Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Date: 02 Mar 2000 23:27:23 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 45 Message-ID: <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 952036043 691 10.0.3.2 (2 Mar 2000 22:27:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Mar 2000 22:27:23 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34752 hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) writes: > On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 02:13:25 -0500, Janice > wrote: > >hardcore skeptics. I have sometimes wondered why, if the Amazing Randi > >has so much money to give away, he doesn't just fund some laboratory > >experiments instead of approving annoying requests for evidence that > > Because, like other hard-core sceptics, the amazing Randy can only > become aroused by the risk of fraudulent practice. That people can I have seen this claim so often here, that it is perhaps time to repost something I already posted (Ok, over 1 year ago). So excuse the repeat. To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with Time Magazine about 10 years ago: As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later reinforced by others to the famous over $1M. So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, Mystic Computer: a toy, speeds work so that you have more time to play ###### Message-ID: <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 2 Mar 2000 16:51:17 -0800 X-Trace: 2 Mar 2000 16:51:17 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 58 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!news-MUC.ecrc.net!blackbush.xlink.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cleanfeed.inet.tele.dQ!netscum.int!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34809 In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil Franklin wrote: [snip] : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later reinforced : by others to the famous over $1M. : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim was demonstrated? Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? So, just what does your screed have to do with qualifying evidentiary standards, anyway? -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. [This] convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency. That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly. - H.L. Mencken (Minority Report, 1956) ###### Message-ID: <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 41 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: tw11.nn.bcandid.com 952046936 207.103.34.8 (Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:28:56 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 18:28:56 MST Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 01:28:56 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!cyclone-east.rr.com!news.rr.com!news-east.rr.com!portc05.blue.aol.com!gw12.bcandid.com.MISMATCH!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!tw11.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34759 John M Price PhD wrote: > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil Franklin wrote: > [snip] > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later reinforced > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > was demonstrated? > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money to charity. ###### From: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:17:22 GMT Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom Lines: 13 Message-ID: <38bff347.1470561@news.dial.pipex.com> References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Reply-To: hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: useral89.uk.uudial.com X-Trace: lure.pipex.net 952104444 3405 62.188.134.162 (3 Mar 2000 17:27:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Mar 2000 17:27:24 GMT X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/16.230 Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!howland.erols.net!news-out-b.news.pipex.net.MISMATCH!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34852 On 02 Mar 2000 23:27:23 +0100, Neil Franklin wrote: >hawksmoor@dial.pipex.com (Julia Hawkes-Moore) writes: >> Because, like other hard-core sceptics, the amazing Randy can only >> become aroused by the risk of fraudulent practice. That people can >I have seen this claim so often here, that it is perhaps time to repost >something I already posted (Ok, over 1 year ago). So excuse the repeat. So I was right then! Did you catch my belles, bell and shell hits, Neil? Julia ###### From: "B.D. Yager" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Lines: 19 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:09:49 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.129.143 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 952183166 156.46.129.143 (Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:19:26 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:19:26 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34826 John M Price PhD wrote in message news:38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com... > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > was demonstrated? By gosh....I think you're catching on! > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? Not necessary. Randi is a deceptive cheat at his own game! B.D. ###### From: "B.D. Yager" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Lines: 57 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 09:15:25 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 156.46.129.143 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 952183502 156.46.129.143 (Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:25:02 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 09:25:02 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34830 Janice wrote in message news:38BF1591.5904@not-here.net... > John M Price PhD wrote: > > > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil Franklin wrote: > > [snip] > > > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays > > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with > > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a > > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple > > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using > > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the > > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into > > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! > > > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later reinforced > > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that > > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving > > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > > was demonstrated? > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money to > charity. IMO... this is faulty reasoning, Janice. You are saying that it's okay to do something "against the Law", as long as the end means are honorable. Not so. Robin Hood... was still a theif! As long as I give the money to charity....then it's okay for me to rob the bank? I don't think so. B.D. ###### Message-ID: <38C14087.433F8643@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 77 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:53:49 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp16.ts6-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:53:49 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34880 "B.D. Yager" wrote: > > Janice wrote in message > news:38BF1591.5904@not-here.net... > > John M Price PhD wrote: > > > > > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil > Franklin wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays > > > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with > > > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > > > > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a > > > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple > > > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > > > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using > > > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the > > > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > > > > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into > > > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! > > > > > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later > reinforced > > > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > > > > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > > > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > > > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > > > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > > > > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that > > > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving > > > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > > > > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > > > was demonstrated? > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money to > > charity. > > IMO... this is faulty reasoning, Janice. You are saying that it's okay to > do something "against the Law", as long as the end means are honorable. Not > so. Robin Hood... was still a theif! As long as I give the money to > charity....then it's okay for me to rob the bank? I don't think so. I'm getting horribly off-topic here, but it was the Sheriff of Nottingham that was the real theif, Robin Hood just evened things out a bit. Kinda like the A-Team, sure it is illegal to bust up in somebodies house and shoot the place up with automatic weapons, but when the person is a gangster or drug runner and the cops won't do anything about it, then things sorta even out a little bit. Of course I do understand and agree with the point you were trying to make. The bank analogy works much better for me than the Robin Hood one ;-) ###### Message-ID: <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 19 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 16:55:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp16.ts6-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:55:20 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!ptdnetP!newsgate.ptd.net!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34882 "B.D. Yager" wrote: > > John M Price PhD wrote in message > news:38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com... > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > > was demonstrated? > > By gosh....I think you're catching on! > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > Not necessary. Randi is a deceptive cheat at his own game! > Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up on deja and repost it, eh? ###### Message-ID: <38C14407.30D7@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 69 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: tw11.nn.bcandid.com 952189905 207.103.34.8 (Sat, 04 Mar 2000 10:11:45 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 10:11:45 MST Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 17:11:46 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!tw11.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34755 B.D. Yager wrote: > > Janice wrote in message > news:38BF1591.5904@not-here.net... > > John M Price PhD wrote: > > > > > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil > Franklin wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays > > > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with > > > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > > > > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a > > > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple > > > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > > > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using > > > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the > > > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > > > > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into > > > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! > > > > > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later > reinforced > > > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > > > > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > > > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > > > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > > > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > > > > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that > > > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving > > > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > > > > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > > > was demonstrated? > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money to > > charity. > > IMO... this is faulty reasoning, Janice. You are saying that it's okay to > do something "against the Law", as long as the end means are honorable. Not > so. Robin Hood... was still a theif! As long as I give the money to > charity....then it's okay for me to rob the bank? I don't think so. I see your point, but the situation is a little bit different, I think. If you robbed a bank, or hacked into Randi's bank account and stole the money, even with the intention to give it to charity, that would be breaking an earthly law, and wrong. But taking Randi up on his offer wouldn't be stealing from him, or breaking any earthly law. The only law to be concerned about would be the spiritual one, and if your motivation was spiritual - to prove the validity of spiritual claims and to benefit a charity, I somehow don't think the cosmos would object all that much. Are you familiar with the Sufis, B.D.? Idries Shah, a Sufi teacher who died not long ago, was once asked to prove that he had extraordinary perceptive powers by winning the lottery. According to the legend, at least, he actually did this, and gave the money to charity afterwards. So if an acknowledged teacher of a long-established spiritual tradition can break this "law" to prove a point, why not anyone else? ###### Message-ID: <38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> <38C14407.30D7@not-here.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 104 Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 18:53:56 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp16.ts6-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 13:53:56 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-feed.fnsi.net!news.idt.net!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34885 Janice wrote: > > B.D. Yager wrote: > > > > Janice wrote in message > > news:38BF1591.5904@not-here.net... > > > John M Price PhD wrote: > > > > > > > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil > > Franklin wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays > > > > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with > > > > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > > > > > > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a > > > > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple > > > > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > > > > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using > > > > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the > > > > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > > > > > > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into > > > > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! > > > > > > > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later > > reinforced > > > > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > > > > > > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > > > > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > > > > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > > > > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > > > > > > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that > > > > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving > > > > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > > > > > > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > > > > was demonstrated? > > > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > > > Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money to > > > charity. > > > > IMO... this is faulty reasoning, Janice. You are saying that it's okay to > > do something "against the Law", as long as the end means are honorable. Not > > so. Robin Hood... was still a theif! As long as I give the money to > > charity....then it's okay for me to rob the bank? I don't think so. > > I see your point, but the situation is a little bit different, I think. > If you robbed a bank, or hacked into Randi's bank account and stole the > money, even with the intention to give it to charity, that would be > breaking an earthly law, and wrong. But taking Randi up on his offer > wouldn't be stealing from him, or breaking any earthly law. The only > law to be concerned about would be the spiritual one, and if your > motivation was spiritual - to prove the validity of spiritual claims and > to benefit a charity, I somehow don't think the cosmos would object all > that much. I think you have missed the analogy. It doesn't matter if it is an "earth law" or otherwise. For examples, let's say I see a cute nun at a convent. If I approach the nun and say I will pay here $1 million for a night of uninhibited sex, then the pope isn't going to say to the nun "Sure, go hump your brains out, if you donate the money to a charity". You see, just because there isn't some police force that will arrest you for something doesn't mean that you should do it. > > Are you familiar with the Sufis, B.D.? Idries Shah, a Sufi teacher who > died not long ago, was once asked to prove that he had extraordinary > perceptive powers by winning the lottery. According to the legend, at > least, he actually did this, and gave the money to charity afterwards. > So if an acknowledged teacher of a long-established spiritual tradition > can break this "law" to prove a point, why not anyone else? ###### Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!not-for-mail From: Neil Franklin Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Date: 04 Mar 2000 23:33:37 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 85 Message-ID: <6u7lfijrge.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: chonsp.franklin.ch X-Trace: chonsp.franklin.ch 952209220 854 10.0.3.2 (4 Mar 2000 22:33:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@chonsp.franklin.ch NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2000 22:33:40 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.4 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34892 John M Price PhD writes: > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil Franklin wrote: > [snip] > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. Off the point? The original poster I answered to was claiming (btw: you snipped this, did you simply miss it?): | I have sometimes wondered why, if the Amazing Randi | has so much money to give away, he doesn't just fund some laboratory | experiments instead of approving annoying requests for evidence that As you see, that person was under the (IMHO widely spread) missperception that Randi is trying to find paranormals. So I countered this with Randis _own_ statement (which I believe him [1]), that he is looking for frauds, not paranormals. [1] Despite me being a believer in the paranormal, I do not regard Randi to be the devil incarnate or some other monster. I actually respect him for the burden he has picked and the abuse he no doubt has to take for this (such as say EGCs attacks). This may surprise you. Actually I am surprised to get the only negative reaction to my post from one of the skeptics. I had expected rather to get an "traitor!" remark from some Randi-hating paranormal. Or possible an surprised "hey this guy talks something sensible" remark from an skeptic who regards all of us here as Randi-hateing weirdos. > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > was demonstrated? Could you point out the sentance in my post on which your interpretation here is based? I was talking about his _motive_ for doing what he is doing, not about what he will do if he accidently [2] finds an paranormal. [2] I doubt any real paranormal will go for his test. It was designed to attract frauds, and it does _that_ job well. > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? Could you point out the sentance in my post on which your interpretation here is based? Up to now I have regarded you simply as an closed mind person, who simply does not understand the full implications of _all_ experiences being subjective [3]. Now I think I will put you under the "knee jerk reaction" category. [3] Read up on these in any decent book about philosophy, I am not a good enough writer to do them any justice. Aside the answer to your question: I regard paranormal abilities as tools that can be used for whatever their possessors want to use them. Tools do not care about good/evil. > So, just what does your screed have to do with qualifying evidentiary > standards, anyway? I failled to parse that sentance. -- Neil Franklin, neil@franklin.ch.remove http://neil.franklin.ch/ Nerd, Geek, Hacker, Unix Guru, Sysadmin, Roleplayer, Mystic Computer: a toy, speeds work so that you have more time to play ###### From: "Mark Baron" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 13:00:05 -0600 Organization: Mayo Foundation Lines: 12 Message-ID: <89rmd4$uph$1@tribune.mayo.edu> References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: rmtaccess195.mayo.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: tribune.mayo.edu 952196324 31537 172.22.175.205 (4 Mar 2000 18:58:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@mayo.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 4 Mar 2000 18:58:44 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) X-No-Archive: Yes Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!skynet.be!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!mayonews.mayo.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34966 ---------- In article <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net>, John Garrison wrote: > Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some > tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that > and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up > on deja and repost it, eh? Please do. I am honestly surprised at the accusations of Randi being unfair in his tests. From what I understand both Randi and the tested need to agree on the conditions of the test. Was there a break of agreement in the tests? ###### Message-ID: <38C16445.4A95@not-here.net> From: Janice X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> <38C14407.30D7@not-here.net> <38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 86 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.103.34.8 X-Trace: tw11.nn.bcandid.com 952198158 207.103.34.8 (Sat, 04 Mar 2000 12:29:18 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 12:29:18 MST Organization: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http://bCandid.com Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 19:29:18 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!netnews.com!news-feed.fnsi.net!nntp.msen.com!206.132.58.120.MISMATCH!gw22.nn.bcandid.com!hub12.nn.bcandid.com!tw11.nn.bcandid.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34898 John Garrison wrote: > > Janice wrote: > > > > B.D. Yager wrote: > > > > > > Janice wrote in message > > > news:38BF1591.5904@not-here.net... > > > > John M Price PhD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil > > > Franklin wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays > > > > > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with > > > > > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > > > > > > > > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a > > > > > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple > > > > > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > > > > > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using > > > > > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the > > > > > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > > > > > > > > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into > > > > > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! > > > > > > > > > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later > > > reinforced > > > > > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > > > > > > > > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > > > > > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > > > > > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > > > > > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > > > > > > > > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that > > > > > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving > > > > > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > > > > > > > > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > > > > > was demonstrated? > > > > > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > > > > > Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money to > > > > charity. > > > > > > IMO... this is faulty reasoning, Janice. You are saying that it's okay to > > > do something "against the Law", as long as the end means are honorable. Not > > > so. Robin Hood... was still a theif! As long as I give the money to > > > charity....then it's okay for me to rob the bank? I don't think so. > > > > I see your point, but the situation is a little bit different, I think. > > If you robbed a bank, or hacked into Randi's bank account and stole the > > money, even with the intention to give it to charity, that would be > > breaking an earthly law, and wrong. But taking Randi up on his offer > > wouldn't be stealing from him, or breaking any earthly law. The only > > law to be concerned about would be the spiritual one, and if your > > motivation was spiritual - to prove the validity of spiritual claims and > > to benefit a charity, I somehow don't think the cosmos would object all > > that much. > > I think you have missed the analogy. It doesn't matter if it is an > "earth law" or otherwise. For examples, let's say I see a cute nun at a > convent. If I approach the nun and say I will pay here $1 million for a > night of uninhibited sex, then the pope isn't going to say to the nun > "Sure, go hump your brains out, if you donate the money to a charity". > You see, just because there isn't some police force that will arrest you > for something doesn't mean that you should do it. So you're suggesting that someone as respectable as Idries Shah got irredemiably bad karma out of his lottery-winning episode? Hell, I'd do it for charity, but I don't have any such talents. > > Are you familiar with the Sufis, B.D.? Idries Shah, a Sufi teacher who > > died not long ago, was once asked to prove that he had extraordinary > > perceptive powers by winning the lottery. According to the legend, at > > least, he actually did this, and gave the money to charity afterwards. > > So if an acknowledged teacher of a long-established spiritual tradition > > can break this "law" to prove a point, why not anyone else? ###### Message-ID: <38c169da_1@news9.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 4 Mar 2000 11:54:02 -0800 X-Trace: 4 Mar 2000 11:54:02 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 44 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.novia.net.MISMATCH!novia!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34954 In alt.out-of-body article <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> John Garrison wrote: : "B.D. Yager" wrote: :> :> John M Price PhD wrote in message :> news:38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com... :> > :> > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim :> > was demonstrated? :> :> By gosh....I think you're catching on! :> :> > :> > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is :> > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? :> :> Not necessary. Randi is a deceptive cheat at his own game! :> : Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some : tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that : and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up : on deja and repost it, eh? Please do so, and in original usenet format so I can snag the message ID and forward it along. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 I think the sky is blue because it's a shift from black through purple to blue, and it has to do with where the light is. You know, the farther we get into darkness, and there's a shifting of color of light into the blueness, and I think as you go farther and farther away from the reflected light we have from the sun or the light that's bouncing off this earth, uh, the darker it gets ... I think if you look at the color scale, you start at black, move it through purple, move it on out, it's the shifting of color. We mentioned before about the stars singing, and that's one of the effects of the shifting of colors. - Pat Robertson, The 700 Club ###### Message-ID: <38c17b3e_1@news9.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> <89rmd4$uph$1@tribune.mayo.edu> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 4 Mar 2000 13:08:14 -0800 X-Trace: 4 Mar 2000 13:08:14 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 33 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!npeer.kpnqwest.net!cleanfeed.inet.tele.dQ!netscum.int!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34953 In alt.out-of-body article <89rmd4$uph$1@tribune.mayo.edu> Mark Baron wrote: : ---------- : In article <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net>, John Garrison wrote: :> Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some :> tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that :> and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up :> on deja and repost it, eh? : Please do. I am honestly surprised at the accusations of Randi being unfair : in his tests. From what I understand both Randi and the tested need to agree : on the conditions of the test. This is indeed true. Was there a break of agreement in the tests? Not that I've ever heard of. The case is about some old data. -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 Religion is so frequently a source of confusion in political life, and so frequently dangerous to democracy, precisely because it introduces absolutism into the realm of relative values. - Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971), American theologian quoted in Brown Alumni Monthly ###### Message-ID: <38c1ba3b_1@news3.calweb.com> From: John M Price PhD Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <6u7lfijrge.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Organization: his very own desk! X-Connection: C-Ker-mit 5A(191) 32 bit for OS/2 (usually) X-Operating-System: OS/2 - Warped of course. X-Clamation: Whoa, dogs! X-Hale: only. X-PGP-Key: ftp://ftp.calweb.com/users/j/jmprice/pgp-key-john-m-price User-Agent: tin/1.4.1-19991201 ("Polish") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/3.4-STABLE (i386)) NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: web1.calweb.com Date: 4 Mar 2000 17:36:59 -0800 X-Trace: 4 Mar 2000 17:36:59 -0800, web1.calweb.com Lines: 113 X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.calweb.com Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!newsfeed-zh.ip-plus.net!news.ip-plus.net!News.Amsterdam.UnisourceCS!newshunter!cosy.sbg.ac.at!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!bofh.vszbr.cz!calwebnntp!calwebnnrp!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34956 In alt.out-of-body article <6u7lfijrge.fsf@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil Franklin wrote: : John M Price PhD writes: :> In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil Franklin wrote: :> [snip] :> :> : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into :> : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! :> :> : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the :> : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to :> : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a :> : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. :> :> Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. : Off the point? : The original poster I answered to was claiming (btw: you snipped this, : did you simply miss it?): : | I have sometimes wondered why, if the Amazing Randi : | has so much money to give away, he doesn't just fund some laboratory : | experiments instead of approving annoying requests for evidence that No, I wasn't replying to it, but rather your contribution and answer. : As you see, that person was under the (IMHO widely spread) missperception : that Randi is trying to find paranormals. So I countered this with : Randis _own_ statement (which I believe him [1]), that he is looking : for frauds, not paranormals. : [1] Despite me being a believer in the paranormal, I do not regard Randi : to be the devil incarnate or some other monster. I actually respect : him for the burden he has picked and the abuse he no doubt has to take : for this (such as say EGCs attacks). This may surprise you. And let's not forget Geller. : Actually I am surprised to get the only negative reaction to my post : from one of the skeptics. I had expected rather to get an "traitor!" : remark from some Randi-hating paranormal. Or possible an surprised : "hey this guy talks something sensible" remark from an skeptic who : regards all of us here as Randi-hateing weirdos. It wasn't so much a negative response, as calling it what I saw it as. Off the point of developing evidentiary standards. :> Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim :> was demonstrated? : Could you point out the sentance in my post on which your interpretation : here is based? It was inferred. : I was talking about his _motive_ for doing what he is doing, not : about what he will do if he accidently [2] finds an paranormal. : [2] I doubt any real paranormal will go for his test. It was designed : to attract frauds, and it does _that_ job well. :> Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is :> divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? : Could you point out the sentance in my post on which your interpretation : here is based? Well, there is no sentance [sic], it was inferred as to why no paranormal applies for this demonstration. : Up to now I have regarded you simply as an closed mind person, who : simply does not understand the full implications of _all_ experiences : being subjective [3]. Now I think I will put you under the "knee jerk : reaction" category. : [3] Read up on these in any decent book about philosophy, I am not a : good enough writer to do them any justice. Well, philosophers make lousy scientists for the most part. They seem to lack a reality check. It is a field that needs only internal consistency. I have read some, likely more than most, and continually look for decent ones. The best I can say of the lot is that the tools they use are decent, if misapplied (see Searle, for instance, or Descartes, Aquinas, even Aristotle was dead wrong when compared to Democritus) within their section of the academy. I would keep that in mind when you consider their writings. One must always ask 'how does the author know that?'. : Aside the answer to your question: I regard paranormal abilities as : tools that can be used for whatever their possessors want to use them. : Tools do not care about good/evil. True enough, which of course begs the question. :> So, just what does your screed have to do with qualifying evidentiary :> standards, anyway? : I failled to parse that sentance. What does your comment on Randi's motives have to do with his ability to establish controlled tests to demonstrate real paranormal phenomena? -- John M. Price, PhD jmprice@calweb.com Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP! Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion. Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683 Syndicate Section III - Number 1 Infamy is longer than fame in letters and life. ###### Message-ID: <38C1BCFC.1611655B@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> <89rmd4$uph$1@tribune.mayo.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:44:46 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp46.ts1-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:44:46 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35057 Mark Baron wrote: > > ---------- > In article <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net>, John Garrison wrote: > > > Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some > > tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that > > and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up > > on deja and repost it, eh? > > Please do. I am honestly surprised at the accusations of Randi being unfair > in his tests. From what I understand both Randi and the tested need to agree > on the conditions of the test. Was there a break of agreement in the tests? I have posted it. It wasn't Randi's test that were PROVEN to be unfair. It his an article about how full of lies his book is. I just doubt that a man that would come up with so many lies just to debunk something would be completely honest with $1 million at stake. Somehow I doubt it. ###### Message-ID: <38C1BD6D.95040CE4@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> <38c169da_1@news9.calweb.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 01:46:40 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp46.ts1-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 20:46:40 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35059 John M Price PhD wrote: > > In alt.out-of-body article <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> John Garrison wrote: > : "B.D. Yager" wrote: > :> > :> John M Price PhD wrote in message > :> news:38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com... > :> > > :> > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > :> > was demonstrated? > :> > :> By gosh....I think you're catching on! > :> > :> > > :> > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > :> > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > :> > :> Not necessary. Randi is a deceptive cheat at his own game! > :> > > : Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some > : tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that > : and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up > : on deja and repost it, eh? > > Please do so, and in original usenet format so I can snag the message ID > and forward it along. > I just copy and pasted it from deja in a new thread. Exactly who do you want to forward it to? I suppose this means there will be another cross-post to sci.skeptics? The same thing happened the first time around, oddly no skeptics had a rebuttal. ###### From: "B.D. Yager" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Lines: 41 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 10:45:33 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.31.188.6 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 952275311 206.31.188.6 (Sun, 05 Mar 2000 10:55:11 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 10:55:11 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.enteract.com!cyclone.i1.net!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34989 John Garrison wrote in message news:38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net... > "B.D. Yager" wrote: > > > > John M Price PhD wrote in message > > news:38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com... > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > > > was demonstrated? > > > > By gosh....I think you're catching on! > > > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > Not necessary. Randi is a deceptive cheat at his own game! > > > > Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some > tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that > and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up > on deja and repost it, eh? Thank-you, John! And, thanks for reposting this! They have evidently also forgotten the post I made, about Randi's dowsing test on the Arthur C. Clark program.... the one where he has 2 entirely different types of tests (one for water underground, and one for gold hidden in boxes)... the water dowsers were very succesful, (way above pure odds)... but alas, the gold-finders failed. But Randi, in a deft side-stepping manouever... lumped both "tests" together, and claimed that according to his "test".... Dowsing simply did not work! Even though, his tested water-dowsers, proved otherwise! If that is not being a deceitful cheat... I don't know what is! B.D. Yager ###### From: "B.D. Yager" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> <38C14407.30D7@not-here.net> <38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net> Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Lines: 134 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 11:12:33 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.31.188.6 X-Complaints-To: abuse@alpha.net X-Trace: homer.alpha.net 952276936 206.31.188.6 (Sun, 05 Mar 2000 11:22:16 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 11:22:16 CST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newspump.sol.net!news.execpc.com!newspeer.sol.net!homer.alpha.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:34986 Thanks again, John! We seem to see eye to eye, on quite a few things! Most people simply don't seem to be able to grasp the fact, that spiritual enlightenment is by neccesity... a personal and subjective thing! If someone is ready for Truth... then it will be given them, personally! It is not up to us...nor allowed for us... to "prove" anything to anyone! Just because you "can" do something...doesn't mean you "should"! No, I am not familiar with the Sufi's...but IMO....that "teacher" made an enormous error in judgement! And, I suspect, is now paying for that! (Perhaps now....he's been degraded to alter-boy status?) hahahaha! :) There seems to be a general opinion nowadays, that if you can get away with something.... then it's okay. Sad, isn't it? I, for one, do not subscribe to that notion! But, it gets me into trouble sometimes! Really pissed my wife off once.... she was shopping for groceries when the power went out during a storm. The store simply guessed at rough prices (cash registers and scanners weren't working)... and got everybody "checked out" that way. My wife came home, and figured it all out on paper.... and was extremely pleased when she found we had been undercharged by about 35.00! The next day, I wrote a letter to the manager... and anonymously enclosed 40.00 for the food. She found out....and, boy did all Hell break loose! Sheesh. She claims I threw away 40 bucks! I don't see it that way.... I don't believe in taking advantage of other people's misfortunes... and, I believe in pulling my own weight! Not to mention the "spark of human decency still left in the world", which would have been realized by many of the workers at the store! And I know, John,.... that you can see why I had to do that.... anonymously! If I had signed my name to a check...it would have been merely defeating the purpose. It would have been like saying... see, look how good I am!!! It would have been... doing the right thing, for the wrong reason... and as such, would count for nothing! Same thing is true... with "proving" the metaphysical to sceptics! Why can't anyone understand this???????????? It is so basically, spiritually, SIMPLE ! B.D. Yager John Garrison wrote in message news:38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net... > Janice wrote: > > > > B.D. Yager wrote: > > > > > > Janice wrote in message > > > news:38BF1591.5904@not-here.net... > > > > John M Price PhD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> Neil > > > Franklin wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it pays > > > > > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had with > > > > > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > > > > > > > > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then did a > > > > > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed multiple > > > > > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > > > > > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and using > > > > > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of the > > > > > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > > > > > > > > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them into > > > > > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of it! > > > > > > > > > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later > > > reinforced > > > > > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > > > > > > > > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > > > > > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > > > > > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > > > > > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > > > > > > > > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice that > > > > > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously waiving > > > > > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > > > > > > > > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't it. > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the claim > > > > > was demonstrated? > > > > > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > > > > > Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money to > > > > charity. > > > > > > IMO... this is faulty reasoning, Janice. You are saying that it's okay to > > > do something "against the Law", as long as the end means are honorable. Not > > > so. Robin Hood... was still a theif! As long as I give the money to > > > charity....then it's okay for me to rob the bank? I don't think so. > > > > I see your point, but the situation is a little bit different, I think. > > If you robbed a bank, or hacked into Randi's bank account and stole the > > money, even with the intention to give it to charity, that would be > > breaking an earthly law, and wrong. But taking Randi up on his offer > > wouldn't be stealing from him, or breaking any earthly law. The only > > law to be concerned about would be the spiritual one, and if your > > motivation was spiritual - to prove the validity of spiritual claims and > > to benefit a charity, I somehow don't think the cosmos would object all > > that much. > > I think you have missed the analogy. It doesn't matter if it is an > "earth law" or otherwise. For examples, let's say I see a cute nun at a > convent. If I approach the nun and say I will pay here $1 million for a > night of uninhibited sex, then the pope isn't going to say to the nun > "Sure, go hump your brains out, if you donate the money to a charity". > You see, just because there isn't some police force that will arrest you > for something doesn't mean that you should do it. > > > > > Are you familiar with the Sufis, B.D.? Idries Shah, a Sufi teacher who > > died not long ago, was once asked to prove that he had extraordinary > > perceptive powers by winning the lottery. According to the legend, at > > least, he actually did this, and gave the money to charity afterwards. > > So if an acknowledged teacher of a long-established spiritual tradition > > can break this "law" to prove a point, why not anyone else? ###### Message-ID: <38C2A26A.63A12FF1@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 57 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:03:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp20.ts1-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 13:03:41 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35054 "B.D. Yager" wrote: > > John Garrison wrote in message > news:38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net... > > "B.D. Yager" wrote: > > > > > > John M Price PhD wrote in message > > > news:38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com... > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the > claim > > > > was demonstrated? > > > > > > By gosh....I think you're catching on! > > > > > > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is > > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > > > Not necessary. Randi is a deceptive cheat at his own game! > > > > > > > Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some > > tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that > > and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up > > on deja and repost it, eh? > > Thank-you, John! And, thanks for reposting this! They have evidently also > forgotten the post I made, about Randi's dowsing test on the Arthur C. Clark > program.... the one where he has 2 entirely different types of tests (one > for water underground, and one for gold hidden in boxes)... the water > dowsers were very succesful, (way above pure odds)... but alas, the > gold-finders failed. But Randi, in a deft side-stepping manouever... lumped > both "tests" together, and claimed that according to his "test".... Dowsing > simply did not work! Even though, his tested water-dowsers, proved > otherwise! If that is not being a deceitful cheat... I don't know what is! > > B.D. Yager Indeed. As I said from the search on Deja the only skeptic response to the article was Wally, who merely asked for help from the sci.skeptic newsgroup. Funny with a whole newsgroup on his side, they still couldn't explain it. It doesn't appear as though they are doing any better the second time around. I don't know why they can't just use their "critical thinking" skills to deduce that Randi is to biased to be considered an authority on the subject. Surely the skeptics in this newgroup know what conflicts personal bias has with the scientific method, they remind us of it all the time. ;-) ###### From: "Trish" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> <38C2A26A.63A12FF1@visi.net> Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Lines: 62 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Message-ID: X-Trace: +Li/tTJsbZ1vbSqmKIwoU/ErV0Rjggl3VvzMPtQ/efVRzrDF9nzovjjhfiOil0SS4tPhlhYO31fA!Z2ArzThqGmo1H1rJF7ODhJSVeARWPVnCTjPdxUNl5W7ZpI+s2Qaw6PDsqk9ePPrK8mmBlCvEoDhd!gPSO X-Complaints-To: abuse@gte.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:50:26 GMT Distribution: world Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:50:26 GMT Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35086 John Garrison wrote in message <38C2A26A.63A12FF1@visi.net>... >"B.D. Yager" wrote: >> >> John Garrison wrote in message >> news:38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net... >> > "B.D. Yager" wrote: >> > > >> > > John M Price PhD wrote in message >> > > news:38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com... >> > > > >> > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the >> claim >> > > > was demonstrated? >> > > >> > > By gosh....I think you're catching on! >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability is >> > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? >> > > >> > > Not necessary. Randi is a deceptive cheat at his own game! >> > > >> > >> > Indeed. Didn't anyone but me read that post about Randi debunking some >> > tests and saying that the scientists taking the tests said this and that >> > and the other even though they denied saying it? Maybe I'll look it up >> > on deja and repost it, eh? >> >> Thank-you, John! And, thanks for reposting this! They have evidently also >> forgotten the post I made, about Randi's dowsing test on the Arthur C. Clark >> program.... the one where he has 2 entirely different types of tests (one >> for water underground, and one for gold hidden in boxes)... the water >> dowsers were very succesful, (way above pure odds)... but alas, the >> gold-finders failed. But Randi, in a deft side-stepping manouever... lumped >> both "tests" together, and claimed that according to his "test".... Dowsing >> simply did not work! Even though, his tested water-dowsers, proved >> otherwise! If that is not being a deceitful cheat... I don't know what is! >> >> B.D. Yager > >Indeed. As I said from the search on Deja the only skeptic response to >the article was Wally, who merely asked for help from the sci.skeptic >newsgroup. Funny with a whole newsgroup on his side, they still couldn't >explain it. It doesn't appear as though they are doing any better the >second time around. I don't know why they can't just use their "critical >thinking" skills to deduce that Randi is to biased to be considered an >authority on the subject. Surely the skeptics in this newgroup know what >conflicts personal bias has with the scientific method, they remind us >of it all the time. ;-) Ouch. Oh yes ... they do. And they're just as guilty of it when they make incorrect judgements of fraud, and manipulative con schemes. ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 14:13:52 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 337 Message-ID: <38C2B1F0.36F3@not-here.net> References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> <38C14407.30D7@not-here.net> <38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: async150.starlinx.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35077 [May be a duplicate - my news server was messed up.] B.D. Yager wrote: > > Thanks again, John! We seem to see eye to eye, on quite a few things! Most > people simply don't seem to be able to grasp the fact, that spiritual > enlightenment is by neccesity... a personal and subjective thing! If > someone is ready for Truth... then it will be given them, personally! It is > not up to us...nor allowed for us... to "prove" anything to anyone! Just > because you "can" do something...doesn't mean you "should"! No, I am not > familiar with the Sufi's...but IMO....that "teacher" made an enormous error > in judgement! And, I suspect, is now paying for that! (Perhaps now....he's > been degraded to alter-boy status?) hahahaha! :) But suppose he did numerous other worthy things in his lifetime that outweighed it, or had special insight as to why it would be OK to do it on this particular occasion? You can't know these factors, so don't judge too hastily. Sufis are known for recommending flexibility, and not adhering to fixed principles, since to do so is considered by them to be a form of idolatry. They could deem it important for one of their number to break the "don't do it for money" law at least once for that reason alone. > There seems to be a > general opinion nowadays, that if you can get away with something.... then > it's okay. Sad, isn't it? I, for one, do not subscribe to that notion! > But, it gets me into trouble sometimes! Really pissed my wife off once.... > she was shopping for groceries when the power went out during a storm. The > store simply guessed at rough prices (cash registers and scanners weren't > working)... and got everybody "checked out" that way. My wife came home, > and figured it all out on paper.... and was extremely pleased when she found > we had been undercharged by about 35.00! The next day, I wrote a letter to > the manager... and anonymously enclosed 40.00 for the food. She found > out....and, boy did all Hell break loose! Sheesh. She claims I threw away > 40 bucks! I don't see it that way.... Nor do I. My husband and I are rather honest about that sort of thing ourselves, whereas some of our relatives seem to cheat in any little way they can. > I don't believe in taking advantage > of other people's misfortunes... and, I believe in pulling my own weight! > Not to mention the "spark of human decency still left in the world", which > would have been realized by many of the workers at the store! And I know, > John,.... that you can see why I had to do that.... anonymously! If I had > signed my name to a check...it would have been merely defeating the purpose. > It would have been like saying... see, look how good I am!!! It would have > been... doing the right thing, for the wrong reason... and as such, would > count for nothing! Same thing is true... with "proving" the metaphysical to > sceptics! Why can't anyone understand this???????????? It is so basically, > spiritually, SIMPLE ! I understand the principle here, and in fact the Sufis would agree that to make a big deal of one's honesty or generosity is a form of pride that negates the spiritual benefit of what would otherwise be exercising a good quality. But I would have handed the money over personally (though still anonymously) to a manager or something - I hope you didn't mail cash! If so, anyone could have appropriated it. You, B.D., obviously should not take up Randi on his offer, because you have firm beliefs as to why it would be wrong. But don't be too surprised if someone does take him up on it someday. If somehow they succeed, they may be unscrupulous sorcerer types using amazing abilities in a cosmically unacceptable way. Just don't be too sure of that without sufficient evidence. > > B.D. Yager > > John Garrison wrote in message > news:38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net... > > Janice wrote: > > > > > > B.D. Yager wrote: > > > > > > > > Janice wrote in message > > > > news:38BF1591.5904@not-here.net... > > > > > John M Price PhD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> > Neil > > > > Franklin wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it > pays > > > > > > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had > with > > > > > > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > > > > > > > > > > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then > did a > > > > > > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed > multiple > > > > > > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > > > > > > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and > using > > > > > > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of > the > > > > > > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > > > > > > > > > > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them > into > > > > > > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of > it! > > > > > > > > > > > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later > > > > reinforced > > > > > > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > > > > > > > > > > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > > > > > > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > > > > > > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > > > > > > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice > that > > > > > > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously > waiving > > > > > > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the > claim > > > > > > was demonstrated? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability > is > > > > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > > > > > > > Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money > to > > > > > charity. > > > > > > > > IMO... this is faulty reasoning, Janice. You are saying that it's > okay to > > > > do something "against the Law", as long as the end means are > honorable. Not > > > > so. Robin Hood... was still a theif! As long as I give the money to > > > > charity....then it's okay for me to rob the bank? I don't think so. > > > > > > I see your point, but the situation is a little bit different, I think. > > > If you robbed a bank, or hacked into Randi's bank account and stole the > > > money, even with the intention to give it to charity, that would be > > > breaking an earthly law, and wrong. But taking Randi up on his offer > > > wouldn't be stealing from him, or breaking any earthly law. The only > > > law to be concerned about would be the spiritual one, and if your > > > motivation was spiritual - to prove the validity of spiritual claims and > > > to benefit a charity, I somehow don't think the cosmos would object all > > > that much. > > > > I think you have missed the analogy. It doesn't matter if it is an > > "earth law" or otherwise. For examples, let's say I see a cute nun at a > > convent. If I approach the nun and say I will pay here $1 million for a > > night of uninhibited sex, then the pope isn't going to say to the nun > > "Sure, go hump your brains out, if you donate the money to a charity". > > You see, just because there isn't some police force that will arrest you > > for something doesn't mean that you should do it. > > > > > > > > Are you familiar with the Sufis, B.D.? Idries Shah, a Sufi teacher who > > > died not long ago, was once asked to prove that he had extraordinary > > > perceptive powers by winning the lottery. According to the legend, at > > > least, he actually did this, and gave the money to charity afterwards. > > > So if an acknowledged teacher of a long-established spiritual tradition > > > can break this "law" to prove a point, why not anyone else? ###### Message-ID: <38C2B6F9.F9F8ED1D@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> <38C14407.30D7@not-here.net> <38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 193 Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:31:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp01.ts1-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 14:31:27 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35090 "B.D. Yager" wrote: > > Thanks again, John! We seem to see eye to eye, on quite a few things! Most > people simply don't seem to be able to grasp the fact, that spiritual > enlightenment is by neccesity... a personal and subjective thing! If not by neccesity, by definition. Enlightenment is the giving of knowledge, so if we were to give PZ the answers it would be Physical Enlightenment, or Verbal Enlightenment, or Usenet Enlightenment, but not Spiritual Enlightenment, that by definition must come from within. > If someone is ready for Truth... then it will be given them, personally! It is > not up to us...nor allowed for us... to "prove" anything to anyone! Just > because you "can" do something...doesn't mean you "should"! Exactly my point. > No, I am not > familiar with the Sufi's...but IMO....that "teacher" made an enormous error > in judgement! And, I suspect, is now paying for that! (Perhaps now....he's > been degraded to alter-boy status?) hahahaha! :) hehe > There seems to be a > general opinion nowadays, that if you can get away with something.... then > it's okay. Sad, isn't it? I, for one, do not subscribe to that notion! > But, it gets me into trouble sometimes! Really pissed my wife off once.... > she was shopping for groceries when the power went out during a storm. The > store simply guessed at rough prices (cash registers and scanners weren't > working)... and got everybody "checked out" that way. My wife came home, > and figured it all out on paper.... and was extremely pleased when she found > we had been undercharged by about 35.00! The next day, I wrote a letter to > the manager... and anonymously enclosed 40.00 for the food. She found > out....and, boy did all Hell break loose! Sheesh. She claims I threw away > 40 bucks! I don't see it that way.... I don't believe in taking advantage > of other people's misfortunes... and, I believe in pulling my own weight! > Not to mention the "spark of human decency still left in the world", It's nice to know there are still people like you out there. I am 22 years old, just look at how MY generation is turning out. Gees we've got more teen pregnancy than ever, more school slayings, etc. etc. > which would have been realized by many of the workers at the store! And I know, > John,.... that you can see why I had to do that.... anonymously! If I had > signed my name to a check...it would have been merely defeating the purpose. > It would have been like saying... see, look how good I am!!! It would have > been... doing the right thing, for the wrong reason... and as such, would > count for nothing! Kind of like the "Brotherly Love" Episode where Joe told Andy "Guys don't do things for thanks, we just do them" after Andy asked why they weren't going to tell Claire that they paid for her spa weekend. > Same thing is true... with "proving" the metaphysical to > sceptics! Why can't anyone understand this???????????? It is so basically, > spiritually, SIMPLE ! Exactly. > B.D. Yager > > John Garrison wrote in message > news:38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net... > > Janice wrote: > > > > > > B.D. Yager wrote: > > > > > > > > Janice wrote in message > > > > news:38BF1591.5904@not-here.net... > > > > > John M Price PhD wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > In alt.out-of-body article <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> > Neil > > > > Franklin wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > : To understand Randi (Note: only him, not all his "followers") it > pays > > > > > > : to look at how he came into debunking. From an Interview he had > with > > > > > > : Time Magazine about 10 years ago: > > > > > > > > > > > > : As a child he learned conjuring (stage magic) tricks (he then > did a > > > > > > : career as a professional stage magician). He also witnessed > multiple > > > > > > : religious services, in which he saw that the priests were using > > > > > > : exactly the same tricks but then calling it devine effects and > using > > > > > > : them als "proof" of the priests being gods chosen ones (think of > the > > > > > > : Tele-Evangelist frauds). So he set out to catch such con-men. > > > > > > > > > > > > : Now how does one attract people of such a bent, and trick them > into > > > > > > : revealing their behaviour? One baits them with money, lots of > it! > > > > > > > > > > > > : So that is why he set up his original $100k, which was later > > > > reinforced > > > > > > : by others to the famous over $1M. > > > > > > > > > > > > : So for short: Randi in not interested in finding out whether the > > > > > > : paranormal exists (he most likely could not care). He wants to > > > > > > : catch frauds pretending to be paranormal. So inversting in a > > > > > > : laboratory whould not serve his aims one little bit. > > > > > > > > > > > > : Now if just all his "followers" would understand this and notice > that > > > > > > : the con-man types are not here on a.oob and stop obnoxiously > waiving > > > > > > : around the $1M like a carrot, it would be great. Dream on... > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, all fine and good, but entirely off the point, now, isn't > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that Randi would *not* pay the amount if indeed the > claim > > > > > > was demonstrated? > > > > > > > > > > > > Or are you simply using the old worn dodge that paranormal ability > is > > > > > > divine, and can't be used for such a purpose? > > > > > > > > > > Not a good dodge, considering that one could always donate the money > to > > > > > charity. > > > > > > > > IMO... this is faulty reasoning, Janice. You are saying that it's > okay to > > > > do something "against the Law", as long as the end means are > honorable. Not > > > > so. Robin Hood... was still a theif! As long as I give the money to > > > > charity....then it's okay for me to rob the bank? I don't think so. > > > > > > I see your point, but the situation is a little bit different, I think. > > > If you robbed a bank, or hacked into Randi's bank account and stole the > > > money, even with the intention to give it to charity, that would be > > > breaking an earthly law, and wrong. But taking Randi up on his offer > > > wouldn't be stealing from him, or breaking any earthly law. The only > > > law to be concerned about would be the spiritual one, and if your > > > motivation was spiritual - to prove the validity of spiritual claims and > > > to benefit a charity, I somehow don't think the cosmos would object all > > > that much. > > > > I think you have missed the analogy. It doesn't matter if it is an > > "earth law" or otherwise. For examples, let's say I see a cute nun at a > > convent. If I approach the nun and say I will pay here $1 million for a > > night of uninhibited sex, then the pope isn't going to say to the nun > > "Sure, go hump your brains out, if you donate the money to a charity". > > You see, just because there isn't some police force that will arrest you > > for something doesn't mean that you should do it. > > > > > > > > Are you familiar with the Sufis, B.D.? Idries Shah, a Sufi teacher who > > > died not long ago, was once asked to prove that he had extraordinary > > > perceptive powers by winning the lottery. According to the legend, at > > > least, he actually did this, and gave the money to charity afterwards. > > > So if an acknowledged teacher of a long-established spiritual tradition > > > can break this "law" to prove a point, why not anyone else? ###### From: Janice Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 15:25:05 -0500 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 10 Message-ID: <38C2C2A1.5DC7@not-here.net> References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> <38C14407.30D7@not-here.net> <38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net> <38C2B6F9.F9F8ED1D@visi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: async141.starlinx.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35113 John Garrison wrote: {snip} > I am 22 years old I would never have guessed that. You've always seemed older than that to me - I've been picturing you in your 40's. {snip} ###### From: "Mark Baron" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 20:39:38 -0600 Organization: Mayo Foundation Lines: 12 Message-ID: <89v5ln$dpu$1@tribune.mayo.edu> References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> <89rmd4$uph$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <38C1BCFC.1611655B@visi.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: rmtaccess24.mayo.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: tribune.mayo.edu 952310263 14142 172.22.175.34 (6 Mar 2000 02:37:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@mayo.edu NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Mar 2000 02:37:43 GMT X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express Macintosh Edition - 4.5 (0410) X-No-Archive: Yes Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newscore.univie.ac.at!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!mayonews.mayo.edu!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35164 ---------- In article <38C1BCFC.1611655B@visi.net>, John Garrison wrote: > I have posted it. It wasn't Randi's test that were PROVEN to be unfair. > It his an article about how full of lies his book is. I just doubt that > a man that would come up with so many lies just to debunk something > would be completely honest with $1 million at stake. Somehow I doubt it. Thanks. The article was a nice change of pace. I mean someone investigating and being critical of a debunkers research. :-) Was this written by D. Scott Rogo? ###### From: "lorz" Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <38BF1591.5904@not-here.net> <38C14407.30D7@not-here.net> <38C15CAF.AE758F69@visi.net> <38C2B6F9.F9F8ED1D@visi.net> <38C2C2A1.5DC7@not-here.net> Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) Lines: 17 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 10:42:01 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.77.205.181 X-Trace: news3.mia 952357387 216.77.205.181 (Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:43:07 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 10:43:07 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.atl.bellsouth.net.MISMATCH!newsfeed.atl!news3.mia.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35128 Janice wrote in message <38C2C2A1.5DC7@not-here.net>... :John Garrison wrote: : :{snip} : :> I am 22 years old : :I would never have guessed that. You've always seemed older than that :to me - I've been picturing you in your 40's. : :{snip} Wow me too.. and all this time I was picturing Rainbow Warrier a woman! ###### Message-ID: <38C3F5CA.CA7750F0@visi.net> From: John Garrison X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.12-20 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.out-of-body Subject: Re: Randis real motives (was Re: Pier One?) References: <38bd9819.1724864@news.dial.pipex.com> <20000301185442.01978.00001254@nso-fo.aol.com> <38BE1495.6BD@not-here.net> <38be2d11.8714180@news.dial.pipex.com> <6u66v5c8j8.fsf_-_@chonsp.franklin.ch> <38bf0c85_1@news3.calweb.com> <2Q9w4.864$o5.340248@homer.alpha.net> <38C140E3.58432DF9@visi.net> <89rmd4$uph$1@tribune.mayo.edu> <38C1BCFC.1611655B@visi.net> <89v5ln$dpu$1@tribune.mayo.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 18:11:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp01.ts1-2.newportnews.visi.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 13:11:35 EST Path: chonsp.franklin.ch!pfaff.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feeder.qis.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!intermedia!newsxfer.visi.net!firenze.visi.net!not-for-mail Xref: chonsp.franklin.ch alt.out-of-body:35233 Mark Baron wrote: > > ---------- > In article <38C1BCFC.1611655B@visi.net>, John Garrison wrote: > > > I have posted it. It wasn't Randi's test that were PROVEN to be unfair. > > It his an article about how full of lies his book is. I just doubt that > > a man that would come up with so many lies just to debunk something > > would be completely honest with $1 million at stake. Somehow I doubt it. > > Thanks. The article was a nice change of pace. I mean someone investigating > and being critical of a debunkers research. :-) Was this written by D. Scott > Rogo? Yes D. Scott Rogo wrote it. The book is called "Psychic Breakthroughs Today : Fascinating Encounters With Parapsychology's Latest Discoveries". It is out of print though.