I have applied for the challenge

[IXP]

If you support it, then email Randi and tell him.



If I'm proven wrong then I'll admit it.

I'm confident that any independent and intelligent arbitrator will agree that my claim is a valid one under Randi's rules.

I would not bother Randi with your ridiculous claim. If you can arrange with forum members to get an arbitrator and review it I would support that. Randi does not need to be involved.

IXP

 

[Peter Morris]

Since IXP went offline, I submit to you, Mr. Morris, he said "tacitly". Tacitly.

Actions speak louder than words.

Lack of action shouts.

 

[Paul2]

Peter, Buckaroo's post #10 seems to be the salient point. Care to respond specifically to B's points?

 

[Peter Morris]

I would not bother Randi with your ridiculous claim. If you can arrange with forum members to get an arbitrator and review it I would support that. Randi does not need to be involved.

You may think my claim is ridiculous. How confident do you feel that an intelligent independent person would agree with you?

I'm perfectly sure that most reasonable people would agree with me.

 

[IXP]

Very confident. I followed the thread last time you brought it up. I and other forum members pointed out a multitude of reasons why your application did not meet the rules for the challenge application. This is why I called for need an expert opinion on your sanity. One who continues to argue a position that is blatantly false, is deluded.

IXP

 

[Moochie]

As many people on this forum know, I have applied for Randi's challenge.

Randi has for at least 25 years been issuing a specific challenge. In his lectures on dowsing Randi tells his audience that there is water to be found almost everywhere, states that dowsers will always find water, and challenges anyone to find a dry spot instead.

I have accepted the challenge exactly as Randi described it, following his description to the letter.

James Randi has told me that my application has been rejected. He will not give a reason. He has refused to discuss the matter. I have attempted to correspond with him, he only replied to tell me that he won't discuss it.


Under the challenge rules I call for independent arbitration. My right to call for this is set out by Randi himself:

http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

<< Nonsense. I will not, and do not, "formulate" any rules without the cooperation and participation of the applicant. If there's any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules. It's always been this way, despite the statements — such as this one — made to the contrary. >>

I want to call in such a person to decide whether my application is acceptable under Randi's rules. I am perfectly confident that any fair minded person will agree that I have followed Randi's rules to the letter.



Who should this independent arbitrator be? Possibly the people listed here :

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html#i9

<<A committee composed of a physicist, a social scientist, a physician, and a very senior member of the staff of Scientific American magazine >>

It sounds like they would make a fair decision. I state, provisionally, that I would accept their decision. I would of course need their names before I say for sure.

How many times are you going to repeat this stuff?

Anyone coming across this for the first time, there is an entire thread (there may be more) in which PM says exactly the same thing.

Do you think by starting a new thread your nonsense is going to be accepted?

Count me out.

M.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I took the liberty to embolden the cromulent sections:

As many people on this forum know, I have applied for Randi's challenge.

Randi has for at least 25 years been issuing a specific challenge. In his lectures on dowsing Randi tells his audience that there is water to be found almost everywhere, states that dowsers will always find water, and challenges anyone to find a dry spot instead.

I have accepted the challenge exactly as Randi described it, following his description to the letter.

James Randi has told me that my application has been rejected. He will not give a reason. He has refused to discuss the matter. I have attempted to correspond with him, he only replied to tell me that he won't discuss it.


Under the challenge rules I call for independent arbitration. My right to call for this is set out by Randi himself:

http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

<< Nonsense. I will not, and do not, "formulate" any rules without the cooperation and participation of the applicant. If there's any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules. It's always been this way, despite the statements — such as this one — made to the contrary. >>

I want to call in such a person to decide whether my application is acceptable under Randi's rules. I am perfectly confident that any fair minded person will agree that I have followed Randi's rules to the letter.



Who should this independent arbitrator be? Possibly the people listed here :

http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/042007todd.html#i9

<<A committee composed of a physicist, a social scientist, a physician, and a very senior member of the staff of Scientific American magazine >>

It sounds like they would make a fair decision. I state, provisionally, that I would accept their decision. I would of course need their names before I say for sure.

I'm perfectly certain that independent review by any intelligent person would come out in my favour.

You would only oppose arbitration if you know I'm right.

If you think arbitration would come out in Randi's favour, then you'd support it.

On the contrary. Arbitration will clarify what YOU have not understood so far. I've given the challenge Randi issued IN CONTEXT. You keep claiming otherwise, but have nothing to show for your claims.

I am confident that independent arbitration will agree that this is a legitimate claim under Randi's rules.



Saying it many times does not make it true.

If you support it, then email Randi and tell him.



If I'm proven wrong then I'll admit it.

I'm confident that any independent and intelligent arbitrator will agree that my claim is a valid one under Randi's rules.

You may think my claim is ridiculous. How confident do you feel that an intelligent independent person would agree with you?

I'm perfectly sure that most reasonable people would agree with me.

Ah, but:

...
Saying it many times does not make it true.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I was hesitant about responding, but here goes...

Why are you seeking arbitration? I think you are being disingenuous. You applied for the Million Dollar Challenge (which is not, by the way, the "Find a Dry Spot Challenge"). Your application was rejected (I assume because it is not a paranormal claim). What is the problem? If it's because you are challenging Randi on his "find a dry spot" claim, that is a completely different matter (and I know of no "arbitration clause" in that "challenge").

And what is your link refering to? That is a commentary from 2002. What am I missing?

 

[Pipirr]

Peter Morris,

The Challenge Rules certainly do not state that you have a right to call for independent arbitration for acceptance of your Challenge application. If you think that they do, perhaps you would be so kind as to point out the relevant article.

James Randi clearly stated, in the Swift article from 2002, that he will not:

"formulate" any rules without the cooperation and participation of the applicant. If there's any objection, we call in a person we both agree should be properly qualified to decide about the rules.

Independent arbitration therefore referred specifically to assisting with formulation of rules, and not to acceptance or rejection of an applicant.

 

[rehn]

Maybe I am beating a dead horse.....

Peter:

"dowsers will always find water, and challenges anyone to find a dry spot instead"

This i obviously directed to dowsers. The challenge is to find dry spots with only the dowsing rod( or whatever ) as help. And in an area where water might be expected.

I have no problems finding a "dry spot" with the following definition of "dry spot"(from your site )
"Where the water has been contaminated by chemical or biological pollutants, or has a too high mineral content, or is seawater. If a well produces seawater, or toxic sludge that is too badly contaminated to be of any use, then it is not water “in a practical sense.”

But then I am a using lot of other information.

 

[Peter Morris]

Peter, Buckaroo's post #10 seems to be the salient point. Care to respond specifically to B's points?

I've discussed all his points ad nauseam.

Briefly, in response to his points:

1) He has been saying it for a long time. When he first started saying it the prize was a lot smaller, but the principle is the same.

2) It's not just responding to a remark that he made, it's accepting a protocol that he described. Any protocol that Randi sets out is fair game.

3) Here's a case in point.

http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html

Someone made a list of what's wrong with Randi's challenge. One point being that Randi might say "it's not paranormal" and refuse to pay.

Randi's response : << . We don't give a damn how something happened, only whether it did happen, under careful observation. >>

That applies to my claim too. Randi has issued the challenge to "find a dry spot." All that matters is whether I can find dry spots under the agreed upon conditions. It doesn't matter if I find them through psychic powers, or through normal means. Just that I can do it under the conditions Randi set.

 

[Terry]

So how about dowsing the one dry can out of ten cans, the other nine of which contain water, a suitable number of times to meet the statistical requirements?

 

[Peter Morris]

So how about dowsing the one dry can out of ten cans, the other nine of which contain water, a suitable number of times to meet the statistical requirements?

That isn't my claim, nor what Randi challenged.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

I'm assuming that your responses to me in this thread will be the same as the last time I commented. But anyway...

Peter - If you've applied for the Million Dollar Challenge, has your application been accepted? Or rejected? Please let us know. Thanks!
(As I recall, at one point on your website, you said that Randi had rejected your application. Then later, that comment was removed, or maybe I couldn't find it.)

 

[MRC_Hans]

If you support it, then email Randi and tell him.



If I'm proven wrong then I'll admit it.

I'm confident that any independent and intelligent arbitrator will agree that my claim is a valid one under Randi's rules.

APPLY FOR THE CHALLENGE UNDER THE RULES FOR THE CHALLENGE.

Are there any of the words you don't understand?

Hans

 

[Peter Morris]

This i obviously directed to dowsers. The challenge is to find dry spots with only the dowsing rod( or whatever ) as help. And in an area where water might be expected.

I disagree. I think independent arbitration would also disagree with you.

If you are confident of your own opinion, if you think an arbitrator would agree with you, please email Randi and encourage him to go to arbitration here.

 

[my_wan]

Peter,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2686853#post2686853

You turned another thread of yours into a case for getting Randi to accept your challenge. I give a fairly detailed description of the problems with your claim there. You totally ignored my posted and continued argueing other points for a while then bugged out on them also. You want arbitration answer my objection.

It would be highly relevant to the OP here so here I will quote the entire post so you can deal with it here;

So in a thread you started about Randis' use of funds you came full circle back to the claims you made on http://www.proverandiwrong.net/.

Personal experience;
Years ago in Texas a friends family dug wells for a living. The large shallow types limited to about 30 feet. Of the dozen I helped with they never failed to hit water. No dowsing or geologist was involve. When I heard them warn the customer about the possibility of not finding water I asked how often that happened. They shrugged and said a few years ago they had to redrill for so and so. It was more an issue with rocks than water.
On family property in Arkansas (Ozark) there is a creek fed year around from a cave. It even has fish come through and and can form good size schools of fish at the mouth in the spring. It took me over a year (and some trespassing ) to find the source.
Now your claims;
On your "Randi says" page;
http://www.proverandiwrong.net/Randi_sAYS.aspx
Your first link to Randis' quote is;
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/archives/2001/may/29/511883160.html
Where he is quoted to say;

"There are no streams of water flowing underground," he said. "There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers."

You on that same page then say;

I think we can safely say that Randi does not believe that underground rivers exist, or that water flows through the ground.

As your statement is in direct contradiction the source you quoted does it surprise you that Randi would respond with;

"Just what IS your problem? I’ve no time for semantic games. I’m busy. If you want to pursue someone just to aggravate them, go after one of the dowsers! Please!"

It looks like a semantics game you are playing even if I take Randis' quote at face value.


So you wanted to define a dry spot to challenge him. On your site "Dry Spot Defined" you say;

1) Quantity - It must yield enough to serve practical purposes
2) Quality - the liquid that comes out of a well must be clean enough to use for industrial, agricultural or domestic purposes.
3) Accessibility.- It must be possible to reach and the water without excessive expense or difficulty.
Based on this I have written a detailed desscription of what is, and what is not a dry spot. This is part of my formal application, where I define a dry spot as :
*Where there is water found in only minute quantities. A well that yields less than one half of a gallon per minute (0.5 GPM) would be insufficient for any domestic, industrial or agricultural purpose. If the yield is too small to be of any use, then it would not be water “in a practical sense.”
*Where there is a large amount of water, but tightly bound to the particles of the soil. If the water is tightly bound to the ground, and cannot be extracted, then there is no water “in a practical sense.”
*Where the water has been contaminated by chemical or biological pollutants, or has a too high mineral content, or is seawater. If a well produces seawater, or toxic sludge that is too badly contaminated to be of any use, then it is not water “in a practical sense.”
*Where the water is underneath a deep layer of very solid rock. Drilling through this layer to reach the water would be very expensive, if not impossible.If water cannot be reached, or can only be reached at great expense, then there is no water “in a practical sense.”

Are you serious!!! Your moving the goal post from water to "practical water"?! Obviously "practical" was used in the dowsing sense as was all your other mis characterizations. So all you have to do is find the nearest large rock and say pay up the million! So when Randi said "drillable distance" you want that to mean affordable and group "practical" (dowsing sense) in with "drillable distance" as well as "affordable". I supposed you going to pay to drill multiple sites for your test?

Your Delusional!!!

Yes there is a water table below nearly all land. The only exceptions being where there is no soil porosity to too great a depth, such as valcanic regions etc. The depth of this water table varies due to capillary action of the soil like a sponge in a saucer of water. Well yields can vary even when the amount of water is identical due to the porosity of the soil. Notice the flow rate estimate Randi mentioned for sandstone. The pumping of ground water will depress the depth of the water table due to the limited flow of water. There exist in unique circumstances "underground rivers". These "rivers" require both a surface supply and a surface outlet. The voids and fissures these "rivers" flow through may be characterized as Randi did as "caves". The large ones can be fun to go diving in.
So... You have still failed to provide any lies Randi has told. It seems you just want to define a "dry spot" as a rock or dirty water and make him pay up.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercyclegwstorage.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_table

 

[CFLarsen]

That isn't my claim, nor what Randi challenged.

You can't find dry spots?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I always seem to find the wet spot, but that's another discussion.

Obviously, Randi's statement about finding a dry spot was not a serious challenge. I interpret it as hyperbole said for ironic affect.

And as a lot of posters have pointed out, you are not posing a paranormal claim and as such it is not subject to the MDC.

 

[IXP]

A suggestion for Peter Morris:

Take up prize-fighting. When a commentator claims that you couldn't punch your way out of a paper bag, sue him for libel. In court, have yourself sealed in a paper bag, then punch your way out. I'm sure you will win a million in punitive damages.

On second thought, don't punch your way out.

IXP