As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself.
Though unpaid, my work in the spiritual realm is
both productive and rewarding. Every time I
think of all the celebrities, CEOs, community
leaders & national politicians that I've been able
to guide towards success through the use of my
gifts, I can't help but feel a sense of pride of such
an extant that I dare call it "sinful."
I know we all should be humbled by a power greater
than ourselves, and in my case doubly so, as
through my gifts I am in touch with that power on
a daily basis. And I assure you, as unvirtuous as
my expressed pride might seem, that despite my
powers I remain as human as the rest of you, with all
those same human faults & human frailties that
plague the rest of mankind. I would be less virtuous,
not more so, should I lie or otherwise conceal the
pride I feel towards my undeserved role in shaping
world events.
Now, as I said, I do not get paid for my work. However,
I do accept donations from those seeking guidance.
And, yes, more often than a perfect world would allow,
I am forced by circumstances to defer to those who
make a donation over those who do not. But I am not
in it for the money, and I will prove this to all of you
now.
What do you want to know? What secrets would you
like revealed?
The world is open to you, the sky your limit with but
one caveat: Ask me a question to gain information
and nothing else.
If, for example, you asked me tomorrow's Lotto
number I would ignore you. For the information itself
is not an end, but a means toward an end, with that
end being great wealth.
The same applies to stocks, commodities or any other
investment item. It can even apply towards seemingly
innocuous facts, like the fate of an ancient ancestor.
Your motives define it's validity.
Any question asked out of curiousity, or to satisfy an
entirely personal desire, is entirely valid. This is because
the information itself is the goal. If, on the other hand,
you are looking for a little insight so that you might
write the next Dan Brown style blockbuster novel, the
information is not the goal but a means towards an
end. It would be invalid.
This is important. There is a real danger here. If you
ask a question when in fact it is not the answer you
seek, but merely intend to use the answer to secure
some other goal, you risk disater. For, although I
can gaurantee you that all responses I present will be
technically true & technically accurate, the spirits will
respond to impure questions with ambiguity, often
times even to the point of being deliberately misleading.
I myself do not see the future. I myself do not know
any great secrets, or have the power to peer into the
hearts of men. I channel the spirits, and the spirit of
Nostradamus in particular, and I report back what they
have revealed to me. Unless it is something obvious,
like a lottery number, I may not recognize your question
as invalid, I may not know to not ask it. In short, I
may not be able to protect you from the potential
ruin of a "technically" true & accurate answer that
is deliberately vague and likely booby trapped with
misleading language that will steer you towards ruin.
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
.
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
19 Aug 2006 01:39:43 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
So what does your blessed certificate actually
do that is guaranteed to 40ft if it doesn't ward
off bad luck?
What's different this time? I mean, as you clearly were
not able to grasp it the first (second, third, fourth) time
you read it, what would be the point in restating it here
now?
Tell us what has since changed.
Continued evasion noted. You claim to bless a certificate and GUARANTEE
it works for 40ft, but you won't say what it does, or how you might test
it. One wonders how a kook (that's you) was even able to measure its
effects out to 40ft when you weasel out of your own description of what
it does.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
19 Aug 2006 03:34:34 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
What's different this time? I mean, as you clearly were
not able to grasp it the first (second, third, fourth) time
you read it, what would be the point in restating it here
now?
Tell us what has since changed.
Continued evasion noted.
Wow. You're so smart. I really have to hand it to you, the
way you completely deconstructed my claim. So
scientific... so convincing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
20 Aug 2006 06:28:41 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
What's different this time? I mean, as you clearly were
not able to grasp it the first (second, third, fourth) time
you read it, what would be the point in restating it here
now?
Tell us what has since changed.
Continued evasion noted.
Wow. You're so smart. I really have to hand it to you, the
way you completely deconstructed my claim. So
scientific... so convincing.
You're the one who demolished your own claim. By running away from your
claims and your continued evasion of stating with specificity what you
can do, if not what you said in the first place.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
20 Aug 2006 10:15:07 AM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
You're the one who demolished your own claim.
Really, baby cakes? How's that?
By running away from your claims
I never made the claim that you keep attributing to
me. You made that up. You invented it.
and your continued evasion of stating with specificity
what you can do,
I stated already, nimrod. You read it. You quoted it.
You misrepresented it. I corrected you. You continued
to misrepresent it. I continued to correct you.
Fact is, you can't address what I claimed, so you
invented something else. Period.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 08:01:35 PM |
|
|
In article <1155601977.851729.141280@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Please, by all means, read what I stated instead of what
who wanted to read, then respond to my question.
Are you saying you can't think of a way to test something
that is "guaranteed to ward of demons and evil spirits --
which can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck" --
for a radius of 40 feet or more"?
Maybe I'm going too fast for you...
I don't believe Randi what's-his-name has any intention of
ever giving out the prize money. Quite frankly, I'm not at
all certain that he even has it to give out.
Why not? He claims to have it in bonds deposited with Goldman Sachs.
You can determine from their tax return that they have over $1 million
in assets. I just did that, as a matter of fact, and it gives them
assets of over $2 million with about $1 million of that in Mortgage
Backed Securities and Goverment Bonds. Probably just a coincidence.
Now, other organizations have filed fraudulent tax returns before, but
I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt for right now and assume
that they are not lying to the IRS (beyond the amount required by law)
which would imply that they have the money.
So, I'm asking you, what kind of "test" would satify the
criteria of this imaginary "Prize"?
I don't know. Why don't you tell us what you can "do" and "apply"
to "take" the "test" and see what they "say"?
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 08:39:49 PM |
|
|
Alan Morgan wrote:
I don't believe Randi what's-his-name has any intention of
ever giving out the prize money. Quite frankly, I'm not at
all certain that he even has it to give out.
Why not?
You mean other than the three EXTREMELY good reasons
I've been given here?
Please.
I don't claim to be familair with this imaginary "test," but
when I challenged a couple of wannabes who kept bringing
it up, instead of a description of something that could
actually test my claims I got *****.
Hint: I never said anything about eliminating "bad luck,"
but, even if I had, since when does "the absence of bad
luck" translate to "extraordinarly good luck"?
Another hint: After flat out stating that the communication
isn't in language but concepts, an oh so fitting "test" that
was suggested surrounded.... guess what? Go on, give it
a whirl. If you guessed "Language" then you're too smart
to be a skeptic around here.
And not just any language, either. Archaic French!
Apparently, there's no way I could communicate in
concepts unless I can communicate in archaic French.
....or so the retards posing as "Skeptics" seem to
believe.
And seeing how these are the self-appointed experts on
the imaginary "test," how could I help but feel that it's
all a load of hogwash?
Prove me wrong. Give me an example of a "test" which
could not only satisfy this Randi con-man, but actually
tests my claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 09:09:44 PM |
|
|
In article <1155605989.037673.28700@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
I don't believe Randi what's-his-name has any intention of
ever giving out the prize money. Quite frankly, I'm not at
all certain that he even has it to give out.
Why not?
You mean other than the three EXTREMELY good reasons
I've been given here?
Please.
I don't claim to be familair with this imaginary "test," but
when I challenged a couple of wannabes who kept bringing
it up, instead of a description of something that could
actually test my claims I got *****.
That's nice. What does that have to do with Randi having or
not having the money?
Hint: I never said anything about eliminating "bad luck,"
but, even if I had, since when does "the absence of bad
luck" translate to "extraordinarly good luck"?
Fine. Here's the basic question: You claim to be able to
do.... something. Is there some objective way we can tell
if you are able to do what it is you claim to do? How can
we distinguish between you and a raving lunatic with no
special skills at all?
Prove me wrong. Give me an example of a "test" which
could not only satisfy this Randi con-man, but actually
tests my claims.
Your claim, as far as I can see, is that in response to a
question you will spout incoherent ***** that doesn't
make sense to anyone. If that *isn't* what you do then please
explain how I'm supposed to distinguish between what you
do and what someone who spouts incoherent ***** does.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 07:49:56 AM |
|
|
Alan Morgan wrote:
That's nice. What does that have to do with Randi
having or not having the money?
Well you've obviously exceeded the IQ criteria for being
a "Skeptic" around here, so I guess I'll have to spell it
out for you...
#1. The question of money is not independent of the imaginary
test.
#2. The test does not appear to be real. At least not by what
has been stated here. No test, no money. Period.
#3. Whether or not this Randi guy has an extra $1 million
hanging around is irrelevant outside the context of a test
which really does exist. Even so, there has been less than
ample evidence to demonstrate that the Randi con-man
has the money.
Now what I suggest you do is concentrate exclusively on
#3, above, ignoring as best you can the fact that even if
your Randi god has billions, the $1 million still can not and
does not exist without a real & honest test.
Hint: I never said anything about eliminating "bad luck,"
but, even if I had, since when does "the absence of bad
luck" translate to "extraordinarly good luck"?
Fine. Here's the basic question: You claim to be able to
do.... something. Is there some objective way we can tell
if you are able to do what it is you claim to do? How can
we distinguish between you and a raving lunatic with no
special skills at all?
What you people are telling me -- literally -- is that you are
not capable of distinquishing between a raving lunatic and
a person with genuine supernatural gifts, and this makes
everybody else bad.
Prove me wrong. Give me an example of a "test" which
could not only satisfy this Randi con-man, but actually
tests my claims.
Your claim, as far as I can see, is that in response to a
question you will spout incoherent ***** that doesn't
make sense to anyone.
Yes. This is called "Seeing what you want to see," and is
exactly what you accuse believers of doing.
If you haven't noticed (and you clearly haven't) the vast
majority of questions posed to me fall outside of the
stated criteria. They are what I described as invalid
questions.
Now what part of "Invalid" don't you get?
Secondly, I described the means of my communications
as concepts. Not words. There's images, yes, but that's
not to say pictures. I don't get a mental picture of things
that will happen. I'll give you an exmaple:
[Picture of a young dark-haired boy, in a dark shirt, smiling]
This isn't a glimpse of something that will come to pass,
it is the transmission of a concept.
Youth? Happiness? Male?
Alone it might mean "A happy childhood" for someone.
For someone else it might mean that they are going to
have a son. For a third person, one who lost a child, it
might mean "They are happy on the other side."
Now put this together with another image and it gets even
more complicated. An explosion, for example. Add the
image of, say, a pipe and maybe you've got a pipe bomb,
a gun barrel or a gas leak. There's no good news in any
of those, now is there?
Anyways, what I tend to do is "translate" each image
separately: Women... lamp... kitten...
lady... bright... fuzzy...
Female.. idea... adorable...
"She thinks [you are] cute."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 11:18:26 AM |
|
|
In article <1155646196.623535.81720@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
Hint: I never said anything about eliminating "bad luck,"
but, even if I had, since when does "the absence of bad
luck" translate to "extraordinarly good luck"?
Fine. Here's the basic question: You claim to be able to
do.... something. Is there some objective way we can tell
if you are able to do what it is you claim to do? How can
we distinguish between you and a raving lunatic with no
special skills at all?
What you people are telling me -- literally -- is that you are
not capable of distinquishing between a raving lunatic and
a person with genuine supernatural gifts, and this makes
everybody else bad.
Perhaps it's more that I don't really understand exactly what
it is you do. You, however, do. I'd really like you to explain
what it is you do and how I can, in some objective way, differentiate
between your abilities and those of someone who has no supernatural
powers.
Prove me wrong. Give me an example of a "test" which
could not only satisfy this Randi con-man, but actually
tests my claims.
Your claim, as far as I can see, is that in response to a
question you will spout incoherent ***** that doesn't
make sense to anyone.
Yes. This is called "Seeing what you want to see," and is
exactly what you accuse believers of doing.
If you haven't noticed (and you clearly haven't) the vast
majority of questions posed to me fall outside of the
stated criteria. They are what I described as invalid
questions.
Now what part of "Invalid" don't you get?
Actually, I was referring to the answer to my question. Was that
question invalid? The answer made exactly no sense to me.
Secondly, I described the means of my communications
as concepts. Not words. There's images, yes, but that's
not to say pictures. I don't get a mental picture of things
that will happen. I'll give you an exmaple:
[Picture of a young dark-haired boy, in a dark shirt, smiling]
I accept that you don't get exact answers. That's fine. However,
anyone can come up with vague images that don't mean anything. You
have to give us a way to see why what you do is different.
Oooh, I'm getting a picture. It's a girl with curly hair blowing
bubbles. Now it's a chimp wearing overalls riding a tricycle. Now
I'm getting a picture of a kitten sleeping in a sink.
You see? Anyone can do this. Now, what do you do that differs from
the random ***** I made up?
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 12:24:25 PM |
|
|
Alan Morgan wrote:
Perhaps it's more that I don't really understand exactly what
it is you do. You, however, do. I'd really like you to explain
what it is you do and how I can, in some objective way,
differentiate between your abilities and those of someone
who has no supernatural powers.
Now you've got to keep in mind that I'm not a Nostradamus
"nut" -- meaning I bought one book on his predictions in my
entire life, and gave it away within a week -- and I'm not any
kind of "New Ager."
I am totally "unschooled" in the paranormal, and I've been
told by some who claim to be in the know that I'm not
really "channeling" but "remote viewing."
I spent a a few minutes on Google investigating "remote
viewing" and saw nothing about contacts with/information
from a spirit, so I have my reasons to doubt. On the other
hand, I might've missed something.
Anyhow, I use the term "Channeling" pretty much because
it's something I've always heard coming from the paranormal
crowd & New Agers, without really investigating the matter.
How it works:
"Bigger is better." The future is not set in stone, but it can
be difficult to change. My usual analogy is a mighty river.
I am virtually powerless to change the course of a mighty
river alone, but I can with my bare hands scoop out water.
Meaning?
It's very easy to change the course of history on a micro
scale -- like an individual -- but near impossible on a
macro scale. So the "Bigger" an issue or a question is,
the more it would take to change the outcome, the more
accurate the answer.
On this same note, "Trends" are easier to predict than
momentary blips. For example, predicting what an
individual stock or market will do on a particular day is
a lot more difficult then predicting if the "trend" over
the long term will be up or down.
The best questions involve people, the more the better.
The greater the investment in human energy into a
matter, the clearer the picture. This often works against
you, because people are not unbiased, but it does
present the fastest & clearest picture of a future event/
outcome.
"People" questions aren't necessary centered on
finances. You'd think the stock market would be the
perfect "People" issue, but it's not. Besides the
obvious -- greed, everyone hoping for it to move in
one direction -- there's the fact that it honestly
represents a small segment of the population. Most
"ordinary" people own a few shares at best, or even
have all their stocks in some 401K plan that's viewed
more as long-term savings than day to day investments.
Attitude matters. It matters a great deal. Malicious
questions, concealed motives & greed invite the
most ambiguise & misleading responses. They will
be "technically" accurate but certainly not in any
fashion or to such an extent that a malicious person
would ever admit to their accuracy.
You have to really want to know the answer, and you
have to really want to know it more than you want to
know something else... like whether or not you're
"smart" enough to show up a medium.
"Near," time wise, is better than "far." This has to do
with the translation of concepts. For example, socially,
if you dropped any of us in the middle of NYC 100
years ago we'd stick out like a sore thumb. We wouldn't
be dressed right, we wouldn't have the right hair styles,
we wouldn't talk right & we wouldn't know the etiquette.
Concepts are not universal, and they certainly are not
immortal. The further you get from the concepts I know
and understand the less accurate my interpretation will
be.
The same applies to knowledge outside my field. If
you ask me about matters I do not understand, which
involve concepts I am not familiar with, my interpretation
is going to suffer.
It would be difficult enough for someone to listen to a
lecture on a subject which they are not familair with,
and share no interest in, let alone ask them to repeat
what they heard from memory.
I don't have words I have concepts. You don't have to
know what a word means in order to repeat it, assuming
you can pronounce it, while describing a concept you
are not familiar with is pretty damn difficult.
Example of a "Good" prediction: The present system
of government in Egypt will fall.
Near term. People-relevant (and not just to those in
Egypt). Easy to know if the prediction comes true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bryan Olson" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
13 Aug 2006 03:28:51 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I have successfully channeled Nostradamus, and he has
revealed the following:
"As the Continental, less three."
Come on, at least do quatrains.
Nostradamus channelers have gotten so lazy.
--
--Bryan
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
13 Aug 2006 09:23:00 PM |
|
|
Bryan Olson wrote:
Come on, at least do quatrains.
You're thinking in terms of language, the written word.
The communication isn't in words, it's in concepts. The
best way I could describe it is images. It actually goes
beyond this, but just to keep it easy for you, think of
images.
Nostradamus channelers have gotten so lazy.
Tell me about it...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
12 Aug 2006 06:19:19 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
12 Aug 2006 09:24:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
--
Bushism 6-30:
"How do you know if you don't measure if you have a system that simply suckles
kids through?" --Explaining the need for educational accountability;
Beaufort, South Carolina; February 16, 2000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
12 Aug 2006 09:39:57 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can provide a
simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It really is that
simple - assuming the applicant can do what they claim.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
12 Aug 2006 10:24:20 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can provide a
simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It really is that
simple - assuming the applicant can do what they claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who can
prove evolution.
--
Bushism 1-11:
"I talked about making the death tax permanent so that Rolf can pass his assets
from--to a family member if he so chooses."
--After meeting with small-business owners; O'Fallon, MO; March 18, 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
12 Aug 2006 11:48:46 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can provide a
simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It really is that
simple - assuming the applicant can do what they claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who can
prove evolution.
Nonsense again. Kent Hovind merely asks you to prove (to his chosen
expert's satisfaction) that god could not have been responsible for
"evolution" where evolution is his blanket cod definition encompassing
the creation of the whole universe, star / planet formation,
abiogenisis, and biological evolution. Since you can't prove a negative,
the whole challenge is totally meritless. As is Zammit's similar
challenge about the afterlife.
By contrast. You could walk in off the street and win Randi's million
with a simple demonstration. It is very, very simple. No judges are
required, no arguing your case. Just do what you claim in the pre-agreed
manner and walk away a lot richer. If you claim to be able levitate or
read minds or remote view etc., propose a test, pass and you are one
million up.
Seeing as there are thousands of self-claimed paranormalists (such as
the person starting this thread), it is a wonder that none of them want
to win the money. Why are paranormalists so boastful on the internet,
TV, radio, in books, in the sleazy rundown backstreets of casinos etc.,
yet they shy away from a cool million for a morning's effort?
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
12 Aug 2006 05:38:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:48:46 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebl0o202pi5@news3.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can provide a
simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It really is that
simple - assuming the applicant can do what they claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who can
prove evolution.
Nonsense again. Kent Hovind merely asks you to prove (to his chosen
expert's satisfaction) that god could not have been responsible for
"evolution" where evolution is his blanket cod definition encompassing
the creation of the whole universe, star / planet formation,
abiogenisis, and biological evolution. Since you can't prove a negative,
the whole challenge is totally meritless. As is Zammit's similar
challenge about the afterlife.
By contrast. You could walk in off the street and win Randi's million
with a simple demonstration. It is very, very simple. No judges are
required, no arguing your case. Just do what you claim in the pre-agreed
manner and walk away a lot richer. If you claim to be able levitate or
read minds or remote view etc., propose a test, pass and you are one
million up.
Seeing as there are thousands of self-claimed paranormalists (such as
the person starting this thread), it is a wonder that none of them want
to win the money. Why are paranormalists so boastful on the internet,
TV, radio, in books, in the sleazy rundown backstreets of casinos etc.,
yet they shy away from a cool million for a morning's effort?
Probably because like Hovind, Randi is close-minded to the possibility
that he might be wrong, which is why he offers the money in the first
place. Neither Hovind nor Randi are scientists, but they both have a
following of people who are convinced that they have proved the other side
wrong. The legitimate psychics and mediums know this, and that's why they
stay away, just as scientists know about Hovind which is why they don't
usually debate him. Of course in both cases, this leads to an even
stronger belief on both Hovind and Randi's part that they are right.
--
Bushism 3-16:
"These people don't have tanks. They don't have ships. They hide in caves.
They send suiciders out."
--Speaking about the terrorists; Portsmouth, New Hampshire; November 1, 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
13 Aug 2006 07:06:19 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:48:46 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebl0o202pi5@news3.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can provide a
simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It really is that
simple - assuming the applicant can do what they claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who can
prove evolution.
Nonsense again. Kent Hovind merely asks you to prove (to his chosen
expert's satisfaction) that god could not have been responsible for
"evolution" where evolution is his blanket cod definition encompassing
the creation of the whole universe, star / planet formation,
abiogenisis, and biological evolution. Since you can't prove a negative,
the whole challenge is totally meritless. As is Zammit's similar
challenge about the afterlife.
By contrast. You could walk in off the street and win Randi's million
with a simple demonstration. It is very, very simple. No judges are
required, no arguing your case. Just do what you claim in the pre-agreed
manner and walk away a lot richer. If you claim to be able levitate or
read minds or remote view etc., propose a test, pass and you are one
million up.
Seeing as there are thousands of self-claimed paranormalists (such as
the person starting this thread), it is a wonder that none of them want
to win the money. Why are paranormalists so boastful on the internet,
TV, radio, in books, in the sleazy rundown backstreets of casinos etc.,
yet they shy away from a cool million for a morning's effort?
Probably because like Hovind, Randi is close-minded to the possibility
that he might be wrong, which is why he offers the money in the first
place.
Well wipe the smile off the old fart's face by taking his money. He
doesn't need to "judge" your demonstration. He doesn't require you prove
a negative (as for Hovind). You either do what you claim and take his
money or you fail miserably. Randi can ***** and moan as much as he
likes afterwards, but if you met and passed the agreed conditions you
take the money.
Neither Hovind nor Randi are scientists, but they both have a
following of people who are convinced that they have proved the other side
wrong.
Why do you have to be a scientist for someone to demonstrate what they
claim to be able to do? Of course if you did win the million, there
would be scientists aplenty lined up to test you.
The legitimate psychics and mediums know this, and that's why they
stay away,
Sure right. They stay away because they have no need for the million.
Because everyone knows the "legitimate" psychics and mediums eke out a
living hawking their wares or seeking "donations". Makes perfect sense.
just as scientists know about Hovind which is why they don't
usually debate him.
Science isn't a debate. But they already waste far too much time
debunking and rebutting Hovind and his ilk. Sites like Talk Origins &
Panda's Thumb are set up expressly to do this.
Of course in both cases, this leads to an even
stronger belief on both Hovind and Randi's part that they are right.
What Randi believes is irrelevant. If a person can levitate or whatever
their claim is, they get the million. Of course Randi has been busting
frauds and the delusional for most of his life so its no wonder that he
has strong beliefs that he's right. He believes so strongly in fact that
he has a verifiable million dollars riding on the outcome.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
13 Aug 2006 09:33:58 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:06:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebn4jm02553@news4.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:48:46 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebl0o202pi5@news3.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can provide a
simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It really is that
simple - assuming the applicant can do what they claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who can
prove evolution.
Nonsense again. Kent Hovind merely asks you to prove (to his chosen
expert's satisfaction) that god could not have been responsible for
"evolution" where evolution is his blanket cod definition encompassing
the creation of the whole universe, star / planet formation,
abiogenisis, and biological evolution. Since you can't prove a negative,
the whole challenge is totally meritless. As is Zammit's similar
challenge about the afterlife.
By contrast. You could walk in off the street and win Randi's million
with a simple demonstration. It is very, very simple. No judges are
required, no arguing your case. Just do what you claim in the pre-agreed
manner and walk away a lot richer. If you claim to be able levitate or
read minds or remote view etc., propose a test, pass and you are one
million up.
Seeing as there are thousands of self-claimed paranormalists (such as
the person starting this thread), it is a wonder that none of them want
to win the money. Why are paranormalists so boastful on the internet,
TV, radio, in books, in the sleazy rundown backstreets of casinos etc.,
yet they shy away from a cool million for a morning's effort?
Probably because like Hovind, Randi is close-minded to the possibility
that he might be wrong, which is why he offers the money in the first
place.
Well wipe the smile off the old fart's face by taking his money. He
doesn't need to "judge" your demonstration. He doesn't require you prove
a negative (as for Hovind). You either do what you claim and take his
money or you fail miserably. Randi can ***** and moan as much as he
likes afterwards, but if you met and passed the agreed conditions you
take the money.
Why don't you ask Randi why he never paid the Yellow Bamboo organization?
Randi claims that they "probably" used a stun gun, but according to Joko
Tri, Randi's representative, nothing touched him. Either Joko Tri is a
liar, or Randi has welshed.
Neither Hovind nor Randi are scientists, but they both have a
following of people who are convinced that they have proved the other side
wrong.
Why do you have to be a scientist for someone to demonstrate what they
claim to be able to do? Of course if you did win the million, there
would be scientists aplenty lined up to test you.
Why should anyone take the challenge seriously? Especially when it's
obvious that it's only there for the publicity.
The legitimate psychics and mediums know this, and that's why they
stay away,
Sure right. They stay away because they have no need for the million.
Because everyone knows the "legitimate" psychics and mediums eke out a
living hawking their wares or seeking "donations". Makes perfect sense.
So you think that only legitimate psychics should charge a large fee for
their services, just like doctors do? If so, wouldn't you accuse them of
only doing it for the money?
just as scientists know about Hovind which is why they don't
usually debate him.
Science isn't a debate. But they already waste far too much time
debunking and rebutting Hovind and his ilk. Sites like Talk Origins &
Panda's Thumb are set up expressly to do this.
Of course in both cases, this leads to an even
stronger belief on both Hovind and Randi's part that they are right.
What Randi believes is irrelevant. If a person can levitate or whatever
their claim is, they get the million. Of course Randi has been busting
frauds and the delusional for most of his life so its no wonder that he
has strong beliefs that he's right. He believes so strongly in fact that
he has a verifiable million dollars riding on the outcome.
Which is why he is close-minded to the possibility that he could ever be
wrong. Sorry, but I don't trust the tests of people who have an agenda,
as Randi obviously does.
--
Bushism 1-9:
"He's kind of a--probably feeling his oats pretty good about that time."
--Describing the moment when Rabbi Mark Borovitz met his wife, Harriet; Faith-
Based and Community Initiatives Conference; Los Angeles, CA; March 3, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
13 Aug 2006 11:09:36 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:06:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebn4jm02553@news4.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:48:46 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebl0o202pi5@news3.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation. Can you
guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can provide a
simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It really is that
simple - assuming the applicant can do what they claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who can
prove evolution.
Nonsense again. Kent Hovind merely asks you to prove (to his chosen
expert's satisfaction) that god could not have been responsible for
"evolution" where evolution is his blanket cod definition encompassing
the creation of the whole universe, star / planet formation,
abiogenisis, and biological evolution. Since you can't prove a negative,
the whole challenge is totally meritless. As is Zammit's similar
challenge about the afterlife.
By contrast. You could walk in off the street and win Randi's million
with a simple demonstration. It is very, very simple. No judges are
required, no arguing your case. Just do what you claim in the pre-agreed
manner and walk away a lot richer. If you claim to be able levitate or
read minds or remote view etc., propose a test, pass and you are one
million up.
Seeing as there are thousands of self-claimed paranormalists (such as
the person starting this thread), it is a wonder that none of them want
to win the money. Why are paranormalists so boastful on the internet,
TV, radio, in books, in the sleazy rundown backstreets of casinos etc.,
yet they shy away from a cool million for a morning's effort?
Probably because like Hovind, Randi is close-minded to the possibility
that he might be wrong, which is why he offers the money in the first
place.
Well wipe the smile off the old fart's face by taking his money. He
doesn't need to "judge" your demonstration. He doesn't require you prove
a negative (as for Hovind). You either do what you claim and take his
money or you fail miserably. Randi can ***** and moan as much as he
likes afterwards, but if you met and passed the agreed conditions you
take the money.
Why don't you ask Randi why he never paid the Yellow Bamboo organization?
I don't have to since he has already explained quite clearly what the
situation was as you well know.
Randi claims that they "probably" used a stun gun, but according to Joko
Tri, Randi's representative, nothing touched him. Either Joko Tri is a
liar, or Randi has welshed.
Neither. It was a preliminary test and the conditions of that test were
not followed.
Neither Hovind nor Randi are scientists, but they both have a
following of people who are convinced that they have proved the other side
wrong.
Why do you have to be a scientist for someone to demonstrate what they
claim to be able to do? Of course if you did win the million, there
would be scientists aplenty lined up to test you.
Why should anyone take the challenge seriously? Especially when it's
obvious that it's only there for the publicity.
Now you're making stock excuses. The money is there, the rules are very
clear. Do what you claim and you'll win it.
The legitimate psychics and mediums know this, and that's why they
stay away,
Sure right. They stay away because they have no need for the million.
Because everyone knows the "legitimate" psychics and mediums eke out a
living hawking their wares or seeking "donations". Makes perfect sense.
So you think that only legitimate psychics should charge a large fee for
their services, just like doctors do? If so, wouldn't you accuse them of
only doing it for the money?
So are you saying that all people who charge a fee cannot be a psychic?
If so we can conclude they are by definition frauds.
And if not, and that some psychics do charge money then what is their
excuse? Clearly they have no objection to taking money.
Hell, even the ones who do it for nothing should be taking the
challenge. After all, even if they don't want one million dollars, they
must sure as hell know some charity that does.
The same goes if you start making excuses about psychics being shy
retiring creatures. That would mean by definition that any psychic that
writes books, does lectures, appears on TV / radio etc. is also a fraud.
just as scientists know about Hovind which is why they don't
usually debate him.
Science isn't a debate. But they already waste far too much time
debunking and rebutting Hovind and his ilk. Sites like Talk Origins &
Panda's Thumb are set up expressly to do this.
Of course in both cases, this leads to an even
stronger belief on both Hovind and Randi's part that they are right.
What Randi believes is irrelevant. If a person can levitate or whatever
their claim is, they get the million. Of course Randi has been busting
frauds and the delusional for most of his life so its no wonder that he
has strong beliefs that he's right. He believes so strongly in fact that
he has a verifiable million dollars riding on the outcome.
Which is why he is close-minded to the possibility that he could ever be
wrong. Sorry, but I don't trust the tests of people who have an agenda,
as Randi obviously does.
What does it matter what his agenda is? The money is there for any
psychic who'd win it. Except of course, "psychics" know full well that
they would fail miserably if they tried. Hence the reason for the feeble
excuses, enough to convince True Believers but nobody else.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
13 Aug 2006 02:49:55 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:09:36 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebnirv02ot3@news4.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:06:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebn4jm02553@news4.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:48:46 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebl0o202pi5@news3.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics, you are
hereby challenged to experience the solace that only those of
us exposed to the truth and in touch with a power greater than
ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation.
Can you guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can
provide a simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It
really is that simple - assuming the applicant can do what they
claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who
can prove evolution.
Nonsense again. Kent Hovind merely asks you to prove (to his chosen
expert's satisfaction) that god could not have been responsible for
"evolution" where evolution is his blanket cod definition
encompassing the creation of the whole universe, star / planet
formation, abiogenisis, and biological evolution. Since you can't
prove a negative, the whole challenge is totally meritless. As is
Zammit's similar challenge about the afterlife.
By contrast. You could walk in off the street and win Randi's
million with a simple demonstration. It is very, very simple. No
judges are required, no arguing your case. Just do what you claim in
the pre-agreed manner and walk away a lot richer. If you claim to be
able levitate or read minds or remote view etc., propose a test,
pass and you are one million up.
Seeing as there are thousands of self-claimed paranormalists (such
as the person starting this thread), it is a wonder that none of
them want to win the money. Why are paranormalists so boastful on
the internet, TV, radio, in books, in the sleazy rundown backstreets
of casinos etc., yet they shy away from a cool million for a
morning's effort?
Probably because like Hovind, Randi is close-minded to the
possibility that he might be wrong, which is why he offers the money
in the first place.
Well wipe the smile off the old fart's face by taking his money. He
doesn't need to "judge" your demonstration. He doesn't require you
prove a negative (as for Hovind). You either do what you claim and
take his money or you fail miserably. Randi can ***** and moan as much
as he likes afterwards, but if you met and passed the agreed
conditions you take the money.
Why don't you ask Randi why he never paid the Yellow Bamboo
organization?
I don't have to since he has already explained quite clearly what the
situation was as you well know.
Randi claims that they "probably" used a stun gun, but according to
Joko Tri, Randi's representative, nothing touched him. Either Joko Tri
is a liar, or Randi has welshed.
Neither. It was a preliminary test and the conditions of that test were
not followed.
In other words, he's making excuses. They demonstrated quite clearly that
they could do as they claimed, but Randi still refuses to pay the million
dollars. That's what is known as moving the goalposts.
Neither Hovind nor Randi are scientists, but they both have a
following of people who are convinced that they have proved the other
side wrong.
Why do you have to be a scientist for someone to demonstrate what they
claim to be able to do? Of course if you did win the million, there
would be scientists aplenty lined up to test you.
Why should anyone take the challenge seriously? Especially when it's
obvious that it's only there for the publicity.
Now you're making stock excuses. The money is there, the rules are very
clear. Do what you claim and you'll win it.
I never said the money wasn't there, but it's only there for the
publicity. It's a gimmick. You know it and Randi knows it. Because if
he wasn't offering the million dollars, no one would pay attention to him.
The legitimate psychics and mediums know this, and that's why they
stay away,
Sure right. They stay away because they have no need for the million.
Because everyone knows the "legitimate" psychics and mediums eke out a
living hawking their wares or seeking "donations". Makes perfect
sense.
So you think that only legitimate psychics should charge a large fee
for their services, just like doctors do? If so, wouldn't you accuse
them of only doing it for the money?
So are you saying that all people who charge a fee cannot be a psychic?
If so we can conclude they are by definition frauds.
And if not, and that some psychics do charge money then what is their
excuse? Clearly they have no objection to taking money.
I'd say that if they charge an excessive amount they are most likely
frauds.
Hell, even the ones who do it for nothing should be taking the
challenge. After all, even if they don't want one million dollars, they
must sure as hell know some charity that does.
Sure, just like any scientist should be more than willing to take Hovind's
challenge. After all, if they don't want the quarter million, they should
know some charity that does, right?
The same goes if you start making excuses about psychics being shy
retiring creatures. That would mean by definition that any psychic that
writes books, does lectures, appears on TV / radio etc. is also a fraud.
Doctors and scientists also write books, do lectures and appear on TV and
radio. That they do doesn't make them frauds. Their motivation for doing
those things determines whether they're a fraud or not.
just as scientists know about Hovind which is why they don't usually
debate him.
Science isn't a debate. But they already waste far too much time
debunking and rebutting Hovind and his ilk. Sites like Talk Origins &
Panda's Thumb are set up expressly to do this.
Of course in both cases, this leads to an even stronger belief on
both Hovind and Randi's part that they are right.
What Randi believes is irrelevant. If a person can levitate or
whatever their claim is, they get the million. Of course Randi has
been busting frauds and the delusional for most of his life so its no
wonder that he has strong beliefs that he's right. He believes so
strongly in fact that he has a verifiable million dollars riding on
the outcome.
Which is why he is close-minded to the possibility that he could ever
be wrong. Sorry, but I don't trust the tests of people who have an
agenda, as Randi obviously does.
What does it matter what his agenda is?
Because his agenda is to prove that there is no such thing as psychic
power. He is not open to the possibility that he might be wrong.
Therefore, he will bend over backwards to try to prove that they didn't do
what they actually did, just like he did to the Yellow Bamboo
organization.
The money is there for any psychic who'd win it. Except of course,
"psychics" know full well that they would fail miserably if they tried.
Hence the reason for the feeble excuses, enough to convince True
Believers but nobody else.
Just like scientists know full well they'd fail miserably if they tried to
win Hovind's quarter million. That must mean the Theory of Evolution is a
fraud, right?
--
Primates often have trouble imagining a universe not run by an angry alpha male.
- Source unknown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 04:49:26 AM |
|
|
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:09:36 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebnirv02ot3@news4.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:06:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebn4jm02553@news4.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:48:46 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebl0o202pi5@news3.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics, you are
hereby challenged to experience the solace that only those of
us exposed to the truth and in touch with a power greater than
ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation.
Can you guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can
provide a simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It
really is that simple - assuming the applicant can do what they
claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who
can prove evolution.
Nonsense again. Kent Hovind merely asks you to prove (to his chosen
expert's satisfaction) that god could not have been responsible for
"evolution" where evolution is his blanket cod definition
encompassing the creation of the whole universe, star / planet
formation, abiogenisis, and biological evolution. Since you can't
prove a negative, the whole challenge is totally meritless. As is
Zammit's similar challenge about the afterlife.
By contrast. You could walk in off the street and win Randi's
million with a simple demonstration. It is very, very simple. No
judges are required, no arguing your case. Just do what you claim in
the pre-agreed manner and walk away a lot richer. If you claim to be
able levitate or read minds or remote view etc., propose a test,
pass and you are one million up.
Seeing as there are thousands of self-claimed paranormalists (such
as the person starting this thread), it is a wonder that none of
them want to win the money. Why are paranormalists so boastful on
the internet, TV, radio, in books, in the sleazy rundown backstreets
of casinos etc., yet they shy away from a cool million for a
morning's effort?
Probably because like Hovind, Randi is close-minded to the
possibility that he might be wrong, which is why he offers the money
in the first place.
Well wipe the smile off the old fart's face by taking his money. He
doesn't need to "judge" your demonstration. He doesn't require you
prove a negative (as for Hovind). You either do what you claim and
take his money or you fail miserably. Randi can ***** and moan as much
as he likes afterwards, but if you met and passed the agreed
conditions you take the money.
Why don't you ask Randi why he never paid the Yellow Bamboo
organization?
I don't have to since he has already explained quite clearly what the
situation was as you well know.
Randi claims that they "probably" used a stun gun, but according to
Joko Tri, Randi's representative, nothing touched him. Either Joko Tri
is a liar, or Randi has welshed.
Neither. It was a preliminary test and the conditions of that test were
not followed.
In other words, he's making excuses. They demonstrated quite clearly that
they could do as they claimed, but Randi still refuses to pay the million
dollars. That's what is known as moving the goalposts.
No dumbo. It was always the preliminary test. Even if they succeeded
that would only allow them to sit the formal test. Randi was not
satisfied that the preliminary test was conducted in the proper manner.
Neither Hovind nor Randi are scientists, but they both have a
following of people who are convinced that they have proved the other
side wrong.
Why do you have to be a scientist for someone to demonstrate what they
claim to be able to do? Of course if you did win the million, there
would be scientists aplenty lined up to test you.
Why should anyone take the challenge seriously? Especially when it's
obvious that it's only there for the publicity.
Now you're making stock excuses. The money is there, the rules are very
clear. Do what you claim and you'll win it.
I never said the money wasn't there, but it's only there for the
publicity. It's a gimmick. You know it and Randi knows it. Because if
he wasn't offering the million dollars, no one would pay attention to him.
It's a legitimate prize on offer to anyone who can demonstrate
paranormal ability.
The legitimate psychics and mediums know this, and that's why they
stay away,
Sure right. They stay away because they have no need for the million.
Because everyone knows the "legitimate" psychics and mediums eke out a
living hawking their wares or seeking "donations". Makes perfect
sense.
So you think that only legitimate psychics should charge a large fee
for their services, just like doctors do? If so, wouldn't you accuse
them of only doing it for the money?
So are you saying that all people who charge a fee cannot be a psychic?
If so we can conclude they are by definition frauds.
And if not, and that some psychics do charge money then what is their
excuse? Clearly they have no objection to taking money.
I'd say that if they charge an excessive amount they are most likely
frauds.
Tell me what excessive amount means. Define the line that genuine
psychics don't charge beyond for their services. Define the line that
conmen, liars and the deluded don't charge under for their services.
Hell, even the ones who do it for nothing should be taking the
challenge. After all, even if they don't want one million dollars, they
must sure as hell know some charity that does.
Sure, just like any scientist should be more than willing to take Hovind's
challenge. After all, if they don't want the quarter million, they should
know some charity that does, right?
I'm starting to think you are stupid. You can't prove a negative. It is
an impossibility. Scientists know this and aren't going to waste their
time attempting to take money from a guy who knows it too.
The same goes if you start making excuses about psychics being shy
retiring creatures. That would mean by definition that any psychic that
writes books, does lectures, appears on TV / radio etc. is also a fraud.
Doctors and scientists also write books, do lectures and appear on TV and
radio. That they do doesn't make them frauds. Their motivation for doing
those things determines whether they're a fraud or not.
In other words your talk about charging an "excessive amount" is crap.
You admit that some "genuine" psychics may like money and publicity. Why
haven't they taken the challenge? They'll get plenty of both if they pass.
just as scientists know about Hovind which is why they don't usually
debate him.
Science isn't a debate. But they already waste far too much time
debunking and rebutting Hovind and his ilk. Sites like Talk Origins &
Panda's Thumb are set up expressly to do this.
Of course in both cases, this leads to an even stronger belief on
both Hovind and Randi's part that they are right.
What Randi believes is irrelevant. If a person can levitate or
whatever their claim is, they get the million. Of course Randi has
been busting frauds and the delusional for most of his life so its no
wonder that he has strong beliefs that he's right. He believes so
strongly in fact that he has a verifiable million dollars riding on
the outcome.
Which is why he is close-minded to the possibility that he could ever
be wrong. Sorry, but I don't trust the tests of people who have an
agenda, as Randi obviously does.
What does it matter what his agenda is?
Because his agenda is to prove that there is no such thing as psychic
power. He is not open to the possibility that he might be wrong.
Therefore, he will bend over backwards to try to prove that they didn't do
what they actually did, just like he did to the Yellow Bamboo
organization.
Now I know you are stupid. Again, you can't prove a negative. Randi
doesn't say there is no such thing as psychic powers. He merely exposes
the conmen, reveals their tricks and offers a million to anyone who can
demonstrate genuine powers. If psychic powers are so prevalent (enough
that any local newspaper touts dozens of ads), one might reasonably ask
why no one has taken his million yet.
The money is there for any psychic who'd win it. Except of course,
"psychics" know full well that they would fail miserably if they tried.
Hence the reason for the feeble excuses, enough to convince True
Believers but nobody else.
Just like scientists know full well they'd fail miserably if they tried to
win Hovind's quarter million. That must mean the Theory of Evolution is a
fraud, right?
Earth to fuckwit. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove a negative.
Your comparison between the JREF challenge and Hovind's is utterly
without merit.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
14 Aug 2006 10:23:47 AM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:09:36 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebnirv02ot3@news4.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:06:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebn4jm02553@news4.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:48:46 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebl0o202pi5@news3.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 15:39:57 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkp7n01t7l@news1.newsguy.com>...
Bill Baker wrote:
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 12:19:19 +0100, Cardinal Chunder
<cc@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:<ebkdfk0tng@news2.newsguy.com>...
jtem01@gmail.com wrote:
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics, you are
hereby challenged to experience the solace that only those of
us exposed to the truth and in touch with a power greater than
ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
I know away you can earn yourself an easy $1 million donation.
Can you guess how?
James Randi -- the atheists' Kent Hovind.
Nonsense. The million is there and available to anyone who can
provide a simple demonstration of their paranormal ability. It
really is that simple - assuming the applicant can do what they
claim.
Same for Kent Hovind -- the quarter million is there for anyone who
can prove evolution.
Nonsense again. Kent Hovind merely asks you to prove (to his chosen
expert's satisfaction) that god could not have been responsible for
"evolution" where evolution is his blanket cod definition
encompassing the creation of the whole universe, star / planet
formation, abiogenisis, and biological evolution. Since you can't
prove a negative, the whole challenge is totally meritless. As is
Zammit's similar challenge about the afterlife.
By contrast. You could walk in off the street and win Randi's
million with a simple demonstration. It is very, very simple. No
judges are required, no arguing your case. Just do what you claim in
the pre-agreed manner and walk away a lot richer. If you claim to be
able levitate or read minds or remote view etc., propose a test,
pass and you are one million up.
Seeing as there are thousands of self-claimed paranormalists (such
as the person starting this thread), it is a wonder that none of
them want to win the money. Why are paranormalists so boastful on
the internet, TV, radio, in books, in the sleazy rundown backstreets
of casinos etc., yet they shy away from a cool million for a
morning's effort?
Probably because like Hovind, Randi is close-minded to the
possibility that he might be wrong, which is why he offers the money
in the first place.
Well wipe the smile off the old fart's face by taking his money. He
doesn't need to "judge" your demonstration. He doesn't require you
prove a negative (as for Hovind). You either do what you claim and
take his money or you fail miserably. Randi can ***** and moan as much
as he likes afterwards, but if you met and passed the agreed
conditions you take the money.
Why don't you ask Randi why he never paid the Yellow Bamboo
organization?
I don't have to since he has already explained quite clearly what the
situation was as you well know.
Randi claims that they "probably" used a stun gun, but according to
Joko Tri, Randi's representative, nothing touched him. Either Joko Tri
is a liar, or Randi has welshed.
Neither. It was a preliminary test and the conditions of that test were
not followed.
In other words, he's making excuses. They demonstrated quite clearly that
they could do as they claimed, but Randi still refuses to pay the million
dollars. That's what is known as moving the goalposts.
No dumbo. It was always the preliminary test. Even if they succeeded
that would only allow them to sit the formal test. Randi was not
satisfied that the preliminary test was conducted in the proper manner.
Why not? Does he think that Joko Tri is a liar, or just can't tell the
difference between being knocked down without anyone touching him and
being knocked down with a stun gun which requires someone to touch him?
I'll admit some skepticism to his claim, but it still sounds
interesting and if the possibility exists that Joko Tri was in fact
knocked down without being touched it should still move beyond the
preliminaries. That he refuses to even test it speaks volumes of
Randi, in my opinion.
Neither Hovind nor Randi are scientists, but they both have a
following of people who are convinced that they have proved the other
side wrong.
Why do you have to be a scientist for someone to demonstrate what they
claim to be able to do? Of course if you did win the million, there
would be scientists aplenty lined up to test you.
Why should anyone take the challenge seriously? Especially when it's
obvious that it's only there for the publicity.
Now you're making stock excuses. The money is there, the rules are very
clear. Do what you claim and you'll win it.
I never said the money wasn't there, but it's only there for the
publicity. It's a gimmick. You know it and Randi knows it. Because if
he wasn't offering the million dollars, no one would pay attention to him.
It's a legitimate prize on offer to anyone who can demonstrate
paranormal ability.
Never said it wasn't, but it's still a gimmick. If he loses the
gimmick he has nothing.
The legitimate psychics and mediums know this, and that's why they
stay away,
Sure right. They stay away because they have no need for the million.
Because everyone knows the "legitimate" psychics and mediums eke out a
living hawking their wares or seeking "donations". Makes perfect
sense.
So you think that only legitimate psychics should charge a large fee
for their services, just like doctors do? If so, wouldn't you accuse
them of only doing it for the money?
So are you saying that all people who charge a fee cannot be a psychic?
If so we can conclude they are by definition frauds.
And if not, and that some psychics do charge money then what is their
excuse? Clearly they have no objection to taking money.
I'd say that if they charge an excessive amount they are most likely
frauds.
Tell me what excessive amount means. Define the line that genuine
psychics don't charge beyond for their services. Define the line that
conmen, liars and the deluded don't charge under for their services.
There is no "line", but if someone charges hundreds of dollars for a
single half hour session, that might be a good indication. There are
exceptions, of course, which is why I used the words "most likely".
Hell, even the ones who do it for nothing should be taking the
challenge. After all, even if they don't want one million dollars, they
must sure as hell know some charity that does.
Sure, just like any scientist should be more than willing to take Hovind's
challenge. After all, if they don't want the quarter million, they should
know some charity that does, right?
I'm starting to think you are stupid. You can't prove a negative. It is
an impossibility. Scientists know this and aren't going to waste their
time attempting to take money from a guy who knows it too.
Then why bring up the JREF challenge every time a person claims psychic
abilities as if passing the challenge would somehow make them
legitimate?
The same goes if you start making excuses about psychics being shy
retiring creatures. That would mean by definition that any psychic that
writes books, does lectures, appears on TV / radio etc. is also a fraud.
Doctors and scientists also write books, do lectures and appear on TV and
radio. That they do doesn't make them frauds. Their motivation for doing
those things determines whether they're a fraud or not.
In other words your talk about charging an "excessive amount" is crap.
You admit that some "genuine" psychics may like mo | | | | | | | | | | | | |
