion and model it to FIT your conclusion. I call that stupidity. Your not seeking to learn any information that is outside of your point of view. Your rigid. YOU tell me this by the way you communicate.


[6. I don’t admit I don’t know if it is true that Dr. Lo has proof of Qi, I say I accept, for reasons I am not mentioning, that he does, and have signified that over and over.]

Now here is where I can understand there would be confusion, but if you would simply ask questions requesting clarification, you would come to understand.

Qi, being a subjective truth qualifer, currently up til now if Lo's and other's claims are proven, is outside of the world of empirical evidence, and is a different value, like consciousness or ideas. I accept that Dr. Lo can 'show' Qi exists outside of his theoritical paper explaining what he does. I am not going into the reasons I accept that, UNLESS you want to have a philosophical or ontological discusion.

I AM personaly skeptical regarding his theoritcal proof of Qi, which is different than him practicing Qi as an advanced practictioner. Dr. Lo can manipulate Qi, this I accept, and to many, this could be 'proof' in the subjective sense of 'experience'.

Dr. lo is NOT going to use his theoritical paper on Qi in the Randi Challenge. Nor is it being used now in the study he is about to finish up with a few others. Since I have acces to information going on in that study and you dont, I have insight here BEFORE the paper is to be shortly published. It would be unwise of me to address that study before they are finished.


[7. You arguing with a character in your head.
8. Your not cognitive fully of this discussion.]

Yes, you have an 'image' in your head of what I am doing and what I am up to. Now, since I know me certainly better than you, it is quite simple for me to see that you DONT discuss with me, but rather your image of me in your head that your trying to prove exists by your long drawn out posts.



[9. I don’t need Lo’s science to prove to me the existence of Qi, I already experience and accept it as a true phenomena.]

Yes. This is true. I dont need Dr. Lo to prove his theoritcal paper to be true for me to accept Qi as a phenomena.



[10. Your quite lost in language,]

Yes you are indeed. You spending so much time arguing over intention confused as language. Like your 'your saying he is NOT an expert now?' accusation. Utterly rediculous.

Words are empty and relative to discusion. Your confusing how YOUR defining words with how I am intending them to address what I write.



[11. and are unable to address a rational discussion.]

Indeed. It is rational to ask questions and seek clarification. If your paying more attention to the image of your opponent in your head and trying to fit the discusion around a false image believed to be true, that is IRRATIONAL.



[12. The above is TRUE, and argued as true, but I wont repeatedly argue it with a delusional obsessive individual on a discussion forum.]


Yes, to me, you appear delusional. I am not trying to defame you, I am being honest. You dont appear able to properly integrate simple objective reality, rather force the image of the reality in your head onto the environment. I dont know what else to call that other than delusion.



[13. That is a stupid waste of my time, and will not participate in your delusions or argue them. ]


Which is true. I dont have time to argue YOUR delusions. When one confuses false images as the objective reality and wont let go, those delusions can continue ad infinitum. That is your concern, not mine. This discusion to me is utterly meaninglessness. It is not about anything relevant. Perhaps you have time to continue to argue meaninglessness, but I dont.




1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13 constitute 11 cases of ad-hominem. 6, 9 and 12 constitute 3 claims.

Answers so far, 0.
Evidence so far, 0.



1,3,5,6,9 constitute 5 cases of ad-hominem. 2,4,7,8 constitute 4 claims.

So in response to various questions of which I've extracted just 2 above, the grand total to date of Bubblefish's responses are:

16 cases of argumentum ad-hominem
7 claims


I dont deny that I refrence YOU as a human being and relate how YOUR actions APPEAR to me. But I do this AFTER I have clarified in my arguements RATIONALLY, which you appear UNABLE to integrate in any logical fashion.

Therefore, I am NOT using argumentative ad hominem to prove my arguements.

If you wish to get lost in language again and use the emotionaly charged word 'claim' to the other things I write, so be it. It is a perfect example of what I say about your level of communication. Your lost in language. Since you get to define the word 'claim' as anything I write, and then hold some standard of 'claim' that must be addressed the way YOU want it to, YOU appear to me as delusional and rigid, lost in language.

I dont have time to continue to address your delusions here. I imagine your rather a mature man, and you have been communicating like this for sometime. I dont expect you to change anytime soon.


Bubblefish

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Donks
Have you provided evidence of Qi? I don't have the time at the moment to read your threads and was wondering if you have.

No Donks, I have not provided evidence of it, nor did I ever claim I was going to in these discussions. However, I am assisting a party of individuals whom are about to or are attempting to provide empirical evidence for it as a bona fide phenomena. They are trained professionals quite familiar with the scientific method.

One of them (dr. lo) is going to take the Randi Challenge in a few months and I came here to recon the situation and gather information relative to the Randi challenge.

Thanks for asking questions

Bubblefish

[Donks]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
No Donks, I have not provided evidence of it, nor did I ever claim I was going to in these discussions. However, I am assisting a party of individuals whom are about to or are attempting to provide empirical evidence for it as a bona fide phenomena. They are trained professionals quite familiar with the scientific method.

One of them (dr. lo) is going to take the Randi Challenge in a few months and I came here to recon the situation and gather information relative to the Randi challenge.

Thanks for asking questions

Bubblefish
In that case, I have no further comments, unless you proposed a protocol for testing Qi and I had questions or comments regarding that.

[Bubblefish]

Donks,

Perhaps when we get closer to the challenge, I will bring that up here on the forum for those wishing to comment or question objectivly and rationally.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Donks,

Perhaps when we get closer to the challenge, I will bring that up here on the forum for those wishing to comment or question objectivly and rationally. Why? Your past performance certainly suggests you couldn't tell objectivity and rationality from your own backside.

*YAWN*

Well - I shall, along with the others here, await your challenge entry, should it ever materialise in this lifetime.

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by Zep
Why? Your past performance certainly suggests you couldn't tell objectivity and rationality from your own backside.

Zep, of all things someone could say about me, that is the funniest one liner so far from truth it's scary, since I developed a framework for the common and perfect application for both of them!



*YAWN*


I am sure that spending your time trying to boost your post count can get tiring;-)



Well - I shall, along with the others here, await your challenge entry, should it ever materialise in this lifetime. [/B]

Stay tuned. I am looking forward to it too. My intention is to create another documenative project around the challenge, so I want it to happen for personal reasons as well as philosophical.

Peace,

Bubblefish

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Zep, of all things someone could say about me, that is the funniest one liner so far from truth it's scary, since I developed a framework for the common and perfect application for both of them!You ARE getting as ridiculous as Kumar, aren't you. Or do you often get these delusions of adequacy.

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Stay tuned. I am looking forward to it too. My intention is to create another documenative project around the challenge, so I want it to happen for personal reasons as well as philosophical.

Peace,

Bubblefish Then you need to brush up on some basic skills first...like spelling, and grammar, and punctuation, and English as a whole subject in itself, really. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.

Or maybe you don't want to be taken seriously...in which case you have succeeded admirably! I have never seen a better impersonation of a self-inflated egomaniacal bird-brain! Well done!

[Bubblefish]

Then you need to brush up on some basic skills first...like spelling, and grammar, and punctuation, and English as a whole subject in itself, really. If you want to be taken seriously, that is.


Those whom are rational here were able to take what I wrote in the seriousness that in conveyed just fine. Just read the thread.

Or maybe you don't want to be taken seriously...in which case you have succeeded admirably!

I want the essence of what I write to be taken as is, and the rest should be fun.

Cant please everyone. But at least you increased your posting count. You should be proud.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Cant please everyone. But you could at least learn when to use an apostrophe. ;)

[Bubblefish]

Mojo, here i bow to your accurate critique,

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
Mojo, here i bow to your accurate critique, Capital(isation).

[Bubblefish]

Because you insist on continuaLy pOsting With irrelevancy, i have decided to give you Much crEdit by capitalizing the appropiate phrase and giving you the last word on the matter.

love,
bubblefish

[Zep]

Oh look! Now it's REALLY a prick all over!

http://www.neth.de/Pics/PoD/2004/040902_blowfish_1500s.jpg

[Powa]

I've heard fugu are delicious. Just be sure to eat them raw.

[Bubblefish]

Zep, now that was funny!

[jellerbee]

Some questions for Bubblefish:

What is the value of mystery in truth?

Take the statement "is 1 = 1?"

In this context one value of truth that is readily apparent to me is that in reality 1 is equal to 1.

For example, when buying a train ticket to the airport I can can answer the question "how many tickets do you need?" truthfully, and recognize immediate value:

- My money is limited so I don't spend more money than I need to.

- I must get to the airport to earn a living so buying at least 1 ticket (not 0) is valuable.

Thus I get to the airport, earn money, and keep myself alive. All valuable to me.

But where is the mystery? How does one get at the "mystery within the truth?" Your tagline says that "their is a rational argument for including mystery in the value of truth." This implies that its optional; that including mystery in the truth must be a concious act, performed by the truthsayer (is that a word?)

Lets assume that your rational argument exists, even though you've never provided it, and that mystery is a value in truth!

What is that value? Indeed, how does one include "mystery in truth"?

Using my example above would this qualify as including Mystery in Truth?

Ticket Agent: How many tickets do you need?
Me including mystery in truth: Most of the time I need just one.
Ticket Agent: How many do you need right now?
Me including mystery in truth Its a mystery to me, why don't you pick a number?
Ticket Agent: Ok you need fifty tickets!
Me including mystery in truth: That seems a little high.
Ticket Agent: Ok you don't need any.
Me including mystery in truth: That seems a little low.
Ticket Agent: Tell you what, lets split the difference and I'll sell you 25 tickets.
Me including mystery in truth: Ok, you got a deal!

I'm all about value so if I can get more out of the truth than just making good choices in order to promote my goals I'm all ears. Problem is in my little play above I can't figure out what that value is, especially as it relates to my goal of getting to the airport. Maybe I'm just doing it wrong.

[Zep]

Don't post while stoned, dude, m'kay? ;)

[Bubblefish]

Originally posted by jellerbee
Some questions for Bubblefish:

What is the value of mystery in truth?

Rather, what is the value of 'truth' in mystery? It is true that there is an unknown factor.



Take the statement "is 1 = 1?"

In this context one value of truth that is readily apparent to me is that in reality 1 is equal to 1.

For example, when buying a train ticket to the airport I can can answer the question "how many tickets do you need?" truthfully, and recognize immediate value:

- My money is limited so I don't spend more money than I need to.

- I must get to the airport to earn a living so buying at least 1 ticket (not 0) is valuable.

Thus I get to the airport, earn money, and keep myself alive. All valuable to me.

But where is the mystery? How does one get at the "mystery within the truth?" Your tagline says that "their is a rational argument for including mystery in the value of truth." This implies that its optional; that including mystery in the truth must be a concious act, performed by the truthsayer (is that a word?)

It's the value of mystery being a truth,not the truth being a mystery. The certainty of the uncertainty.



Lets assume that your rational argument exists, even though you've never provided it, and that mystery is a value in truth!

The tag line is a refrence for a three valued logical dialectic that has three truth values. Pure Truths (empirical, objective, or logical truths, truths which can be mutually agreeable), False truth (metaphors, art, personal points of view) and 'mysterious truths' or ideas that signify something outside of individual or collective perception, such as 'god' 'death' etc etc.

Often, mysterious truths are much more practical and grounded and not so philosophical. For example, in 2002, WMD in Iraq was a 'mysterious truth', we could not with any honest or rational certainty identify the truth or falsity of thier existence, yet WMD were argued as 'true' whilst arguements that suggested otherwise were discouraged, while the opposing arguements were forced into 'false'. Most people argue with a 'true or false' agenda, where such arguements do not reflect the situation so much and force all 'mysterious ideas' into a category of either true or false, thus creating a misleading conceptual map of the environment, War in Iraq being a practical example.

If you have any more questions, you should drop by the forum, as this thread is really not set up for this discussion, you know, with yo-yo's like Zep and all;-)

[jellerbee]

Yep, I just found your site and that forum soon after my posting. Interesting. Will check it out and get back to you at that venue.

[Bubblefish]

hmm. howz my old friend zep doin' I wonder.

[a_unique_person]

This thread is like one of those recurring nightmares.

[Bubblefish]

hehe, well maybe for some of you guys, but for me, it's more like a re-run of a comedy show during the summer season:-)

[Zep]

hmm. howz my old friend zep doin' I wonder.I'm doing fine over here in the real world.

How about you? Still smokin' that same old stuff?

[Zep]

Ah, here's Bubble's idea, as a "successful" OS! (http://toastytech.com/guis/os24_1stscreen.gif) ;)

...from years ago, it seems. (http://www.burningdoor.com/lineofsite/archives/os2%202.1%201.PNG)