princhester said:
Peter, can I start by saying that in my first post in this thread I suggested that you were trying to interpret Randi's comments in a way that made him wrong. In fact that is a simplification in this particular instance. You are trying to interpret his comment in a way that will impeach a particular "stunt" that Randi mentions in a positive light, so as to attempt to work up some sort of suggestion that Randi is being inconsistent. I apologise for the looseness of my criticism. I will try to aim my barbs more accurately, if that's what you would prefer.
Which is what I've been pointing out all along.
At last, you tell the truth (almost) about what I actually said.
In fact, my criticism was somewhat stronger than that, but at least you have stopped directly lying.
Peter, if I told you that you could have unprotected sex with someone with HIV and wouldn't necessarily get HIV unless you had a lesion on your genitals, would you say that I had said that unprotected sex was safe? Would you say that I had said that HIV was only dangerous if you injected it?
No, Princhester, if you said that I would say that you were seriously misinformed.
In any case, that is totally different. The words "You wouldn't neccessarily get HIV" are not the same as saying "it's safe."
Lets have a better example.
If you had said "Unprotected sex isn't neccessarily dangerous but it might kill you if you have a lesion on your genitals" I would make the following comments:
1) your statement is factually incorrect,
unprotected sex always carries risks, for one STD or another. (I'll just qualify that by saying there are ways of reducing the risk, such as monogomy)
2) your statement is the same as saying "It's safe for anyone without a lesion on his genitals"
That is the equivalent of what you said at the outset.
No.
Princhester, this is very simple, please try to understand.
Someone approached Randi with a 'paranormal' claim that he can survive drinking snake venom.
Randi in response points out that drinking snake venom isn't at all paranormal. It's not poisonous when taken through the mouth. Almost anyone can drink snake venom safely.
But he adds a qualification that if he has a cut on his mouth, it might kill him.
That is the same as saying that snake venom is safe to drink in the vast majority of cases, only being dangerous in the rare case that someone has a cut on his mouth.
Which is what I quoted him as saying.
But you twist my words, and Randi's, to make me seem wrong. What a drongo.
And by the way matey, you want to accuse me of not understanding English and I'll provide a link for all the girls and boys to a thread in which you argue furiously for a bizarro interpretation of some damn thing that Randi said, only to recant finally when the pressure of opinion (from here and the SDMB) became too great. Do you really want me to do that? Knowing, as you do, that you are quite unable to find a single instance (here or on the SDMB) of any instance at all that you can link to of me being similarly wrong?
I'd be interested to see that, princhester. AFAICR I've never 'recanted.'
I have on occasion dropped out of a thread after I could no longer stomach all the hatred and invective coming from you. Perhaps you think that you won something, it's certainly the nearest you have ever come.
As for pointing out instances of you failing to understand simple English, sure I can, my friend. (Hey, if you can call me "matey" ...)
Example No 1
Randi's exact words:
here
One of the more common claims by dowsers, he said, is that they can locate rivers of water underground.
"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."
and
Here
Besides, the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.
These remarks made by Randi were quoted by several Randi fans, and interpreted by the Randi fans as "Randi says that underground rivers are fictional"
I responded by posting several links showing that underground rivers are a really do exist, as do burried rivers, which are slightly different.
This is when princhester first demonstrated his own unique interpretation of simple English statements.
According to princhester, the words "There is no naturally flowing water underground " is not a claim that there is no water flowing underground. Oh, no, a direct and literal interpretation of his words will not do at all.
In princhester's mind the real meaning of Randi's is : "dowsers think underground rivers are common, but actually they are very rare.
Well, folks, I consulted some geologists to check the accuracy of Randi's statements. I particularly asked them for their interpretations os what the words quoted above mean.
see
here
Please do look through the entire thread.
Their interpretation of Randi's words :
It means that (a) dowsers believe that water flows in 'underground
rivers', and (b) the writer of the sentence agrees that this concept is
wrong (i.e. "sheer fiction") and has no geological evidence to support it.
i.e. they agree with my interpretation of Randi's words, and disagree with princhester's interpretation.
I invited them to be generous to Randi, and can they find any possible interpretation of his words that would make them correct. They could not.
Princhester's response to this?
He insisted that his interpretation of Randi's words is correct, that the geologists have poor reading comprehension, and would be agreeing with Randi if only they understood him properly. :rolleyes
Don't forget, princhester, that you began this 'poor reading comprehension' stuff.
Example No 2
Randi made a comment giving two arguments against astrology. There was no dispute as to the meaning of the words, only which was the more important of the two arguments. I said #1 was more important, princhester said #2 was more important.
Princhester, desperate as ever to prove a point, posted a question to another forum, asking people there to judge which was the more important.
He cut out a large part of Randi's text, and changed the rest, which had the effect of altering the slant of the words. For a start, his editing removed Randi's sarcastic tone.
And the replies he got:
Some of them said that argument #2 is the more important, but if the tone was sarcastic, then #1 is the more important. (The guy posting this didn't realise that the original WAS highly sarcastic)
Some said argument #1 is the more important of the two.
Some of them said that argument #2 is the more important.
Some of them said that they are of equal importance.
Some of them said that the thing was so badly written it is impossible to tell which is the more important.
Once I posted Randi's exact words, some of them commented on princhesters dishonesty in twisting Randi's words.
And whichever one of Randi's arguments was "more important", there was near universal agreement even from Randi fans that Randi's arguments were poor.
And Princhester? He smugly posted a link to the thread, and insisted that every single one of the replies agreed with him. No matter what they said, his reading comprehesion abilities interpreted it as an agreement with his position.
Go ahead, princhester, can you do better?
