I have applied for the challenge

[Miss Anthrope]

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

 

[Peter Morris]

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

So why bother asking again when it's already been answered?

Randi has said my application is rejected, but will not say what's wrong with it. He has refused to discuss the matter.

His rejection is wrong. He is breaking his own rules and he knows it. He is cheating, in fact.

I am certain that any independent arbitration will agree.

 

[Peter Morris]

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.

Well, that's a lie for a start.


My thread was on a totally different subject. I did not mention m6y application.

YOU, however, tried to change the subject. YOU started going on about my application.

I ignored your off topic drivel.

I give a fairly detailed description of the problems with your claim there.

No, you've given a load of rubbish. You've completely ignored what I said, lied and hurled abuse.

For example, I askerd Randi for his definition of "dry spot" HE said no water in practical tewrms. That's his definition, not mine. But you have chosen to attack his definition, and blame me for it.

You totally ignored my posted and continued argueing other points for a while then bugged out on them also.

No, I continued to post on topic discussion, and ignored your hijack. I abandoned the thread when the trolls took over, posting abuse rather than logical argument as usual.

You want arbitration answer my objection.

No, I'll discuss any objections with an independent arbitrator. I'm sure he will agree that you are talking nonsense.

Bottom line. If you think my application is invalid, then go email Randi, and ask him to go to arbitration. I am sure that any sensible person will reject your objections.

 

[Pipirr]

James Randi 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, in that case, referred specifically to assisting with formulation of mutually agreed upon rules, and not to acceptance or rejection of an application.

Has your application been accepted?

 

[Peter Morris]

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.

Desperate rationalization. You can't accept that Randi was lying.

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.

Saying that does not make it so. Randi has always said that it doesn't NEED to be paranormal. But you ignore his rules because they don't suit you.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Where does he say it doesn't "NEED" to be paranormal?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Randi has said my application is rejected, but will not say what's wrong with it. He has refused to discuss the matter.

...snip...

He doesn't have to say anything to you, indeed he did not even need to tell you he had rejected your application and since your application has been rejected by the person with the authority to do so the matter is finished with.

You have no application so you will never be in a position to go for the Challenge.

 

[ObscureReferenceMan]

When I said your response will be the same, I meant that I will get no response to my question. To your credit, you actually responded this time. However, I think your whole argument is moot. You applied, and were rejected. End of story. I don't think he is required to give a reason. It would be nice, but I will grant you that Randi can be quite the curmudgeon at times.

And I think we (that is, everyone who has joined the thread except yourself) are of a mind that your claim is not paranormal. And that your are merely being pedantic and playing semantic games.

Also, will you answer my other question? I thought I had read on your site that Randi gave a reason for rejecting your claim (that it wasn't paranormal). Am I mistaken? (I'm also secretly hoping Randi will chime in here, and let us all know the reason for rejecting your claim. But my gut tells me he won't. I could see him answering along the lines of it being a waste of his time, or something.)

 

[Peter Morris]

Where does he say it doesn't "NEED" to be paranormal?

Frequently.

Here's one example.

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

A person lists what's wrong with Randi's challenge.

<< Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met — whether the metal was bent psychically ... In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails. >>

Randi responds << When he mentions "whether the metal was bent psychically, ... he misses the whole situation. We don't give a damn how something happened, only whether it did happen, under careful observation >>


Like it or not, that's how his challenge works.

Someone claims the ability to bend metal. Randi challenges him to prove it.
If he can do so under the agreed protocol he wins. Normal, or paranormal, bend metal under the agreed conditions, he wins. Randi doesn't give a damn how it works, just as long as it works.

And then there's the Tice Clock, a device that supposedly improves the quality of sound on your Hi-Fi. Randi challenges the makers to prove it works. To win, all they have have to do is prove it works. Normal or paranormal, prove it works and win. Randi doesn't give a damn how it works, just as long as it works.

And then there's the magnetic wine clip, a device that supposedly improves the taste of your wine. Prove it works, through means normal or paranormal, and win a million. Randi doesn't give a damn how it works, just as long as it works.


Randi has issued a challenge. He has demanded that I display an ability to find dry spots. I can do that, and it's not paranormal, but Randi doesn't give a damn about that. Under his own rules.

 

[Peter Morris]

I think your whole argument is moot.

I'm sure an independent arbitrator will disagree.

And I think we (that is, everyone who has joined the thread except yourself) are of a mind that your claim is not paranormal.

oh, I agree that my claim isn't paranormal. I've said that from the outset.

However, under Randi's rules, that doesn't matter a damn.

Also, will you answer my other question? I thought I had read on your site that Randi gave a reason for rejecting your claim (that it wasn't paranormal). Am I mistaken?

Yes, he did. Then he admitted that non-paranormal claims are valid under his rules.

http://www.proverandiwrong.net/Updates.aspx

(I'm also secretly hoping Randi will chime in here, and let us all know the reason for rejecting your claim. But my gut tells me he won't. I could see him answering along the lines of it being a waste of his time, or something.)

His reason is simple. He knows he'll lose. That is obvious.

 

[Terry]

Frequently.

Here's one example.

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

A person lists what's wrong with Randi's challenge.

<< Randi alone will say whether the terms of the challenge have been met — whether the metal was bent psychically ... In the event that the claimant insists the written terms have been met, but Randi disagrees, then it will be Randi's decision that prevails. >>

Randi responds << When he mentions "whether the metal was bent psychically, ... he misses the whole situation. We don't give a damn how something happened, only whether it did happen, under careful observation >>


Like it or not, that's how his challenge works.

Someone claims the ability to bend metal. Randi challenges him to prove it.
If he can do so under the agreed protocol he wins. Normal, or paranormal, bend metal under the agreed conditions, he wins. Randi doesn't give a damn how it works, just as long as it works.

And then there's the Tice Clock, a device that supposedly improves the quality of sound on your Hi-Fi. Randi challenges the makers to prove it works. To win, all they have have to do is prove it works. Normal or paranormal, prove it works and win. Randi doesn't give a damn how it works, just as long as it works.

And then there's the magnetic wine clip, a device that supposedly improves the taste of your wine. Prove it works, through means normal or paranormal, and win a million. Randi doesn't give a damn how it works, just as long as it works.


Randi has issued a challenge. He has demanded that I display an ability to find dry spots. I can do that, and it's not paranormal, but Randi doesn't give a damn about that. Under his own rules.

Oh! I see what your problem is. The Tice clock, the magnetic wine clip, etc. These have no known mechanism by which they could work. Therefore it would be a paranoramal event if they did work under controlled conditions (or at least a new scientific principle). So what Randi is saying is he doesn't care whether the person making the claim says it is paranormal, because in these cases, (in his judgement, and it's his million, remember) it would be paranormal.

This is a rather different case from driving out into the desert and saying "Behold, a dry spot!".

 

[my_wan]

Well, that's a lie for a start.


My thread was on a totally different subject. I did not mention m6y application.

YOU, however, tried to change the subject. YOU started going on about my application.

I ignored your off topic drivel.

On post #68 CFLarsen challenged you to give 5 lies of Randi's.
On post #72 you responded with;

Let's just start with one for the moment. It's a big lie, and an obvious one. One that you already know. Every one of his fans on this forum knows he's a liar, but make excuses for him

Anyway, the lie goes like this:

<<I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success. >>

Source : http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi01.htm


Now, everyone knows that he's lying. Including you. Three lies are packed into that one statement.

1) As you know, it is actually very hard to find water underground. It requires a great deal of geological expertise, and a detailed survey.

2) His challenge to <<find a dry spot>> is entirely stupid. It is a ridiculous way to test paranormal ability.

3) His boast that he challenged dowsers and was turned down is a total fabrication.


Do you, Larsen, doubt for one second that he was lying?

Here's the funny thing, Larsen. I am willing to take the test as described by Randi. If his account is a truthful one, then my claim is a paranormal one.


Of course, he has told many other such lies.

How does my criticism of the one lie out of five requested constitute "off topic drivel"?

No, you've given a load of rubbish. You've completely ignored what I said, lied and hurled abuse.

I heard every word.

For example, I askerd Randi for his definition of "dry spot" HE said no water in practical tewrms. That's his definition, not mine. But you have chosen to attack his definition, and blame me for it.

But Peter, you took "practical tewrms" and made a whole list of rules where you decided what "practical tewrms" means. As I pointed out your unilateral choice in defining "practical tewrms" gives you an advantage regardless of the volume of water under it.

No, I continued to post on topic discussion, and ignored your hijack. I abandoned the thread when the trolls took over, posting abuse rather than logical argument as usual.

And conveniently forgot that it was a direct response to your specific example of a lie told by Randi.

No, I'll discuss any objections with an independent arbitrator. I'm sure he will agree that you are talking nonsense.

If I found a court Judge that would agree to judge based on emails sent by the two of us would that work for you? Of course this judge would not be a member of this forum. I will also accept any court judge you can find for the same purpose so long as I could verify who he actually is.

Bottom line. If you think my application is invalid, then go email Randi, and ask him to go to arbitration. I am sure that any sensible person will reject your objections.

I will email him the results of a decision given by a court judge along will all the arguments that went into it. Perhaps I could put put our arguments that strictly pertain to our cases on the web so a decision could be rendered there by verified judges.
_______________________
For now I would still like to know how the quote you referenced on your website of Randi saying;

"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."

translates to your characterization;

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

 

[Startz]

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

Under the challenge rules I call for independent arbitration.

Just out of the curiousity, are you prepared to pay the costs of a professional arbitration since the challenger bears all the costs of the challenge? A few thousand dollars wouldn't be much compared to the million.

 

[my_wan]

Peter if you want to take my judge challenge private message me the case as though you were making it to a judge (not me). As the complainant you have opening arguments. Use it wisely. I will then provide counter arguments for use by the judge. You then have one chance to counter my rebuttal with your closing arguments after which I give final closing arguments. Very standard procedure. As noted you may pick the judge so long as the identity of the judge can be verified.

A transcript of arguments will then be rendered for judgment an an opinion will be provided by the judge. Are you game? If judgment goes to you all arguments with judges opinion will be forwarded to JREF.

 

[Paul2]

When did he say that the challenge to find a dry spot is part of the million-dollar challenge?

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.

That's not an answer, it's a repetition of a claim.

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.

Why is *any* challenege or protocal by Randi part of the MDC?

 

[MRC_Hans]

oh, I agree that my claim isn't paranormal. I've said that from the outset.

Then how can you imagine that your claim is eligible?

However, under Randi's rules, that doesn't matter a damn.

Of course it does. The challenge is to prove something paranormal. What doesn't matter is if what was deemed paranormal at the time of taking the challenge later turns out not to be.

It must be deemed paranormal at the time of the challenge, however.

His reason is simple. He knows he'll lose. That is obvious.

No, his reason is that since you have, by your own admission, not made a paranormal claim, you don't qualify for the challenge.


Hans

 

[steenkh]

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

You have not stated a paranormal claim. That is an important part of the challenge.

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.

He is probably sick and tired of people who cannot understand clearly stated rules.

 

[Darat]

....snip....

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.

...snip...

So you've tried to apply, your application was rejected, you have no application.

To use your own type of reasoning (i.e. faulty), if you aren't concerned enough to fork out the money for a legal bod then no one should take your complaints seriously.

After all no one who really believed they could win the Challenge would not be willing to pay out a couple of hundred pounds for some legal bod to get on the case.

 

[Cuddles]

Peter, you appear to have, once again, missed a rather important point which you yourself have stated.

Randi has said my application is rejected

End of discussion.

Edit: For those who may not have noticed - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86424
Discussions about the challenge are really irrelevant here. If you don't treat the JREF with civility they won't have anything to do with you, simple as that.

 

[Darat]

Hadn't noticed until now but Peter Morris was suspended last night (my time): http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=86424