Uri Geller - where's the harm?

[a_unique_person]

Quote:

Originally posted by kookbreaker


Irrelevant. If Randi offered the challenge (he did), and they agreed (and signed the form) then the million is theirs. Doesn't matter if its paranormal or not. Randi offers, Randi loses, Randi pays. Read the terms.



No, Randi offers challenge, Randi loses, then Randi pays. There's no such out and the rules are quite clear about that. His check is even in the hands of an indepdenent party, and the contract is signed.



There is no such precedent, and you are lying to say that there is. Lintgen never was never taking the challenge. You go out of your way to ignore this fact, which is more demonstrative of your inherent dishonesty.

It would be worth a million in publicity alone. Can you imagine the headlines around the world. "We won Ranidi's Challenge but he won't Pay".

[Peter Morris]

Oh, so Randi uses a private language where the normal rules of syntax are reversed?

I assumed he was speaking English. Mea culpa.

In English, when someone says "aside from x, y" X is the main part, and Y is aside from x.

What is this peculiar language that you speak called?

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

Earlier in this thread I quoted Randi leaving out a particular subclause while explicitly stating that I was doing so. You then carried on as if I was deliberately attempting to mislead and called me "dishonest". Is this your method for trying to be friends? If so, I have to ask: do you have any friends?

And here we see princhester's usual outpourings of hatred.

I offer him friendship, look what I get in response.

Randi fans, sigh.

[Aussie Thinker]

Unique…

I am an Aussie.. so the “drinker” part is tacitly accepted anyway !

“Thinker” is more an irony.. as I don’t think most of us Aussies do much of it …lol

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

Lintgen never was never taking the challenge. You go out of your way to ignore this fact, which is more demonstrative of your inherent dishonesty.

Well, your usual definition iof 'facts' is strange to say the least

[Aussie Thinker]

Peter,

You are still trying to turn it around..

If the sentence is …

It is, aside from being X, Y. (just like the Randi statement)

Then Y is the main object NOT X.. you leave out “It is” and you change the entire sentence.

Stop trying to change it and lying and accept you were TOTALLY wrong !

[kookbreaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris

Well, your usual definition iof 'facts' is strange to say the least

What part of "Litgen was not taking the Randi challenge" don't you get?

[Peter Morris]

"It is, aside from being X, Y. (just like the Randi statement)"

Exactly, Y is aside from X. That's what I said.

Welcome to the boards, Australian Thinker. Enjoy your stay.

[Peter Morris]

"hat part of "Litgen was not taking the Randi challenge" don't you get?"

Randi challenged him.

[Aussie Thinker]

Peter,

Thanks nice to be here..

You should really get this right though..

It is, (comma pause to add in additional less objective material) aside (the word aside is even used to show it is an aside and not the main object) from X (directly following therefore the object of the aside staement), (comma pause to return to the main object)Y (the main OBJECT)

[kookbreaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Randi challenged him.

What part of "Litgen was not taking the Randi challenge" don't you get?"

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by kookbreaker


What part of "Litgen was not taking the Randi challenge" don't you get?"

He understands what you are saying, but since it doesn't fit in with his belief that Randi is dishonest, he simply ignores the fact that Litgen never took the Randi challenge.

Using vision to percieve something visible isn't paranormal. Neither Randi or Litgen claimed it to be.

[princhester]

Peter, check out this Straightdope thread.

You are of course quite correct about your interpretation of Randi's comment under discussion. You are right about everything. It's just that everyone else on the planet is wrong.

[walthrup48]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris


And Penta Water make no paranormal claim, they say that its simply a product of new technology, and deny that there's anything mysterious about it. They give detailed Yet Randi is challenging them to prove their statements.

Suppose they are able to do so, that their claim of new technology is vindicated. They are not making any paranormal claim, and said so before the test was started.

This would give Randi the right to refuse to pay them, since it isn't paranormal by Penta's admission. There is established precedent for him not paying when someone succeds in a claim that they say isn't 'paranormal.'

Peter,

Whether Penta say their product is the result of new technology, or a group of PhDs say that Penta's product is the result of new technology or the whole country says that Penta's product is the result of new technology, is besides the point. The JREF has deemed it paranormal and it is therefore eligible for the million dollar prize. The prize is paid out for the successful demonstration of a claim that the JREF has deemed paranormal.

If Penta water is a product of 'new technology', a demonstration of its characteristics should be a relatively simple matter. What better way to slap down that smug skeptic Randi and gain a million bucks?

Regards,
Jim.

[kookbreaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


He understands what you are saying, but since it doesn't fit in with his belief that Randi is dishonest, he simply ignores the fact that Litgen never took the Randi challenge.

Its especially amusing how Peter invents lines Randi never said to make him look worse. Peter claims that Randi said it was 'impossible' when Randi never said anything of the kind. Randi did say he was skeptical, but skeptical <> impossible.

Except maybe in Peter's little world.

[Blondin]

For what it's worth I think the Penta Water thing falls more under the category of 'pseudoscience' than 'paranormal'.

[walthrup48]

Quote:

Originally posted by Blondin
For what it's worth I think the Penta Water thing falls more under the category of 'pseudoscience' than 'paranormal'.

Absolutely - but within the criteria for determination of the eligibility of claims for the challenge, there is no differentiation between paranormal and pseudoscientific.

[Loki]

Peter Morris,

Quote:

In English, when someone says "aside from x, y" X is the main part, and Y is aside from x.

Even if this is syntactically correct (I'm leaving that an open question as a courtesy for you!), in common usage the meaning would be that "Y" is the main point, and "X" is the aside.

Try it. I ran the sentence "Last year I took a holiday during which, aside from the time I spent in Pattaya, I spent my time in Bangkok" past two people last night and they both answered "Bangkok".

I think you're technically wrong as well, but *even if you're technically right*, the common usage of that phrase is against you.

[Peter Morris]

JimTheBrit:

Quote:

Peter,

Whether Penta say their product is the result of new technology, or a group of PhDs say that Penta's product is the result of new technology or the whole country says that Penta's product is the result of new technology, is besides the point. The JREF has deemed it paranormal and it is therefore eligible for the million dollar prize. The prize is paid out for the successful demonstration of a claim that the JREF has deemed paranormal

My friend, I agree with that 100%, that is exactly the same argument I made.

In the record reading test, Litgen didn't claim his ability was paranormal, but Randi tested him as part of his campaign to debunk the paranormal. Randi considered the claim was a paranormal one, right up until he succeeded.

Penta water says their product isn't paranormal, but Randi says it is, as Litgen said his skill ewasn't paranormal, but Randi tested it as paranormal anyway.

The fact that Litgen didn't ask for Randi's prize is irrelevent. Randi thought the claim paranormal (up until it was proved true) If Litgen had failed, you can bet that Randi would have called it a paranormal claim in his write-up.

By the way, it is worthwhile noting that Randi actually cheated on the test. Litgen said that he could only identify classical music, and could not identify modern music, non-classical, or spoken word. Randi tested his claim by giving him a spoken-word record and Alice Cooper. He had trouble identifying them, and had to guess, and luckily for him he guessed right. But he might have failed because of Randi's misbehaviour.

My opinion of Randi is formed from seeing him do similar things in other tests. I don't believe the people he tests, I wouldn't have believed the record reader until he proved it. But it frequently seems to me that the test he sets isn't fair, and someone with a genuine claim might fail, as Litgen almost did.

[kookbreaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
In the record reading test, Litgen didn't claim his ability was paranormal, but Randi tested him as part of his campaign to debunk the paranormal. Randi considered the claim was a paranormal one, right up until he
succeeded.

Incorrect. Randi tested him, but not neceesarily as part of debunking the paranormal. That is a claim not supported. Not everything Randi does is 'part of his campaign to debunk the paranormal'. This certainly was not.

Quote:

The fact that Litgen didn't ask for Randi's prize is irrelevent. Randi thought the claim paranormal (up until it was proved true) If Litgen had failed, you can bet that Randi would have called it a paranormal claim in his write-up.

Another hyppthetical bit o' hate from Peter. It seems a large amount Peter's cmapign lately is established in "Randi woulda"s. All of these are based on widl assumtions by Peter, and have little basis in reality.

There is no indication that Randi though this was a paranormal claim. This is merely a delusion of Peter Morris. Given that Lintgen made it clear how he was doing it, there is no evidence to indicate that Randi believed this was a paranormal claim.

Randi was skeptical of the claim. After all, there were many ways to fool oneself into think you could do something like this when you could not. But there is no indication that Randi was doing this to test a paranormal claim.

Quote:

By the way, it is worthwhile noting that Randi actually cheated on the test. Litgen said that he could only identify classical music, and could not identify modern music, non-classical, or spoken word. Randi tested his claim by giving him a spoken-word record and Alice Cooper. He had trouble identifying them, and had to guess, and luckily for him he guessed right. But he might have failed because of Randi's misbehaviour.

Since this was not a formal test of the Randi challenge (depsite Peter's failed lies to claim the contrary) and was merely a simple test, adding a wild card was a bit of impishness on the part of Randi. "Cheating", therefore, is another exagerration by Peter. Its intersting to note that he was able to tell it was not classical music. Ironicly, this supported Lintgen's claim, after all, he said he could not identify them and he didn't.

Quote:

My opinion of Randi is formed from seeing him do similar things in other tests.

My opinion of Peter Morris is that he is depserate for the thinnest thread on which to attack Randi. To these ends he uses hyperbole, lies, deceptions, self-rightousness, deliberate misinterpetations, exaggerations, and numerous other sleazy tactics to continue his campaign of hatred to cover the complete absence of evidence to back his claims.

[Suezoled]

This is the real "Thread that will not die" isn't it?

[princhester]

Quote:

Originally posted by kookbreaker
My opinion of Peter Morris is that he is depserate for the thinnest thread on which to attack Randi. To these ends he uses hyperbole, lies, deceptions, self-rightousness, deliberate misinterpetations, exaggerations, and numerous other sleazy tactics to continue his campaign of hatred to cover the complete absence of evidence to back his claims.

Indeed. And what is quite astonishing is Peter Morris' level of hypocrisy: the negative qualities Peter displays so flagrantly in these interminable debates are precisely those that he accuses Randi of.

By the way, Peter, I am surprised you haven't weighed in on the Straightdope thread to which I linked above. Almost every Doper who responded needs a lesson from you in English comprehension, surely? Aren't you going to pop in and give them the benefit of your wisdom? Perhaps you could use the "teacher" smilie on them?

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
...

By the way, it is worthwhile noting that Randi actually cheated on the test. Litgen said that he could only identify classical music, and could not identify modern music, non-classical, or spoken word. Randi tested his claim by giving him a spoken-word record and Alice Cooper. He had trouble identifying them, and had to guess, and luckily for him he guessed right. But he might have failed because of Randi's misbehaviour.

My opinion of Randi is formed from seeing him do similar things in other tests. I don't believe the people he tests, I wouldn't have believed the record reader until he proved it. But it frequently seems to me that the test he sets isn't fair, and someone with a genuine claim might fail, as Litgen almost did.

How could Lintgen (please try and get the man's name right, Peter) have failed because of the controls that Randi introduced?
How can you say that Lintgen "almost failed" the test when every account has him passing with flying colours?
Lintgen didn't complain, in fact he appeared amused by Randi's attempts to fool him, particularly the two different recordings of the same piece.

Your last few posts have been pathetic, why are you bothering?

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

How could Lintgen (please try and get the man's name right, Peter) have failed because of the controls that Randi introduced?

In what way is it a "control?" How does giving him a spoken-word record to identify, when he sdaid he can't identify spoken-word records "control" the test.

This was a deliberate tactic by Randi to trip him up. He was confused, but he passed anyway.

He might have failed because of Randi cheating.

[Chupacabras]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
In what way is it a "control?" How does giving him a spoken-word record to identify, when he sdaid he can't identify spoken-word records "control" the test.

I can't believe you are so dumb and crappy. He said "cannot read voice" - Randi said "let's test THAT".

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
He might have failed because of Randi cheating.

He could have, but he didn't. Why are you whinning so much?

And neither can't I believe how I am still being part of your Gelleresque circus.

[Dragon]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris


In what way is it a "control?" How does giving him a spoken-word record to identify, when he sdaid he can't identify spoken-word records "control" the test.
Because it absolutely excludes other clues from the record or guessing, you dingbat.
All he had to say was "I can't identify this". In fact he did rather better. Kudos to Lintgen.

This was a deliberate tactic by Randi to trip him up.
Yes, of course, he was testing him.

He was confused, but he passed anyway.
Confused but then amused. So what?

He might have failed because of Randi cheating.
He would only have failed if he couldn't do what he claimed. Lintgen was happy, Randi was impressed, Time Magazine et al were happy. It was a fair and well-conducted test. Smiles all round. Except for you, Peter Morris, who bizzarely and uniquely want to accuse Randi of cheating.
You have totally failed to do this.

[kookbreaker]

Does anyone else notice that by Peter's standards there was nothing Randi could have done that would not have resulted in scorn from Peter?

Lintgen passes test: Randi will use this as an excuse to not pay out anyone taking the Randi challenge.

Lintgen fails test: Randi would blab about Lintgen being a woowoo and how he got the best of him.

This is what I mean by irrational hatred.

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

Does anyone else notice that by Peter's standards there was nothing Randi could have done that would not have resulted in scorn from Peter?

All he had to do was not cheat. If he had not given a spoken-word record to identify, and had admitted that Lintgen had passed a test that Randi had previously considered paranormal, I would have respected that.

But I scorn him because he cheated on the test, then weaseled on his description.

You, with your obsessive hero-worship excuse any lies he tells.

Quote:

This is what I mean by irrational hatred.

I don't hate him, I despise him. And its perfectly rational to despise someone so dishonest as Randi displays himself to be.

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

In what way is it a "control?" How does giving him a spoken-word record to identify, when he sdaid he can't identify spoken-word records "control" the test.
Because it absolutely excludes other clues from the record or guessing, you dingbat.

In what way?

Using insulting terms such as 'dingbat' isn't an answer.

[walthrup48]

Peter,

Regarding your statement that Randi was testing Lintgen for the prize - out of curiousity, where did you get this information from?

Jim.

[Loki]

Peter Morris,

Any further comments to be made regarding the "aside" language issue? Do you accept you were in error, or are you still sticking to your interpretation?

[kookbreaker]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
All he had to do was not cheat. If he had not given a spoken-word record to identify, and had admitted that Lintgen had passed a test that Randi had previously considered paranormal, I would have respected that.

Where is your evidence that Randi considered Lintgen's ability to be paranormal? Why should Randi "admit" to something that is purely your delusion?

Since this was not the Randi challenge, let alone the formal test of the Randi challenge, it really does not matter if Randi throws in a 'ringer' or not. Nothing was at stake here since Lintgen had already demonstrated his ability.

Basicly there was nothing Randi could do that would satisfy you.

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

Where is your evidence that Randi considered Lintgen's ability to be paranormal?

If he didn't, why was he testing him?

Quote:

Since this was not the Randi challenge, let alone the formal test of the Randi challenge, it really does not matter if Randi throws in a 'ringer' or not

Oh, it doesn't matter if Randi throws in a ringer, eh? So, you admit you don't mind dishonesty from him?

Quote:

Basicly there was nothing Randi could do that would satisfy you.

Ridiculous. I've stated my objections to Randi's test.

When someone says 'I can identify classical music, but not spoken word' I would be satisfied if Randi gave him classical music, and didn't give him spoken word.

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

Any further comments to be made regarding the "aside" language issue? Do you accept you were in error, or are you still sticking to your interpretation?

Well, I'm reserving judgement juast for the moment.

The reason is, aside from the fact that Randi clearly states that 'experiment' is aside from 'irrational, because I haven't seen much logical argument in favour of Princhesters interpretation, all I've received is invective.

I see princhester posted a question in another forum, and is crowing about a couple of posts agreeing with him, but ignoring many that say it's ambiguous or unclear, or saying that Randi gives both issues equal importance.

I've posted a question in a different forum, and some replies agree with me, and some with princhester.

So, for the moment, the issue isn't as clrear cut in my favour as I thought. Some agree with princhester, some with me, and most don't agree with either.

But princhester as usual is claiming that they all agree with him.

I'll let the debate run in both forums for a while, and report on the results.

[princhester]

I started setting out a response to you Peter but then I just thought why should I bother? What is the point? I know nothing about Lintgen or his testing but simply from reading this thread I can tell what the answer to your question is,and why your comment suggesting Randi was being dishonest is utter preciousness. The response to the points you raise have been set out for you half a dozen times by other posters. If your attitude is one of simply ignoring what everyone says to you, why are you here?

[princhester]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Well, I'm reserving judgement juast for the moment.

The reason is, aside from the fact that Randi clearly states that 'experiment' is aside from 'irrational, because I haven't seen much logical argument in favour of Princhesters interpretation, all I've received is invective.

Tosh. Poster after poster says you are wrong. Some say that Randi was giving about equal emphasis to both points, some say that Randi's comments were ambiguous (but notably none say that after seeing the full context) and a big fat nil say that Randi's main point was what you say it is.

There is no lack of reasoning: several posters say what was utterly obvious right from the start, namely that an aside in a subclause is an extraneous comment, that can be safely left to one side.

In any event, given that we are simply trying to determine what Randi meant by his comment, reasoning is not the point: the point is simply what people understand Randi would have meant: and no one agrees with you on that.

As to your precious, self pitying, pathetic "poor little me all I've received is invective" comment, this is of course total bull. As usual when you are backed into a corner you like to pretend that your opponents have no arguments, only abuse, no matter how laughable that contention may be.

Quote:

I see princhester posted a question in another forum, and is crowing about a couple of posts agreeing with him, but ignoring many that say it's ambiguous or unclear, or saying that Randi gives both issues equal importance.

Peter when you purport to make fun of someone's english comprehension skills, and presumptuously give them an "english" lesson, and use the "teacher" smilie on them, and then it turns out you are dead wrong, you're going to cop some crowing. If you don't want that, perhaps you'd better learn to be a little more polite and humble, or learn never to be wrong.

Your current combination of tough sarcasm and bombast towards others, and thin skinned preciousness when someone treats you the same way is both appalling and rather sad.

Quote:

I've posted a question in a different forum, and some replies agree with me, and some with princhester.

Linky link?

Quote:

But princhester as usual is claiming that they all agree with him.

Princhester has never said this.

Quote:

I'll let the debate run in both forums for a while, and report on the results.

What's the matter, don't you want us to have an opportunity to participate? Do you want to be free to manipulate at will, and only tell us the results if they suit you?

Link now or forever hold your peace.

[De_Bunk]

The paranormal, in the entire history of mankind has never been proven to exist...

Not by anyone or anything...ever...

So all these arguments are worthless...

The paranormal doesnt stand up to the most basic of serious testing...

How comes...Surely after all this time there would be something that stands up to the challenge...

But...as always, without fail, it falls flat on its face...

Thats why every TV medium adds to the end credits..

"For Entertainment purposes only"....

And not..

"I really am talking to dead people and possess paranormal powers that i will have tested by any serious academic body, Court of Law, by Court appointed testers and i can actually prove it, time and time again that dead people are not really deceased at all and truly contact me. I am also willing to stake my entire fortune on proving my claim"

Yeh..

That ought to do it...

As ive said before...There ain't no deaf / mute mediums....


Funny that...i didnt realise that hearing was neccessary to receive messages from "other side"..

DB

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

PrinchesterTosh. Poster after poster says you are wrong. Some say that Randi was giving about equal emphasis to both points, some say that Randi's comments were ambiguous (but notably none say that after seeing the full context) and a big fat nil say that Randi's main point was what you say it is.

Princhester is ignoring the poster who said "Alternatively, Randi could be using the "aside from" sarcastically in the manner of Eonwe, above. Were that the case, the emphasis would be on "irrational premises." " But facts like that are inconvienient to princhester, so he ignores them. Princhester says nobody agrees with me, and ignores the ones that do.

The majority say that Randi ambiguous, or that Randi gives equal emphasis to both. They do not say that I'm wrong. But desperate princhester reads that into their comments.

Princhester claims that "none say that after seeing the full context" but this is untrue. The most recent one being "I think both Princhester and peter morris are trying to over-interpret the quotation from James Randi. Even when I look at the entire context, I don't think that it's useful to try to call one argument more important than the other. In fact, the more I read the statement, the more I think that it's not well written and it's not useful to try to figure out what Randi was saying."

But princhester, being princhester, reads that and sees only disagreement with me, and ignores the equal disagreement with princhester, in fact he ignores the whole message.

Yup, princhester is employing the old "remember the hits and forget the misses" tactic.

Quote:

As to your precious, self pitying, pathetic "poor little me all I've received is invective" comment, this is of course total bull. As usual when you are backed into a corner you like to pretend that your opponents have no arguments, only abuse, no matter how laughable that contention may be

Princhester, do you ever listen to yourself? I mean, seriously. You disagree with my claim that you resort to invective, and in your reply to that claim you say "precious, self pitying, pathetic" and "poor little me" and "total bull".

in other words, your only answer to the accusation that you resort to invective is to use further invective.

This is your only argument, princhester.

Randi fans are a strange bunch.

Quote:

Peter when you purport to make fun of someone's english comprehension skills, and presumptuously give them an "english" lesson, and use the "teacher" smilie on them, and then it turns out you are dead wrong, you're going to cop some crowing.

Princhester, the majority of replies to your question say that you are in error just as much as me. You are not in a position to crow about anything.

Quote:

Your current combination of tough sarcasm and bombast towards others, and thin skinned preciousness when someone treats you the same way is both appalling and rather sad.

Thin-skinned? me? this from the guy who threw a tantrum when I referred to him as my friend? Now that's thin skinned.

Your insults mean nothing to me, princhester, I just point them out to you to highlight the weakness of your position.

Quote:

Quote:

But princhester as usual is claiming that they all agree with him.

Princhester has never said this.

says princhester, ignoring his own words "Tosh. Poster after poster says you are wrong, blah blah blah"

[princhester]

Your mischaracterisations of the responses to the Dope thread are not worth responding to. Even you have admitted you were not as right as you thought you were which, allowing for how reluctant you are to ever admit you are wrong, amounts essentially to an admission you are totally wrong

My invective about your pretence that you were the subject only of invective was invective. That does not alter the fact that your pretence that you had previously been subject only to invective was, as I said, pretence.

The subtle point you miss with your final attempt at a barb is that I have never said everyone agrees with me. My point is that no one agrees with you. Which is the important point, because you are the one attempting to castigate Randi on the basis of a total misinterpretation of what he said. What my view is on what Randi meant is unimportant, since I am not the one attempting to use my interpretation as the basis for castigating him.

[princhester]

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Princhester is ignoring the poster who said "Alternatively, Randi could be using the "aside from" sarcastically in the manner of Eonwe, above. Were that the case, the emphasis would be on "irrational premises." " But facts like that are inconvienient to princhester, so he ignores them. Princhester says nobody agrees with me, and ignores the ones that do.

No, I don't ignore them at all. The poster to whom you refer merely suggested sarcasm was a possibility, not that it was what Randi in fact meant. And of course, if you refer to the three sentences prior to the sentence in question it is quite clear that Randi wasn't being sarcastic at all. Nor did you suggest he was, prior to Gadarene giving you the idea, and now you are clinging to it like a desperate man. Nobody, but nobody thought you were right.