Bill Baker wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

Bill Baker wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

Bill Baker wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

Bill Baker wrote:

So you're saying you take his word for it?

Nope. Lots of people's words, plus were I check it out, it
holds up.

So are you saying you have checked it out or that you haven't? The
meaning in your sentence is unclear.

I'm saying I've checked out several points. I thought the
implication was clear.

How did you check them out?

As best I could in the many yet limited hours I devoted.
Most importantly: was JREF's design in the test negotiations
to rule out normal or tricked outcomes, as they should, or to
make actual paranormal abilities fail, as critics have accused.
I looked to the actual writings of JREF, critics, and claimants.
It was not a close call.

That's fine.

Yes, and more important that your approval is that I really
did answer your question. Straight on.

But just because no one has won the million dollars doesn't
mean that psychic phenomena doesn't exist.

Glad to see you are coming around. Randi has been noting
that for years, and I pointed that such is our position many
posts ago.

[Snip...]

Are you saying you disagree that scientists are not trained to catch
trickery, then?

I can save some time: I'm not saying any of the stupid positions
that you fabricate in order to ask me "are you saying..."

Do you agree or disagree with Randi's statement, "Scientists are not
trained to catch trickery"? That's all I'm asking.

No Bill, that's not all you are asking, and you are playing dumb by
asking my position on it. You pretended that when I noted that
scientists are not trained to catch trickery, I was saying in general
that scientists are not to be trusted.

I'm not trying to be dishonest

Uh, well, you sure ain't trying hard to be honest.

You're making it difficult by being vague.

No Bill; yet again, you tell not the truth.

, I'm just trying to figure
out where you agree with Randi and where you disagree with him.

No, that's not really plausible. You would have figured it out
already, without asking me to answer for so many positions that you
yourself fabricated.

I'm just trying to get you to say which positions you agree with and
which ones you don't.

The one's I've stated I agree with. The one's you've stated as if I said
them, I generally do not.

Also, why you defend Randi so vehemently.

So what was the most "vehement" thing I said in his defense?

It's not what you're saying, it's that you and others are attacking me
for saying that Hovind and Randi are alike.

No answer.. What, nothing? Do you see how, "why you defend Randi so
vehemently" implies I defend Randi vehemently? I am not asking you to
answer for positions you never too, as you over and over do to me. You
*did* take the position; and when I challenge you, you have nothing.

That's why I did not imply Hovind was responsible for what his
followers say, as you did for Randi.

Hovind guides his followers' thinking, just as Randi does.

Sure. Is that supposed to have something to do with your false
implication?

What false implication?

Exactly the one I said, of course. Was, "I did not imply [...] as you
did for Randi," unclear? I'm not being ambiguous, nor making up
positions for you, nor trying to change the subject. When I say "the
false implication", I mean the thing I just noted that you implied,
and that's settled as false.

I meant what I said. Randi, like Hovind, does not force anyone to
think a certain way.

Then I nailed it. I never implied either one forces anyone to think a
certain way, while you did take exactly the position I said you did. You
refute a position nobody took, while I refute the position you actually
did take. What's worse, you play dumb and pretend otherwise.

[...]

All I said was that whenever someone makes a claim to psychic powers,
Randi's followers bring up the million dollar claim as if winning it
would prove once and for all psychic abilities exist.

No Bill, you're not telling the truth.

Contrary to what you now say, you did not merely put people on the
claim that winning the challenge would prove psychic abilities; you
had them claiming that *not* winning the challenged proved they could
*not* have such abilities. Here, look, you wrote:

Then why is it that every time someone claims psychic powers, one
of Randi's followers claims it can't be so because no one has
claimed the million dollars?

It does seem at times that the underlying message is that since no one
has ever won the million dollars that psychic abilities do not exist,
though.

Before we move on to this question of what seems to you be some
underlying message, have we settled that your claim above, "All I said
was..." was false, and I had it right that you in fact had said
something different?

[Merciful snip ...]

And what would that be? Would you be convinced if you were
knocked down in the same manner as Joko Tri claims to have been?
What about someone who claimed to leave their body during surgery
and described something they couldn't have possibly seen any other
way?

Given reasonable controls, paranormal-knocking-down and out-of-body
observation sound like things that could convince me if
demonstrated. But I asked if there's something you'd propose
demonstrating and you said no, so I suspect all you'll offer is talk
and not the demo.

I never claimed I had any abilities, though. All I did was show what
I believe to be certain flaws in your reasoning.

But what you have questioned are your own fabrications, often with the
questions posed as if it were my reasoning.

I apologize for attributing any positions to you that you do not hold.

O.K. If you mean it you won't do it again.

I'm not interested in
getting you or anyone else to believe in the paranormal, just to keep
an open mind.

Hey, I'm open. What have got, besides more talk?

What else is there? Since this is not a medium (pardon the expression)
that lends itself to face to face contact, talk is pretty much all we
have.

Ah... by talk, I mean merely talking about such-and-such is psychic
phenomenon, and none of the actual testing that you suggest I do. There
are certainly phenomena that could, if real be demonstrated here. This
group has seen several such claims, but their demonstrations failed.

Furthermore, as I said, I cannot fund much, but if you have a real and
testable psychic phenomenon, we might well be able to work out terms.
Not exactly a bet, but the party that predicts wrong would cover the
inevitable costs.

I thought I made it clear: sure, I'll work with believers in psychic
powers on legitimate test conditions. I'll state in advance what
demonstrated results would prove me wrong. If you have no paranormal
powers -- fine, bring in whomever you want.

That was you saying, "do your own tests," right? O.K. what can you
show? I'm up for it: let's test your psychics.

The OP claimed psychic abilities. Why don't you test him?

Been on Usenet a while. I think the OP is joking.

Now how about the pro-psychic position? What do you think legitimate
psychics can do, and what tests would prove you wrong, if they come
out just as normal science, math, and chance predict?

There are some things about me, as with every person, that someone not
tuned in to their psychic abilities would not be able to tell, even
through cold reading. If a psychic were to be able to tell me some of
those things, then I would probably decide that there might be
something legitimate about them.

I asked what would *dis-prove* the pro-psychic position. That's how
science works; we seek the evidence that would dis-prove the theory. So
far, my theory is batting 1000, while you cannot understand the need for
theories to be falsifiable.

[...]

I already told you I don't have anything to demonstrate.

Wow, just as I predicted. Maybe I'm psychic.

This...rubbish..has nothing to do with my question.
I have fulfilled your criteria.
Fot the third time, "How much money do you amass"
each year through 'donations?"

Answer that...it's quite simple really.