I have applied for the challenge

Brian Jackson said:
Call me ignorant, but being new here and unfamiliar with the challenge, (and please don't make me read 90 pages of stuff,) why is it hard to believe water flows underground?
Click to expand...

It isn't. Randi is very ignorant, that's the point.

He has got rich from selling funny stories about stupid dowsers, laughing at them for their belief in water that flows underground, and telling his readers that there's no such thing. This has been a central theme in his attacks on dowsers for 25 years or more. His admirers pay him bucketloads of money for hearing his stories, and come away with their heads full of wrong ideas.

I'm just taking advantage of his ignorance to make myself a million.
 
Peter Morris said:
Actually, it's Randi that threw down the gauntlet, and me that picked it up. Under the terms of his own challenge, he is committed.

What if he did do so, and was seen to do so. What effect would that have on his credibility? How would that affect his challenge to eg Penta Water or the wine magnets?

First of all, he would have admitted being wrong about something fundamental. People then would be less inlined to trust his opinion. He was wrong about underground water, perhaps he's wrong about this too.

And then, he would remove any reason for applying. It would be known that he is in the habit of issuing challenges, then backing out when people accept them.

If he backs out, then ever after whenever he issues a challenge to Penta water or the wine magnet, they simply will have to respond "There's no point taking his challenge, he'll only say it's not paranormal and refuse to pay us"

Now, if he actually honours his challenge, he may be able to persuade Penn Jillette to give him another million. He'll then be able to say "If I'm wrong I WILL pay up, and I've done it before"
Click to expand...

Per Jeff's post above, it would appear there is disagreement on the meaning of Randi's statement about subterranean flowing water being a challenge itself. You seem to claim that it is, Jeff claims such an understanding is backwards (i.e. that Randi was suggesting that winning the challenge would prove him wrong, not that proving him wrong would win the challenge).

Do you now accept Jeff's description of the matter, or do you choose to maintain your own meaning for the statement?
 
Peter Morris said:
It isn't. Randi is very ignorant, that's the point.

He has got rich from selling funny stories about stupid dowsers, laughing at them for their belief in water that flows underground, and telling his readers that there's no such thing. This has been a central theme in his attacks on dowsers for 25 years or more. His admirers pay him bucketloads of money for hearing his stories, and come away with their heads full of wrong ideas.

I'm just taking advantage of his ignorance to make myself a million.
Click to expand...

Any evidence for this? Or is it just more of your unsubstantiated lies?
 
Peter Morris said:
He has got rich from selling funny stories about stupid dowsers, laughing at them for their belief in water that flows underground, and telling his readers that there's no such thing. This has been a central theme in his attacks on dowsers for 25 years or more. His admirers pay him bucketloads of money for hearing his stories, and come away with their heads full of wrong ideas.
Click to expand...

Really?
I've never paid a penny - have you?
 
Jeff Wagg said:
I encourage everyone interested in this to carefully read the proverandiwrong website.

This is clearly not a challenge application. It fails on many levels, but the one that kills it completely is the basic claim that his only ability is to prove Randi wrong.
Click to expand...

Not true, Jeff. I responded to a direct challenge issued by Mr Randi.

He has been saying "find me a dry spot" for 25 years or more. This is a dare that he has issued over and over again. He set the challenge, he defined the terms of the test, I accepted.

I can do things that Randi says are impossible. I'm willing to demonstrate my ability. Now I state from the outset that that isn't paranormal, it only shows that Randi can't design a test to save his life.

As Randi freely admits that he's often wrong, what's the point of this?
Click to expand...

Because he's wrong too often to be respected.

And when Randi says "Prove me wrong and win" he is clearly referring to the challenge. An expanded and pedantic way of saying this is "If you wish to prove me wrong, win the challenge, and I'll give you $1,000,000." I think that's fairly obvious.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And I am responding to the challenge that he issued. I intend to prove him wrong by winning the challenge.

I will not be entering a debate on this here, but I wanted to let everyone know that his claim has been rejected as it doesn't conform to the challenge rules.
Click to expand...

It conforms to challenge rules to the letter. I made very sure of that. I don't accept your rejection, as far as I'm concerned the JREF is bound by the dare that Randi made.
 
chillzero said:
Really?
I've never paid a penny - have you?
Click to expand...


I'm sure Peter will be able to quantify his idea of Randi being rich and then provide the evidence that Randi has such assets - otherwise all Peter would be doing would be making an claim that he doesn't know if it is true or not.

And if he was doing that it would make him not only very ignorant but a dishonest person.
 
Peter Morris said:
Because he's wrong too often to be respected.
Click to expand...
An immature and superficial determination of credibility. The more telling determination is how often Randi is willing to admit he is wrong (not just over-exaggerating or simplifying for the benefit of the audience).

It conforms to challenge rules to the letter. I made very sure of that. I don't accept your rejection, as far as I'm concerned the JREF is bound by the dare that Randi made.
Click to expand...
Which means absolutely nothing. The JREF has spoken. You have a problem with that, take it to court.
 
Last edited:
Hastur said:
An immature and superficial determination of credibility. The more telling determination is how often Randi is willing to admit he is wrong (not just over-exaggerating or simplifying for the benefit of the audience)..
Click to expand...

I have attempted previously to point out to Mr Randi that he was mistaken. He just dismissed it as "canards taken from the extensive attacks of the grubbies." Then he continued to trot out the same old rubbish. Oh, he'll admit minor errors every now and then, but on anything major, he won't even listen to anyone else's opinion, let alone entertain the idea that he might be wrong.
 
Peter Morris said:
I have attempted previously to point out to Mr Randi that he was mistaken. He just dismissed it as "canards taken from the extensive attacks of the grubbies." Then he continued to trot out the same old rubbish. Oh, he'll admit minor errors every now and then, but on anything major, he won't even listen to anyone else's opinion, let alone entertain the idea that he might be wrong.
Click to expand...


Again please provide your criteria for how you determine when someone is "wrong too often to be respected" and then provide your evidence that Randi meets your criteria.

Or is this just another unsubstantiated allegation?
 
Unsubstantiated allegations and claims made by Peter Morris in his last few posts:
Peter Morris said:
... Randi is very ignorant...
Click to expand...

No criteria given for what it means to be "very ignorant" and no evidence supplied that Randi matches this criteria.

Peter Morris said:
He has got rich from selling funny stories about stupid dowsers,....
Click to expand...

No evidence of Randi's financial worth has been supplied.

No evidence of how Randi has achieved what ever level of wealth he does have.

No evidence supplied of "stupid dowser"

Peter Morris said:
....snip...

This has been a central theme in his attacks on dowsers for 25 years or more.
...snip...
Click to expand...

Please provide your analysis and the raw data you have used to come to this determination.

Peter Morris said:
His admirers pay him bucketloads of money for hearing his stories, and come away with their heads full of wrong ideas.
Click to expand...

Please provide evidence for these claims.

Peter Morris said:
...snip..

I can do things that Randi says are impossible. I'm willing to demonstrate my ability.
...snip...
Click to expand...

I suspect this is just another one of your lies. (Please note this is just my opinion - not the fact that you lie and that you are a very dishonest person has been proved many times in the past).


Peter Morris said:
...snip..

Now I state from the outset that that isn't paranormal, it only shows that Randi can't design a test to save his life.

...snip...
Click to expand...

An out and out lie - Randi has proved time and time again he can design rigorous tests that determine if someone like you is dishonest or deluded or both.


Peter Morris said:
...snip..

Because he's wrong too often to be respected.

...snip..
Click to expand...

Please supply your criteria for how you judge that someone is "wrong too often to be respected" and then your evidence that Randi meets this criteria.



You have stated in the past that you do not make unsubstantiated claims, I look forward to seeing your evidence for all the claims you have made in just these two posts.
 
Mr. Morris,

Is it your belief that every time James Randi issues a challenge to someone, that challenge necessarily invokes the MDC?
 
Wow 4 pages and no challenge application yet.

I submit that this thread has nothing to do with the million dollar challenge and should be moved.

LLH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom