• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Merged]Does Randi Needs to Apologize or What?

I believe there was a testable claim made - after someone from JREF (Jeff Wagg?) wrote it for The Professor.

Getting a testable protocol from TP was a whole different story.

Edit: fixed spelling in second sentence.

You know, I don't remember off the top of my head who wrote that for him, but if I remember it correctly, all he had to do was cut and paste, and voila! Protocols! Why he didn't do that is simply beyond me.

Further, the rules state that what Randi didn't want was the hows and whys, all he wanted was: Here's what I can do, here's what qualifies as a hit, and then, all he had to do was DO IT. It could have been done with one page, but David insisted on his little show.

Oh, well. So it goes...
 
Talk with dead spirits?! HA HA HA HA!!!! That's utterly stupid!! What kind of superpower is that anyway?! Professor, go back and re-roll your character and see if you can get a better power.
 
Talk with dead spirits?! HA HA HA HA!!!! That's utterly stupid!! What kind of superpower is that anyway?! Professor, go back and re-roll your character and see if you can get a better power.

LOL!!

Incidentally, talking to dead spirits isn't hard, or particularly uncommon.

It is getting answers - that anyone living outside of your head can hear - that is the trick...
 
Hi everyone!!!!
I guess it's time for me to steer this thread back on topic since no one else will :)

I have questions for Randi. He will not answer these as of yet.

He is a member here on the forum.

He has been notified.

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?

Come on Randi ... Just answer the questions. Please!!!!!!!
 
Hi everyone!!!!
I guess it's time for me to steer this thread back on topic since no one else will :)

I have questions for Randi. He will not answer these as of yet.

He is a member here on the forum.

He has been notified.

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?

Come on Randi ... Just answer the questions. Please!!!!!!!

He is not dodging the questions. You are not asking them in an appropriate manner.

This is not the place for your questions. At all. Ever.

He has provided the truth to all who have asked, and you have called him a liar for doing it.

Since you cannot ask them fairly, and you cannot ask them in good faith, why would he answer questions here, and answer them factually, only to have you call him a liar again? If you were doing that to me, I sure as hell wouldn't waste MY time.

Quite frankly, if this were brought before a judge, I think you'd find your case tossed out of court simply on the merits alone, let alone on the basis of your lack of good faith.

In other words, David, if you wanted answers, there were better ways to get them.
 
Hi everyone!!!!

Hi Dr. Nick!!

I guess it's time for me to steer this thread back on topic since no one else will :)

Nobody better than you for keeping a thread on topic.

I have questions for Randi. He will not answer these as of yet.

He always answers important questions from people who matter.

He is a member here on the forum.

Marking my calendar, you told the truth.

He has been notified.

Evidence?

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?

Because they're dishonest and pointless?

Come on Randi ... Just answer the questions. Please!!!!!!!

Dr. Nick, heal thyself.
 
You win, TP. Randi is clearly afraid to answer your questions.

Now that you've had the satisfaction, why don't you go away?
 
So none of you Critical Thinkers can honestly answer WHY?

What does your Skeptical mind tell you?

Randi ... Please answer these honest and direct questions and do not hide from the TRUTH!
 
You win, TP. Randi is clearly afraid to answer your questions.

Now that you've had the satisfaction, why don't you go away?

Yes ... You'd love for me to deny the TRUTH as the rest of you do :)

But the Questions remain!!!!!

If Randi does not fear the truth then he should have no trouble explaining away these discrepancies?
 
So none of you Critical Thinkers can honestly answer WHY?

What does your Skeptical mind tell you?

Randi ... Please answer these honest and direct questions and do not hide from the TRUTH!

We did. You refused to accept the answers.

Refusal on your part to accept the facts as they are does not constitute deception or willful ignorance on ours.

Continuing to attempt to defame Mr. Randi on his own Forum further reveals your lack of good faith.
 
He is a member here on the forum.

He has been notified.

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?


Maybe because responding on the forum isn't exactly his top priority. I mean, the fact he last posted here 17 months ago just might be a tip-off.
 
I'll give you an honest answer, Mr. Professor!

A lot of those questions seem to stem from misunderstandings in what was said. For example:

For the "part 2" video: Ms. Hunter chose to have the test take place at JREF headquarters. But, if she insisted on having it at another location, administered by a third party, Randi would have complied.
You have the OPTION of having the test administered by a third party, that both parties agree to. You are NOT required to have the test taken by JREF nor on JREF property.

As for "Part 3": The demo at D*C08 was ONLY meant to be a demonstration, NOT an actual test. When Randi mentioned how some test recipients "did not show up", he was referring to someone other events, (such as the test that was supposed to take place during TAM 5.5, but there are others.) Context is the key, to this one. If you listen to the whole presentation, this becomes clearer.

(Yes, I ripped these off of the YouTube comments, but they were my own words, anyway. So, I have only myself to sue for plagerism.)
 
I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

I didn't bother watching any of the videos. Send me a complete transcript of each one and maybe I'll read them.
 
But the Questions remain!!!!!


Try this. Rather than rant and run to hyperbole, try actually complying with the rules of the challenge.

For a start, fill in this quiz. It will only take you 2 minutes and will make life easier for everyone.

1. What is your claim. Please - no more than one short 1 sentence.

2. How do you propose to demonstrate your claim. No more than 1 short paragraph.

3. What equipment do you need? Provide a list.

4. What consititutes a successful demonstration of your claim? 1 sentence.

5. What constitutes an unsuccessful demonstration of your claim? 1 sentence (which should, logically be the reverse of point 4)

If you find yourself using the word "because" in any of your answers, try again.

Here is an example, based on what I have gleaned from the multiple threads about your claim...

1. What is your claim?

"I claim that I can cause voices to appear on a previously blank audio cassette, purely by paranormal means"

2. How do you propose to demonstrate your claim. No more than 1 short paragraph.

"I propose to use a blank, unopened audio cassette. The cassette will be handed to an objective observer, who will open the wrapper, and play the cassette into a machine. The observer will confirm the tape is blank. The observer will then rewind the tape, remove it from the machine, and place it onto a table that has been examined by the observer, and is clear of magnets, or other items that might affect the tape. I will then, over a period of 10 minutes, cause clearly spoken words to appear on the tape without resorting to mechanical, electrical or magnetic means. I, or no one else will touch the tape. When the time is up, the observer will place the tape back into the tape player, and play the tape."

3. What equipment do you need?

"A blank, unopened cassette tape, a tape recorder, a table, a clean, dry place to perform the test".

4. What consititutes a successful demonstration of your claim?

"Recognisable, clear, human speech will appear on the tape."

5. What constitutes an unsuccessful demonstration of your claim?

"Recognisable, clear, human speech will not appear on the tape"

Please note - this is NOT a complete test protocol, but it is a starting position that should be acceptable and get your attempt underway. However, note that no interpretation of the result is required - it is either clear, human speech, or nothing. Static doesn't work, neither does you claiming to hear it and no one else.
 
I have questions for Randi. He will not answer these as of yet.

<snip>

Why would he dodge questions like this unless he has a reason to not produce the truth?

Come on Randi ... Just answer the questions. Please!!!!!!!

Perhaps if you weren't phrasing the question to be a multiple-choice where neither of the choices you offer are the answer, it would be much less abrasive.
 
Going through past cases in the MDC section, one can see this played out many times. Subject applies for the challenge. Subject negotiates in bad faith until the JREF is done wasting time with them. Subject then starts a crusade to expose the "misdeeds" of the Foundation. What never happens is a demonstration of the subject's supposed powers. I've wondered why this never happens, as it sure would show us evil skeptics a thing or two.

Point is, this has all been done before. It's unoriginal. Dime a dozen.
 
You know what, The Professor, instead of actually following the rules of the challenge and making a legitimate attempt, you should just evade the challenge and whine about how unfair it is to be excluded............................. Grow up, child! You do not have superpowers.
 
I called Randi directly and he did what many would call "dodging" the questions by hanging up. :) I was crushed.

I am taking the questions to the public in an effort to get a response to these timely questions. Randi does post here I am told, but as of yet, no one knows his real name :)

I want James Randi to quit dodging these questions. It's only fair!!!!!

Given your well-earned reputation for deceptive tactics, evasion and outright falsehoods, I'd say you got off easy. I might have been inclined to use some colorful metaphors about your parentage before hanging up.
 
From an interview with Dustin Hoffman with IF magazine:

Q. Why do you think you're still doing this job, of acting?

A. Hoffman: Well, one day as I was working with Lawrence Olivier, I asked him that question: "Why do we do this?" and he replied many times: "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!" I got goose bumps. But that's true, it's all about being somewhat the center of attention, this is why I love doing interviews, meeting people - look at me.


Seems to me to be similar to TP's method, although at a very low level. He's just an attention seeker with no substance. Where he differs from Hoffman and Sir Lawrence is that they actually have talent and are willing to prove it.
 
After an in-depth conversation with The Professor (which totally happened), I have been able to reduce his world-view down into a serious of axioms:

1. Anything that didn't happen where it couldn't be seen not happening can be said to have happened.

2. Anything that did happen can be denied.

3. Ghosts can be perceived by the open-minded, which in this context refers to the capacity to lie.

4. Statements proclaiming TRUTH are actually coded messages to the Vorticons calling for the elimination of anyone who attempts the use of the dread force of reason.

5. The Vorticons will break into your houses and steal your vacuum cleaners, joysticks, car batteries and cleaning fluids, unless you comply with the Professor's demands, which are written on the insides of your eyelids in invisible ink.

6. When the Professor refers to posts as 'mockery', and 'off-topic' he is expressing great respect.
 
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep!

Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

-Shakespeare, 1 Henry IV, III.i.
 
Last edited:
So none of you Critical Thinkers can honestly answer WHY?

What does your Skeptical mind tell you?

Randi ... Please answer these honest and direct questions and do not hide from the TRUTH!

He DID answer your question when he hung up on you. His answer amounts to "I am not interested in engaging in a conversation with you. Good day sir.".

My critical thinking says he chose not to answer your questions as he sees them for what they are - an attempt by someone with a chip on his shoulder attempting to trap him in an endless and pointless conversation where no answer given to him will suffice.

That also answers your question, so I believe it is time to move on.
 
He DID answer your question when he hung up on you. His answer amounts to "I am not interested in engaging in a conversation with you. Good day sir.".

I'm not sure of that. I agree with the first sentence, but I rather think the second wasn't "Good day sir" so much as a short, two-word sentence where the second word was "off."
 
I'm not sure of that. I agree with the first sentence, but I rather think the second wasn't "Good day sir" so much as a short, two-word sentence where the second word was "off."

I agree with you, but I have my "politeness undies" on today.
 
I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

Oh, Dog, not this again. You've been here, how long, David? Can't you come up with some new questions? These ones have all been answered several times. Just because you didn't like the answers doesn't change the fact that they were, in fact, the answers.
 
The person who calls himself "The Professor" appears to have Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). It's very frustrating to attempt to reason with such people; they seem to have the powers of reason yet they remain irrational. The combative nature, the refusal to listen to reasonable replies, and the feeling that he has special powers are big clues. A diagnosis of NPD is made by looking at a list of symptoms, or traits, and seeing if the person who is having problems fits the description of the syndrome; this is done with many psychological disorders. If you look up NPD you might come to the same conclusion about this person.

A person with NPD thinks that they are special and that the world is out to get them. To question them is to invite an attack. You cannot be reasonable with them, as they know they're right, and if you disagree then you are inferior, not to mention one of "them".

There is no cure for this. Please check that on your own; there is no cure. From what little I know of this disorder, and of this person, I would suggest that you're wasting time in responding to him. He will bait you, to no end, and when you get tired of him and take the bait, he'll use that as evidence that he's a victim and you're just out to get him, like everyone else.

Please note that there seems to be no restraint displayed by those people with NPD. Explaining things to them won't help them to "get the point". You'd do just as well if you talked to the wind. I mean, four videos asking the same loaded questions? I'd say that shows a lack of any real social restraint.

I imagine that if this thread was closed, he'd just take it up somewhere else.

If anyone else has made these points, I apologize for the redundancy.
 
I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

:dl:

Well, hello Mr Presley!
 
I have several questions for James Randi. I'm pretty sure he has all kinds of video recording equipment at his Foundation, or he can get some ... So a video response would be preferred.
(These questions are open for forum discussion)

THANKS .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQzXglzmMkE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khh63T9CqX0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzOQ-fanz8Y&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSyIEj1QtU&feature=channel_page

So once again I must drag this single handedly back on to topic!!!!!

I am still waiting for an honest answer ... (Not that I expect one) ... But I am asking James Randi to do the right thing and answer all of these questions as he has promised on the video!
 
So once again I must drag this single handedly back on to topic!!!!!

I am still waiting for an honest answer ... (Not that I expect one) ... But I am asking James Randi to do the right thing and answer all of these questions as he has promised on the video!

No, we've never BEEN off topic. There wasn't any topic worth discussing. You simply aren't interested in the answers because they aren't answers you want. Too damned bad.

You GOT an honest answer. You didn't like it. So you're trying to force an answer you like. That's dishonest, but I don't expect anything better from you.
 
Back
Top Bottom