Article about James Randi by Michael Goodspeed

WWu777 said:
The problem here again is HYPOCRISY. It would seem
that Randi focuses exclusively on more famous
paranormal claimants like Browne or Geller because
doing so is more likely to get him an appearance on
the Larry King show. If you're a common person with an
extraordinary claim, don't waste your time and energy
applying for the Challenge; Randi clearly is not
interested.
Click to expand...

Patently false:

Natalie Lulova

A person was tested for being able to "detect whether a simple dry-cell was charged or not, by having the positive pole pointed at his throat."

Two Indonesians who claim that they can see without the use of their eyes.

Winston, do you agree that Randi does not "focus exclusively on more famous paranormal claimants like Browne or Geller"?

Just yes or no.
 
Winston, how much longer are you going to be a slave and lackey to Michael Goodspeed? He hasn't got the balls to post here himself and enter into discussion because he knows he doesn't sem to have any rational arguments to support his delusions, so he is sending you as his servant to post stuff for him instead.

Unless...

You really DIDN'T get his permission to post his stuff here, and you just copied it verbatim from Rense's (or someone else's) website without them knowing.

Take your pick: Dumb lackey or plagiarist, which is it?

By the way, using Rense as support for anything you might have to say is like saying Santa Claus is your primary defense witness at your own murder trial. How does it feel to be looked at askance so much?
 
WWu777 said:
My friend Michael Goodspeed just wrote up this article below, which he told me was also posted on Jeff Rense's site too. (www.rense.com I think)
Click to expand...
[modu]This post has been reported as a possible copyright violation.

WWu777, can you provide evidence that you have the author's permission to recreate this piece? Regardless, even with permission it is against forum rules to recreate a piece in its entirety.

I've warned you before about your repeated violations of forum copyright rules. Please do not violate them again.[/modu]
 
CFLarsen said:


Patently false:

Natalie Lulova

A person was tested for being able to "detect whether a simple dry-cell was charged or not, by having the positive pole pointed at his throat."

Two Indonesians who claim that they can see without the use of their eyes.

Winston, do you agree that Randi does not "focus exclusively on more famous paranormal claimants like Browne or Geller"?

Just yes or no.
Click to expand...
And then of course there was our own Edge (Mike Guska) who failed a dowsing test two years ago. Mike was living in a trailer in Florida, and to all appearance, barely getting by.

So, Winston, your beloved Micheal Goodspeed is simply lying. This should not come as a surprise to anyone.
 
Hi Winston!

The claim of relentless hypocrsy seems to rest on the idea that rando should test all claimants for the challenge equaly and in fact that he should accept claimants for the challenge who claim to be able to live with out food or water.
from the Relentless Hypocrisy
However, Randi immediately and categorically rejected Kolodzey's application. The problem for Randi is the logic - or total lack thereof - he displayed in defending this rejection
Click to expand...

So the issue is that randi does not treat all claims of paranormal powers the sme. Hmm now that is an interesting idea and perhaps one that Randi could address. As for Randi's editorial rudeness in the commentary section, well hey, it is not like he goes and SPAMS it to other bulletin boards, now does it. I admit that mocking the claimants ins't the best strategy.

So the complaint is that Randi does not accept all challenges equaly , which would appear to be valid on the surface. But the decision was made to not accept any challenges that might have an inherent risk to the claimant, this would rule out things like
-drinking acid or poison
-catching bullets with the teeth
-falling from high places
-going without food or water

So while i agree that Randi is very rude in his editorials to the claimsnts and apparently in the letter alleged to have been sent to one claimant I feel that accepting challenges that might harm the claimant probably presents a liability issue.

Secondly:
If this breatharian is such hot stuff, why is all you can come up with One Newspaper Articel? Do you think that NASA and just about everybody would be interested in this claim? How about people who strave themselves as civil disobedience.

Third:
Oh poor Mister Schwartz, his methodology is so suspect that most psychologists won't consider it, why is that?
 
WWu777 said:
My friend Michael Goodspeed just wrote up this article below, which he told me was also posted on Jeff Rense's site too. (www.rense.com I think)
Click to expand...

Why must you try to make this board a house of lies?

GoodSpeed is a sniveling little sniping coward, and you are his lackey.

He's just been caught telling a host of lies. What a surprise.

Are you going to shift to yet another kook while your cognitive dissonance takes effect?
 
Is this the same Michael Goodwin who said here:

other thread

this:

I never asked you to send my comments to these people.
Click to expand...

I wish I had as much spare time to trawl through all the 'articles' you do, and post and repost and repost them again on forum after forum after forum.

You don't seem to have this guy's permission, so why can't you jusy make your own points?

How about answering some of the questions put to you in many threads - does 'pick one Winston' ring a bell?
 
I read the article. My impression is that it is a big pile of innuendo of how skeptics (and by implication, Randi) think 'the comon man' is stupid and it contains no reasons why Randi's challenge is flawed beyond the fact that he can be gruff and abrasive toward some claimants. He can be as gruff and abrasive as he wants, that fact has no bearing on the merits of the challenge.

I also find it telling that the pieces author focuses on 'breatharian' claims, claims which pose a health risk to the claimant should they be properly tested. It would be no more ethical for Randi to test those claims than it would be for him to test a claim that someone can leap from the top of the Empire state building and fly safely to the ground. Yet the author of this piece takes that ethical concern and paints it as Randi being afraid to test the claimant. Unbeleivable.

No wonder Randi is so abrasive, I'd be abrasive too if I had to deal with that mindset every day.
 
It wears very thin on me also. I encounter the same mentality all the time. For every mind you rescue, hundreds waste away. After a while frustration turns to impatience and impatience into anger. Randi has been at this longer than any of us.
 
If it's any consolation, I feel the same way trying to untangle people from the fountain of garbage that is Bowling For Columbine.

--Toasty, token conservative on the forum :)
 
Posted by Dancing David

The claim of relentless hypocrsy seems to rest on the idea that rando should test all claimants for the challenge equaly and in fact that he should accept claimants for the challenge who claim to be able to live with out food or water.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have to agree with Goodspeed that the Challenge seems fishy. The problems with the "Sylvia protocol" have already been much discussed so I won't go into that again.

The other MAJOR problem (also discussed here before, but ignored by Randi) is the lack of systematic public disclosure of protocol and the results of the preliminary tests. Posting drolly about it in his Commentary from time to time really isn't adequate.

Randi has the means to do this (reporting the applicants, protocol and results here on his web site), volunteers who work for JREF who could easily fill in a simple form describing this (and each protocol must be written down somewhere to begin with, right?) and...really...there's no excuse for hiding it.

The "Challenge" is a major "marketing feature" for JREF, in addition to being an important part (hypothetically) of the educational mission.

To not systematically document the protocol used and results for each and every tested applicant--and also not to report the results in a systematic and publicly accessible way--, is imo, appalling and inexcusable.

I find Randi's high-handed attitude of "Come to Fort Lauderdale and go through the boxes for yourself if you're so interested in the Challenge results" arrogant and irresponsible (especially for a non-profit corporation that is subsidized by tax payers and, therefore, has been given a public trust and responsibility).
 
Clancie said:

Actually, I have to agree with Goodspeed that the Challenge seems fishy. The problems with the "Sylvia protocol" have already been much discussed so I won't go into that again.

The other MAJOR problem (also discussed here before, but ignored by Randi) is the lack of systematic public disclosure of protocol and the results of the preliminary tests. Posting drolly about it in his Commentary from time to time really isn't adequate.

Randi has the means to do this (reporting the applicants, protocol and results here on his web site), volunteers who work for JREF who could easily fill in a simple form describing this (and each protocol must be written down somewhere to begin with, right?) and...really...there's no excuse for hiding it.

The "Challenge" is a major "marketing feature" for JREF, in addition to being an important part (hypothetically) of the educational mission.

To not systematically document the protocol used and results for each and every tested applicant--and also not to report the results in a systematic and publicly accessible way--, is imo, appalling and inexcusable.

I find Randi's high-handed attitude of "Come to Fort Lauderdale and go through the boxes for yourself if you're so interested in the Challenge results" arrogant and irresponsible (especially for a non-profit corporation that is, subsidized by tax payers and therefore has a public trust and responsibility).
Click to expand...

I concur completely. The reasons that I have heard for not doing this are worthy of one of those people in Washington.
 
Clancie said:
Randi has the means to do this (reporting the applicants, protocol and results here on his web site), volunteers who work for JREF who could easily fill in a simple form describing this (and each protocol must be written down somewhere to begin with, right?) and...really...there's no excuse for hiding it.
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't have the means. And you know this. The JREF is a very small operation. And you know this. Randi spends a lot of time travelling, lecturing, etc., too. And you know this. Sometimes, applicants do not want their names to be publicized. And you know this. And a lot of other things, but you choose to ignore them.

What you probably don't know, is just how much work that go into just setting up one test, let alone carry it through.

How long do you think it takes to walk around the building that houses the JREF? Less than a minute. It's a very small bungalow. That should give you an idea of how small an operation it is.
 
Posted by Ed

The reasons that I have heard for not doing this are worthy of one of those people in Washington.
Click to expand...
Definitely.

And it seems such an easy job for a volunteer, that if one of the student volunteers at JREF can't do it, then I think any of us who are willing to volunteer should contact JREF and do so.

For example, I live in Ca. but I have a computer and a telephone. What more could it take than that? Someone onsite at JREF might be a better choice, but it hardly seems necessary.

I'm willing to....volunteer to talk with Randi or Linda about any upcoming testing...make up a form based on what they say....pay for a phone call whenever they test someone...talk to them so I accurately fill in the form...summarize the results...and email it to them to post here.

How much time could this possibly take? A couple of hours once a month? A couple of hours several times a year? We don't even know how often testing takes place, but I doubt its more frequent than that.

I volunteer to do it, no cost to JREF at all. I'll email the offer to Randi--and maybe others will do so as well, so he has a pool of people to choose from. This is NOT a difficult task to do.
 
This might give claimants a heads up on the kind of preliminary test they would have to pass, giving them time to devise a method of cheating to try to get past the likely test method.

I don't think such a database of test methods should be made public.
 
I have an idea. Let's distribute the workload of writing up the claims and tests. Let's have each claimant do his own.

~~ Paul
 
LTC8K6 said:
This might give claimants a heads up on the kind of preliminary test they would have to pass, giving them time to devise a method of cheating to try to get past the likely test method.
Click to expand...

They already have that ability. The applcants know what the test conditions are going to be long before they go in (as long as they want, in fact, they just can stall going in).

No, the thing that gets in the way is that there is no set test for anything. The applicant tells JREF what they can do, and then a test is devised. JREF is not out asking, "Can you do this?" It says, "Tell us what you can do." And then they get more and more specific until there is a claim that can be tested.

And this is the problem. Most of the woos that would apply don't have a clue as to what they think they can actually do. Ask them for something specific and they won't give it.
 
LTC8K6 said:
This might give claimants a heads up on the kind of preliminary test they would have to pass, giving them time to devise a method of cheating to try to get past the likely test method.

I don't think such a database of test methods should be made public.
Click to expand...

Now that sounds like someone from Washington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom