14 Dec 10
Originally posted by ChessPraxisSo you are debunking debunking. So it's ok if asssholes like Uri Geller continues to make money bending spoons or the money grubbing right wing christians who want to make a jesusland in what they think is Nazareth.
His agenda is debunking anything he can. He would debunk himself for entertainment purposes, or if he could make a dollar.
Personally I think you may just be jealous of Randi's successes. So why don't you start a debunking campaign of your own, there are lots of nut cases out there like the 911 conspiracy, or the moon landing fake or UFO's came down and raped my weedeater, (an actual headline in one of the stupid daily's)
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by ChessPraxisYes, his agenda is debunking whatever he can debunk. That's a pretty damned good and noble agenda frankly as long as he does it using evidence, logic and I haven't seen any legit reason to think he hasn't.
His agenda is debunking anything he can. He would debunk himself for entertainment purposes, or if he could make a dollar.
14 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseThe only tests the foundation accepts, are the ones they design.
So you are debunking debunking. So it's ok if asssholes like Uri Geller continues to make money bending spoons or the money grubbing right wing christians who want to make a jesusland in what they think is Nazareth.
Personally I think you may just be jealous of Randi's successes. So why don't you start a debunking campaign of your own, there are lots of n ...[text shortened]... r UFO's came down and raped my weedeater, (an actual headline in one of the stupid daily's)
I could prove or disprove anything I want if I have absolute control of the experiment.
I am not sure which part of...
"I do think he did the world a service by exposing Geller as a fraud."
...you misunderstood.
Sexual assault on a string trimmer is NO Laughing matter, YOU GOT THAT? ðŸ˜
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by ChessPraxisWrong - when he tests someones claim he tells the claimant what he will do to test them and they have the option of agreeing to those criteria.
The only tests the foundation accepts, are the ones they design.
I could prove or disprove anything I want if I have absolute control of the experiment.
Many have accepted the criteria and still end up failing to prove their claims.
The claimants can reject the test if they want with no harm to them.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYour breath stinks because you're talking out your bum.
Wrong - when he tests someones claim he tells the claimant what he will do to test them and they have the option of agreeing to those criteria.
Many have accepted the criteria and still end up failing to prove their claims.
The claimants can reject the test if they want with no harm to them.
You just restated what I said.
Idiot
14 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessPraxisYou're calling ME an idiot with such a response?
Your breath stinks because you're talking out your bum.
Idiot
You're just projecting.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant.
(emphasis in bold added by me).
Provide an example where he did not offer the applicant the ability to approve the process. Idiot.
14 Dec 10
2 edits
Originally posted by PsychoPawnIf I were projecting, I'd have called you a genius.
You're calling ME an idiot with such a response?
You're just projecting.
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. [b]All tests are designed with the participation an ...[text shortened]... xample where he did not offer the applicant the ability to approve the process. Idiot.[/b]
Again you contradict yourself.
All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant.
Provide an example where he did not offer the applicant the ability to approve the process. Idiot.
Approving and participating in the design of the test are two (2) different things.
http://www.astrologer.com/tests/randitest.htm
No need to sign your posts
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by ChessPraxisWow... an astrology website as a resource? I'm sure that's about as reliable as astrology is.
If I were projecting, I'd have called you a genius.
Again you contradict yourself.
All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant.
Provide an example where he did not offer the applicant the ability to approve the process. Idiot.
Approving and participating in the design of the test are two (2) different things.
http://www.astrologer.com/tests/randitest.htm
No need to sign your posts
You are right about one thing - approving and participating in the design of the test are two different things.
The point is that if the participant has a problem with the way the test will work, they don't have to participate and they are offered the ability to do both.
Most genius' start off with a logical argument... wonder why you started off with slinging insults. Don't worry... I won't let you waste any of my time by posting anything else in response in this thread.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYes, astrology one of the pseudo sciences, I am not saying astrology is "real."
Wow... an astrology website as a resource? I'm sure that's about as reliable as astrology is.
You are right about one thing - approving and participating in the design of the test are two different things.
The point is that if the participant has a problem with the way the test will work, they don't have to participate and they are offered the ab ...[text shortened]... I won't let you waste any of my time by posting anything else in response in this thread.
Let me use an example. This in a nutshell is just what is going down.
I am the great Axis, I have set up the Axis foundation and I will award anyone $1,000,000,000.00 US who can disprove anything I believe in.
I set up the tests and experiments, you can take them or leave them.
If Randi is such a great debunker, why doesn't he allow the participants to set up their own tests, then Randi could show the trickery? The answer is, he can't possibly know all the tricks, just most of them.
14 Dec 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasI believe God made the stars, that is where it ends. 🙂
ChessPraxis, do you believe in astrology? Honestly?
Well, this is Spiritual Forum, so it really is the correct forum to discuss it in. But astrology?
I used the astrologer's complaint as an example only.
14 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessPraxisI can very well see why astrologers are against Mr Randi.
I believe God made the stars, that is where it ends. 🙂
I used the astrologer's complaint as an example only.
So what is the astrologer's link proving? Nothing more that astrologers are aginst Mr Randi. Nothing else. Nothing else at all.
Every one thinking that they can prove anything supernatural can get his million dollar very easily. Uri Geller tried. He failed. Others have tried. Everyone has failed.
Mr Randi is sound. Astrologers are not.