Uri Geller making Youtube pull down James Randi's criticism?
- Thread starter Questioninggeller
- Start date
Jon the Geek
Thinker
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 229
The original seems to be back up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJSxsbToLeEIt is official. Youtube has pulled my copy of the Geller video. I am re-uploading and contacting the production company that created it as well as Youtube.
Wish me luckI may not have an account in a day or so.
You may have scored one for the good guys already...
Two minor quibbles: First, you say "therefore, Uri Geller is guilty of perjury." Unless he has been convicted, he is not guilty. He may have done it, but this is for a judge and/or jury to determine, not you. Second, you say that YouTube has removed the videos where Uri Geller cheats. This is not true, technically; they have removed the videos where his cheating has been exposed. There are still Geller videos on YouTube (last I checked), and if he is the same Uri we all know and love, he is cheating in them. He is just not caught cheating.
You don't see me be pedantic, do you?
I am not speaking as a lawyer, but there is absolutely no doubt that Uri Geller is guilty of perjury. YouTube's legalese is crystal clear on that one.
I don't get your second point.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
If you want... to see... a video... of Uri Geller... bending a spoon... with his hands... not his mind...
I like the tone, Larsen. Well done. I'm glad to see the videos going back up. So far, it seems like this little move might do Uri more harm than good.
I like the tone, Larsen. Well done. I'm glad to see the videos going back up. So far, it seems like this little move might do Uri more harm than good.
There is no doubt that he has been convicted on charges of perjury? Evidence?You don't see me be pedantic, do you?
I am not speaking as a lawyer, but there is absolutely no doubt that Uri Geller is guilty of perjury. YouTube's legalese is crystal clear on that one.
To you, and to me, there is no doubt that Geller has engaged in behavior that fits the requirements for perjury. Your language, though, implies something more than that. It implies that he has already been tried and convicted, and to the best of my knowledge he has not been. By some definitions of "guilty", you are quite right, but by others, Geller can truthfully say that your video is lying about this. If it were me, I would not want to give him that foodhold.
My second point was semantic, but I thought you would appreciate it. There are still videos of Uri on YouTube; therefore, there are still videos of Uri cheating on YouTube. What there are not, are videos of Uri cheating and skeptics pointing it out.
Your language could be interpreted as claiming that since the videos where his cheating is exposed have been removed, the remaining Uri videos are ones in which he has not cheated. I doubt very much that this is what you mean.
There's a difference between saying "is guilty" and "having been convicted"/"has been found guilty":
Are you guilty of stealing that apple in your neighbour's back yard? Yes, you are. The rules says you cannot, yet you did.
YouTube's very clear rules vs. Uri Geller's actions makes it clear that he is guilty.
Have you been convicted on charges of stealing that apple in your neighbour's back yard? No, you haven't.
Now you are not applying critical thinking. There are still videos out there showing Uri doing his...thing, but we cannot state that there are still videos of Uri cheating, unless you have shown that he is cheating. He could actually be bending a spoon with his mind.
Heck, there are also videos of Uri Geller when he is not doing his...thing. Is he cheating then? Of course not.
You are assuming that he is always cheating, no matter what he does.
I think the legal world would benefit greatly with you and me.
I think it should go all up tempo after "However..."
Too MTV.
I wanted a thoughtful, tranquil mood. I think it fits the form well.
I thought movie trailer. To me the sound track is sinister rather than tranquil, and that works well with the nefarious goings on of Mr Gellar, I just thought it needed some release when the good news arrives.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
There's a record up there, and it's attention grabbing. If someone is actually interested in this, they'll find it and watch it. I'd say a good 99.999% of the YouTube generation hasn't even heard of Uri Geller. Those who have now have a place to find the information.
Too MTV.
I wanted a thoughtful, tranquil mood. I think it fits the form well.
Do you have the copyright to the music?
M.
I thought movie trailer. To me the sound track is sinister rather than tranquil, and that works well with the nefarious goings on of Mr Gellar, I just thought it needed some release when the good news arrives.
Well, "sinister" works, too.
What is the "YouTube generation"?
Indeed.
We can't expect to reach everyone, and I certainly don't like it if we are to cater to one segment when we are aiming for everyone.
Yes.
Just thought I'd ask, since someone had their anti-Islam video removed for that reason, although at first it was thought YouTube were censoring the message.
M.