Randi Gets Rude...

[Rhesus Negative]

I've been interested in James Randi's take on the paranormal ever since I was a kid and can remember his old TV show (sadly absent from the UK TV schedules these days).

Whilst I value the skeptical perspective as much as any that champions a 'paranormal' cause (if such a thing exists!), I am a little confused by a recent link I came across when looking for details relating to the JREF challenge.

From what I have found, it seems that a man named Rico Kolodsey sent a letter to JREF proposing that he be tested for the ability to survive on water alone for an indefinite period.

Randi's response was dismissive and insulting, and if true, appears to show Randi himself in a rather unfortunate light.

I must admit to being surprised that Randi considers this man's proposal in any way more absurd than a claim to speak to the dead or move matter with thought.

I have provided a link to the page in question:

http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's_letter.htm

I assume there is a perfectly good reason for such a response, but am having considerable difficulty maintaining an assumption of objectivity on Randi's part.

It seems that, rather than use the cash prize as a means of exploring the possibilities that may or may not exist, or exposing the charlatans that prey on the vulnerable, Randi's prize represents an excuse to send bitchy letters to unproven frauds.

advocate

Edited by Hal to repair the link, the URL cut off too early making it an "error 404"

[Rhesus Negative]

As an addition, upon re-reading the letter itself, I'm also having trouble defining exactly what constitutes a 'responsible claim', as worded by Randi himself.

If this man is not considered a responsible claimant, and therefore is deemed exempt from qualification, then:

Can one assume that proposals which 'qualify', such as the ability to cure disease and heal wounds using supernatural power be deemed by Randi as 'responsible claims'?

Are there gradations of 'responsibility', and a prerequisite admission, upon acceptance for JREF testing, of the responsibility of a claim?

If so, it would be fair to assume that Randi considers those he tests as responsible claimants at the very least!

Either that, or, as I said, Randi himself is deliberately blocking out those potential participants whose proposals intimidate him.

Something worth considering...

advocate

[Martin]

I'd imagine any claim which would require the subject to place himself in danger in the test would be deemed irresponsible.

[Rhesus Negative]

That would be a fair assumption, were it not that Randi himself has previously been involved in performance escapology (as an example),

This is a case wherein he himself proposes that, under circumstance of considerable risk to life (even in the context of his own expertise), he can perform feats that appear supernatural in nature.

Regardless of any claim of genuine paranormal ability (which Randi obviously does not attempt), surely this constitutes an 'irresponsible claim' by the criterium you mention, in which life-risk is 'irresponsible'?

I do not think that implication of life-risk is a suitable criteria for dismissal, in this case.

I'm pretty sure (but I can't remember the exact case!) that these same abilities have been tested under scientific conditions before (and proven false), and medical supervision was provided to minimise dangers.

None of which, of course, justifies the sneering contempt expressed in the letter itself, or the automatic assumption of fraudulence that undermines any supposed attempt to prove falsity through scientific testing.

[CFLarsen]

It's a fake.

Two decades of working with computer graphics tells me so.

Here's how I can see why it is a fake:


The letters are way too clear for a scan. Compared to the rest of the content, the letters are the only things that are crisp and clear.
All of the lines are lined up perfectly. I mean, there is not even a single pixel difference. This is virtually impossible, if the paper had been scanned. There will always be some displacement.
If you look at the left side of the image, you will see the black border tapers off by one or two pixels, as expected. However, the lines of text are perfectly lined up.


I am pretty convinced that this has been investigated before. The name sounds familiar.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Rhesus Negative
Regardless of any claim of genuine paranormal ability (which Randi obviously does not attempt), surely this constitutes an 'irresponsible claim' by the criterium you mention, in which life-risk is 'irresponsible'?Yes, indeed. But he's being irresponsible with his own life, which is his call. JREF, on the other hand, cannot take the risk of participating in any test which may place others in danger.

None of which, of course, justifies the sneering contempt expressed in the letter itself, or the automatic assumption of fraudulence that undermines any supposed attempt to prove falsity through scientific testingWell, I think the point here is that most paranormal claims are things which could be false and yet held sincerely. This particular claim, on the other hand, must either be the beginning of a scientific revolution or an outright lie - and a damn irresponsible one at that, if this fellow is suggesting to others that they could go without food. People have died trying this kind of thing.

Put simply, while it is possible to believe one can, say, dowse for gold and be mistaken, there is no way to believe that one has not eaten for 5 years and simply be mistaken.

[roger]

Rhesus, you are new here, and thus can't be expected to know, but this exact claim was discussed here a year ago: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6440

Upshot - JREF gets far more applications than it can realistically test. Some criteria of "reasonableness" must be used to filter the claims. Reasonable people can be expected to differ over what constitutes a "reasonable" claim in paranormal claims.

JREF is an educational foundation. A _lot_ of people believe in dowsing, mind reading, and talking to the dead, whereas only a very few people believe claims that somebody can subsist on air. Whether you or I personally consider that claim reasonable (compared to the other claims) is irrelevant; JREF's limited resources are best spent on claims that have widespread belief.

It amazes me how many people come on these boards and try to tell other people how to spend there time. If yoiu think the claim should be tested, you test it. (now I'm telling you how to spend your time :) ).

Hope this helps.

[Voob]

Assuming it's true, it was rejected because it was possibly life-threatening.

As for escape artist's performances, to paraphrase Houdini: "I don't do anything more dangerous than sitting in my living room."

It's not like being Evil Kneivel or anything.

(off to look for source...)

[Rhesus Negative]

i just wrote an individual response to each point, which i've managed to blank out, so this is briefer than I'd like.


Firstly: Was the letter proven to be a fake? It's printed on pre-printed JREF stationary, and that combined with a contrast increase on the black ink would account for the clarity.

Also, the top third of the letter appears to show ink-impressions from being folded and pressed together- these impressions seem consistent with the content, but it's hard to tell.

Still, I'm no expert on that type of thing, so I'll leave it there.

As for 'widespread belief' constituting qualification for testing; the belief that it is possible to survive for long periods of time only on 'spiritual energy' is an ancient and culturally widespread belief.

A modern take on it such as that championed by the 'Breatharian' cult or the guy who survives only on water would surely be a worthy opponent for JREF.

If it's responsibility we're talking about here, a public debunking of such a potentially dangerous belief would be of far more valuable public service than a dismissal of spoon-bending.

Anyway, (roger) sorry to dampen your amazement, but I have no intention of 'telling JREF how to spend their time',

rather I am more interested in QUESTIONING how and why they don't spend it!

advocate

[Rhesus Negative]

"Put simply, while it is possible to believe one can, say, dowse for gold and be mistaken, there is no way to believe that one has not eaten for 5 years and simply be mistaken."

That's true. There's also no way to believe that one has walked on flaming red hot coals and be mistaken. Yet it has been tested scientifically, and surely warrants scientific exploration.

Why should the potential for error be relevant here? If truth is being pursued on an objective level, then surely the subjective assumptions of the challenger are irrelevant.

On a different note:

It would obviously be impossible to test whether he can 'survive' or not, though! JREF's successful debunking would, I have to admit, mean the guy's death...

Still, I am disappointed at the phrasing of the letter -it seems to assume falsity rather than imply untestability.

We cannot know whether this guy is telling the truth or not.

We simply cannot know. So he is not a cheat or a liar or a fraud until proven so.

[Rhesus Negative]

The further thought occurs that the JREF prize places the burden of proof upon the 'challengee', and does not exist to prove falsity, rather to assume a position of disbelief until the proposal can be rationally and empirically demonstrated.

In that context, it's safe to say that fraudulence IS assumed, though the outright accusation of charlatanism without an accompanying forum for refute represents to me an undignified means of debate.

advocate

[roger]

The guy is lying. Period.

We have ample evidence on how the world works. I'm not going to pretend to be "open minded" about the ability to live on only air & water. It's an absurd claim based on either massive delusion or intentional deceit.

[Rhesus Negative]

"The guy is lying. Period."

That statement is as logically absurd as his claim to the contrary.

He may be able to do what he claims.

I believe that the possibility is high that he is lying.

But i would have to be possessed of supernatural powers myself to make a definitive assumption as you (and Randi too) do.

We are a civilisation that has only very recently discovered the existence of 'calorie' measurement, and wherein advancements in genetic engineering suggest the possibility of improved lifespan and endurance.

Regardless of our own personal assumptions, isn't it naive to pronounce absolute faith in a such young arena of science, and pronounce absolute dismissal on the same basis?

"We have ample evidence on how the world works."

Ample for what?

[LillyThePink]

If I claim I can stop bullets with my thoughts, should Randi let me shoot myself in the head to prove it?

Nope, since he's living in America and my family would prolly sue his butt for being irresponsible to the mentally deranged. They could even say he goaded me into it. And judging by the advocacy system in the US, they'd prolly win too.....

[Rhesus Negative]

Legislation is a different issue altogether, and would also be a relevant factor in (as mentioned above) escapology as a performance art.

But that is not what is being said by Randi. He is denying an academic forum on the basis of an absolute assumption of untruth.

It is the principle of that which is problematic, not the untestability of the subject.

If you claim to stop bullets with your thoughts, you are not expressing a widely held cultural belief.

If you claim that you can survive without solid nourishment, you are expressing a claim that has existed for many hundreds of years.

While a test for outright survival would be plain foolhardy, the claim that the body can withstand these circumstances without adverse effect can be tested with medical supervision and precise definition of said 'adverse effects.'

That would be a far more valid approach to the claim than to express contempt and hostility, which has no place in controlled academic exploration.

Period.

[Rhesus Negative]

Assuming the letter is real, of course.

It would be useful if the JREF Foundation could confirm or deny this...

[roger]

Originally posted by Rhesus Negative
[BRegardless of our own personal assumptions, isn't it naive to pronounce absolute faith in a such young arena of science, and pronounce absolute dismissal on the same basis?[/B]

No. I'm not going to get into the hand-waving, 500page definition of the limits of human knowledge. Obviously there are limits. It doesn't follow that any statement must be considered possible unless proven otherwise, nor that any claim is reasonable to study.

We know the earth is round. We don't "Know" (in any absolute sense) the Earth is round, as no matter how much evidence we gather we can come up with some alternative explanation. That doesn't mean that I or anyone should continue investigating whether the Earth is flat.

[Rhesus Negative]

roger:

I agree with the spirit of that, but it doesn't apply in these circumstances.

My point was clear, and the fact remains that nutrition and metabolism are areas of high contention within the scientific community.

The shape and size of the Earth is not generally a cause for contention.

But we still don't know whether vitamins are really useful, or what conditions the body can really withstand.

You are offering concrete support to a rationally debatable science, and I thought that was a weak standpoint.

The alternative is not to present us with a '500 page' lecture on knowledge itself, but simply to justify your absolute standpoint in the same rational terms you apply to your critique. Perhaps you don't want to do that in preference to dismissal.

If so, that attitude reminds me somewhat of a rather zealous priest I once met at university...

Basically, in an academic environment that cannot even confirm the value of the vitamin, can we be expected to take a newly devised and constantly revised nutritional science as gospel?

Doing so may be to the detriment of further understanding, but it is JREF's right to decline.

To call the guy an outright cheat and a liar who doesn't warrant forum assumes a rather ridiculous omniscience, though...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Rhesus Negative
In that context, it's safe to say that fraudulence IS assumed, though the outright accusation of charlatanism without an accompanying forum for refute represents to me an undignified means of debate.


1) It is not necessarily fraud. The claimnant could just be mistaken. They aren't the same thing. It is irrelevent as to why the claim is not correct. The only question is whether the claim is correct or not.

2) What do you mean, "without an accompanying forum for refute? Anyone is given the opportunity to refute the position that they do not have the abilities they claim! All they have to do is to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.

Seriously, how much more of a forum does anyone need?

[Rhesus Negative]

"2) What do you mean, "without an accompanying forum for refute? Anyone is given the opportunity to refute the position that they do not have the abilities they claim! All they have to do is to demonstrate them under controlled conditions.
Seriously, how much more of a forum does anyone need?"

Have you been reading this thread?

The guy was up for the challenge to 'demonstrate it under controlled conditions' and was (APPARENTLY) turned down for testing on the unsubstantiated and unscientific claim that he was a liar and a cheat.

I agree, the only forum he needs is to have his claims tested.

So test him already. That's what I thought JREF was about...

[Skeptical Greg]

Randi Gets Rude...

The letter you linked to doesn't seem rude to me.

I have heard that Randi can be abrasive sometimes.

This doesn't seem to lend any credibility to a claim that someone could continue to live in the world as we know it, consuming nothing but water.

I certainly agree with Randi, that anyone making such a claim is a liar.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Rhesus Negative
Firstly: Was the letter proven to be a fake? It's printed on pre-printed JREF stationary, and that combined with a contrast increase on the black ink would account for the clarity.

Also, the top third of the letter appears to show ink-impressions from being folded and pressed together- these impressions seem consistent with the content, but it's hard to tell.
I agree about the ink impressions being apparently consistent with the printed message, although perhaps this is also subject to fakery.

On the other hand, the signature, which is the only legible part of the letter that runs across a fold in the paper, looks phoney. The contours of the signature don't seem to be affected by the crease -- or do my eyes deceive me?
Originally posted by Rhesus Negative
If it's responsibility we're talking about here, a public debunking of such a potentially dangerous belief would be of far more valuable public service than a dismissal of spoon-bending.
I think the point is that doing anything that might plant the seed in someone's mind that an experiment in self-starvation could lead to a million dollar prize, would be irresponsible.

The belief that one can survive indefinitely on water alone is potentially dangerous, but its extreme and obvious potential for danger is part of what makes it such a small actual danger. Under ordinary circumstances, the risk that such a counterintuitive and ultrahazardous belief will spread is already so small that it will not be appreciably reduced by a public debunking. Not much of a public service, finally.

However, let's assume JREF accepts this guy as a candidate for the Challenge and debunks his claim. Inevitably there will be some members of the public who will not remember that it was debunked so much as they will (mis)remember that the claimant had one foot in the door to the JREF prize vault. Some will think, "That guy blew it, but for a million bucks I might succeed where he failed." Even if such people don't actually believe they have paranormal abilities, they might be encouraged to try to fool JREF, with potentially harmful consequences.

This is why the Guinness Book of World Records has certain records for which it will no longer entertain challenges - not that the records couldn't necessarily be safely challenged or broken under proper testing conditions, but simply because knowing Guinness won't even answer e-mails about them will deter some jackasses from hurting themselves.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
This is why the Guinness Book of World Records has certain records for which it will no longer entertain challenges - not that the records couldn't necessarily be safely challenged or broken under proper testing conditions, but simply because knowing Guinness won't even answer e-mails about them will deter some jackasses from hurting themselves.

Exactly. I think we need to keep sane here.

Even though I will seek evidence of paranormal phenomena wherever it may be, I would still be a wee bit apprehensive when it came to feats that could endanger anyone.

Not smart. We've seen enough suffering, there's no need to increase it.

[compjan]

Assuming the letter's genuine, I would agree that it is overly rude. However, I don't blame Randi for dismissing the claim summarily. He has to filter out obviously ridiculous claims to focus on the more likely ones. Not to mention in today's litiguous society the nightmare scenario of someone starving themself to death and his heirs suing Randi. A great way to get bad press for the Challenge! Even better than "Mean old man makes young girl cry!"

CompJan

[roger]

Rhesus,

I wonder if you perhaps misunderstand the purpose and assumptions of the challenge. I say that because you refer to things like Randi is "denying an academic forum".

The challenge has nothing to do with scientific research, or academic exploration. It is, instead, a challenge. There are two aspects to this, as I see it.

First, the challenge is not about science, but about the paranormal. If the claim to live on water & air alone is based on hithero unknown science, then the challenge does not apply and Randi would not test the claim. So I got a little lost when you talk about, for example whether we really know if vitamins are useful. I'll argue we do below, but, and this is important, if we really don't know that, then the claim is a scientific one, and not relevant to JREF.

Second, the challenge is based on the assumption that science can explain what happens in this world. The important term is "can" - this is not a claim that scientific knowledge is perfect, just that if you explore an issue deeply enough you can gain enough information to make true statements about how the world works.

This, of course, is not proven, and as far as anyone can tell, not provable. However, we feel that there is such strong evidence that this is in fact how the world works that we are willing to say it is true (not TRUE, in some absolute sense). Furthermore, Randi is willing to put up $1M dollars to back up the statement. This is _not_ based on "open mindedness" on this issue. A line in the sand has been drawn, that this is a reasonable assumption, so reasonable that claims to the contrary can be dismissed out of hand. It's a "put up or shut up" challenge, and of course there is some chutpah and showmanship in that.

You obviously agree with me that we can decide that things are true or false, otherwise the challenge would be meaningless. Furthermore, I believe that you agree that there is no point in testing claims, for example, that the Earth is flat. I think you would not agree that your conclusion that the Earth is round is you being "absolute" or close minded, but the result of an informed decision. If pressed, you'd agree that there's some possibility of being wrong, yet it's not enough of a possibility to seriously entertain the alternatives. The Earth is round. Period. It's a reasonable conclusion, not based on zealousness. (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just explain what I _think_ you would agree with). If someone said the Earth was flat , I assume you'd try to educate them, not seriously reconsider whether the Earth is round or flat. Randi doesn't seriously think the paranormal is possible. That's why he's bet $1M. He could be wrong, but he (and I) feel confident enough to assign truth values to statements about these things.

So, finally, about the challenge under discussion. Quite simply, the Breatharian claims are paranormal. They claim that they draw energy from their "chakra". So that makes the challenge applicable to JREF (unlike questions about whether vitamins are necessary, which is scientific in nature).

Randi has drawn a distinction between things he will test and will not test. Naturally people will dispute those distinctions, as you are. He won't test a claim that I can turn a person into a monkey just by thinking about it. He will test a claim that I can find water with a dowsing stick. I don't speak for Randi, but it appears to me that the distinction here is it's easy to confuse yourself and think you really are dowsing. You can't confuse yourself that you are turning a person into a monkey except through mental illness. So making the claim of person->monkey is either a product of mental illness or a lie. Sorry, no challenge for you! :) It's how Randi chooses to spend his time, and I find it reasonable, though I do understand why others would draw the lines differently.

You point out that some believe the Breatharian claims, and a few do. They claim 5000 members worldwide, but many feel those numbers are inflated. In any case, only a handful of those claim not to eat at all. So it's not widespread by any means. Of course I'll consider other data if you have it

So, I don't believe for a second that people live only on water, no more or less than I believe the Earth is flat. Heck, on the Breatharian website the owner admits to eating a McD hamburger two hours ago - for "love", and to counteract negative vibrations, not nutrition. Right.... And they claim not to age. The guy is white haired. Sorry, I feel the statement "I prefer to keep an open mind, but not so open it falls out" applies here. If that makes me "zealous" and "absolute", I can live with that :)

[ceo_esq]

Looking at the types of applications that Randi refuses to entertain for purposes of the Challenge, it’s possible to discern at least three categories of claims that, while arguably paranormal, are not “eligible” for good, sound policy reasons (note that certain rejected claims may fall into more than one category):

1. Claims that are either hazardous to test, or the mere entertaining of which would risk inspiring hazardous undertakings. (Example: “I can resurrect myself from a fatal injury.”)

2. Claims that are essentially unfalsifiable. (Example: “I can turn invisible if no one is watching or recording me.")

3. Claims the testing and/or debunking of which would not materially advance the JREF’s goals. Remember that the JREF is endeavoring to encourage the broader public to think critically, and to alert them to the consequences of accepting paranormal or pseudoscientific claims. This goal is well-served by debunking claims of the sort to which large numbers of uncritically-minded folks give credence, or might give credence if it came to their attention (dowsing, clairvoyance, conjuring spirits, medical quackery, perpetual motion, telekinesis, flying saucers). This goal is obviously not appreciably advanced by debunking claims that are manifestly unlikely ever to achieve more than a negligible level of acceptance among mentally healthy, albeit uncritical, members of the public – or even among the ordinary woo-woo population. (Examples: “I can survive indefinitely without food”; “I can transform a person into a monkey”.) JREF’s mission is preoccupied with the risks posed to the uncritical mainstream – not the true lunatic fringe – by paranormal/pseudoscientific beliefs.

All of the foregoing seems to me to furnish a rational, logical basis to justify the summary rejection by JREF of certain Challenge claims, and no case has yet come to my attention where I detected any hypocrisy in JREF’s response to a claimant.

That said, Randi's "bedside manner" vis-à-vis certain claimants may well be susceptible to improvement; however, the nature of his role doesn't really require him not to be a grouch. These people aren't his clients or patients, after all, and a number of them are obviously cranks.

[Skeptical Greg]

That said, Randi's "bedside manner" vis-à-vis certain claimants may well be susceptible to improvement; however, the nature of his role doesn't really require him not to be a grouch. These people aren't his clients or patients, after all, and a number of them are obviously cranks.

Heh, Heh.. I reseve the right to be cranky with cranks..:D

[Randi]

We also refuse to consider claims od Santa Claus sighting, the Tooth Fairy, and Easter Bunny.

Some things are just too silly and tedious to waste time on.

We've tested "breatharians" before. It's tiring and stupid. You wait outside the Holiday Inn for the delivery from MacDonalds or Pizza Hut, then you confront the liar and go home.

Boring.

James Randi

[Stainless_Steel_Rat]

Besides, testing a "breathian would take forever, and what type of standard would you use?

If they just claim to be able to survive without food, what's a good time frame? How long can a normal person go without food? How do they loose? Die? Do you lock them into a sealed room in the JREF building, with monitors on it 24/7 recoding every second to make sure no cheating takes place?

If they claim no ill effects, who decides at what point the person is suffering ill effects? How do you measure that? When his kidneys are down to 50% effeciency?

It's a claim full of crap, and no one with any ounce of reason would believe it.

SSR

[Brown]

So we have person who says (with an apparently straight face) that he can survive on water alone for an indefinite period. Now, there's nothing so unusual about living only on water for a prolonged period. Lots of people fast voluntarily, drinking only water. Some of them have done this for weeks at a time. Lots of others fast involuntarily, i.e., they starve.

Their health has suffered, and they have lost weight as a result.

Does the claimant assert an ability to maintain weight on a water-only diet? Does the claimant assert that there are no adverse long-term effects of consuming only water? If not, then the JREF is absolutely right to dismiss this claim out of hand!

Taking the claim at face value, one suspects that the claim is bogus, and that the claimant is really consuming nourishment, but not telling anyone. (Mr. Randi has some experience in this area, and apparently he has found this to be the case.)

You know, I'm reminded of the opening chapter of Joseph Heller's "Catch-22."

Yossarian is in the hospital, claiming to be sick. He claims he has a borderline liver condition that won't develop into jaundice, so his condition can't be treated. He wants to stay in the hospital indefinitely.

The doctors suspect Yossarian is merely moving his bowels and not telling anyone.

[Captain Spaulding]

If this link has already been posted I apologize. I found this on the Skeptic's Dictionary website http://www.skepdic.com/inedia.html

Apparently there has been someone irresponisble enough to test this claim. Her claims as why the test failed would hilarious if they were'nt so sad

"Greve claimed that she failed because on the first day of the test she had been confined in a hotel room near a busy road, which kept her from getting the nutrients she needs from the air. “I asked for fresh air. Seventy per cent of my nutrients come from fresh air. I couldn’t even breath,” "

[DialecticMaterialist]

ROFL. OMG that letter by Randi made me spit our my cereal and wake people up with laughter. I'm still engaged in that short spasmy laughter as I write this.

Hadn't consumed anything but water since 1998??? !!! :rolleyes:

Sure.


Let me say if the letter is real, still very warranted. I mean come on.

Throw me a freakin bone here.

Randi was certainly kinder then I would have been. LOL/ repeat.

[DialecticMaterialist]

the ability to survive on water alone for an indefinite period.

LOL LOL.

And just the way its worded by you. Sorry but I mean COME ON.

Testing that guy would be a waste time. You know nobody can survive on water alone and if they say "since 1998" they are lying. End of freakin story.

[The Informant]

You know nobody can survive on water alone and if they say "since 1998" they are lying.

You're basing your conclusion on a preconceived notion. Not very scientific, eh?

We're still not 100% sure WHAT the limits of the human body are. You might think it's crazy to assume that someone can fall from an airplane and survive. But there have been several instances of skydivers with failed parachutes hitting the ground at terminal velocity and surviving.

Sure, conventional wisdom might tell you that the claimant is lying. But remember that conventional wisdom has often turned out to be wrong.

***

If anybody is worried that testing of such a claim could be hazardous, and that JREF would get sued as a result, there's a simple solution.

Draw up a contract between JREF and the claimant. The major stipulation in the contract would be: "Both parties have agreed that JREF will not be held responsible for any injury or health problems that result from this test".

If the claimant really believes that he can do what he says he can do, then he'd agree to a contract like this without hesitation.

[Skeptical Greg]

Is your name really ' Brain ' ?

And yes, we do know.. Sighhhhh....

Some preconceived notions are based on empiracle evidence..

Of course, all are not.. We know some things, we don't know others..

One of the things we do know, is that a human being cannot consume only pure water, and continue to live indefinitely...

[Zep]

I reckon the letter is a complete and utter fake. The proof is quite simple to see.

1. Look at the second horizontal fold in the paper, the one going through Randi's signature. That fold is quite rough and appears to have been folded either very roughly, or it has been refolded a number of times.

2. Look closely at the items on the letter this fold passes through: an address block on the sidebar on the left, and Randi's signature.

3. The sidebar address block is roughly distorted over the fold, and shows shadowing as well.

4. Randi's signature is completely undistorted over the fold - it aligns perfectly above and below, and shows no shadowing at all.

Ergo, the signature is photgraphically overlayed (most likely digitally), leading to a reasonable assumption that the rest of the body of the letter is similarly faked.

Plus all the other points noted previously by others.

Forget the discussion, we are talking about a fake anyway.

Zep

[The Informant]

Diogenes:
"Is your name really ' Brain ' ?"

No, I am not "Brain" (doh!), nor am I "Brian", which is the name of the person I quote in my signature.

"One of the things we do know, is that a human being cannot consume only pure water, and continue to live indefinitely..."

That's not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that this person has survived X amount of time on pure water alone. Nobody ever explicitly said that he could go on without food indefinitely.

Zep:
"I reckon the letter is a complete and utter fake."

Well, look at the opinions expressed in Randi's post above, and a statement made by Randi in his 7.5.02 commentary: "I gave this dumbo a short, sharp, answer long ago, but he's still carrying on about this nonsense."

This suggests that Randi did send either the letter in question or a letter expressing similar opinions to the one in question.

[compjan]

Originally posted by The Informant
<..>
"One of the things we do know, is that a human being cannot consume only pure water, and continue to live indefinitely..."

That's not what is being claimed. What is being claimed is that this person has survived X amount of time on pure water alone. Nobody ever explicitly said that he could go on without food indefinitely.

<..>

Maybe not. From Milton's site:

"Mr Kolodzey is one of several thousand people who believe and claim that they can live on water alone,absorbing 'prana' or life energy from space around them."

and Randi's letter:

"Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998?"

Imply long term food deprivation well beyond what is physically possible.

However from Milton again:

"It ought therefore to have been a very simple matter for Randi to offer to lock Mr Kolodzey up for a week or two."

Which is a much different time scale and well within normal human capacity to withstand.

Its disingenous anyway because A) Its not simple to lock someone up for two weeks or to B) monitor them closely enough to see a difference between their weight loss and "ordinary" weight loss.

It would be very difficult to test his claims in a single test. You would need several months of closely monitored behavior.

Randi is being reasonable to ditch this claim.

Now, if you want to cough up the money and time to lock up and monitor Mr. Kolodzey for six months, then you've got a case.

Have a good day,

CompJan

[Preston]

Ok, the claim that an individual can survive for an indefinite period of time off of water is quite the doozie. That goes against everything we know.

But did anyone catch that? Indefinite!

That means that the person is saying they will never ever die as long as they have dihydrogen monoxide, H20, or in laymans terms: Water.

Assuming that the water they had could provide all the sustinance their body would need, which is not possible but just for the sake of argument, they would still have to manage not ever dying.

I would reject that claim outright. It's not worth anyone wasting time on, and even recieving a personally signed rejection letter is rather generous if you ask me.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Preston
Ok, the claim that an individual can survive for an indefinite period of time off of water is quite the doozie. That goes against everything we know.

But did anyone catch that? Indefinite!

That means that the person is saying they will never ever die as long as they have dihydrogen monoxide, H20, or in laymans terms: Water.

Assuming that the water they had could provide all the sustinance their body would need, which is not possible but just for the sake of argument, they would still have to manage not ever dying.

I would reject that claim outright. It's not worth anyone wasting time on, and even recieving a personally signed rejection letter is rather generous if you ask me.
I agree about rejecting the claim. But that's not what "indefinite (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indefinite)" means.

[roger]

Originally posted by ceo_esq

I agree about rejecting the claim. But that's not what "indefinite (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indefinite)" means.

Sure, but in the case of the Breatharians, they do claim immortality. They claim people have lived over 6,000 years by this practice. Somehow they forgot to mention who these people are; I wonder why.....

[Preston]

Ah. I was mistaking indefinate with infinite for some reason when I typed that.

[MRC_Hans]

That letter may be a fake, but let's face it: James Randi IS generally rather rude and grumpy :eek:. I don't think this is very benificial for his image, nor for the JREF mission, but I expect it comes with having heard so much BS.

Wo-woos will use it of course to try to miscredit him, but it is of no actual importance: If you file an invalid claim, it remains invalid, regardless of wether you are told so politely or rudely.

Remember Carlos Swett? After his ridiculous claim (yeah, I'm a rude old man too) was rejected and picked apart, he went on for an entire year, bickering about the way he had been told that his claim was ridiculous. Actually he would still be at it if he had not been stopped forcefully :rolleyes:

Hans

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Wo-woos will use it of course to try to miscredit him, but it is of no actual importance: If you file an invalid claim, it remains invalid, regardless of wether you are told so politely or rudely.

A bit of stick offends the ego, but can do as well as a carrot. I don't see why we should be terribly tolerant of self-inflicted idiocy. Thinking you can pass a determinemillion dollar challenge test generally qualifies.

[tonygraham]

Surely, if any animal had developed the ability to live without the need for food, this would be a huge evolutionary advantage to them and the ability would spread very quickly through the species. So, we'd all be living on only water!

[tonygraham]

Of course, these people probably don't 'believe' in evolution.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Okay. Here's the take of someone who sorta kinda actually tried this crap once...

Away back when, the squadron commander gave me the straight scoop, as in "You will make the weight limits the Air Force prescribes for your height by the last day of January, or on the first day of February you will not sew on that third stripe." Seeing as that meant no NCO status, I buckled down and did one of the dumber things I ever did.

Daily intake: 500 units of Vitamin E, 3 One-A-Day brand multivitamins, and 45mg of Dexedrine a day (this was back when they prescribed it as an appetite suppressant -- and I'd built up a handy little stock of it, legally I might add), and all the water I could drink.

Additional weekly intake: Saturday night, 6 pm, up at the Jet Stream when Star Trek came on channel 50 out of Detroit, two Polish sausages on hot dog buns, and a mug of beer.

That was it.

I sewed on the stripes, having lost 32 pounds in 31 days. Doesn't matter that I waited too long to find a bed one night when them pills wore off immediately...they found me in the hall, on my knees with my head against the door, sound asleep, and the key was in the lock...

I was younger and stupider back then...and that will be enough of the "Whaddaya mean 'back then'" garbage...

So, on the basis of personal experience, anecdotal as it is, I have to say to anyone that claims of living off water and sunshine (h*ll, I'll be generous and let you throw in a triple handful of vitamins and supplements) are highly suspicious, bordering on outright fraudulent.

Translation: I remain unconvinced.

[NullPointerException]

This letter is an obvious edit, if you look the fold lines have distorted the lefthand side of the text that was on the original letterhead they received but not the signature which remains perfectly straight. There is no question that this is an edited letter.

In regards to the claim to test it all you have to do is perform a colonoscopy or urinalysis.

[JimTheBrit]

Bumped to prevent pruning of thread.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I hadn't seen this thread the first time around, but I can't believe no one pointed out what is painfully obvious:

Rhesus Negative = Rico Kolodzey :rolleyes:

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Originally posted by The Informant
You're basing your conclusion on a preconceived notion. Not very scientific, eh?


It is a well-established scientific fact that human beings need food to survive. It is hardly a preconceived notion.

[robbersdog]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
This letter is an obvious edit, if you look the fold lines have distorted the lefthand side of the text that was on the original letterhead they received but not the signature which remains perfectly straight. There is no question that this is an edited letter.

In regards to the claim to test it all you have to do is perform a colonoscopy or urinalysis.

Firstly, no, the letter is not a fake in my opinion. Whether it is from Randi or not is another question (why don't we just ask? Mr. Randi my be a little grouchy, but he would appear to be honest). The ink marks on the top third of the letter match exactly to the printed words in the middle third. There are various other ways to test something like this, if anyone wants to know all the things I've done to test this, PM me. I don't want to bore everyone with this here.

Secondly, the claim is that the person can survive with only water. For the test to be valid, the claim would need to be shown to be false. The subject would have to be shown to not survive. If the test is stopped at any time, you may have shown that there is evidence that person may not have survived much longer, but nothing will have been proved. I agree with the colonoscopy and urinalysis, but these people claim to be able to get nutriment from the air and sun etc. so would probably claim this is where it all came from. Very silly, but we're not dealling with people who are sensible. This claim is no more bizzare than the original.

I don't think it would be responsible of the JREF to test a claim like this. I don't think that signing a contract would help the JREFs position should things go wrong.

Mr. Randi is sometimes abbrupt, so I end with a quote (this is the entire text from a reply he sent me to an email I sent about a run of the mill penta water type claim. It was probably more than I deserved!)

"Okay, so this is nonsense...."

[Kopji]

I suggest that JREF get a nice large "person-sized" box for these claims with some holes punched in the lid for "fresh air".

The general rule would be that due to the large number of claimants, they could only test one per year.

Scatter a few human bones on the floor ahead of time, and offer to lock the claimant in, returning in a year to check on them. (An easy 1 million $ per year)

Hey JREF could link a webcam in, I'm sure such a thing would be a popular destination.

[Randi]

This is Randi. Please, this matter of living-without-eating is just such nonsense, that I find it hard to believe it's earned such a large amount of attention. That letter is quite real, not faked, I meant it and I still mean it.

Why should I spin my wheels feeding the ego of such a person? A test of his silly claim would occupy much more of my time than I'm willing to invest, and it would only feed the arsenal of those who love to accuse us of investigating only the easy cases. As soon as that test would be completed, another similar one would pop up, and we'd be off again -- "You tested him, why won't you test me?"

Many years ago, we tested a chap in San Francisco who'd made the same claim. We camped outside the Holiday Inn where we'd placed him, and at about 2 in the morning, he left for the local all-night MacDonald's and retuned with a huge bag of cheeseburgers. He said he only intended to inhale them, not eat them. Now, that makes him look silly, of course, but IT ALSO MAKES US LOOK SILLY, for having organized a test in the first place!

Cloud-busting and living-without-eating are off the JREF list, because they're just so damn silly and juvenile.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Randi
Now, that makes him look silly, of course, but IT ALSO MAKES US LOOK SILLY, for having organized a test in the first place!

Cloud-busting and living-without-eating are off the JREF list, because they're just so damn silly and juvenile.

It doesn't make you look silly at all!

I would have loved to see all that on a television, I bet it was hilarious! There has to be a way to capitalise on all that great content that wacky-asses provide.

Good to see you on the forum. I wish you would post more often.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Well, it's not what I would call an ideal way to deal with the problem...

...but I suppose it's really no different than the Patent Office refusing to look at perpetual motion machines. If the claim is for real, then at least we can be certain that such a revolutionary and earthshaking discovery can be verified in other ways, and if it's not, then JREF doesn't waste their time and effort.

Still, it does damage your credibility just a little. I'm convinced they're liars, and you're convinced they're liars, but now we can't say that we gave them the opportunity to prove otherwise.

[robbersdog]

If the JREF was a government ageincy with countless billions at it's disposal then maybe it would be able to test all the loonies which crawl out of the woodwork. We have to keep things in perspective here, the JREF can only test so many people. To test such a claim would surely be a waste of resources?

I don't agree that the failed test Mr. Randi mentioned makes the JREF look silly, but I can understand how they may have felt silly. A few people here seem to think that unless the JREF can prove conclusively that there is nothing paranormal in the whole universe, then it's failing!

I have to say, I'm surprised about all the speculation about the letter being faked. Why didn't anyone just ask? I have to say it though, I was right! :D (I like to be smug every now and again, I don't get the chance very often!)

[Pyrrho]

Bump.

[Peter Morris]

C.F.Larsen : "It's a fake.

Two decades of working with computer graphics tells me so.

Here's how I can see why it is a fake:

The letters are way too clear for a scan. Compared to the rest of the content, the letters are the only things that are crisp and clear.....


Zep : I reckon the letter is a complete and utter fake. The proof is quite simple to see.

1. Look at the second horizontal fold in the paper, the one going through Randi's signature. That fold is quite rough and appears to have been folded either very roughly, or it has been refolded a number of times.

2. Look closely at the items on the letter this fold passes through: an address block on the sidebar on the left, and Randi's signature......

NullPointerException: This letter is an obvious edit, if you look the fold lines have distorted the lefthand side of the text that was on the original letterhead they received but not the signature which remains perfectly straight. There is no question that this is an edited letter.

Randi : That letter is quite real, not faked


Uh, guys, and I mean especially CF Larsen, when someone makes a paranormal claim, and your expert analysis and specialised knowledge shows them to be obviously faking it, maybe you were wrong about that too, is it possible ?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Uh, guys, and I mean especially CF Larsen, when someone makes a paranormal claim, and your expert analysis and specialised knowledge shows them to be obviously faking it, maybe you were wrong about that too, is it possible ?

Uh, yeah' . Maybe.. I'ts possible.. But the world still waits for that first verifiable paranormal claim...

Chirrrrrrrp.....

[Peter Morris]

Not at all.

Several times, certain things that were originally considered "paranormal", or "fringe science" or "quackery", have been verified by conventional science, and are these days considered to be "normal", whatever that means.

At one time the existence of meteorites was denied by the best scientific knowledge. The only people that believed in them were superstitious peasants, and a Yankee professor.

I cannot conceive of anything that could be called "paranormal" after it has been proved true. Proving it true simply changes it's normal/paranormal status, right?

[apoger]

Proving it true simply changes it's normal/paranormal status, right?

Correct.

However since science does not "prove" anything and certainly does not declare "truths", it would be better to state: Upon the acquisition of enough credible evidence we will change it's normal/paranormal status.

[Peter Morris]

A fair point. I accept your correction.

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Rhesus Negative
"The guy is lying. Period."


He may be able to do what he claims.



No, he may not be able to do what he claims. It is not a disputable fact that a living creature can not live without a source of nourishment. And, no, being open to the possibility is not being open minded, it is being stupid.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Uh, guys, and I mean especially CF Larsen, when someone makes a paranormal claim, and your expert analysis and specialised knowledge shows them to be obviously faking it, maybe you were wrong about that too, is it possible ?

I think Randi wrote the letter verbatim but perhaps the website superimposed the text graphically over JREF stationery to make it clearer...

[kookbreaker]

Undead Thread!


Shoot It!


Flee!

[NiallM]

Oh dear, oh dear. What an idiotic claim!

It's also outrageously offensive to the many people who have died in famine, or who have died in concentration camps, or died on hunger strike.

Oh, of course, they didn't have the chakra, or crapka, or whatever it's called.

People have died attempting breatharianism.

I would have far far harsher words to say to an idiot who promotes such a dangerous practice.

And, yes, the words "fraud" and "liar" are apt. He simply has not lived for 5 years on water and air. He has eaten during that time and he knows he has.

I'm prepared to accept that some of the woo-woos out there genuinely believe that they have paranormal powers. Anyone who would deny eating for 5 years is lying, though.

[sf108]

I saw this Korean SBS show which documented this guy who ate rocks for food. Not sure if anyone knows...but the camera crew took him along to the doctor, and they said he was quite skinny, but nevertheless healthy.

Possible?

[T'ai Chi]

Rock candy, or those jellybeans that are made to look like rocks? :)

[jj]

Originally posted by sf108
I saw this Korean SBS show which documented this guy who ate rocks for food. Not sure if anyone knows...but the camera crew took him along to the doctor, and they said he was quite skinny, but nevertheless healthy.

Possible?

One of my kids loves to hand out candy-covered chocolates that look exactly like small river gravel.

She'll take one out of the dish when somebody new is watching, and crunch down on it.

Some of the reactions are priceless. Is the guy living on chocolate? :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Before defending or accusing Randi, its important to see if the letter is real. Specially if this is an skeptics forum!!!!!

I say is fake, for the reasons other posters have said. Anyone with photoshop can amplify it and see it.

[NiallM]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Before defending or accusing Randi, its important to see if the letter is real. Specially if this is an skeptics forum!!!!!

I say is fake, for the reasons other posters have said. Anyone with photoshop can amplify it and see it.
Err, Randi himself appears to have implicitly recognised the letter. He did so in this thread. It may be that their scanning efforts have made it look less than convincing; perhaps they have cleaned it up too much. As far as I know, though, no-one is in doubt that the letter was sent.

[T'ai Chi]

Claus, still believe it is fake?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by NiallM
Err, Randi himself appears to have implicitly recognised the letter. He did so in this thread. It may be that their scanning efforts have made it look less than convincing; perhaps they have cleaned it up too much. As far as I know, though, no-one is in doubt that the letter was sent.

When I wrote it, there was not any post by Randy!! :D I swear it!

[princhester]

Originally posted by sf108
I saw this Korean SBS show which documented this guy who ate rocks for food. Not sure if anyone knows...but the camera crew took him along to the doctor, and they said he was quite skinny, but nevertheless healthy.

Possible?

Entirely. It's entirely possible he eats rocks for food.

However, one would suspect that he also eats noodles etc, for food and it is that, and not the rocks, that keep him healthy.

Now where's my GL? It's the only thing that will take down one of these zombie threads permanently...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by billydkid
No, he may not be able to do what he claims. It is not a disputable fact that a living creature can not live without a source of nourishment. And, no, being open to the possibility is not being open minded, it is being stupid.

The claimed source of nourishment is the air, apparently.

Claus, you there? Zep? Still claim the letter was faked?

[T'ai Chi]

Bump for those fine skeptics, Claus and Zep:

Claus

It's a fake.

Two decades of working with computer graphics tells me so.


Zep

I reckon the letter is a complete and utter fake. The proof is quite simple to see.


Randi

That letter is quite real, not faked

[T'ai Chi]

bump for Claus and Claus Lite.

[Solus]

Bumped to remind skeptics to admit they are wrong sometimes...

[Zep]

Sure we can be wrong! That's what being a skeptic means.

Now...

How many times have the woo-woos admitted THEY are wrong??

[quixotecoyote]

Given that edited photos do not always mean fake photos, are we going to enter a warm and fuzzy era when we embrace the UFO cult with open arms? :dig:

[AgingYoung]

Sure we can be wrong! That's what being a skeptic human means.

Now...

How many times have the woo-woos admitted THEY are wrong??

When I first read that comment I thought it was a fact. I was wrong. I've corrected it to reflect reality.

Gene
Woo at Large

[Solus]

Sure we can be wrong! That's what being a skeptic means.

Now...

How many times have the woo-woos admitted THEY are wrong??

I just thought it was funny that CFLarsen hasn't admitted his error.
This thread link was in the details for the challenge on the main page (is it still there I wonder). I bookmarked this thread a long while ago and meant to bring up at some point as I found it quite amusing.

It's still on the challenge FAQ check the footnotes
http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html

It's a fake.

Two decades of working with computer graphics tells me so.

Here's how I can see why it is a fake:


The letters are way too clear for a scan. Compared to the rest of the content, the letters are the only things that are crisp and clear.
All of the lines are lined up perfectly. I mean, there is not even a single pixel difference. This is virtually impossible, if the paper had been scanned. There will always be some displacement.
If you look at the left side of the image, you will see the black border tapers off by one or two pixels, as expected. However, the lines of text are perfectly lined up.


I am pretty convinced that this has been investigated before. The name sounds familiar.

Sounds good...

This is Randi. Please, this matter of living-without-eating is just such nonsense, that I find it hard to believe it's earned such a large amount of attention. That letter is quite real, not faked, I meant it and I still mean it.

Why should I spin my wheels feeding the ego of such a person? A test of his silly claim would occupy much more of my time than I'm willing to invest, and it would only feed the arsenal of those who love to accuse us of investigating only the easy cases. As soon as that test would be completed, another similar one would pop up, and we'd be off again -- "You tested him, why won't you test me?"

Many years ago, we tested a chap in San Francisco who'd made the same claim. We camped outside the Holiday Inn where we'd placed him, and at about 2 in the morning, he left for the local all-night MacDonald's and retuned with a huge bag of cheeseburgers. He said he only intended to inhale them, not eat them. Now, that makes him look silly, of course, but IT ALSO MAKES US LOOK SILLY, for having organized a test in the first place!

Cloud-busting and living-without-eating are off the JREF list, because they're just so damn silly and juvenile.

:D

Woos of course ALMOST NEVER admit they are wrong, of those that have they would lose the adjective "woo" by default anyway. :p

[/\/\arko]

I really do think, though, that Randi and the JREF should put location and date of writing into their written correspondence. I first assumed a fake letter because of this.

Wow, not a week since I've registered to the forum, and the first thread I'm reading beginning to end is this one! :boggled:

[AgingYoung]

...

Woos of course ALMOST NEVER admit they are wrong, of those that have they would lose the adjective "woo" by default anyway. :p

I will not give up the adjective "woo" that easily, Solus! There will be a fight!!

Cool spelling of your name, /\/\arko.

Gene,
Woo at Large

[The Atheist]

It's a fake.

Two decades of working with computer graphics tells me so.

Here's how I can see why it is a fake:


The letters are way too clear for a scan. Compared to the rest of the content, the letters are the only things that are crisp and clear.
All of the lines are lined up perfectly. I mean, there is not even a single pixel difference. This is virtually impossible, if the paper had been scanned. There will always be some displacement.
If you look at the left side of the image, you will see the black border tapers off by one or two pixels, as expected. However, the lines of text are perfectly lined up.


I am pretty convinced that this has been investigated before. The name sounds familiar.

:dl:

[robinson]

I looked at the letter in question (http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm), long ago, didn't seem to be a fake. I agree with Randi. Foolish claims should not be encouraged in any way.

[Pro7]

Who would want to live without food? lol.. there are different varieties of delicious food out there, I wouldnt want to miss the pleasure of eating them .. :)

I think Liar equals Fraud. I really actually think it means the same thing lol.

[Klaymore]

What was the windup on this anyway? If I remember correctly, Randi finally just said "screw it" and offered to negotiate test protocols with no-food-dude, but NFD hasn't bitten (bitten... get it?).

Is that right?

[Klaymore]

And when I say "Is that right," I mean "is it correct that they offered to negotiate test protocols with NFD." I don't mean "is it right to agree to test a man who doesn't want to eat?"

I'm still up in the air as to whether it's ethical to test NFD, or whether there's even a way to do it without incurring major legal liability issues... But damn it would be funny to see video of that guy begging to be let out of his cage so he could get him some KFC! :)

[Georg]

What was the windup on this anyway? If I remember correctly, Randi finally just said "screw it" and offered to negotiate test protocols with no-food-dude, but NFD hasn't bitten (bitten... get it?).

Is that right?

There was a short notice on SWIFT a while ago.
Mr. Randi wrote that they were (are?) negotiating a protocol since more then 100 days, leading nowhere. Sad. I´d love to see him beeing tested since this is one of the most ridiculous claims possible. I´d also like to read the negotiation, but unfortunately these negotiations aren´t published anymore. I wrote to Mr. Randi after the SWIFT article asking him to make an exception while I wasn´t a member of the forum yet, and got a short but friendly reply: "Thank you Georg. I appreciate your input." If anybody has more information on that (nut-) case, I would love to hear about it.

[robinson]

Testing a claim like this would be like testing someone who claims they can fly, without any device/assistance at all. A waste of time.

[Klaymore]

Testing a claim like this would be like testing someone who claims they can fly, without any device/assistance at all. A waste of time.

Well, of course it would be a waste of time, if what you mean by "waste of time" is that the claim would fail. That's the point of the challenge, though (as I understand it). ALL of the claims fail, because they're all ridiculous.

Is claiming to be able to live on air and water any more stoopid than claiming you can communicate with the dead or call UFOs from the sky? Is it somehow less meritorious than the exalted claim that you can use the antenna from an '89 Dodge truck to locate a natural hotspring?

The biggest difference between this claim and all of the others is that it's so much easier to test than they are! 1) Lock homeboy in a cell, and 2) watch him.

Now, that having been said, there are big problems with letting some crazy jerk starve himself on your property, and those have all been addressed (correctly I think) by the change to the rules that prohibits hurting yourself as part of the claim.

But I certainly wouldn't consider that test a waste of time. Nor would I consider a test of flying a waste of time. It's simple and cheap to conduct, and requires very little protocol. Meet the applicant in the parking lot of an AM/PM with a video camera, and if he flys, give him the money!

[robinson]

Well, of course it would be a waste of time, if what you mean by "waste of time" is that the claim would fail. That's the point of the challenge, though (as I understand it). ALL of the claims fail, because they're all ridiculous.

You do bring up an interesting point. The MDC isn't about finding some new ability, or researching paranormal stuff, it is about exposing frauds, and educating people on frauds, cons, and trickery. And maybe self delusion.

So a claim of flying or eating air is of little value, because almost nobody believes that. Religion, Ghost, Telepathy, Dowsing, Readings, etc have many more people who believe, hence not a waste of time.

I know some people who still think fire walking is a myth. If Randi still thought it was woo, I could win a million bucks. It is about what Randi thinks is woo, that counts. But if pretty much everybody else on the planet agrees with Randi, it is a waste of time to accept something as a challenge.

Unless you could get entertainment value out of it.

[Klaymore]

I guess when I set up my own $1,000,000 challenge, I can run it however I want!

[The Atheist]

But I certainly wouldn't consider that test a waste of time. Nor would I consider a test of flying a waste of time. It's simple and cheap to conduct, and requires very little protocol. Meet the applicant in the parking lot of an AM/PM with a video camera, and if he flys, give him the money!

Actually, that's a bloody good idea!

Think of the footage of Darwin Awards nominees you'd get - you'd make a million the easy way!

Only thing is, the guy flying might be a short video...

[Georg]

So a claim of flying or eating air is of little value, because almost nobody believes that. Religion, Ghost, Telepathy, Dowsing, Readings, etc have many more people who believe, hence not a waste of time.



That´s not entirely true. There are people that believe that BS and there have been deaths of followers of this "movement" in the past. Just google for Ellen Greve, the Australian leader of the pack, and you´ll get a lot of hits. While a hardcore cynic could say that this is evolution at work, I think it´s important to expose her and other protagonists for what they are: dangerous frauds. If that helps to save the life of innocent persons that are mentally ill or just deluded, it´s worth it.
And I think it is possible to test without endangering the life of the applicant.
Put them in a cell, no food, no water and then control the weight of the person. If he has lost weight after maybe two days, he failed. If he is able to keep his weight or even gain some (after an extra portion of light/air), he wins. Definitely easier to test than some other claims that have been formulated.

[Klaymore]

And I think it is possible to test without endangering the life of the applicant.
Put them in a cell, no food, no water and then control the weight of the person. If he has lost weight after maybe two days, he failed. If he is able to keep his weight or even gain some (after an extra portion of light/air), he wins. Definitely easier to test than some other claims that have been formulated.

That's a pretty damn-good test! I wonder how long you can continue to gain weight by just drinking water, though? I'm pretty sure homeboy was going to live on air and water...

[Georg]

That's a pretty damn-good test! I wonder how long you can continue to gain weight by just drinking water, though? I'm pretty sure homeboy was going to live on air and water...

Ah, I didn´t realize the "water-part". After checking his homepage sabondotorg (replace the dot with a ".", I´m not allowed to post links yet) I see you are right. Water with lemon juice and tea of fennel, that´s it. O.K., living without food but drinking allowed.......
Just put him in the cell for a longer time, one can go without food for maybe a week or two without health dangers. Even if he drinks a lot, he should lose weight after a while, given he doesn´t start the test totally dehydrated. Any doctors here that could comment?
Since it isn´t too hard to do the protocol part, I would be very interested in the negotiations, or better: the way he weasels out of actually beeing tested after beeing such a loudmouth.

[Cuddles]

That´s not entirely true. There are people that believe that BS

That's the point. There are people, but there really aren't very many of them. In a world with ove 6 billion people you can find somone that believes pretty much anything you can think up. A significant portion of the world believe in things like dowsing and psychics, so it is worth the time to try to expose them. If even the optimistic estimates place the number of breatharians no higher than 5000 it is simply not worth the bother. The JREF has very limited resources, and is actually a lot smaller than many people seem to think. Yes, it would be nice if they could look at things like this, but with people like Sylvia defrauding millions the more obscure crazies don't even show up on the radar. And as Randi said, testing claims that basically no-one believes in actually hurts the JREF since it makes them look silly.

[Georg]

That's the point. There are people, but there really aren't very many of them. In a world with ove 6 billion people you can find somone that believes pretty much anything you can think up. A significant portion of the world believe in things like dowsing and psychics, so it is worth the time to try to expose them. If even the optimistic estimates place the number of breatharians no higher than 5000 it is simply not worth the bother. The JREF has very limited resources, and is actually a lot smaller than many people seem to think. Yes, it would be nice if they could look at things like this, but with people like Sylvia defrauding millions the more obscure crazies don't even show up on the radar. And as Randi said, testing claims that basically no-one believes in actually hurts the JREF since it makes them look silly.

I see the problem with the limited resources. Why not leave the protocol negotiations for the pretest to the smaller Skeptic organisations in the homelands of the applicants? The GWUP (the German skeptic organisation) could easily do that, they are offering tests as well, and this Rico Kolodzey is from Germany. And Mr. Randi is not absolutely consistent on this matter, he offered Helen Greve the test (she didn´t accept), and so he did with Kolodzey.
The claw: defrauding millions? Is she? Maybe a lot of the watchers of Montel (didn´t see it myself, since I´m from Germany) just see it for entertainment reasons. Of course she needs to be attacked, no doubt about that, but only going for the big fish that don´t take the challenge anyway isn´t the solution in my opinion.
Dowsing: yes, much more people believe in that, but it was debunked by Mr. Randi and others quite a time ago and quite often as far as I know. Does it really make sense to test it every 5 years? Maybe.
So, how many bleevers are sufficient so that a test should be offered?
10000? A million?
Those "Breatharians" are dangerous, so every opportunity should be taken to expose them. Quite the same as with homoeopaths and the other sCAMers that actually endanger life and health of persons, so it is well worth the bother.
Sorry if my English is far from perfect, but it is not my first language, and I am trying my best.

[GzuzKryzt]

I guess when I set up my own $1,000,000 challenge, I can run it however I want!

I ONE THE KLEYMOOR CHALENGE!!!! NOW PAY ME MY MILION DOLLASR!!!!!!!!!!

(Just to give you a taste of what to expect.)

[Klaymore]

I ONE THE KLEYMOOR CHALENGE!!!! NOW PAY ME MY MILION DOLLASR!!!!!!!!!!

(Just to give you a taste of what to expect.)

Sorry Kryzt, you did not win the Klaymore $1,000,000 yet. I've been thinking of the rules, and here they are:

1) Toss Klaymore's salad at rush hour in the middle of the "Hachiko" crosswalk next to Shibuya Station in Tokyo (the most crowded intersection in the world, as seen in "Lost in Translation" and "Fast & Furious: Tokyo Drift);
2) Win $1;
3) Repeat 9,999,999 more times to CLAIM YOUR MILLION!

That's it! No application, no protocol negotions, no "lemon water with fennel" (although you'll probably want to wash your mouth out with something...)

[Klaymore]

Oh, but the other point I was going to make: from what I've seen it doesn't matter so much whether woos believe in this particular power or not. The problem is that now all of the paranormal-lovers out there talk about how the challenge isn't real (which they do anyway, I admit), and how Randi is just a liar (which they do anyway, I admit).

But good lord above, just to see the video of that dude PRESSED against the bars of his cage, STRAINING to reach a McFish(tm) sandwich and glass of Fresca(tm)...

[GzuzKryzt]

That's a pretty damn-good test! I wonder how long you can continue to gain weight by just drinking water, though? I'm pretty sure homeboy was going to live on air and water...

Ah, I didn´t realize the "water-part". After checking his homepage sabondotorg (replace the dot with a ".", I´m not allowed to post links yet) I see you are right. Water with lemon juice and tea of fennel, that´s it. O.K., living without food but drinking allowed.......
Just put him in the cell for a longer time, one can go without food for maybe a week or two without health dangers. Even if he drinks a lot, he should lose weight after a while, given he doesn´t start the test totally dehydrated. Any doctors here that could comment?
Since it isn´t too hard to do the protocol part, I would be very interested in the negotiations, or better: the way he weasels out of actually beeing tested after beeing such a loudmouth.

It is actually possible to live without solid food for quite some time, without risking significant health damage. One of the keys is to beef up your fluids, while still calling them water.

With the term water, we associate an odorless, colorless liquid, with no added substances. Breatharians often use the term water, when the in fact mean fluids. You can easily imagine how to beef up water to hold some nutritional value, while it still mostly consists of H2O: Chicken broth, sports drinks, beer, etc.

"George Hamilton" (http://sunson2005.narod.ru/index-living-on-sunlight-sungasing.html) for example uses the term liquid nutrition, which of course broadens the plate substantially.

A recent SWIFT entry: http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-02/020209morebrowne.html#i2

From personal experience with fasting cures, I can verify that it is possible to live without food for ten days - easily. Consult your family doctor before, during and afterwards. In a nutshell: If you ensure intake of basic nutrients, stick to your plan but immediately stop at the first sign of dearth, you are basically only reducing your calorie supply. Which is of course nothing else but a strict - and questionable - diet.

Motivation is of course a key ingredient. Why would one abstain from food, when throughout earth history, we have fought hard battles to ensure basic nutrition through the course of the year? (And billions still do.)



I had the chance to experience the stories of several monks who were required to fast during their yearly retreats. The gist: They weren't allowed solid foods, but e.g. all the beer (along with broth, milk, etc.) they can drink. This is of course anecdotal evidence at best.
But that's a faith I could get behind! Zum Wohl!

[GzuzKryzt]

Sorry Kryzt, you did not win the Klaymore $1,000,000 yet. I've been thinking of the rules, and here they are:

1) Toss Klaymore's salad at rush hour in the middle of the "Hachiko" crosswalk next to Shibuya Station in Tokyo (the most crowded intersection in the world, as seen in "Lost in Translation" and "Fast & Furious: Tokyo Drift);
2) Win $1;
3) Repeat 9,999,999 more times to CLAIM YOUR MILLION!

That's it! No application, no protocol negotions, no "lemon water with fennel" (although you'll probably want to wash your mouth out with something...)

I ONE THE KLEYMOOR CHALENGE!!!! WHERE'S MY MILION DOLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Klaymore]

I ONE THE KLEYMOOR CHALENGE!!!! WHERE'S MY MILION DOLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No, no, no! I carefully, patiently, and politely explained the parameters of the challenge to you! Please consult the contest rules, which are stated clearly above. I wish you the best of success!

If you desire further clarification, please feel free to pose any questions you may have... however until the terms of the contest are satisfied, we will be unable to transfer any funds to you.

[Almo]

The guy is lying. Period.

We have ample evidence on how the world works. I'm not going to pretend to be "open minded" about the ability to live on only air & water. It's an absurd claim based on either massive delusion or intentional deceit.

Yeah. We know how cellular biology works. :confused:

[Georg]

It is actually possible to live without solid food for quite some time, without risking significant health damage. One of the keys is to beef up your fluids, while still calling them water.



From personal experience with fasting cures, I can verify that it is possible to live without food for ten days - easily. Consult your family doctor before, during and afterwards. In a nutshell: If you ensure intake of basic nutrients, stick to your plan but immediately stop at the first sign of dearth, you are basically only reducing your calorie supply. Which is of course nothing else but a strict - and questionable - diet.




Thanks, that´s what I meant. So it should be easy to test the guy without endangering his health. And he is claiming :
Zitronenwasser und Fencheltee
as his only "food" or what we not-enlighted-ones would call food or drinks.

He writes he is living on that since 1998. If that´d be possible it should be possible without losing weight, otherwise, even with only a little weightloss every week he should have died since. So let´s go ahead with the test.......

I´d actually pay some money for watching it, that would be fun.
Eating a large pizza, drink a few pints while ritually chanting

Zum Wohl!

every five minutes with my fellow observers.

[Cuddles]

I see the problem with the limited resources. Why not leave the protocol negotiations for the pretest to the smaller Skeptic organisations in the homelands of the applicants? The GWUP (the German skeptic organisation) could easily do that, they are offering tests as well, and this Rico Kolodzey is from Germany. And Mr. Randi is not absolutely consistent on this matter, he offered Helen Greve the test (she didn´t accept), and so he did with Kolodzey.
The claw: defrauding millions? Is she? Maybe a lot of the watchers of Montel (didn´t see it myself, since I´m from Germany) just see it for entertainment reasons. Of course she needs to be attacked, no doubt about that, but only going for the big fish that don´t take the challenge anyway isn´t the solution in my opinion.
Dowsing: yes, much more people believe in that, but it was debunked by Mr. Randi and others quite a time ago and quite often as far as I know. Does it really make sense to test it every 5 years? Maybe.
So, how many bleevers are sufficient so that a test should be offered?
10000? A million?
Those "Breatharians" are dangerous, so every opportunity should be taken to expose them. Quite the same as with homoeopaths and the other sCAMers that actually endanger life and health of persons, so it is well worth the bother.
Sorry if my English is far from perfect, but it is not my first language, and I am trying my best.

No worries with the language. When you ask how many believers are sufficient, the point is not that we need a number, it is simply that Randi says there aren't enough. You might think there are, but in the end it is Randi's challenge. In addition, the challenge is not the JREF, it is just one of the PR tools it uses. In the end it doesn't actually matter whether anyone even takes the test, let alone passes it. All that matters is that it helps get the message across. Targeting small cults doesn't really help educate people about critical thinking or frauds, especially when most people have never heard of them.

There is also the issue of what areas people are likely to be convinced in. Anyone who believes they can live off only air clearly has issues with reality. This sort of person is unlikely to be persuaded they are wrong, while most people can see it is ridiculous without needing any more education. If the JREF targetted them they might help 1 or 2 people at the most. On the other hand, millions of people believe dowsing, for example, actually has evidence supporting it. Showing them how that this is not true and exposing the frauds and deluded people for what they are is likely to help a lot of them. There is a lot of woo thinking that is not due to stupidity or fraud, it is simply due to a lack of knowledge about certain subjects. This is where the "E" in "JREF" comes in.

[robinson]

Once again, I have to agree with Cuddles. In regards to the MDC and anyone claiming something like not eating, or flying, or becoming invisible, simply doing as Randi suggest, telling your Doctor and demonstrating your "ability" to them, will help the person making the claim.

In fact, anyone considering making a claim will benefit from this simple advice.

[Georg]

No worries with the language. When you ask how many believers are sufficient, the point is not that we need a number, it is simply that Randi says there aren't enough. You might think there are, but in the end it is Randi's challenge. In addition, the challenge is not the JREF, it is just one of the PR tools it uses. In the end it doesn't actually matter whether anyone even takes the test, let alone passes it. All that matters is that it helps get the message across. Targeting small cults doesn't really help educate people about critical thinking or frauds, especially when most people have never heard of them.

There is also the issue of what areas people are likely to be convinced in. Anyone who believes they can live off only air clearly has issues with reality. This sort of person is unlikely to be persuaded they are wrong, while most people can see it is ridiculous without needing any more education. If the JREF targetted them they might help 1 or 2 people at the most. On the other hand, millions of people believe dowsing, for example, actually has evidence supporting it. Showing them how that this is not true and exposing the frauds and deluded people for what they are is likely to help a lot of them. There is a lot of woo thinking that is not due to stupidity or fraud, it is simply due to a lack of knowledge about certain subjects. This is where the "E" in "JREF" comes in.

Thanks for the answer. But.......
Randi finally agreed to this challenge. Kolodzey (as Randi wrote in SWIFT) doesn´t agree to a protocol. So it would be great to publish the negotiations just to clearly show it´s not Randi´s fault the test doesn´t take place.
And the pattern for finally avoiding the challenge is the same for "small cults" or the big fish.
Anyone who believes they can live off only air clearly has issues with reality.
Anyone who believes in dowsing rods detecting gold, or believes in homoeopathy (given he/she knows the "principle" behind it ) has issues with reality as well. So what? I thought that´s what the E in JREF stands for. Education. This is not limited to intelligent persons. Especially the stupid ones need education. And mentioning "Breatharianism" along with dowsing, homoeopathy and the lot could give some people the clou that one is as absurd as the others.

[Klaymore]

Anyone who believes in dowsing rods detecting gold, or believes in homoeopathy (given he/she knows the "principle" behind it ) has issues with reality as well. So what? I thought that´s what the E in JREF stands for. Education. This is not limited to intelligent persons. Especially the stupid ones need education. And mentioning "Breatharianism" along with dowsing, homoeopathy and the lot could give some people the clou that one is as absurd as the others.

AMEN!

[Georg]

AMEN!

Sorry, I´m not religious either.

[GzuzKryzt]

Sorry, I´m not religious either.

Sakrament, Schorsch! A Bavarian who is not religious? How is that even possible? ;)

[GzuzKryzt]

No, no, no! I carefully, patiently, and politely explained the parameters of the challenge to you! Please consult the contest rules, which are stated clearly above. I wish you the best of success!

If you desire further clarification, please feel free to pose any questions you may have... however until the terms of the contest are satisfied, we will be unable to transfer any funds to you.

I WIN THE CHALLENNGE!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU FRUAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW TELL TAHT KLAYMROE CHAP TO GIVE ME MILION DLOLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(If you were female and asian gone brazilian and freshly showered, I'd partake in your challenge with gusto!)

[Georg]

Sakrament, Schorsch! A Bavarian who is not religious? How is that even possible? ;)

Psssssst. There are some of us hidden somewhere underground trying hard not to be found, but "They" are after us already......

No, quite easy. Atheist parents, atheist sister, mostly atheist friends.
And yes, I do sometimes feel ashamed that the pope is also Bavarian.
I´d like it better if we were only famous for the good beer and the nice landscape........

[robinson]

... and Nürnberg.

[Klaymore]

I WIN THE CHALLENNGE!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU FRUAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW TELL TAHT KLAYMROE CHAP TO GIVE ME MILION DLOLARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hmmm... one begins to understand how the good people at JREF may have become worn out over time...

I particulary appreciate your method of simply adding more exclamation points, rather than altering the content. As though that somehow, mystically, amplifies the imperative!(!!!)

[GzuzKryzt]

Hmmm... one begins to understand how the good people at JREF may have become worn out over time...

I particulary appreciate your method of simply adding more exclamation points, rather than altering the content. As though that somehow, mystically, amplifies the imperative!(!!!)

You seemed to have gotten my point. ;) But you failed to elaborate on my easter egg. :D

[Klaymore]

[Y]ou failed to elaborate on my easter egg. :D

Lol used to live in Brazil, and now live in Asia, but there the convergence ends. I'm as ugly as a chimp, and twice as furry!

[Cuddles]

Anyone who believes in dowsing rods detecting gold, or believes in homoeopathy (given he/she knows the "principle" behind it ) has issues with reality as well. So what?

But that's my point, they don't. Detecting things at a distance is possible. There are many pseudo-scientific explanations for how dowsing might work, and although anyone with a decent science education can see through them, many people don't have a decent science education. As far as a lot of people are concerned, dowsing doesn't sound any more woo than measuring neutron stars, for example. The JREF simply points out that no matter how plausible the explanation is, it simply doesn't work, and no-one who claims it does can ever manage to show this.

On the other hand, even the stupidest, least educated people in the world know that they need to eat and drink to survive. Surving off air alone is simply not possible and no-one believes this apart from a very few people who are obviously not in touch with planet Earth. Breatharians and dowsers are in entirely seperate groups. Dowsing can be believed simply through a lack of education, breatharianism can only be believed through severe mental difficulties.

I thought that´s what the E in JREF stands for. Education. This is not limited to intelligent persons. Especially the stupid ones need education. And mentioning "Breatharianism" along with dowsing, homoeopathy and the lot could give some people the clou that one is as absurd as the others.

Yes, the stupid ones need education, but the stupid ones are very unlikely to believe in breatharianism, or even to have heard of it. In fact, there was an article in the news recently about it, or something similar, and it turns out that I don't know a single person who had ever heard of it before. Educating people that you can't live off air doesn't educate them at all because basically no-one believes this and hardly anyone has even heard of it before. Proving that something no-one believes can work doesn't work doesn't help anyone. Since most people know it doesn't work they just won't group it together with dowsing and other woo because they don't see the connection. Dowsing can appear scientific to people who don't know any better, and they can be educated. Breatharianism can never appear scientific to anyone, so there is no point trying to educate them.

[Georg]

To cuddles:
Thanks for your answer. I think I get your point, but still do not agree.
Breatharians talk about prana, chi etc. as their "food source", a concept quite a lot of people believe in. So that for the laymen could sound as "scientific" as the concept of "memory of water" in homoeopathy or whatever the scientific principle of dowsing would be.
And there are believers of that BS not only in Australia (Greves home country) or Europe, in India as well, some Gurus or fakirs claim the same stuff, and they do have followers. Even the catholic church (surprise, surprise!) promotes that nonsense by starting the process of beatifying Therese Neumann in 2005, a woman that claimed to live on only water as well.
But it´s opinion against opinion, so maybe we should leave it at that.
The other point I mentioned is that Mr. Randi already agreed to test him, so for the credibility it would be great if he´d publish the negotiations, I´m sure it isn´t the JREFs fault that the test didn´t take place so far.
Mhhhm, food......
Heading home from work now to get a proper meal and a glass (or maybe two) of dry red wine.
Poor Breatharians, even if it would work, why would anybody want to miss that pleasure. Til tomorrow,

Georg

[bignickel]

Sorry Kryzt, you did not win the Klaymore $1,000,000 yet. I've been thinking of the rules, and here they are:

1) Toss Klaymore's salad at rush hour in the middle of the "Hachiko" crosswalk next to Shibuya Station in Tokyo (the most crowded intersection in the world, as seen in "Lost in Translation" and "Fast & Furious: Tokyo Drift);
2) Win $1;
3) Repeat 9,999,999 more times to CLAIM YOUR MILLION!

That's it! No application, no protocol negotions, no "lemon water with fennel" (although you'll probably want to wash your mouth out with something...)
Are you bringing the salad? Because if I have to buy a salad at a McDonalds in Shibuya, it'll cost, like, 150 yen or something stupid. So, I'd be losing money.

Plus, you can shake the salad inside the container. No need to toss it.

I prefer the 100 yen hamburgers anyway.

(I work in Shinjuku)

[Klaymore]

Are you bringing the salad? Because if I have to buy a salad at a McDonalds in Shibuya, it'll cost, like, 150 yen or something stupid. So, I'd be losing money.

Plus, you can shake the salad inside the container. No need to toss it.

I prefer the 100 yen hamburgers anyway.

(I work in Shinjuku)

Yes, for sure I'm bringing the salad... However, you might want to get some clarification from Kryzt before undertaking the challenge. I envision something like this...

bignickel: "Kryzt? What's 'salad tossing'?"
Kryzt: "Well, big, sometimes when two people love each other very, very much... or when the girl is really hot and has gone Brazillian... [rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8]... [rule8][rule8][rule8][rule8]. Understand now?"
bignickel: "SWEET HOLY JESUS!"
Kryzt: "So you see, big, you won't have to go to McDonalds at all... but you should probably get some Listermint(tm) or something. One of the big bottles."

How long have you been in Tokyo? I just hit the one year mark!

[bignickel]

Perhaps Kryzt can mention something to you about 'taking the piss out of' someone... :)

1 year, 2 months

[robinson]

The things you learn at the JREF forums.
























Sweet.

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps any Breatharian challenge should be classified upon receipt as a bid to re enact the life of Bobby Sands. With that in mind, the claimant should be directed to contact a television producer.

DR

[robinson]

After I watched this video, I thought of this thread. How strange.

Warning, video can be disturbing to some.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/AnorexiaBulimia.html

[Klaymore]

Perhaps any Breatharian challenge should be classified upon receipt as a bid to re enact the life of Bobby Sands. With that in mind, the claimant should be directed to contact a television producer.DR

I heard Robert DeNiro actually starved himself to death to prepare for that role!

[Klaymore]

After I watched this video, I thought of this thread.

I call the chunky one!

[CynicalSkeptic]

That's chunky?

Well, relatively...

[Solus]

After I watched this video, I thought of this thread. How strange.

Warning, video can be disturbing to some.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/AnorexiaBulimia.html

It's a serious issue but the site you linked had an ad with a girl in bikini down on all fours with her butt facing directly at me.;) Not that I'm complaining I just thought it was odd mix there.

The weight issue in American culture is definitely a problem. I wish more woman could understand men don't care that much as long your not morbidly obese or something.

Amazing a thread that's over 3 years old which I bumped as joke. Has continued so long.

[zombiebex]

It's a serious issue but the site you linked had an ad with a girl in bikini down on all fours with her butt facing directly at me.;) Not that I'm complaining I just thought it was odd mix there.

The weight issue in American culture is definitely a problem. I wish more woman could understand men don't care that much as long your not morbidly obese or something.

Amazing a thread that's over 3 years old which I bumped as joke. Has continued so long.

Emphasis mine.

Wow. Men don't care THAT MUCH, as long as... So, what you're actually saying is men DO care if women are fat. Sort of exaserbating the problem, dude.

Women and girls who suffer from these eating disorders have a distorted body image. What they view as "morbidly obese or something" is incredibly twisted. When they are skin and bones and pinch the skin of their arms, they view that as fat. Not skin.

[Solus]

Emphasis mine.

Wow. Men don't care THAT MUCH, as long as... So, what you're actually saying is men DO care if women are fat. Sort of exaserbating the problem, dude.

I haven't seen use of the word "dude" much on this forum, funny...

I'm not actually saying anything. What you just wrote is called a strawman, look it up. I suggest you try different tactics. That's not going to work very well on this forum, you can trust me on that.

Women and girls who suffer from these eating disorders have a distorted body image. What they view as "morbidly obese or something" is incredibly twisted. When they are skin and bones and pinch the skin of their arms, they view that as fat. Not skin.

I wrote exactly what I meant to, there is no hidden meaning I'm sorry to say. I didn't write fat, I wrote morbidly obese, you chose to infer from that. Morbid obesity is unhealthy and not just men should care in that case. Sorry, I'm not going to say it's ok to weigh 300 pounds if you are 5 feet tall; there is a happy medium.

Here's a thread about eating disorders if you wish to discuss the topic further and with others: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2430435#post2430435

[zombiebex]

I haven't seen use of the word "dude" much on this forum, funny...

I'm not actually saying anything. What you just wrote is called a strawman, look it up. I suggest you try different tactics. That's not going to work very well on this forum, you can trust me on that.



I wrote exactly what I meant to, there is no hidden meaning I'm sorry to say. I didn't write fat, I wrote morbidly obese, you chose to infer from that. Morbid obesity is unhealthy and not just men should care in that case. Sorry, I'm not going to say it's ok to weigh 300 pounds if you are 5 feet tall; there is a happy medium.


Dude. Dude dude dude dude dude. :-D

You'll have to forgive me, I'm new here and not used to having actual intelligent debate on web forums. Deal with enough idiots, you start to treat everyone like one.

Sorry again, I was in the wrong to jump to such conclusions.

[Solus]

Dude. Dude dude dude dude dude. :-D

You'll have to forgive me, I'm new here and not used to having actual intelligent debate on web forums. Deal with enough idiots, you start to treat everyone like one.

Sorry again, I was in the wrong to jump to such conclusions.

:D I really never see dude used here. I'll have to do a search for that...
Nothing wrong with it, just funny.

This place is far above your average forum, That's why I'm here. There are plenty of idiots here. Just look in the CT section or the general skepticism section. Well anyway, welcome to the forum. :)

[Solus]

My mistake dude is used here a bit. I guess I don't notice because compared to most forums it's like a 10 to 1 ratio.

[robinson]

http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/dude/

[Solus]

http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/dude/

All I can say is, "dude"... :p

[Klaymore]

That's chunky?

Well, relatively...

Scandinavian public-service announcements have more nudity than Japanese porn.

[Solus]

Scandinavian public-service announcements have more nudity than Japanese porn.

Not that I've ever see Japanese porn :whistling but from a "friend" I've heard it's nothing special. Must see Scandinavian public service announcements. My "friend" must, of course that is... :D

[Klaymore]

Not that I've ever see Japanese porn :whistling but from a "friend" I've heard it's nothing special. Must see Scandinavian public service announcements. My "friend" must, of course that is... :D

In Japan, showing the sexual organs in a motion picture is forbidden, so they're "cubed" or "pixilated" out, or whatever. But at the same time, many of the public restrooms (especially at temples and shrines, for some reason) have these huge, doorless entryways. The upshot is that I--who am almost 40--can not buy a DVD depicting the sex act between consenting adults, but a 9-year-old girl has to be involuntarily exposed to watching me pee when she visits a place of worship. :eek:

[Solus]

In Japan, showing the sexual organs in a motion picture is forbidden, so they're "cubed" or "pixilated" out, or whatever. But at the same time, many of the public restrooms (especially at temples and shrines, for some reason) have these huge, doorless entryways. The upshot is that I--who am almost 40--can not buy a DVD depicting the sex act between consenting adults, but a 9-year-old girl has to be involuntarily exposed to watching me pee when she visits a place of worship. :eek:

My "friend" aware of that quite well, and is disappointed in the Japanese. I REALLY don't understand Japanese culture though, what do people in their 50s think of anime by the way? It is taken seriously or is it considered kid's stuff? I need to talk to someone from Japan someday...

Oh, you're from Japan you might have missed the stupid joke. The "friend" is me of course.:p

[Klaymore]

Don't know much about anime, but it seems to be a huge subculture here. I rarely see anyone over 30 reading manga (which I associate with anime, but maybe I'm off base), but there are 10000s of anime DVDs and tapes at my local video rental store.

My understanding is that the majority of anime fans are teens and men in their 20s, but that a substantial minority are older and/or female.

[Solus]

Don't know much about anime, but it seems to be a huge subculture here. I rarely see anyone over 30 reading manga (which I associate with anime, but maybe I'm off base), but there are 10000s of anime DVDs and tapes at my local video rental store.

My understanding is that the majority of anime fans are teens and men in their 20s, but that a substantial minority are older and/or female.

I always wondered what respectable businessmen and elders thought of anime.
I just imagine my stepdad watching anime and it gives me a laugh. It would be funny to see the prime minister of Japan watch anime. Some of it is very good and nothing is wrong with that. I'm just wondering how seriously it's taken by those with respect so to speak, doctors, lawyers, professors, ect...

I missed that you don't know much about anime. I quite enjoy some of it, that I why I was interested. You gave a key word sub-culture. Anime isn't mainstream then? My impression was that it was in Japan.

Sorry for the useless discussion I've just wondered about this for a while. I really need to read a book on modern Japanese culture, I'm sure I could get a better insight into the culture that way.