OS 0 1 2, Global Dialectic for the Internet

[WWHP]

That's why we have courts, and judges who decide these things. They hear both sides, including experts in the fields pertaining to both claims, and make a ruling, in this case, the ruling was "Fraud"

I cant comment on the case because I know nothing about it. However, it doesnt appear Dr. Lo was charged with fraud, merely the company if that was the case. It doenst show Dr. Lo intended to fraud anybody.

I have no doubt that you would imagine that, but I come and read these forums hoping the skeptics will be wrong about something, especially when it comes to the spiritual world.

no one here is making any claims about the spiritual world.

But more often than not, they make a clear case and site references, while the people making paranormal claims make assurances, site testimonials, and fail to back them up with experts outside of the group making the claim, ie. unbiased, peer review. That's all it takes.

yes, and I said it was coming. I never ONCE came here claiming to have and argue for proof, I came here saying there was a possible challenge.

I see evidence and rulings against a claim, and a group of credible professionals standing up against fraud. I'm seeing, not prejudging.

of course your prejudging, be honest, that case has NOTHING to do with what I have talked about or what we are going to do. absolutly nothing.

Quakery is fairly good at hiding itself in reputable societies. (I'm not calling him a quack, I'm just refuting that particular line of reasoning. As you said earlier Association is not necissarily damning or uplifting.)

Humpf, quakery does not qualify one for a phd or a respected academic position. Let's assume that dr lo made one case of bad science and let's call that quakery. It is also apparent that he understands empirical method as well and can formulate thesis, and his work obviously must have been accepted as sound in those regards for him to have those positions.

Consider.

And they're not "trashing" him. You came here with a claim, it seemed suspect to people who study these sorts of things, so they did some research and posted it. They're trashing the claim.

By trying to assosciate Dr lo as a fraud, thus rebuking any other claim the man could make in his life BEFORE you have gone over the research or it has been presented to you.

The evidence is "trashing" him. They did not call him a fraud, a court did, and the scientific community that was asked to investigate his claims did.

the court did not call him a fraud. the court said or agreed that his evidence was not substancial to qualify as a scientific claim. The company ATG was charged, not Dr. Lo

Dr. Lo isn't Einstein, and if the situations were similar, he would have solid evidence to back up his claims, rather than a paper that contradicts itself.

Your assuming because dr lo may have performed sloppy science is proof of what? that he performed sloppy science in that instance. that's it.

it has NOTHING to do with anything I have posted, at all, ever.

Just because Zep himself has not published a book, doesn't mean he can't spot bad science when it's presented to him.

lol, your telling me Zep understood the science in the paper, or Zep is simply repeating what he read someone write on the internet about it?

As well as recognising that ONE person is trying to make money on a claim which the rest of the science community is refuting as impossible, and is backed up by bad scientific practices, and what can only be seen as "doctored" results. In a balanced judgement, their reports vs. unbacked assertions, the reports win. Your position is looking very bleak indeed. [/B]

huh? it has nothing to do with what I am posting about. absolutly nothing. my claims about what? Did I make claims about IE crystals? no

I said there is a phd who is perhaps interested in taking the randi challenge, which was my idea to him, not his. Go read my first post, please. I asked a very specific question about the challenge. Would we be considered if we dont think there is anything paranormal about Qi? Because dr lo doesnt, he thinks it has a rational explanation. that was my intent, and that was my question.

That is my claim, that's it man. Dr Lo has a real PHD, not a fake one. And it was real enough to give him a respected sitting. He has a professional life.

I dont know all the details about that case, not at all, but he was not charged with fraud. at worst, bad science.

and so what? what does this have to do with my original post? NOTHING.

your trying to make assosciations and assumptions. the only thing left for you to do is latch onto this case that happened inthe 90's with a company trying to cash in on the internet stock boom. and because Dr Lo was the science officer, he has to take responsiblity for his science,but not the claims of the company.

 

[Zep]

lol, your telling me Zep understood the science in the paper, or Zep is simply repeating what he read someone write on the internet about it?

I have a degree in Science with a double major from one of the world's foremost technology-based universities. My colleagues and associates here are doctors of physics, computing and medical research, among many others. And there are many more people here on this forum with far better qualifications than I whom I can go to for assistance if I need to and are kind enough to provide it. I don't need to write a book. I don't know a lot about the profession of making films or directing theatre or acting, so I won't lecture you on that. You might care to reciprocate on science.

Yes, I understood what was written, although it took me a while to work my way through it. I thought that was because I may have been through lack of understanding the subject. However it turns out that once you discover that it's based on poor research practices, the rest becomes obvious. Alas for me, subsequent research shows my revelation was trumped many times by better than I some time ago - I could have saved all my effort for something else.

Incidentally, I shall be checking into the business of "sitting tenure" for Dr. Lo at Melbourne University. He was last seen there in 1976, according to a number of sources. So a tenure now, especially when he is so involved in the Institute of Noetics in California, seems somewhat dubious. However it may yet be valid, so I'll let you know what they tell me when they get back to me.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I never said the papers were to be readily availble. I said he published peer reviewed work (not surprising have sitting tenure as a physics professor with 8 or so patents) and asked if someone here wanted to review them.

Perhaps I did assume that they would be readily avialable, but apparently they are not. You have to wait for them to be ready.

If you wish to conclude that none exist because of this, so be it. It is your loss, not mine nor Dr. Lo's.

lack of proof is not proof of absence. I find determinists often make that logical error in their reasoning.

Peer reviewed papers ARE readily available. That is sort of the idea about publishing them. We don't demand that you provide an internet link to them, but if they exist, it should be no problem to provide a reference.

Refusing to provide a reference to papers published for peer review can really only be for one of the following reasons:

- They don't exist.

- They are irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

- They have been shredded by the peer review

Hans

 

[Mojo]

You have to wait for them to be ready.

I take it that they haven't been published yet then, and your statement that they have been is false.

 

[Zep]

I take it that they haven't been published yet then, and your statement that they have been is false.

Congratulations, Mojo! You have just beaten Bubblefish's "unbeatable idea", the very backbone of his grand "OS 0 1 2" concept.

That didn't seem too difficult either, did it.



[scratches]




Shall we watch the cricket instead?

 

[Pragmatist]

Let's assume that dr lo made one case of bad science and let's call that quakery. It is also apparent that he understands empirical method as well and can formulate thesis, and his work obviously must have been accepted as sound in those regards for him to have those positions.

Consider.

Yes, it's possible for a scientist to make an error of science. Of course it all depends on just how bad the error is, and also how many errors there were, doesn't it?

I mean, an error of science is one thing. Demonstrating almost complete and total ignorance of the very basics of science would be another, no? Let's put it to the test.

he has to take responsiblity for his science,but not the claims of the company.

So you agree that he has to take responsibility for any bad science - excellent, we're in complete agreement, let's begin then...

From the links that Zep provided to the papers:

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/lo-ice.html

Firstly he mentions something about very dilute ions in water and then proceeds to perform a calculation using a dielectric constant of 80 for water. It doesn't take a genius to realise that the presence of foreign ions will by definition change the dielectric constant of water, so the calculation is immediately invalid. Not to mention that the exact concentration of foreign "ions" isn't stated.

Then we have this gem:

However if the next layer of water molecules around an ion are packed in a regular, spherical symmetric rigid fashion, the pressure experienced by the water molecule immediately outside this layer will be boosted by a factor of 80. This is because the electric field determined from Gauss law is given by the total charge Q enclosed by a closed surface; and the surface is chosen to include the ion and the next layer of water molecules completely. The polarized positive and negative charge of any water molecule is all inside the same closed surface and they cancel out one another. The total charge Q is that of the ion and does not contain polarization from water molecules.

My immediate impression is... huh???? If the next layer of water molecules were to be arranged in spherically symmetric rigid fashion around the ion, the inter electronic repulsion between the poles of the water ions would be concentrated at both ends and the structure would automatically break apart! It most certainly would not become more rigid. The "boosted by a factor of 80" bit doesn't even remotely make any sense.

Then we have a "creative" interpretation of Gauss's law based on the above. Gauss's law states that the electric flux through an enclosing surface is equal to the charge contained within the surface divided by the permittivity. Since the "dielectric constant" is the permittivity (at DC - see below), what it means is that the electric flux would be divided by 80, not "boosted by 80" - and that is assuming that the dielectric constant is in fact 80, which it almost certainly isn't due to the presence of the ion!

Now, if the ions were arranged as he says then he is correct that the total flux from the water would cancel leaving only the ion flux (although he doesn't say flux, he says "field" - he doesn't know the difference between field and flux? ). However, the structure is thermodynamically impossible because the inter electronic repulsion wouldn't allow it, therefore the whole premise is fundamentally flawed and shows an appalling lack of understanding of basic electrical and thermodynamic principles.

He then proceeds to continue to misapply the theory claiming that successive "layers" of water molecules will arrange themselves around the first (thermodynamically impossible) layer - and assuming the electric force of the ion (which would be swamped by the immediate layer of adjacent water poles and diffused by the permittivity) is actually multiplied each time a layer is applied! In other words, he claims that the system will spontaneously generate energy out of nothing.

Not to mention this: http://www.spectroscopynow.com/Spy/basehtml/SpyH/1,1181,6-1-1-0-3867-news_detail-0-3867,00.html

Next comes this:

It is, however, not the ordinary ice VI where the unit cell has a translational invariance. One expects that the crystalline structured water surrounding the ion would have special symmetry due to the spherical symmetrical nature of pressure. There is no study on what properties a spherical symmetric ice crystal should have. The unit cell probably is not rectangular. For lack of a better reliable alternative, it is assumed that the spherical symmetric icy structures surrounding ions have similar properties as that of ordinary ice VI and ice VII. We will call it IE structure indicating that it is an icy structure formed under the effect of an electric field.

"Spherically symmetrical nature of pressure"? I suppose he means in his hypothetical structure, as the general proposition is so obviously absurd as to require no comment. And then we have the key words, "probably is not rectangular" - translation "I don't know what shape it is". And "it is assumed" - translation, "I don't know". In other words, we have a purely hypothetical (and thermodynamically impossible) structure which is assumed to have a particular structure, but even assuming that the properties are unknown so we'll just assume it's something like ice... Yeah, right!

And why consider "rectangular"? Does he mean cubic perhaps? A rectangle is two dimensional. And why even cubic? Ice is tetrahedral...

And then this:

The IE structure formed around ions is influenced by the movement of ions in water. When two similar charged ions come close together, the pressure on water molecules between them decreases and the IE structure previously formed will melt.

What? The similarly charged ions which have their "electric fields" (allegedly) multiplied by factors of 80? So we have two similarly charged ions (which will repel each other) and which (allegedly) have enormously enhanced electrostatic field (which means they will repel even more) that just happen to "come close together"...? This is an insult to the intelligence, doesn't this guy even know basic electrostatics?

Enough of that one, let's look at the other paper.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/lo-iestru.html

The physical hypothesis behind these IE structures is that the electric dipole moment of water molecules play a dominant role to attract themselves together to form IE structures, which itself may have some electric dipole moment. To justify such an hypothesis, it is necessary to look for electrical and other properties of these IE structures. We have measured five different properties: dielectric constants; the electromotive force (emf) using two identical electrodes; resistivity; fluorescence; stability as a function of temperature. We find these properties are different from pure water. Pure water shall be defined to be used in this paper as having 18 megaohms of resistance and having less than several parts per billion Total Dissolved Solids, which for our experiment is supplied by Millipore RO Plus system.

O.Kaaay. So "pure water" has "18 megaohms of resistance" does it? So if I place one electrode in the atlantic ocean at say Iceland, and another at say South Georgia, measure the resistance and find that it's more than 18 megaohms, I guess that proves that the atlantic ocean is pure water... Let me spell this out, the resistance of a material between two electrodes depends on the path length that the resistance is measured over.

Water molecule has a very large electric dipole moment and is forced to rotate to respond to an alternate external electric field. Hence water as a liquid has a very large dielectric constant 80. If water molecules group together to form larger structures such as the IE structure that is proposed, then the resulting structured water should have a larger dielectric constant. When an external AC field is applied, these IE structures will respond and cause a change of the dielectric constant. We use the Hewlett Packard Corp. 4192A LF Impedance Analyzer (5Hz ~ 13 MHz) to measure the pure and the imaginary parts of the dielectric constant of structured water and pure water. This is shown in Fig. 1. The absolute value of dielectric constant and its phase of IE structured water is also presented separately in Fig. 1b. There is a minimum value of the phase at around 1 kHz. The distilled water has a dielectric value 80 at frequency ~ 106 Hz, and the IE structured water has a twenty percent smaller dielectric constant.

What a nice job of contradiction! Firstly we have "then the resulting structured water should have a larger dielectric constant" (correct) followed by "the IE structured water has a twenty percent smaller dielectric constant". Right, so it's both larger and smaller at the same time...

Note also "to measure the pure and the imaginary parts of the dielectric constant" - uh, no, water doesn't have "real and imaginary" parts to its dielectric constant, water has a scalar dielectric constant at DC or a complex frequency dependent permittivity under AC. Anyway, that is then followed by "The distilled water has a dielectric value 80 at frequency ~ 10⁶ Hz". Uh, oh, now you see it, now you don't! That complex "dielectric constant" suddenly changed into a real scalar!

And let's just get this clear - at DC water has a dielectric constant - at AC it has a varying complex permittivity. This is a physicist who doesn't appear to know the difference between a dielectric constant and a varying permittivity.

It is well known in electrochemistry that an emf is generated between two different electrodes in a solution and no emf is generated between same electrodes in a solution. We immerse a pair of stainless electrodes in IE structured water, and we have found that a finite emf of 10 mV or more is generated

"Stainless" what exactly? Stainless steel perhaps? The same stainless steel which happens to consist of an alloy of different metals...? Well, duh!

We immerse a pair of stainless electrodes in IE structured water, and we have found that a finite emf of 10 mV or more is generated. In Fig. 2 (a), we have shown one typical curve for a concentrated IE structured water that lasts for an hour. The first 2 to 3 minutes irregular reading, then approaches a maximum of 38 mV, and then drops slowly over the next hour. Figure 2 (b) shows emf for a variety of IE structure water. The physical explanation of these figures is that the electric dipoles of the IE structures are pointing at different direction randomly in water in the beginning. As the first electric dipole attaches to the electrodes an emf is set up between the electrodes. This emf will force a more regular alignment of IE structures in water between the two electrodes. The more aligned the electric dipoles are, the higher the emf. However as time goes on the thermal vibration of water molecules will tend to cause disorder in the alignment of IE structures. The emf will decrease as a result.

So these "stainless" electrodes suddenly acquire an emf. Which does what exactly? Electrolyse perhaps? Funny how simple weak electrolysis would give exactly this kind of result. And doesn't "IE structured water" contain foreign ions? According to the initial definition it does. I suppose those foreign ions don't actually do anything...

Anyway, let me propose an hypothesis. The electrodes are undergoing simple electrolytic chemical reactions with the water. The result will be that there will be a surface layer of electrolysed material on the electrodes which will lead to eventual depolarisation of the electrodes. If the electrodes were to be cleaned, the process would start over again.

Then we have this:

When we wash the electrodes with nitric acid for cleaning purpose, we get a larger emf with the same IE structured water.

Oops! Well, "duh" again!

And the coup de grace:

We insert the same electrodes in pure water (reverse osmosis water from Ultrapure Millipore plus system). An emf of 3 ~ 7 mV is also seen.

Well, it was a nice theory while it lasted! So what we have is a claim that water with foreign ions in it is more likely to cause a potential difference between dissimilar metals than "pure" water. Well, double duh!

Here is someone who clearly doesn't even understand the very basics of electrochemistry!

These flickering water clusters the electric dipole moment of their constitute water molecules probably do not completely cancel one another; therefore, these water clusters have some residue electric dipole moment. These small amount of electric dipole moment probably constitute the emf that is observed here.

Nor does he seem to understand the difference between a moment and an EMF...

Here is another gem:

If the IE structures in water are electric dipoles, any ion moving close to them in water will be attracted to them.

What? Even the ones with the same charge polarity...? Remember that the IE structure as defined above has a net singular charge (remember the basic lesson in how to misapply Gauss's law?) and it was electrically "spherically symmetric" - now suddenly the IE structure is a dipole... Amazing stuff this IE, its very definition changes to match the theory!

It is, in general, easy to conceive a background mechanism that increases conductivity of pure water because most dirt contains some soluble materials that produce more ions in water and hence bigger conductivity. It is difficult to construct some simple background signal that decreases conductivity measurement. We have performed our experiment in a clean room environment, which is confirmed by the constant value of conductivity of pure water.

The pure water has constant conductivity - the same pure water which had variable conductivity above... And it's not difficult to do something which decreases conductivity measurement - it's called depolarisation of electrodes and is something which should be covered in chemistry 101.

I can't be bothered to analyse any more of this nonsense. All I can say is that I find it very hard to believe that this guy is really a physicist. In fact I find it very hard to believe he studied anything much beyond elementary level...

 

[WWHP]

Peer reviewed papers ARE readily available. That is sort of the idea about publishing them. We don't demand that you provide an internet link to them, but if they exist, it should be no problem to provide a reference.

Well I am CLEARLY unable to provide one!

Refusing to provide a reference to papers published for peer review can really only be for one of the following reasons:

- They don't exist.

- They are irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

- They have been shredded by the peer review

Hans [/B]

- or I am unable to provide you with them

I am NOT dr. lo nor his publicist nor agent.

 

[WWHP]

I take it that they haven't been published yet then, and your statement that they have been is false.

CLEARLY the one which will be made avialable to you by the person who can PROVIDE them hasnt been.

 

[WWHP]

I can't be bothered to analyse any more of this nonsense.

THANK GOD

All I can say is that I find it very hard to believe that this guy is really a physicist.

Who cares.

In fact I find it very hard to believe he studied anything much beyond elementary level... [/B]

yeah, he's in the third grade. It was a big scandal at the University of Melbourne. His thesis paper which garnished him his Phd in physics from the University of Chicago was on basic arthimetic.

Gimme a break.

Nice diversion though.

 

[WWHP]

Congratulations, Mojo! You have just beaten Bubblefish's "unbeatable idea", the very backbone of his grand "OS 0 1 2" concept.

huh? You do know that the dialectic has nothing to do with Dr. Lo, right?

That didn't seem too difficult either, did it.

I am sure it didnt since it has A.) nothing to do with my original post here and B.) nothing to do with OS 0 1 2

so sure, any imaginairy 'beating' is simple. It is the real ones which are clearly avoided by all of you that are.

[scratches]

STD?

Shall we watch the cricket instead? [/B]

please go find something to do with your time that is valuable.

 

[Mojo]

CLEARLY the one which will be made avialable to you by the person who can PROVIDE them hasnt been.

And if, as you state, we have to wait for the papers "to be ready," then it's obvious that they can't have been published yet, despite your claim that they have been.

 

[WWHP]

And if, as you state, we have to wait for the papers "to be ready," then it's obvious that they can't have been published yet, despite your claim that they have been.

CLEARLY the one which Dr. Lo wishes to be made availabe or can make readily available HAS NOT BEEN PUBLISHED YET.


Mojo, I understand your thrill seeking here about wanting to be right at all costs, but check this out.

On that other thread, I was a MESSENGER.

Do you understand what that means? It means that I can only repeat or have access to knowledge that Dr. Lo informs me of. Since Dr. Lo has informed me he had his work published on water clusters for peer review inthe past, I assume that he HAD HIS WORK PUBLISHED IN THE PAST, and passed that information onto the parties who asked if he did.

Since he told me that a peer review paper is soon to be published on this subject which will be made available to any and all soon, i ASSUME THAT A PEER REVIEW PAPER WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO YOU SOON.

I am NOT his agent, publicist, manager, administrator, or ANYTHING OF THE SORT.

My only interest here was about the RANDI challenge. I am NOT a scientist, have NO understanding of how peer reviewed material works or does not work, and NEVER once said I was here to discuss and prove objective verifiable PROOF of Qi. Indeed, before I met Dr. Lo, I was under the impression that Qi would not be objectivly verifiable (yet) because it is a subjective truth qualifier.

Ironically, I AM qualified to discuss the ontological or philosophical nature of Qi in relationship to what I posted.

Funny that what I am qualified to discuss, you all dont bring up and avoid, yet you continue to hound me about something I have repeated over and over and over.

Pokey pokey pokey.

Your inferences, although a pain in the ol ass, are also amusing.

 

[Pragmatist]

I am NOT dr. lo nor his publicist nor agent.

Oh, so you were lying when you posted this then...?

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986357#post1870986357

Hello. I am representing a theoretical physicist, Dr. Shui Yin Lo, regarding a possible challenge to Randi and the JREF.

 

[WWHP]

Oh, so you were lying when you posted this then...?

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986357#post1870986357

NO! That is STILL true regarding the Randi Challenge. I was representing Dr. Lo relative to inquiring about the RANDI CHALLENGE.

please note the word 'INQUIRING'

it means to seek an answer to a question or group of questions

A 'messenger' represents the 'message'

the 'message' was that there was a phd whom may be willing to take the Randi challenge.

the phd was dr. lo

if I was deceptive, it would mean there was no dr. lo, he does not have a phd

pokey pokey pokey

You need to RE-READ very carefully my opening words on that thread, and my ORIGINAL QUESTION, which was the only thing I was looking to have answered, and WAS answered until the goon squad (you guys) trolled and hi-jacked it with irrelevancy.

 

[Pragmatist]

I am NOT a scientist, have NO understanding of how peer reviewed material works or does not work, and NEVER once said I was here to discuss and prove objective verifiable PROOF of Qi.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986300#post1870986300

I just get the giggles when I think about this challenge between a Theoritical Physicist who has proof (along with a few others) that there is something more to 'qi' than mere imagination and bringing that challenge here to Randi.

NO! That is STILL true regarding the Randi Challenge. I was representing Dr. Lo relative to inquiring about the RANDI CHALLENGE.

please note the word 'INQUIRING'

it means to seek an answer to a question or group of questions

A 'messenger' represents the 'message'

the 'message' was that there was a phd whom may be willing to take the Randi challenge.

the phd was dr. lo

if I was deceptive, it would mean there was no dr. lo, he does not have a phd

pokey pokey pokey

You need to RE-READ very carefully my opening words on that thread, and my ORIGINAL QUESTION, which was the only thing I was looking to have answered, and WAS answered until the goon squad (you guys) trolled and hi-jacked it with irrelevancy.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870987435#post1870987435

GAYLE: That leads me to ask if you are the official representative of Dr. Lo in this discussion?

BUBBLEFISH: yes.

GAYLE: Does he know and approve of your interest in The Challenge on his behalf? Has he authorized you to negotiate? Or is this something you are doing on your own?

BUBBLEFISH: yes, I am authorized to both begin and end this discussion.

GAYLE: If you are not Dr. Lo's official representative, it would be best if you engaged him to communicate directly with the JREF and to submit an application.

BUBBLEFISH: We are going to submit the application after we publish the next peer reviewed paper.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870987442#post1870987442

In the next three months, we are going to be publishing some results in an online peer-respected journal about this study. After this, we will move forward with the challenge.

O.K. It seems you have a bit of a communication problem.

You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's work, nor make claims about having proof of qi, yet you make comments like the one above about him having proof of the existence of qi.

You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's scientific bona fides but you start two threads where you make a big issue of announcing him as a distinguished PhD etc.

When you answered "yes" to the question about your being authorised to negotiate, you really meant that you only wanted to inquire not to negotiate.

You never wanted to offer evidence of peer reviewed papers yet you constantly refer to peer reviewed papers and tell us that you are going to submit an application after we publish the next peer reviewed paper. You're going to publish that paper but you have nothing to do with Lo's papers. You only assume that he has ever published a peer reviewed paper at all.

You have nothing to do with his scientific work but you and he are going to publish a peer reviewed paper together.

You don't want to be confrontational but you get the giggles about how you are going to trash Randi with your challenge. And you're not here to publicise.

So, I think I understand now, some translation is required for your postings:

"we" means "he" - except when it means "we"

"proof" doesn't mean "proof" except when it means "proof"

"representative" doesn't mean "agent" as long as the agent only inquires not negotiates.

a person who inquires is only a messenger - provided he doesn't become an agent - and if he negotiates, the representative (who is not an agent) may represent himself as being part of the work yet claim that the work is nothing to do with him.

You know something? I think your dialectic skills need some work...

 

[WWHP]

O.K. It seems you have a bit of a communication problem.

moi?

You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's work, nor make claims about having proof of qi, yet you make comments like the one above about him having proof of the existence of qi.

correct, with a slight correction.

I didnt make the claim that i have proof. I said I thought it was FUNNY that a phd whom does wants to take the Randi challenge. I am personally tickled over the concept.

You don't want to discuss Dr Lo's scientific bona fides but you start two threads where you make a big issue of announcing him as a distinguished PhD etc.

I am not qualified to discuss his scientific bona fides. This thread was not about the challenge. the other thread I stopped participating in because I was requested to by dr.lo

When you answered "yes" to the question about your being authorised to negotiate, you really meant that you only wanted to inquire not to negotiate.

No, negotiate relative to the challenge and if it goes through, i will negotiate or assist in negotiating the terms with Randi.

I cannot negotiate things irrelevant to the randi challenge, can I?

You never wanted to offer evidence of peer reviewed papers yet you constantly refer to peer reviewed papers and tell us that you are going to submit an application after we publish the next peer reviewed paper.

Your mistaken. I would love to offer them, so your inference that I never wanted to offer them is FALSE and misleading, mostly to yourself. I do not 'constantly refer to them' YOU are.

You're going to publish that paper but you have nothing to do with Lo's papers. You only assume that he has ever published a peer reviewed paper at all.

No, your mistaken once again. I assume that because he TOLD me, it wasnt a blind answer like your suggesting.

You have nothing to do with his scientific work but you and he are going to publish a peer reviewed paper together.

Good lord man, are you daft? If a press secretary refers to the current administration as 'we are moving forward with Plans to Invade Iraq' we dont assume the press secretary is going to don a helmet or sits in on Planning sessions at the Pentagon

You don't want to be confrontational but you get the giggles about how you are going to trash Randi with your challenge.

Who said I didnt want to be confrontational? I love being confrontational.

And you're not here to publicise.

no, I am not here to 'publicise' in the way a publicist would use the term. however, it appears I am getting attention by default.

So, I think I understand now, some translation is required for your postings:

apparently you need to translate your interpretations of them.

"we" means "he" - except when it means "we"

We means the collective assosciative with the Randi challenge.

"proof" doesn't mean "proof" except when it means "proof"

lol, sure. proof means proof. When I say proof, I mean proof. When I say I am not here to show the proof or prove the proof, that does not mean I cant ever signify 'proof' in the discussion.

"representative" doesn't mean "agent" as long as the agent only inquires not negotiates.

It means RELATIVE to the RANDI challenge, that's it man. I do not negotiate Dr. Lo's papers or research, other than relative to taking the challenge.

a person who inquires is only a messenger - provided he doesn't become an agent - and if he negotiates, the representative (who is not an agent) may represent himself as being part of the work yet claim that the work is nothing to do with him.

Sir, does your attorney represent you legally, or does he also do your taxes?

You know something? I think your dialectic skills need some work... [/B]

I think I'm doing fine.

 

[Chris O.]

I think I'm doing fine.

I think you're alone in this opinion.

 

[WWHP]

I think you're alone in this opinion.

I dont think I am.


http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/os012-about21-0.html

 

[Chris O.]

They enjoy how you've gotten everyone's attention, but no one has commented on the validity of your points or counters to the questions over here.

While you may not have started the hostility, you chose to answer flippantly and sarcatically to it, rather than buckling down to honest debate. And when somone points out your logical flaws, you make a joke, and try to turn it around as misunderstanding on their part, rather than the poor use of language on your part.

That post by Pragmatist sums it up fairly nicely. You're unclear, and your comments contradict themselves. And when he pointed it out, you acted like he was a fool, and should been able to decipher your contradicting statements in your favor.

If you want to be understood, you must speak clearly.

 

[Mojo]

I dont think I am.


http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/os012-about21-0.html

This is all starting to look vaguely reminiscent of another recent visitor to this forum.

You wouldn't like to explain how homeopathy works while you're at it, would you?