| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"|-|erc" |
| Date: |
07 Jan 2005 03:41:18 AM |
| Object: |
I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
A Current Affair exposes Barry Williams, Australia Skeptic Society
http://tinyurl.com/5q9tc
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : 20 June 2003
Contact Barry Williams : (02) 9417 2071
<<Imprisoned me 5 months after Peter Bowditch asked me to apply for testing and Barry denied it>>
The Things that You're Liable to See on the Box that Ain't Necessarily So
The plain facts about Australian Skeptics' testing of Dennis Puffet on A Current Affair
TV viewers who saw a story on A Current Affair (ACA) on Tuesday, June 17 might have been left with
the impression that Australian Skeptics (AS) had "backed-down" from testing a "healer", one Dennis
<<Australia Skeptics backed down>>
Puffet. That impression, fostered by ACA both in its advertising and on air, is wrong. At no stage
has Australian Skeptics ever had an agreement with Dennis Puffet, nor with anyone else, to conduct
a formal test of his alleged paranormal abilities. Any charge of our backing down is blatantly
untrue and neither Mr Puffet nor A Current Affair has any reason to suppose otherwise.
Trying to be scrupulously fair to ACA, they might have initially convinced themselves (mistakenly)
that they had the rights to run a test for the Skeptics $100,000 challenge under their own rules
(but using AS money) while ignoring any sort of controlled conditions. However, long before this
<<The money is donated by noted members of public>>
segment went to air, ACA was left with no legitimate excuse for continuing to so believe.
Since the first story was shown, and before the offending segment, AS engaged in voluminous
correspondence (telephone and email) with ACA in which we explained the rules, in great detail,
under which such a test could take place. The first such rule is that a claimant must make a
written submission to AS, clearly defining in detail precisely what it is that s/he believes s/he
<<This is a copout, 'clearly defining paranormal in detail' is not the 1st step of the proposed
scientific method stated on the website>>
<<clearly-defining-paranormal-in-detail is used as evidence of mental illness to imprison people>>
<<Randi Org and A.S.S. application procedure are to state *a brief summary of the power*>>
can do. We must know this before we can even begin to decide whether the claims are testable and,
<<'We' is a lie, Barry denies applications without showing the committee, as opposed to the conditions,
he has admitted this>>
if so, how they can be tested. It hardly needs stating that waving one's hands around on TV and
apocryphal testimonials do not constitute such a claim.
At no time have we received any such claim from Mr Puffet, however we did relax the rule
sufficiently to allow ACA to present some claims on his behalf. This came to us just two days
before the interview with Richard Saunders and Barry Williams which were shown in the June 17
story. What the ACA story did not say was that when the written claims from Mr Puffet were
received, one of Puffet's stipulations was that he would regard anything he wanted to as a success,
whether or not the subject of the healing knew it! He would also recognise nothing as a failure.
The "Pure Healing Energy and Cosmic Harmonic Resonance" (his terms) were only using him as a
conduit and he was not responsible for anything (though he did have them on tap just by thinking of
them). There were other equally vague and barely coherent claims and quite obviously there was no
way we could design any sort of objective test of them.
We informed ACA of this, but they constantly strove to push us into putting up the money to test
Puffet and to break our own rules. It soon became clear that they were working to a story deadline
and were not at all interested in whether or not the test would be valid. When we didn't agree to
that, they charged ahead with the story regardless. Several emails were sent to them spelling out
that at no stage would we be backing out, rather that we intended to follow the correct procedure,
just as we would for anyone else. We even offered to provide ACA with advice on how to conduct
their own test for their own money if the deadline was of such importance (and to save them from
throwing away their money in a flawed test) but these offers were ignored. Furthermore, they
informed us that they had come to an agreement with Bond University to conduct a test on Puffet,
while still seeming to believe that we should offer our prize for a test in which we had no input
whatsoever. Naturally we declined this kind offer.
<<again its not your money, it has contractual beneficiery>>
At this point the issue entered the realm of pure farce. ACA told us that as Puffet would not agree
to being tested by a scientist (who would be biased), they had approached Bond's English Literature
department. Seldom have our ghasts been more flabbered.
<< the rules state an independant umpire will make the final decision, what is wrong with University lecturers?>>
It appears that not only is the claimant allowed to nominate his own (very open ended) criteria for
success or failure, he is also allowed to dictate who can supervise the testing and the right to
veto anyone who might be expected to be capable of designing a scientific test. Not for our money
he isn't.
<<its not your money Barry, it belongs to any person who can prove paranormal on media camera>>
During the on-camera interviews, during which Richard was recorded for 15-20 minutes and Barry for
around 5, we constantly reiterated that we had NOT agreed to test Puffet under these conditions,
but we were still perfectly willing to test him IF he ever made a testable claim that could be
objectively validated. None of this went to air. In fact, of all the things Richard said on-camera,
the only thing he was shown saying was that we did not want to be seen to be hounding a deluded
<< A.C.A. exposed Australia Skeptic C.E.O. for calling applicants deluded for believing in paranormal>>
individual. While this made perfect sense within the context of what else Richard had been saying,
<< if it quacks.... the man has no shame, he's one of you atheist mob who writes the skeptic pamphlets
you read to find new people to laugh at>>
it made none at all when it was shown as a naked statement and was totally irrelevant to everything
else in the piece as shown.
<<this is guy who quoted a sarchastic signature of mine, a comment box suggestion 'you ripped me off',
and a 'reply ASAP' on a letter, into the one sentence. a professional editor who puts claimants in
prison by rewording paranormal suppportive arguments into Extortion.>>
At times when we were not being taped, the interviewer agreed with our stand but intimated that it
would not make a good story. The only story that interested her, and the one to which she directed
<<you are sad sack of ***** of a story barry>>
every question, was that "the Skeptics are backing down". Clearly this approach had been decided
<<the skeptics have backed down>>
long before the interviews and no inconvenient facts were going to be allowed to interfere with the
story.
To say we are more than a little disappointed at this treatment, by A Current Affair would be a
mild understatement. By supplying them with good stories and expert speakers on skeptical topics,
we have maintained a friendly relationship with ACA over those years when they could be regarded as
a serious investigative current affairs programme. But now we have learnt a valuable lesson about
dealing with them in this new era of tabloid media. On the positive side, we are heartened by the
amount of messages of support we have received from thoughtful viewers who expressed their disgust
at what they saw as a blatant set-up.
If, however, we are to regard the ACA rules as applying to everything we do, we had better take
this opportunity to confess that we have indeed backed down on the following issues:
Peace in the Middle-East
Landing a man on Mars by 2020
Solving Fermat's Last Theorem
<<solved in 1995 you lying ***** for brains>>
Overcoming the salinity problem in rural Australia
Tracking down that man behind the Grassy Knoll.
Briefly the rules for a Skeptics Challenge are as follows:
A challenger must make a specific and testable claim directly to AS.
<<or whatever>>
The challenge testing must always remain under the control of AS (it's our challenge, our money,
our rules).
<<you think you own the money don't you Barry, god is a theif >>
Before a test goes ahead, the protocol for any challenge test must be mutually agreed to as a fair
test by both the Skeptics and the challenger. All that is required of claimants is that they can
demonstrate their claimed abilities under these conditions. For this they can earn $100,000 at
minimal cost to themselves.
<< if you can get past the mail filter soon as they decline to do a test>>
The Skeptics Challenge is NOT a game of chance, a bet that someone can put one over the Skeptics,
<<since A.S.S. has been put in charge of $100,000 prize money, there's been no game at all>>
nor one that can be decided on purely subjective criteria. The Challenge is a serious attempt to
investigate whether or not popular paranormal beliefs have any substance. It something that
requires testing, objectively, by rigorously using the tools of science, not because it makes an
entertaining story.
Barry Williams C.E.O Australian Skeptics Inc
Richard Saunders President Australian Skeptics Inc
<<get these blatant heathen god hating paranormal farce spectacle makers out of office>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact List | PGP Keys - Copyright © 1996-2003 Australian Skeptics Inc.
Page Last Updated: 03-May-2003 12:01 +1100
except you cut out your 'confession' about failing to solve FLT, and didn't update
the Page last updated, and now the server is moved.
Herc
--
what do women say about male sperm? sex cells never age? protein rich?
:-C==8 You'll never never know if you never never blow! :-C==8
.
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
07 Jan 2005 06:24:07 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:41:18 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
Look who's off his meds again...
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
07 Jan 2005 07:05:49 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in ...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:41:18 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
Look who's off his meds again...
did you snip the 11kb post before or after you read the post?
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
07 Jan 2005 09:13:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:05:49 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in ...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:41:18 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
Look who's off his meds again...
did you snip the 11kb post before or after you read the post?
Do you really think anyone has the time to read the same schizophrenic
nonsense you regurgitate every time you go off your meds and post
here?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea" |
|
| Title: Re: I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
07 Jan 2005 07:21:46 AM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in ...
On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 13:41:18 +1000, "|-|erc" <h@r.c> wrote:
Look who's off his meds again...
did you snip the 11kb post before or after you read the post?
Herc
It doesn't matter. Your post is meaningless. You have no paranormal
powers. You are merely schizophrenic, and evidently off your meds again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
07 Jan 2005 07:45:06 AM |
|
|
It doesn't matter. Your post is meaningless. You have no paranormal
powers. You are merely schizophrenic, and evidently off your meds again.
Good, I'll post the fact A Current Affair busted Australia Skeptics
for holding onto their $100,000 crying after abusing the applicants.
bi-monthly FAQ ok with everyone here?
1 the impression that Australian Skeptics (AS) had "backed-down" CLAIMBREAKERS
2 but using AS money MINE MINE MINE
3 defining in detail precisely what it is that s/he believes PRECISE DETAIL
4 We must know BARRY WILL TAKE CARE OF IT
5 believe that we should offer our prize for a test MINE MINE MINE
6 they had approached Bond's English Literature ME ME ME
7 Not for our money MINE MINE MINE
8 we did not want to be seen to be hounding a deluded WE DIDN'T CALL HIM DELUDED
9 this made perfect sense BUT HE IS
10 as a naked statement and was totally irrelevant SUCK SH*T MISQUOTER
11 not make a good story OF A FOOL
12 every question, was that "the Skeptics are backing down GET THE HINT?
13 opportunity to confess that we have indeed backed down OH REALLY?
14 Solving Fermat's Last Theorem WE'LL LEAVE IT WITH YOU
15 A challenger must make a specific and testable claim directly to AS. NOT PRECISE & DETAILED?
16 it's our challenge, our money MINE MINE MINE
17 by both the Skeptics and the challenger THEY'LL WORK A TEST USING PSYCHIC POWERS AFTER THEY KILLFILTER YOU
18 The Skeptics Challenge is NOT EXISTENT
19 someone can put one over the Skeptics HAHHAHAHAHAHA THEY DID THEY DID
Feel the wrath of the Truman, cross me and lose your livelyhood.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
07 Jan 2005 09:29:33 AM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
It doesn't matter. Your post is meaningless. You have no paranormal
powers. You are merely schizophrenic, and evidently off your meds again.
Good, I'll post the fact A Current Affair busted Australia Skeptics
for holding onto their $100,000 crying after abusing the applicants.
bi-monthly FAQ ok with everyone here?
1 the impression that Australian Skeptics (AS) had "backed-down" CLAIMBREAKERS
2 but using AS money MINE MINE MINE
3 defining in detail precisely what it is that s/he believes PRECISE DETAIL
4 We must know BARRY WILL TAKE CARE OF IT
5 believe that we should offer our prize for a test MINE MINE MINE
6 they had approached Bond's English Literature ME ME ME
7 Not for our money MINE MINE MINE
8 we did not want to be seen to be hounding a deluded WE DIDN'T CALL HIM DELUDED
9 this made perfect sense BUT HE IS
10 as a naked statement and was totally irrelevant SUCK SH*T MISQUOTER
11 not make a good story OF A FOOL
12 every question, was that "the Skeptics are backing down GET THE HINT?
13 opportunity to confess that we have indeed backed down OH REALLY?
14 Solving Fermat's Last Theorem WE'LL LEAVE IT WITH YOU
15 A challenger must make a specific and testable claim directly to AS. NOT PRECISE & DETAILED?
16 it's our challenge, our money MINE MINE MINE
17 by both the Skeptics and the challenger THEY'LL WORK A TEST USING PSYCHIC POWERS AFTER THEY KILLFILTER YOU
18 The Skeptics Challenge is NOT EXISTENT
19 someone can put one over the Skeptics HAHHAHAHAHAHA THEY DID THEY DID
Feel the wrath of the Truman, cross me and lose your livelyhood.
Herc
Yup, definitely off the meds.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wally Anglesea" |
|
| Title: Re: I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
07 Jan 2005 08:00:53 AM |
|
|
|-|erc wrote:
It doesn't matter. Your post is meaningless. You have no paranormal
powers. You are merely schizophrenic, and evidently off your meds again.
Herc, you got arrested for threatening to put rat poison in ***** Smith
foods.
How many restraining orders have you had placed on you?
How many death threats have you made online, including in the past TWO
WEEKS?
Get back on your medication, you boob.
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: I like watching them get busted in slow motion |
07 Jan 2005 08:09:04 AM |
|
|
Herc, you got arrested for threatening to put rat poison in ***** Smith
foods.
everyone here has seen exactly what was misquoted.
[How to get 5 months prison with an email] Dear Barry, thank you for your verrrry slow reply....
PS Please reply in a day or two, I'm about to put Ratsac in as much ***** Smith food as I can grab.
that is word for word, the paranormal claim was BY NAME BY NATURE
and the email sent to was sarkasm
Herc
--
jab jab jab quote I'm a critical thinker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
