An Open Letter To James Randi
Bruce Daniel Kettler
CC: ra...@randi.org
(ARCHIVES FOR VERIFICATION OF THIS POST: http://www.dejanews.com)
There has been some RECENT NEW controversy on Usenet regarding the
matter of Ed Dames, yourself, and a 1.1 Million Dollar Challenge. As I
understand, if a person can prove psychic ability, they will win that
money.
My showing on the WEB PAGE
(http://www.psicounsel.com/artbellclub/bdkspage.html) shows written
events as having been the latest. If you have proven claims regarding
recent offers from you, such as registered mail, I will be happy to
publish it at the WEB SITE, or even if you have claims that are not
proven, will write of the allegation. You need only send me e-mail and
further verification that it is from you, and I will copy your writing
to the WEB SITE. However, I require that this be verifiable by a
duplication on your WEB SITE (ra...@randi.org) before I will place your
writing at the Art Bell Chat Club Website.
Rumors abound of new developments in communication regarding this matter
since I wrote of 4 facts at a prominent WEBSITE, (clickable from the
first page of the 1.5 million hit per month Art Bell Site), and in
pertinent newsgroups:
I have disregarded non-provable and irrelevant facts, and only deal with
what cannot be disputed, such as the following:
1. You, James Randi, offered a challenge to all, that if they anyone
can prove psychic ability, they win, at this time, approximately 1.1
million dollars.
2. Ed Dames has made it clear to you, James Randi, that PSI TECH wishes
to meet the challenge and discuss terms on the Art Bell Show. A
statement appeared on the PSI TECH WEB PAGES from the PSI TECH Vice
President. It was announced on the Art Bell Show, witnessed by
millions, and that broadcast was archived. Further, the offer did not
entail you having any financial expense or time in transportation. I
know I sent numerous e-mails to you at ra...@randi.org regarding this,
as copies of the posts in Deja News archives were sent simultaneously
with the posts.
3. In accordance with the published offer, that a contract will be
negotiated:
offer at:
=======and so, if a contract will be negotiated,
=======technicalities regarding a signed contract
=======before such negotiation, are logically irrelevant.
4. You, James Randi have not contacted Ed Dames or Art Bell to appear on
the show since the offer last March.
I am a SKEPTIC, and so I deal with FACTS, not rumors, and not
irrelevancies. I am probably not, by your definition, a SKEPTIC, but
that's of no matter.
Being a SKEPTIC, I also do not find RUMORS to be relevant. I consider
any writing ABOUT what you wrote, or any ALLEGED writing from you on the
INTERNET to be mere THEORY that is ALLEGED to be a statement from you.
Anyone familiar with the INTERNET knows that forgeries and lies abound.
--
E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
http://www.psicounsel.com
ART BELL CLUB: /artbellclub after "com"
WEBMASTER: /webmaster after "com"
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler, rumor god to the psychics,
> puffed up his ego and set forth:
> >CC: ra...@randi.org
> >(ARCHIVES FOR VERIFICATION OF THIS POST: http://www.dejanews.com)
> >There has been some RECENT NEW controversy on Usenet regarding the
> >matter of Ed Dames, yourself, and a 1.1 Million Dollar Challenge. As I
> >understand, if a person can prove psychic ability, they will win that
> >money.
> WRONG! The Challange CLEARLY states that the potential claimants must
> _first_ agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Randi's Challange
> (see www.randi.org). This problem you continually have with comprehension
> of the Terms and Conditions never ceases to amaze.
I have read the terms, and my posts show a clear comprehension of them,
and so have many other people read them. There is provision for a
"contract." As such *all* terms are subject to negotiation. There can
be no scientific inquiry without discussion.
If terms must be agreed to before negotiations, then this is a bogus
offer.
It is an illogical and tricky illusion your master wishes to put over on
the public. Indeed, the illusion is fading rapidly in the public eye,
and
I do not consider USENET to be the bulk of the public.
> Just when in hell will it ever sink into your thick skull that this is
> Randi's Challange, not yours?!
Randi can do whatever he want's with *his* so-called "challenge", and it
is becoming worth less as a propaganda tool with each further
declaration from his followers, such as yourself.
>If you and Dawes want to accept the
>Challange, then do so under Randi's terms, or shut up.
No one wants to "shut up" as you say, but rather to expose this "offer"
for the sham that it is. When it is understood by the general public:
Usenet
The World Wide Web
Art Bell listeners
CNN VIEWERS (perhaps)
and other mainstream media
as the sham it is, then, perhaps, people will "shut up."
> (snip)
> > 1. You, James Randi, offered a challenge to all, that if they anyone
> >can prove psychic ability, they win, at this time, approximately 1.1
> >million dollars.
> Under the terms of Challange. There is no other way.
And, the "terms" are something like:
Ah, I, the Amazing Randi, master of illusion
do place this, oh [for real, a stage magician]
an offer for 1.1 million dollars
and now you see it, and now you don't
ooops!
Rabbit out of the hat, here it comes. I have
1.1 million dollars here, and it's real, just
like the rabbit that really came out of ?????
> >2. Ed Dames has made it clear to you, James Randi, that PSI TECH wishes
> >to meet the challenge and discuss terms on the Art Bell Show.
> (snip)
> Just what makes you think that Randi wants to come on Bell's show? And
> what makes you think that there are "terms" to discuss? The Terms are
True science involves discussion, not dictated terms for critera of what
is real, and what is not.
> explicitly spelled out in the Challange document (www.randi.org). If you
> want to accept, the terms clearly state that testing protocols will be
> discussed between the challanger and Randi, and Randi reserves final
> approval. If you don't like them terms- tough!
And, if Randi has the final say, and there is no negotiation, then the
offer is obviously BOGUS! You still haven't got that yet, do you? To
get it, you would only need the use of ordinary SKEPTICISM and pure
REASONING ABILITY, and some intelligence, ABSENT OF THE BRAINWASHING AND
DEVOTION OF A FOLLOWER.
That's all the cards it takes, but I guess you don't have the full deck
required.
> >4. You, James Randi have not contacted Ed Dames or Art Bell to appear on
> >the show since the offer last March.
> BFD! He is under no obligation to call, the obligation is YOURS.
Hey, let's go back to LOGIC 101:
1. Person A makes an offer to negotiate
2. Person B agrees to the offer to negotiate
3. Person A says "well, let's go"
4. Person B says, "no"
Well, where are we?
Add to that, his followers say:
"Nothing to negotiate"
Obviously there is something to negotiate. Should we trust Randi?
Should we give the entire test to him to design, to declare terms about,
and to declare, from trusting him, if anyone won? Is that a "test" or
is it the illusion of a master trickster?
> He does
> not go crawling after wannabe psychic's. It is HIS Challange. He has the
> money, and he sets the rules, not the other way around. IF you want his
> money, you have to go after it. If you think you can demonstrate a talent,
> do so and quit acting like a buffon.
Hey, wake up, will you?
> >I am a SKEPTIC, and so I deal with FACTS, not rumors, and not
> >irrelevancies. I am probably not, by your definition, a SKEPTIC, but
> >that's of no matter.
> Amazing, since all we ever get from you is rumors and irrelevent tripe.
No, if the reader will go to the following page:
http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm
or YAHOO: type in "Skeptics what they do and why"
and click at the relevant parts on that first page, they will find
much that is highly relevant regarding Randi, CSICOP, and the whole
house that has been tumbling down.
Go sit on your feeble wall, Humpty Dumpty.
Bruce Hutchinson
Bruce Daniel Kettler, rumor god to the psychics,
puffed up his ego and set forth:
>CC: ra...@randi.org
>
>(ARCHIVES FOR VERIFICATION OF THIS POST: http://www.dejanews.com)
>
>There has been some RECENT NEW controversy on Usenet regarding the
>matter of Ed Dames, yourself, and a 1.1 Million Dollar Challenge. As I
>understand, if a person can prove psychic ability, they will win that
>money.
WRONG! The Challange CLEARLY states that the potential claimants must
_first_ agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Randi's Challange
(see www.randi.org). This problem you continually have with comprehension
of the Terms and Conditions never ceases to amaze.
Just when in hell will it ever sink into your thick skull that this is
Randi's Challange, not yours?! If you and Dawes want to accept the
Challange, then do so under Randi's terms, or shut up.
>
(snip)
>
> 1. You, James Randi, offered a challenge to all, that if they anyone
>can prove psychic ability, they win, at this time, approximately 1.1
>million dollars.
Under the terms of Challange. There is no other way.
>2. Ed Dames has made it clear to you, James Randi, that PSI TECH wishes
>to meet the challenge and discuss terms on the Art Bell Show.
(snip)
Just what makes you think that Randi wants to come on Bell's show? And
what makes you think that there are "terms" to discuss? The Terms are
explicitly spelled out in the Challange document (www.randi.org). If you
want to accept, the terms clearly state that testing protocols will be
discussed between the challanger and Randi, and Randi reserves final
approval. If you don't like them terms- tough!
>
>4. You, James Randi have not contacted Ed Dames or Art Bell to appear on
>the show since the offer last March.
BFD! He is under no obligation to call, the obligation is YOURS. He does
not go crawling after wannabe psychic's. It is HIS Challange. He has the
money, and he sets the rules, not the other way around. IF you want his
money, you have to go after it. If you think you can demonstrate a talent,
do so and quit acting like a buffon.
>I am a SKEPTIC, and so I deal with FACTS, not rumors, and not
>irrelevancies. I am probably not, by your definition, a SKEPTIC, but
>that's of no matter.
Amazing, since all we ever get from you is rumors and irrelevent tripe.
>Anyone familiar with the INTERNET knows that forgeries and lies abound.
Your post being a prime example.
So here we have Kettler strutting around as he was a "important person";
pretending that Randi should come begging to him and Bell to appear on this
show. Randi, having better things to do than cater to puffed up buffons,
will probably ignore this latest "summons" without comment; it certainly
does not require one from him.
-He is not interested in letting you try and dictate the rules- the rules
are already set.
-He is not interested in discussing terms- the terms have already been
clearly stated.
-He is not especially not interested in wannabe's and frauds who use
tactics like this for ego inflating and as a promotional gimick.
One more time- this is _Randi's_ challange, and Randi sets the rules- not
you. If this is too much for your over-inflated ego to handle, so be it.
hutch
"Once an idea is created, it never disappears, no matter
how often it is disproved" -- as quoted by Milton Rothman
Scot Justice
On Mon, 02 Jun 1997 18:36:05 -0600, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
Brucey, don't tell me your going to rehash this old bullshit again,
geeze, don't you ever learn:)
Scot
dr. digger
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>CC: ra...@randi.org
>
[Idiot the Bruce offers to rewrite the rules of the Randi
Challenge so that Dames' failure to accept the Randi Challenge
is construed as Randi's failure to accept the Dames Challenge]
If there is any lingering doubt about whether this
Kattlewhacker is the Kattlewhacker we've come to know, this
should have dispelled it.
dr. digger
"Serious idiot-free replies only, please"
Dan Pressnell
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> 4. You, James Randi have not contacted Ed Dames or Art Bell to appear on
> the show since the offer last March.
Neither has Dames seriously tried to get a contract. Bruce, this is yet
another of the smear campaigns you choose to participate in.
"Appearing on the show" is not what it's all about.
Get in touch with Dames and ask him what he's afraid of.
Dan
Michael D. Painter
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote in article
<339366...@psicounsel.com>...
> CC: ra...@randi.org
<senseless sentences snipped.>
Isn't the Art Bell show the one that told of the companion to Hale Bopp and
the prominent scientists who were going to tell all, and the messages being
sent from the device?
Isn't the Art Bell show the one that has been strangely silent since the
information that the twit who reported the companion did not know how to
use the software that would have told him it was a star?
I realize that the ability to read does not imply comprehension but you
might try again.
Why not have Art Bell put up a similar amount of money. Said money going to
anyone that could disprove the crap he posts.
Lady Nidiffer
Kookie Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com>stopped playing with his
hair long enough to write in article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>...
<ZAP>
<nothing much of anything, same o same o>
Hey, Bruce, Congrats on the KoTM win.
Lady Nidiffer of the SKEP-TI-CULT® Officer # 16-07325-118
Hallelujah, they've finally found a way to prove a negative. Isn't it
wonderful to live in the Age of Unreason.--Dr. Tim BsD
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com>
> >Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
> >> >CC: ra...@randi.org
> >> >There has been some RECENT NEW controversy on Usenet regarding the
> >> >matter of Ed Dames, yourself, and a 1.1 Million Dollar Challenge. As I
> >> >understand, if a person can prove psychic ability, they will win that
> >> >money.
> >> WRONG! The Challange CLEARLY states that the potential claimants must
> >> _first_ agree to the terms and conditions
And, I can assume, that this coming from one as close to James Randi as
you are, such a long-time defender of the faith, that the official word
is that the rumors are just rumors, that all I've been reading on the
WEB about new offers coming from Randi via registered mail, etc. are
just rumors. It's what I wrote I suspected in my original post of this
subject, and I'm gratified to have that confirmed by you.
> >I have read the terms, and my posts show a clear comprehension of them,
> >and so have many other people read them.
Wasn't there a former version at www.randi.org with the word "contract"
in it?
Last time I looked, the word was not there. I would have to check my
copy to see, but it seems to me that it *did* have the word "contract"
in it.
> Your posts show only blurred "interpretations", but certainly no
> comprehension.
No, I've many times referred to the demand to "read this, sign that,
etc" It's in my March 13 post "Randi Ran Away" (archives:
www.dejanews.com) I did not misinterpret what was written at the JREF
site, but rather had not seen any sense to it.
> >There is provision for a
> >"contract." As such *all* terms are subject to negotiation. There can
> >be no scientific inquiry without discussion.
> >If terms must be agreed to before negotiations, then this is a bogus
> >offer.
> >It is an illogical and tricky illusion your master wishes to put over on
> >the public.
> Yeah- he sure did pull a fast on psychic frauds.
Let's see this deceptive technique, in debate, has a name. Is it
"clouding the issue?" Is it "changing the subject"? I am not sure of
the exact terms.
> He wrote a Challange in
> language so clear and explicit that everyone, except you and your wannabe
> buddies, seems to understand.
I understand what was written, but the reason, the logic, the sense,
just does not seem to be there. If one is to negotiate, then one is to
negotiate, not sign a paper before negotiations about how to negotiate.
It ceases to be a negotiation when one has to agree to terms
beforehand. It is a dictator-type transaction, with the illusion of
negotiation.
<snip>
> hutch
> "Once an idea is created, it never disappears, no matter
> how often it is disproved" -- as quoted by Milton Rothman
I will take it, from your post, that the subject is closed. If I, or
anyone else does not like the terms of Randi's challenge, we can go soak
our heads, I guess. Okay, I'll go soak my head.
I also assume that Randi still does not want to negotiate under any
other conditions than those he has dictated: >>> sign this first, and
then we talk
Those two points are well taken, and so there's nothing more to discuss.
Hawker Flora
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
(snips)
> 1. You, James Randi, offered a challenge to all, that if they anyone
> can prove psychic ability, they win, at this time, approximately 1.1
> million dollars.
That bit's right. RANDI made the challenge, not Dames.
> 2. Ed Dames has made it clear to you, James Randi, that PSI TECH wishes
> to meet the challenge and discuss terms on the Art Bell Show.
Since when did anyone say a condition of RANDI's challenge was that
RANDI had to appear on the Art Bellshit (TM) Show?
You mean Dames accepts the challenge, but want to make the rules, and
golly, Randi is a real party pooper for refusing to abide by Dames rules
which were not, are not and never will be part of the RANDI challenge.
Get real.
ron hawker, in Kerikeri NZ
--
************************************************
Kerikeri -- it's so nice they named it twice!
Come visit us at http://www.igrin.co.nz/~flowers
************************************************
Bruce Hutchinson
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> scribed:
>Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>
>> Bruce Daniel Kettler, rumor god to the psychics,
>> puffed up his ego and set forth:
>
>> >CC: ra...@randi.org
>
>> >There has been some RECENT NEW controversy on Usenet regarding the
>> >matter of Ed Dames, yourself, and a 1.1 Million Dollar Challenge. As I
>> >understand, if a person can prove psychic ability, they will win that
>> >money.
>
>> WRONG! The Challange CLEARLY states that the potential claimants must
>> _first_ agree to the terms and conditions set forth in Randi's Challange
>> (see www.randi.org). This problem you continually have with comprehension
>> of the Terms and Conditions never ceases to amaze.
>
>I have read the terms, and my posts show a clear comprehension of them,
>and so have many other people read them.
Your posts show only blurred "interpretations", but certainly no
comprehension.
>There is provision for a
>"contract." As such *all* terms are subject to negotiation. There can
>be no scientific inquiry without discussion.
>
>If terms must be agreed to before negotiations, then this is a bogus
>offer.
>It is an illogical and tricky illusion your master wishes to put over on
>the public.
Yeah- he sure did pull a fast on psychic frauds. He wrote a Challange in
language so clear and explicit that everyone, except you and your wannabe
buddies, seems to understand.
>> (snip)
>
>> > 1. You, James Randi, offered a challenge to all, that if they anyone
>> >can prove psychic ability, they win, at this time, approximately 1.1
>> >million dollars.
>
>> Under the terms of Challange. There is no other way.
>
>And, the "terms" are something like:
>
> Ah, I, the Amazing Randi, master of illusion
> do place this, oh [for real, a stage magician]
>
> an offer for 1.1 million dollars
>
> and now you see it, and now you don't
>
> ooops!
>
> Rabbit out of the hat, here it comes. I have
> 1.1 million dollars here, and it's real, just
> like the rabbit that really came out of ?????
The above sure shows how well you read the terms of the Challange.
Yessiree bob- you sure got the wording reeeaaal good.
>> >2. Ed Dames has made it clear to you, James Randi, that PSI TECH wishes
>> >to meet the challenge and discuss terms on the Art Bell Show.
>> (snip)
>
>> Just what makes you think that Randi wants to come on Bell's show? And
>> what makes you think that there are "terms" to discuss? The Terms are
>
>True science involves discussion, not dictated terms for critera of what
>is real, and what is not.
This is NOT a science project- this is a demonstration of your (or Dawes)
talent. If you want to be disected by a scientific committee, find a
university that is willing to study psychic lab rats.
A high school freshman can tell you that is you want to do "Science", you
will need a lot more time, money, equipment, money, people, and money to do
it right. This is simply a demonstration, despite your illusionary
attempts to alter the focus.
>
>> explicitly spelled out in the Challange document (www.randi.org). If you
>> want to accept, the terms clearly state that testing protocols will be
>> discussed between the challanger and Randi, and Randi reserves final
>> approval. If you don't like them terms- tough!
>
>And, if Randi has the final say, and there is no negotiation, then the
>offer is obviously BOGUS! You still haven't got that yet, do you? To
>get it, you would only need the use of ordinary SKEPTICISM and pure
>REASONING ABILITY, and some intelligence, ABSENT OF THE BRAINWASHING AND
>DEVOTION OF A FOLLOWER.
I repeat- If you don't like the terms, tough! Just slink away, and go back
to bamboozeling the gullible. Your ludicrous attempt to appear "skeptical"
is as about as believable as Curly's (another KotM, like you) attempts to
predict yesterdays weather.
>
>> >4. You, James Randi have not contacted Ed Dames or Art Bell to appear on
>> >the show since the offer last March.
>
>> BFD! He is under no obligation to call, the obligation is YOURS.
>
>Hey, let's go back to LOGIC 101:
You really should, as the example below shows no logic whatsoever.
> 1. Person A makes an offer to negotiate
> 2. Person B agrees to the offer to negotiate
> 3. Person A says "well, let's go"
> 4. Person B says, "no"
>
>Well, where are we?
Try this:
1. Person A offers $1.1 million to anyone who can demonstrate
psychic abilities under supervised, controled conditions.
2. Person B says OK, but under MY conditions.
3. Person A says: Read the Terms of the Challange, idiot.
4. Person B whines: No fair! I wanna do my way! Not Fair!
Not Fair! (Stomps feet petulantly)
5. Person A says: Goodbye.
THAT, Ketller, is your "logic", and how it (logically) ends up.
One more time- this is _Randi's_ challange, and Randi sets the rules- not
you. If this is too much for your over-inflated ego to handle, so be it.
dr. digger
"Michael D. Painter" <mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
>Isn't the Art Bell show the one that has been strangely silent since the
>information that the twit who reported the companion did not know how to
>use the software that would have told him it was a star?
Incredibly, Art had Chuck Schramek on again as a guest a few
weeks ago. Even more incredibly, Schramek still maintains
that what he "photographed" was a bona fide astronomical
anomaly.
Not surprisingly, KotM Kettler also continues to believe in
Hale-Mary.
>Why not have Art Bell put up a similar amount of money. Said money going to
>anyone that could disprove the crap he posts.
Art would hate having to write a monthly check to the Knights
of afa-b.
dr. digger
"Hale-Mary, full of Greys..." -- caller
Glen Quarnstrom
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
<is this the REAL Bruce, finally?>
<self-important blathering deleted>
>Anyone familiar with the INTERNET knows that forgeries and lies abound.
As does bullshit, KattleBanger.
What happened with the Doo, dude?
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
"afa-b's leading curmudgeon"
Edward Flaherty
One important aspect of Randi's challenge is that *both* parties
must agree before hand on what constitutes a successful result
and what is a failure. Moreover, the results must be obvious to
any observer, requiring no interpretation. Presumably, anyone who has
accepted this challenge has met these conditions. And since no one
has succeeded under such terms, it is clear that by their own
definition those claiming possession of paranormal abilities
have failed to demonstrate those abilities under conditions
which preclude trickery or chance.
--
Edward Flaherty Web Site:
Department of Economics http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~eflahert
Florida State University Fax: (904) 644-4535
efla...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
Dan M.
Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> scribed:
>
> >Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>
>
> >> He wrote a Challange in
> >> language so clear and explicit that everyone, except you and your wannabe
> >> buddies, seems to understand.
> >
> >just does not seem to be there. If one is to negotiate, then one is to
> >negotiate, not sign a paper before negotiations about how to negotiate.
> >It ceases to be a negotiation when one has to agree to terms
> >beforehand. It is a dictator-type transaction, with the illusion of
> >negotiation.
>
> here.
>
> >I will take it, from your post, that the subject is closed. If I, or
> >anyone else does not like the terms of Randi's challenge, we can go soak
> >our heads, I guess. Okay, I'll go soak my head.
>
>
> >I also assume that Randi still does not want to negotiate under any
> >other conditions than those he has dictated: >>> sign this first, and
> >then we talk
>
> have dictated. That about right? Hypocrite.
>
> > ... and so there's nothing more to discuss.
>
> That appears to be the case.
>
> hutch
> All progress is based upon a universal innate desire
> on the part of every organism to live beyond its
> income. --Samual Butler
I've been following this debate after I got into an e-mail discussion
with an astrologer that wrote that QM and astrology were on comparable
levels of proof.
Could I please have someone issue a Randi-type challenge for proof of
the validity of QM? Also, while I'm asking, could they recognize this
post as accepting the challenge before it was offered?
I would even do it for considerably less than a million dollars.
Dan M.
Bruce Hutchinson
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> scribed:
>Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
(snip)
>> He wrote a Challange in
>> language so clear and explicit that everyone, except you and your wannabe
>> buddies, seems to understand.
>
Glen Quarnstrom
bhe...@spamfree.polarnet.com (dr. digger) wrote:
Yeah, I think the REAL KotM, complete with DeadCatDoo, is back in all
his putrid glory. I wonder if we could get him elected twice in a
row? How about Crackpot Of The Year?
Arne Langsetmo
In <3394F8...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
>
>> >> >There has been some RECENT NEW controversy on Usenet
>> >> >regarding the matter of Ed Dames, yourself, and a 1.1
>> >> >Million Dollar Challenge. As I understand, if a
>> >> >person can prove psychic ability, they will win that
>> >> >money.
>
>> >> WRONG! The Challange CLEARLY states that the potential
>> >> claimants must _first_ agree to the terms and conditions
>
>James Randi as you are, such a long-time defender of the
>faith, that the official word is that the rumors are just
>rumors, that all I've been reading on the WEB about new
>offers coming from Randi via registered mail, etc. are
>just rumors. It's what I wrote I suspected in my original
>post of this subject, and I'm gratified to have that
>confirmed by you.
Hey, Brucie, you brilliant KotM, Bruce Hutchinson doesn't
speak for Randi, as you would know if you really read the
challenge (quotes are from "http://www.randi.org/chall.htm"
as of June 5, 1997):
". . .the implementation and management of the challenge
will be carried out by James Randi and/or the James
Randi Educational Foundation."
Nor does Bruce H. say he does. He says only what is in
the challenge itself:
". . . [A]ll claimants must agree to the rules set forth
here before _any_ formal agreement is entered into. A
claimant will declare agreement by signing this form
where indicated before a notary public and returning the
form to me.
Tell me, Mr. Kettler: What part of this don't you
understand?
You can choose to believe any rumours you want, but then
you believe in psychic abilities, so I'm surprised you
don't know the actual truth of the matter already. As
for me, I don't put any stock in rumours on the web.
So why even mention them?
>> >I have read the terms, and my posts show a clear
>> >comprehension of them, and so have many other people
>> >read them.
>
>Wasn't there a former version at www.randi.org with
>the word "contract" in it?
>
>Last time I looked, the word was not there. I would
>have to check my copy to see, but it seems to me that
>it *did* have the word "contract" in it.
Are you given to responding to your own comments? Talk
to yourself a lot, do you, Mr. Kettler? Wonder why. . .
What difference does it make if there _was_ the word
"contract" in there? Perhaps you could explain _why_
this is of _any_ importance.
>> Your posts show only blurred "interpretations", but
>> certainly no comprehension.
>
>No, I've many times referred to the demand to "read
>this, sign that, etc" It's in my March 13 post "Randi
>Ran Away" (archives: www.dejanews.com) I did not
>misinterpret what was written at the JREF site, but
>rather had not seen any sense to it.
The important part is not whether _you_ can figure it out.
There is just no getting around the fact that certain
people can't read _plain_ English, as demonstrated above.
The important part is what the offer actually _says_, and
how a court will interpret that, should it come to that.
The offer is straight-forward, and quite fair, IMHO:
"The eventual test procedure must be agreed upon by
both parties before any testing procedures will take
place. We do not act as a judges. We do not design
the protocol independently of the claimant. . ."
"Claimant must state clearly in advance, and claimant
and Mr. Randi will agree upon, just what powers or
abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the
proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and
other variables are concerned) and what will constitute
both a positive and a negative result."
This language seems to anticipate and provide for the
various different types of claimed abilities, amd means
of demonstrating such, by allowing an agreed upon test
procedure to resolve the claim. Note that this is the
_test procedure_, _not_ the _terms_ of the challenge.
In addition, the claimant must state _in advance_ just
what abilities it is that they claim. Signing the
agreement, agreeing to the terms, and stating what
abilities are claimed must be done before any negotiation
of the test procedures. This is what Mr. Dames needs to
do, _not_ make some blustering challenge to an open
"debate" on Art Bell's show concerning the "terms" of
the agreement. What part of _this_ don't _you_
understand, Mr. Kettler?
>> >There is provision for a "contract." As such *all*
>> >terms are subject to negotiation. There can be no
>> >scientific inquiry without discussion.
>
>> >If terms must be agreed to before negotiations, then
>> >this is a bogus offer.
>> >
>> >It is an illogical and tricky illusion your master
>> >wishes to put over on the public.
>
>> Yeah- he sure did pull a fast on psychic frauds.
>
>Let's see this deceptive technique, in debate, has a name.
>Is it "clouding the issue?" Is it "changing the subject"?
>I am not sure of the exact terms.
No great surprise that you have no idea what name this
goes by in debate. It's called "satire". But it seems it
went over your head completely, Mr. Kettler.
Back to your original comment here: _Any_ public offer
like this is a contract, when it has been accepted or
performed by another party, whether it says so or not. I
guess you don't have much education in the law. It is
called a unilateral contract. But that doesn't mean that
it has to be _negotiated_; in fact, the opposite is true.
Unilateral contracts are by definition _not_ negotiated.
I have absolutely _no_ idea where you got the kooky idea
that any potential acceptor has the right to renegotiate
the terms of such a contract. That woud be laughed out
of court in two seconds flat.
And what this has to do with "scientific inquiry", I
don't know. Enlighten me, Mr. Kettler. Are unilateral
contracts subject to renegotiation in the interest of
"scientific inquiry"?
>> He wrote a Challange in language so clear and explicit
>> that everyone, except you and your wannabe buddies,
>> seems to understand.
>
>I understand what was written, but the reason, the logic,
>the sense, just does not seem to be there. If one is to
>negotiate, then one is to negotiate, not sign a paper
>before negotiations about how to negotiate. . . .
I'll excuse your limited comprehensive abilities. But,
if one is _not_ to negotiate, then one is _not_ to
negotiate. The _terms_ are _not_ subject to negotiation.
Has Mr. Dames fulfilled the prerequisites by accepting
the challenge as described? Has he stated what it is
that he claims he can do?
> . . . It ceases to be a negotiation when one has to
>agree to terms beforehand. It is a dictator-type
>transaction, with the illusion of negotiation.
Covered above. Tough luck. _Public_ offers cannot be
subject to negotiation, as the other party is unknown
until the offer is accepted by someone. Which is
probably _why_ Randi insists on acceptance _before_
any negotiation on test procedures.
><snip>
>
>> hutch
>
>> "Once an idea is created, it never disappears, no matter
>> how often it is disproved" -- as quoted by Milton Rothman
>
>I will take it, from your post, that the subject is closed.
You can take it from me that the essential nature of public
offer and acceptance is substantially as I described above.
If you can get Randi to make a separate agreement on terms
other than he has publicly offered, more power to you. But
don't say that any refusal of Mr. Randi to "negotiate" on
radio is an abrogation of his challenge. It is not, and
to say so is arguably false, with any attendant legal
ramifications.
>If I, or anyone else does not like the terms of Randi's
>challenge, we can go soak our heads, I guess. Okay, I'll
>go soak my head.
Oh, so that's how you get the fabulous "do", Mr. Kettler.
I really love the great picture of you on the Skep-ti-cult®
page ("http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998"). ;-)
>I also assume that Randi still does not want to negotiate
>under any other conditions than those he has dictated: >>>
>sign this first, and then we talk
Assume what you want. With half a brain, you might be
able to figure it out. . .
>Those two points are well taken, and so there's nothing
>more to discuss.
Never _was_ much to discuss. Which makes your "open letter"
to Randi all the more curious. . .
>--
>
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
[snip]
A word of advice, Mr. Kettler. If you have trouble with
understanding plain English, seek the counsel of someone
who _does_, before shooting your mouth off in public.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Skep-ti-cult® Member
ID #11-21568-211
Stolen Child
bog...@REMOVETHIS.earthlink.net (Dr. Tim) wrote:
>Congratulations on winning May's Kook of the Month Award.
>
>I knew you were the greatest kook of them all.
>
>Dr. Tim, BsD
>Art Bell Parody Pages:
>http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4695
> Let's get drunk and talk about aliens, dammit!
>IRC Undernet #afa-b
>
What's next, another Angstrom?
SKEP-TI-CULT® Official Charter Member #20-17839-569
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/4585
Home of The Hindsight Institute Remote Viewing Daycamp
Remove .spamfree From My Email Address Before Replying
"Art Bell's Coast to Coast...where the Reality challenged meet and greet!"
"Art Bell's Coast to Coast...it's only funny until someone gets hurt!"
dr. digger
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>So, we don't know how many votes there were, and we don't know how many
>voted under a number of aliases (used often by people of afa-b) and how
>many got friends who never see USENET, to vote.
Hell's Bells, Brucellosis Kattlebanger, you only got 32 votes.
There are about 50 members of the Skep-Ti-Cult®. That means
some of the Skep-Ti-Cultists® didn't even bother to vote for
you!
How can a sensible, rational person even begin to suspect a
fix? If anything, common sense suggests you should have a
couple hundred votes. Are you campaigning to get out the vote
for your next run?
dr. digger
Tom Schuler
>I've been following this debate after I got into an e-mail discussion
>with an astrologer that wrote that QM and astrology were on comparable
>levels of proof.
>
>Could I please have someone issue a Randi-type challenge for proof of
>the validity of QM? Also, while I'm asking, could they recognize this
>post as accepting the challenge before it was offered?
This sounds like a nice do-it-yourself project for a skeptic of QM. Just
collect a million bucks and offer it to anyone who can demonstrate a quantum
clearly and simply.
>I would even do it for considerably less than a million dollars.
Well, some people work more cheaply than others.
J. Morales
"Dan M." <sh...@wt.net> wrote:
>Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>>
>> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> scribed:
>>
>> >Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> >> He wrote a Challange in
>> >> language so clear and explicit that everyone, except you and your wannabe
>> >> buddies, seems to understand.
[snip]
>I've been following this debate after I got into an e-mail discussion
>with an astrologer that wrote that QM and astrology were on comparable
>levels of proof.
>Could I please have someone issue a Randi-type challenge for proof of
>the validity of QM? Also, while I'm asking, could they recognize this
>post as accepting the challenge before it was offered?
>I would even do it for considerably less than a million dollars.
>Dan M.
I assume by QM you refer to "quantum mechanics".
I understand that it is what modern physics is based upon.
Modern physics can predict most observable physical and energy
phenomena, therefore it seems to me that just about everything around
us is evidence of the validity of QM.
A quick quote (from http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#dirac ):
"Quantum theory is the most successful theory of physics and chemistry
ever. It accounts for a wide range of phenomena from black body
radiation, atomic structure and chemistry, which were very puzzling
before quantum mechanics was first developed (c1926) in its modern
form. All theories of physics are quantum physics, with whole new
fields, like the semiconductor and microchip technology, based upon
the quantum effects."
So it should be a doddle! :)
Or, perhaps the non-skeptics could offer a challenge themselves!!
JRM
Hawker Flora
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
(snips)
> I understand what was written, but the reason, the logic, the sense,
> just does not seem to be there.
Nothing's there, but you understand it. Figures.
> If one is to negotiate, then one is to negotiate, not sign a paper before
> negotiations about how to negotiate. It ceases to be a negotiation when
> one has to agree to terms beforehand. It is a dictator-type transaction,
> with the illusion of negotiation.
Which negotiation do you wish to negotiate. The one in your dreams? Or
the one that doesn't exist?
> If I, or anyone else does not like the terms of Randi's challenge, we can
> go soak our heads, I guess. Okay, I'll go soak my head.
Hey Bruce, I'm off to the next Olympics to contest the 10,000 metres
challenge. I'm a bit older than the other competitiors so I will run
only 8000m. And actually I'm not a runner so I will start the race a bit
earlier to learn how to run properly. And I will decide how many laps I
have run. And I will have my own judge deciding who wins the medal.
>
WHAT DO YOU MEAN? What rules? Who says I have to qualify for the finals?
Who says I have to run a full 10,000m? Who says I can't negotiate the
rules? That's not fair. How can I win unless I rig the race?!!!
Soak my head Bruce? Nope. After I've appeared on the Art Bellshit Show
I'll just carry on posting the same old whines about it not being fair
that I'm not allowed to rig the challenge.
>
> ................and so there's nothing more to discuss.
Done like a dinner Bruce, and scarpered with your tail between your
legs. Figures.
ron hawker, in Kerikeri, NZ
Dan Pressnell
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> No, I've many times referred to the demand to "read this, sign that,
> etc" It's in my March 13 post "Randi Ran Away" (archives:
> www.dejanews.com) I did not misinterpret what was written at the JREF
> site, but rather had not seen any sense to it.
How about talk about your STUPID demand that Randi go onto a radio
program to perform the negotiations?
> I understand what was written, but the reason, the logic, the sense,
> just does not seem to be there. If one is to negotiate, then one is to
> negotiate, not sign a paper before negotiations about how to negotiate.
> It ceases to be a negotiation when one has to agree to terms
> beforehand. It is a dictator-type transaction, with the illusion of
> negotiation.
And it's a stupid religious crusader like you who demands that the
"negotiations" be made live on national radio.
Where do you get the idea that "negotiation" requires such?
You are just a person who wants to SMEAR! You don't give a shit about
any honest debate. That's why you engage in dishonest dialogue so much
and embrace the liars that you embrace in these newsgroups.
Such a demand from a person who claims to have psychics on his payroll,
and yet has not answered the question of how they are tested to insure
they are genuine!
Dan
Sherilyn
In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes
...
[snip misleading stuff about Randi Challenge]
Here's a copy of the Randi Challenge. Should you at any time formulate
an intention to meet the challenge, follow the simple instructions.
This text taken from:
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
The Psychic Challenge
=====================
This statement outlines the general rules covering my offer concerning
psychic, supernatural or paranormal claims. Since claims will vary
greatly in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for
each claimant. However, all claimants must agree to the rules set forth
here before any formal agreement is entered into. A claimant will
declare agreement by signing this form where indicated before a notary
public and returning the form to me. The eventual test procedure must be
agreed upon by both parties before any testing procedures will take
place. We do not act as a judges. We do not design the protocol
independently of the claimant. All claimants must identify themselves
properly before any discussion takes place. Due to the large amount of
correspondence exchanged on this subject, all correspondence must
include a stamped, self-addressed envelope or -- for foreign applicants
-- just the self-addressed envelope. The sum offered is constantly being
added to. You may contact the Foundation to ask for an update on the
current total.
I, James Randi, will pay the sum of $1,112,000* through the James Randi
Educational Foundation to any person or persons who will demonstrate any
psychic, supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under
satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must take place
under these rules and limitations:
This offer, as of May 1, 1996, is managed and guaranteed by the James
Randi Educational Foundation (J.R.E.F.), Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
1.Claimant must state clearly in advance, and claimant and Mr. Randi
will agree upon, just what powers or abilities will be demonstrated,
the limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location
and other variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a
positive and a negative result.
2.Only an actual performance of the stated nature and scope within the
agreed-upon limits as described in this document, is acceptable.
3.Claimant agrees that all data (such as photographic, recorded,
written) of any sort gathered as a result of the testing may be used
freely by me in any way Mr. Randi may choose.
4.Tests will be designed in such a way that no judging procedure is
required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in
accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in
advance of any formal testing procedure taking place. No part of the
testing procedure may be changed in any way without the express
agreement of all parties concerned.
5.The claimant may be required to perform informally before an
appointed representative, if distance and time dictate that need, for
purposes of determining if the claimant is likely to perform as
promised. * please note rule #8, below.
6.Expenses such as transportation, accommodation or other costs
incurred by the claimant are the responsibility of the claimant.
7.When entering into this challenge, claimant surrenders any and all
rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and against the James Randi
Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established
statutes. This applies to injury, accident or any other damage of a
physical or emotional nature and/or financial, or professional loss
of any kind. This rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.
8.Prior to the commencement of the formal testing procedure, Mr. Randi
will give his check for his share (US$10,000) of the full reward
amount into the keeping of an independent person chosen by the
claimant. In the event that the claimant is successful under the
agreed terms and conditions, the check for US$10,000 shall be
immediately surrendered to the claimant by the person holding that
check, and the James Randi Educational Foundation will set about
notifying the 266 pledgers (who have promised additional funds,
bringing the prize amount to $1,112,000 as of March 31, 1997) to
forfeit the respective amounts they have promised, to the claimant.
However, the total pledged amount will be paid within seven (7) days
by the J.R.E.F., and the J.R.E.F. will undertake to obtain the
pledged funds from the pledgers. This will facilitate the payment of
the full sum to the claimant.
9.Copies of this document are available free of charge to any person
who sends the required stamped, self-addressed envelope requesting
it.
10.This offer is made by the James Randi Educational Foundation, and not
on behalf of any other person, agency or organization, though others
may become involved in the examination of claims, others may add
their reward money to mine in certain circumstances, and the
implementation and management of the challenge will be carried out by
James Randi and/or the James Randi Educational Foundation.
11.This offer is open to any and all persons, in any part of the world,
regardless of sex, race, educational background, etc., and will
continue in effect until the prize is awarded, or until the death of
James Randi. The Randi will states that, upon his death, the reward
amount will be held in escrow and in charge of the James Randi
Educational Foundation, which agency is then empowered to continue
the offer for a period of ten years after said demise, after which
the reward amount can be used by the Foundation for whatever purpose
they desire.
12.EVERY CLAIMANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT
HE OR SHE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER. This rule
must be accepted by all claimants, without reservation.
Claimant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form, signifies
agreement with all of the above rules.
(signed) James Randi
c/o James Randi Educational Foundation
201 S.E. Davie Boulevard
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815
USA
Claimant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form, signifies
agreement with the above rules.
Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great
personal embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly
advise you to conduct proper double-blind tests of any ability
you believe you can demonstrate, before attempting to undergo
a testing for this prize. This has saved me and many claimants
much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite
imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this,
and do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution.
-- James Randi
© Copyright 1996, 1997
--
Sherilyn
John Atkinson
Here's an ideal way to challenge for the $1,100,000 prize;
just beat me at predicting winning lottery numbers!
There are all the statistics you'll need on my lottery page here:
http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/prec/lottery.htm
A paranormal effect looks extremely likely if you can pick just one
correct numbers on each ticket on a run of 100 tickets.
Easy, huh?
--
Email: j...@bigfoot.com
http://www.manx2.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
> ...
> [snip misleading stuff about Randi Challenge]
If it was so misleading, how come you did not reply to it.
> Here's a copy of the Randi Challenge. Should you at any time formulate
> an intention to meet the challenge, follow the simple instructions.
>
> This text taken from:
>
> http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
>
> The Psychic Challenge
<snip>
> -- James Randi
>
> © Copyright 1996, 1997
> --
> Sherilyn
Typical, as the above, from the SKEP-TI-CULT. It's propagandizing, and
by omission, misleading.
My questions were snipped from your post and completely evaded and
completely evaded. How about possible cheating by Randi? How about
discussion of the conditions of the test, as had been offered on the Art
Bell show?
The thread was never read by you, to know what the issue was about, that
it had nothing to do with *me* meeting the challenge.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Edward Flaherty wrote:
>
> One important aspect of Randi's challenge is that *both* parties
> must agree before hand on what constitutes a successful result
> and what is a failure.
What if one of the two parties, James Randi, refuses to discuss it?
>Moreover, the results must be obvious to
> any observer, requiring no interpretation. Presumably, anyone who has
> accepted this challenge has met these conditions.
A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were in place to preculude
cheating
by James Randi.
>And since no one
> has succeeded under such terms, it is clear that by their own
> definition those claiming possession of paranormal abilities
> have failed to demonstrate those abilities under conditions
> which preclude trickery or chance.
What about trickery by the master trickster, himself, James Randi?
> --
> Edward Flaherty Web Site:
> Department of Economics http://garnet.acns.fsu.edu/~eflahert
> Florida State University Fax: (904) 644-4535
> efla...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu
--
John Atkinson
Sherilyn
[follow-ups to sci.skeptic,alt.fan.art-bell]
In article <3394F8...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes
...
>
>Wasn't there a former version at www.randi.org with the word "contract"
>in it?
>Last time I looked, the word was not there. I would have to check my
>copy to see, but it seems to me that it *did* have the word "contract"
>in it.
I have just posted the text of the current Randi Challenge as it stands
today. Clicking on View|Document Info in Netscape shows that it was
last updated on Monday, March 31, 1997 20:58:16 GMT (the time of the
last increase in the amount pledged). Checking in dejanews, I found
this old posting dated 6th May, 1996, over a year ago, from the
technogoddess of www.randi.org, which encloses the Randi Challenge as it
stood at that time.
The challenge at that time was substantially the same, and the word
"contract" did not appear (the posting can be checked on dejanews by
anyone). I enclose the full text of the posting. Perhaps Bruce Daniel
Kettler's remote viewing powers are at fault, or perhaps he is just
doing what he appears to be: spreading baseless rumors.
At the end of the included posting, I shall enumerate the differences
that have appeared in the challenge in the intervening 13 months. They
are mainly to do with the near-doubling of the money pledged, and an
improvement of the plans to deliver the pledges to the winner of the
challenge.
+++++++++START OF INCLUDED POSTING+++++++++++++++
Subject: The James Randi Challenge
From: tgod...@netcom.com (Maggie Ragaisis)
Date: 1996/05/06
Message-Id: <tgoddessD...@netcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
[More Headers]
Here is the text of James Randi's Challenge (which can also be found at:
http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html).
Please excuse any odd formatting; I had to strip out all the HTML which
may have re-aligned some things.
sincerely,
maggie ragaisis
technogoddess-at-large
Webmistress for the James Randi Educational Foundation
---cut here---
This statement outlines the general rules covering my offer
concerning psychic, supernatural or paranormal claims.
Since claims will vary greatly in character and scope,
specific rules must be formulated for each claimant.
However, all claimants must agree to the rules set forth
here before any formal agreement is entered into. A
claimant will declare agreement by signing this form where
indicated before a notary public and returning the form to
me. The eventual test procedure must be agreed upon by
both parties before any testing procedures will take place.
We do not act as a judges. We do not design the protocol
independently of the claimant. All claimants must identify
themselves properly before any discussion takes place. Due
to the large amount of correspondence exchanged on this
subject, all correspondence must include a stamped, self-
addressed envelope or an addressed envelope with an
International Reply Coupon.
I, James Randi, will pay the sum of US$621,000* to any
person or persons who will demonstrate any psychic,
supernatural or paranormal ability of any kind under
satisfactory observing conditions. Such demonstration must
take place under these rules and limitations:
This offer, as of May 1, 1996, is managed by the James
Randi Educational Foundation, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
1. Claimant must state clearly in advance, and claimant
and Mr. Randi will agree upon, just what powers or
abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the proposed
demonstration (so far as time, location and other variables
are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and
a negative result.
2. Only an actual performance of the stated nature and
scope within the agreed-upon limits as described in this
document, is acceptable.
3. Claimant agrees that all data (such as photographic,
recorded, written) of any sort gathered as a result of the
testing may be used freely by me in any way Mr. Randi may
choose.
4. Tests will be designed in such a way that no judging
procedure is required. Results will be self-evident to any
observer, in accordance with the rules which will be agreed
upon by all parties in advance of any formal testing
procedure taking place. No part of the testing procedure
may be changed in any way without the express agreement of
all parties concerned.
5. The claimant may be required to perform informally
before an appointed representative, if distance and time
dictate that need, for purposes of determining if the
claimant is likely to perform as promised. *please note rule #8, below.
6. Expenses such as transportation, accommodation or other
costs incurred by the claimant are the responsibility of
the claimant.
7. When entering into this challenge, claimant surrenders
any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, and
against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as
this may be done by established statutes. This applies to
injury, accident or any other damage of a physical or
emotional nature and/or financial, or professional, loss of
any kind.
8. Prior to the commencement of the formal testing
procedure, Mr. Randi will give his check for his share
(US$10,000) of the full reward amount into the keeping of
an independent person chosen by the claimant. In the event
that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and
conditions, the check for US$10,000 shall be immediately
surrendered to the claimant by the person holding that
check, and the James Randi Educational Foundation will set
about notifying the 240 pledgers (who have promised
additional funds, bringing the prize amount to US$621,000
as of May 1/96) to forfeit the respective amounts they have
promised, to the claimant.
9. Copies of this document are available free of charge to
any person who sends the required stamped, self-addressed
envelope requesting it.
10. This offer is made by James Randi personally, and not
on behalf of any other person, agency or organization,
though others may become involved in the examination of
claims, others may add their reward money to mine in
certain circumstances, and the implementation and
management of the challenge will be carried out by James
Randi and/or the James Randi Educational Foundation.
11. This offer is open to any and all persons, in any part
of the world, regardless of sex, race, educational
background, etc., and will continue in effect until the
prize is awarded, or until the death of James Randi. The
Randi will states that, upon his death, the reward amount
will be held in escrow and in charge of the James Randi
Educational Foundation, which agency is then empowered to
continue the offer for a period of ten years after said
demise, after which the reward amount can be used by the
Foundation for whatever purpose they desire.
12. EVERY CLAIMANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A
CONCLUSION THAT HE OR SHE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CLAIMED
ABILITY OR POWER. This rule must be accepted by all
claimants, without reservation.
Claimant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form,
signifies agreement with all of the above rules.
(signed) James Randi
12000 NW 8th Street
Plantation, FL 33325
-----------------------
Claimant, by signing, notarizing and returning this form, signifies
agreement with the above rules.
Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great
personal embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly
advise you to conduct proper double-blind tests of any ability
you believe you can demonstrate, before attempting to undergo
a testing for this prize. This has saved me and many claimants
much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite
imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this,
and do not choose to ignore the need for such a precaution.
-- James Randi
+++++++++END OF INCLUDED POSTING+++++++++++++++++
I note the following changes:
1. The James Randi Educational Foundation (J.R.E.F.) has relaxed
the requirement for a stamped addressed envelope from overseas
correspondents
2. The amount pledged has risen from $621,000 to $1,112,000.
3. The number of pledgers has risen from 210 to 266.
4. The phrase
"bringing the prize amount to US$621,000
as of May 1/96"
has been changed accordingly to
"bringing the prize amount to $1,112,000 as of
March 31, 1997"
5. In point 8, the following clarification has been added
on the process of gathering the award money from the
pledgers:
"However, the total pledged amount will be paid within
seven (7) days by the J.R.E.F., and the J.R.E.F. will
undertake to obtain the pledged funds from the pledgers.
This will facilitate the payment of the full sum to the
claimant."
6. The phrase
"This offer is made by James Randi personally"
has been changed to:
"This offer is made by the James Randi Educational
Foundation"
and the address for correspondence has been changed accordingly.
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <339994...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes
>Edward Flaherty wrote:
>>
>> One important aspect of Randi's challenge is that *both* parties
>> must agree before hand on what constitutes a successful result
>> and what is a failure.
>
>What if one of the two parties, James Randi, refuses to discuss it?
What if one of the parties (as appears to have happened here) does not
even send in the requisite notarized form signifying acceptance of the
terms of the challenge?
>
>>Moreover, the results must be obvious to
>> any observer, requiring no interpretation. Presumably, anyone who has
>> accepted this challenge has met these conditions.
>
>A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were in place to preculude
>cheating
>by James Randi.
Read the challenge (two copies of which I have posted today). The deal
doesn't go ahead until _both_ parties are agreed on what will constitute
proof of psychic powers and are happy with it.
>
>>And since no one
>> has succeeded under such terms, it is clear that by their own
>> definition those claiming possession of paranormal abilities
>> have failed to demonstrate those abilities under conditions
>> which preclude trickery or chance.
>
>What about trickery by the master trickster, himself, James Randi?
Again, read the challenge. The terms to be agreed shall include results
which shall be self-evident to all.
"4.Tests will be designed in such a way that no judging procedure is
required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in
accordance with the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in
advance of any formal testing procedure taking place. No part of the
testing procedure may be changed in any way without the express
agreement of all parties concerned."
An independent third party to be nominated by the claimant will hold
Randi's own $10 000 check, and will pay the check over on fulfilment of
the challenge by the successful claimant. The JREF shall pay the sum of
the remaining $1.2m pledged within one week, and then collect on the
pledges (this is an improvement on the original challenge, where the
successful claimant might have to wait for some time for the pledges to
be collected).
If the JREF reneges on that, you can sue em and the 266 pledgers for all
they've got. They wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Randi's challenge couldn't be clearer or more fair. Why are these self-
proclaimed psychics not flocking to claim the money?
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
In article <3399B4...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
>> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
>> ...
>> [snip misleading stuff about Randi Challenge]
>
The reply was the text of the instructions (which you snipped) which
shed light on your misleading claims. A later post of mine has shown
that you were wrong to insinuate that the terms of the challenge have
changed to drop the word "contract" from the offer (for what it's worth,
the first step in forming such a contract would be for Ed Dames to make
the first step in complying with the terms of the challenge).
>
>Typical, as the above, from the SKEP-TI-CULT. It's propagandizing, and
>by omission, misleading.
Bruce believes that by labelling others he can divert scrutiny from his
words.
>
>My questions were snipped from your post and completely evaded and
>completely evaded. How about possible cheating by Randi?
Answered with reference to the wording of the challenge, in another
post by me to this thread.
>How about
>discussion of the conditions of the test, as had been offered on the Art
>Bell show?
The terms of the challenge are laid out in the text which you snipped.
The first step is to deliver a notarised signature of the statement
terms of the challenge. Then the claimant can start negotiating with
Randi. Has Ed Dames in fact delivered the required notarized signature
of the statement of the terms of the challenge?
>
>The thread was never read by you, to know what the issue was about, that
>it had nothing to do with *me* meeting the challenge.
>
Excuse me, I mistook you for Ed Dames' sock puppet.
--
Sherilyn
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>Edward Flaherty wrote:
>>
>> One important aspect of Randi's challenge is that *both* parties
>> must agree before hand on what constitutes a successful result
>> and what is a failure.
>
>What if one of the two parties, James Randi, refuses to discuss it?
He hasn't refused to discuss it. He has refused to discuss
it on the Art Bell radio program.
Not exactly an unbiased forum.
>
>>Moreover, the results must be obvious to
>> any observer, requiring no interpretation. Presumably, anyone who has
>> accepted this challenge has met these conditions.
>
>A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were in place to preculude
>cheating
>by James Randi.
Do you have any evidence that James Randi cheated. If so,
you should post it or drop the subject.
>
>>And since no one
>> has succeeded under such terms, it is clear that by their own
>> definition those claiming possession of paranormal abilities
>> have failed to demonstrate those abilities under conditions
>> which preclude trickery or chance.
>
>What about trickery by the master trickster, himself, James Randi?
See above.
twi...@worldnet.att.net
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>Sherilyn wrote:
><snip>
> How about possible cheating by Randi?
If you have any evidence that he has cheated, please post
it. If not, please drop it.
>How about
>discussion of the conditions of the test, as had been offered on the Art
>Bell show?<snip>
This is not covered under the terms of the challange. Why
doesn't Art Bell offer a $1 million prize and then he can
gain the publicity he so obviously desires.
But, a discussion of terms on the Art Bell show has nothing
to do with the Randi challenge.
Edward Flaherty
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> Edward Flaherty wrote:
> >
> > One important aspect of Randi's challenge is that *both* parties
> > must agree before hand on what constitutes a successful result
> > and what is a failure.
>
> What if one of the two parties, James Randi, refuses to discuss it?
By the rules at his website, any person who sends in the preliminary
argreement signed and notarized is instantly qualified for the
challenge. Only then will Randi begin the techincal negotiations
for the specific case.
>
> >Moreover, the results must be obvious to
> > any observer, requiring no interpretation. Presumably, anyone who has
> > accepted this challenge has met these conditions.
>
> A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were in place to preculude
> cheating by James Randi.
>
> >And since no one
> > has succeeded under such terms, it is clear that by their own
> > definition those claiming possession of paranormal abilities
> > have failed to demonstrate those abilities under conditions
> > which preclude trickery or chance.
>
> What about trickery by the master trickster, himself, James Randi?
It is the claimant who is supposed to demonstrate an alleged ability,
not Randi. Since a precondition of the actual demonstration is an
agreement by both parties of which shall constitute a positive and
a negative result, and that the result must be self-evident and
require no interpretation, how could Randi possibly cheat? Maybe
he could tie the legs of a table to the ground prior to a table
elevating demonstration. Maybe he could emit his own negative
psychic energy to interfere with someone's detection of another's
aura. Or maybe he could shove a dowser off the correct path and
disrupt the claimant's divining rod. In any event, the official
demonstration does not begin until the claimant says he is ready.
The bottom line with these alleged paranormal abilities is that
when conditions are controlled to preclude cheating and chance,
those claiming such abilities have NEVER successfully demonstrated
them.
Glen Quarnstrom
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>
>>Sherilyn wrote:
>><snip>
>
>> How about possible cheating by Randi?
>
>If you have any evidence that he has cheated, please post
>it. If not, please drop it.
Here's my psychic prediction: He doesn't, and he won't.
Scot Justice
On Sat, 07 Jun 1997 22:42:36 GMT, twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>He hasn't refused to discuss it. He has refused to discuss
>it on the Art Bell radio program.
>
>Not exactly an unbiased forum.
Might be a sign of the quickening. just like Brus Doo:)
Scot
Scot Justice
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN? What rules? Who says I have to qualify for the finals?
>Who says I have to run a full 10,000m? Who says I can't negotiate the
>rules? That's not fair. How can I win unless I rig the race?!!!
You must understand, the rules are so that physic-bullshitters can't
win, and you know why, because they aren't real physics.... Go
figure:)
Scot
Arne Langsetmo
In <3399B4...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>
>Sherilyn wrote:
>
>> In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
>> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
>> ...
>> [snip misleading stuff about Randi Challenge]
>
>If it was so misleading, how come you did not reply to it.
_I did_ reply to it, so where the h___ is _your_ response?
*mutter* Idiot. . .
>> Here's a copy of the Randi Challenge. Should you at any
>> time formulate an intention to meet the challenge, follow
>> the simple instructions.
>>
>> This text taken from:
>>
>> http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
>>
>> The Psychic Challenge
>
><snip>
>
>> -- James Randi
>>
>> © Copyright 1996, 1997
>> --
>> Sherilyn
>
>Typical, as the above, from the SKEP-TI-CULT. It's propagandizing,
>and by omission, misleading.
Sherilyn posted the _full_ text of the challenge. How can you
possibly say _that_ was misleading? _You_ are the idiot that
snipped it!!! Who is trying to mislead? Who is engaging in
a game of omission?
>My questions were snipped from your post and completely evaded
>and completely evaded. How about possible cheating by Randi?
>How about discussion of the conditions of the test, as had
>been offered on the Art Bell show?
This was covered in my response to your post. Why don't you
respond to (and respond to) that? ;-)
>The thread was never read by you, to know what the issue was
>about, that it had nothing to do with *me* meeting the
>challenge.
_I_ read it, and stated that _Dames_ has to accept the challenge
first, before anything else is done. What's your problem, Mr.
Kettler?
>--
>
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
[snip]
Still waiting for some indication of sentience. . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Skep-ti-cult®
Member #11-21568-211
P.S.:
If you missed my reply, I'm sure you know how to use
DejaNews, Mr. Kettler. You keep talking so much about
it. . .
Bruce Hutchinson
Sherilyn <Sher...@sidaway.demon.co.uk> scribed:
(snip)
>
>Randi's challenge couldn't be clearer or more fair. Why are these self-
>proclaimed psychics not flocking to claim the money?
In the case of Kettler and Dawes, it is because they know that they cannot
flumox Randi. They're pissed because they will not be able to control the
demonstration. Should they try, Randi's controls will find them out, and
they know it. They're upset because all they REALLY want to do is smear
Randi, and he is not rising to the bait.
The main reason is because they know that they are fake psychics. If they
thought that they had even a remote chance of getting lucky, they'd be
flooding Randi with notarized acceptances. But because they are frauds,
they know that their fragile reputations will be forever destroyed.
Meanwhile, Randi is getting acceptances from others who are willing to put
their talents to the test. Dawes is apparently too cowardly to put his
"talents" on the line. His reasons are only too apparent.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Glen Quarnstrom gl...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> >>Sherilyn wrote:
> >><snip>
> >> How about possible cheating by Randi?
> >If you have any evidence that he has cheated, please post
> >it. If not, please drop it.
In the above paragraph, you wrote of something that was not about what
had been written in the paragraph above it. Possible cheating, and
evidence of cheating are two different things. You seem to have a
problem with logic, knowing what a point is, and following either the
logic or the point. This is evident throughout the archives in many of
your posts, and has been commented upon by others.
ARCHIVES: http://www.dejanews.com
In order to *rightfully and acceptably* (acceptable by reasonable
people) state that one has need to precluude the possibility of cheating
on the part of Randi, one does not have an obligation to prove prior
cheating by him.
In nearly every system of testing of psychics, certainly anything that
could be considered "scientific" *both sides* are obligated to prove
that proper controls are in place to eliminate the possiblity of
falsifying the results.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
>Scot
In order for something to be truly funny, Scot, or to actually
make a valid point through humor, it has to have
an element of realism to it. I don't mean it has to be absolutely
true, in the story content, but it has to be based upon reality.
Your writing is so far from reality, so out-of-touch with the
*actual* previous writing, with so much of it manufactured from
the cesspool which clouds your mind, that it reeks, and is far
from funny.
No-one has *actually* said anything similar to the idea that they
want to *beat* some rules. Someone may have used hyperbole, but
translating that so far from the actual meaning, as if it were
serious, is deception from you. The "hyperbole" had been so
out-of-touch with reality that it was not hyperbole, but rather
pure bul****t.
People have only offered to negotiate publicly. It being public,
on the radio, it's difficult to present options that would allow
cheating -- as authenticly presented rebuttal would preclude
that. Your writing is of attempted cheating, and that has
nothing to do with the full context of this thread. The thread
is clear, here. It's in the archives for all to see, and it
dates back many months, in any posting with "Randi" in the title,
and Bruce Daniel Kettler as the writer: http://www.dejanews.com
For those new to this, it's about a 1.1 million dollar bogus
offer for people to be able to win the money if they can prove
psychic ability. According to the propagandist cultists, no-one
can win because, supposedly, no-one is psychic.
More on this deceptive band of preachers of a "fundamentalist
materialism" on my pages which you can access from the search
engine:
YAHOO (www.yahoo.com)
TYPE: "Skeptics What they do and why"
Also, check out the book:
The New Inquisition
by
Robert Anton Wilson
Sherilyn
[follow-ups to alt.fan.art-bell,sci.skeptic]
In article <339AD5...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes
...
>
>In order to *rightfully and acceptably* (acceptable by reasonable
>people) state that one has need to precluude the possibility of cheating
>on the part of Randi, one does not have an obligation to prove prior
>cheating by him.
This is true, and it's why the Randi Challenge is careful to be fair and
clear on this point.
>
>In nearly every system of testing of psychics, certainly anything that
>could be considered "scientific" *both sides* are obligated to prove
>that proper controls are in place to eliminate the possiblity of
>falsifying the results.
>
If you check the wording of the Randi Challenge, you will see that the
testing protocols are to be negotiated between Randi and the claimant.
Both sides would of course have to be completely happy with the
conditions before going ahead with the test.
Your problem is, Ed Dames has not yet accepted the terms of the
challenge, so is in no position to negotiate the testing protocols.
http://www.randi.org/
--
Sherilyn
Sherilyn
[follow-ups to alt.fan.art-bell and sci.skeptic]
In article <339ac968...@news.pcisys.net>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com> writes
...
>
>People have only offered to negotiate publicly. It being public,
>on the radio, it's difficult to present options that would allow
>cheating -- as authenticly presented rebuttal would preclude
>that. Your writing is of attempted cheating, and that has
>nothing to do with the full context of this thread. The thread
>is clear, here. It's in the archives for all to see, and it
>dates back many months, in any posting with "Randi" in the title,
>and Bruce Daniel Kettler as the writer: http://www.dejanews.com
>
>For those new to this, it's about a 1.1 million dollar bogus
>offer for people to be able to win the money if they can prove
>psychic ability. According to the propagandist cultists, no-one
>can win because, supposedly, no-one is psychic.
>
I have posted the full text of the Randi challenge elsewhere on this
thread. To accept the challenge, a single notarized signature on the
form is required. Without this signature the challenge has not been
accepted. Randi doesn't make the test protocols up in isolation from
the claimant, and the challenge only goes ahead when the claimant is
good and ready. Randi doesn't judge the results. The winning claimant
will get Randi's $10, 000 check in his hand from a person he nominates
beforehand, and the J.R.E.F. will give him the remaining $1.2m within
seven days. What is bogus about this?
http://www.randi.org
--
Sherilyn
Lou Minatti
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz
> >(Hawker
> >Flora) wrote:
>
> >>WHAT DO YOU MEAN? What rules? Who says I have to qualify
> >>for the finals? Who says I have to run a full 10,000m?
> >>Who says I can't negotiate the
> >>rules? That's not fair. How can I win unless I rig the race?!!!
>
> >You must understand, the rules are so that physic-bullshitters
> >can't win, and you know why, because they aren't real
> >physics.... Go figure:)
>
> >Scot
>
> In order for something to be truly funny, Scot, or to actually
> make a valid point through humor, it has to have
> an element of realism to it. I don't mean it has to be absolutely
> true, in the story content, but it has to be based upon reality.
OK. Here's reality: You're sounding more and more like a stock character
from an old Ed Wood movie.
> Your writing is so far from reality, so out-of-touch with the
> *actual* previous writing, with so much of it manufactured from
> the cesspool which clouds your mind, that it reeks, and is far
> from funny.
The fools! The fools! Their simple human minds! Stupid! Stupid!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Marfa Mystery Lights:
http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/MARFA.HTM
(By sending me unsolicited commercial email, you agree to the Terms and
Conditions as listed here: http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/SPAM.HTM)
Bruce Hutchinson
d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) scribed:
>sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz
>>(Hawker
>>Flora) wrote:
>
>>>WHAT DO YOU MEAN? What rules? Who says I have to qualify
>>>for the finals? Who says I have to run a full 10,000m?
>>>Who says I can't negotiate the
>>>rules? That's not fair. How can I win unless I rig the race?!!!
>
>>You must understand, the rules are so that physic-bullshitters
>>can't win, and you know why, because they aren't real
>>physics.... Go figure:)
>
>>Scot
>
>In order for something to be truly funny, Scot, or to actually
>make a valid point through humor, it has to have
>an element of realism to it. I don't mean it has to be absolutely
>true, in the story content, but it has to be based upon reality.
Since Scott's allusions were aimed at a whining psychic, the whining
psychic's friend and their pathetic attempts to justify the psychic's
cowardise, his little parody was quite firmly grounded in reality. Not
that we expect a KotM winner to know what reality is...
But wait! Is Kettler is going to explain this "reality" of his to the eager
readers? Yup...
>Your writing is so far from reality, so out-of-touch with the
>*actual* previous writing, with so much of it manufactured from
>the cesspool which clouds your mind, that it reeks, and is far
>from funny.
Uh yeah. That is what constitutes Kettler's "reality"- manufactured from
the cesspool.
And now for the spin effort:
>No-one has *actually* said anything similar to the idea that they
>want to *beat* some rules.
Lets see. You refuse to accept Randi's rules, prefering to set your own.
You openly suggest that he is a cheater and a liar (without a shred of
proof, I might add), so therefore you must be allowed to make up new rules;
mainly because you know he will find you out.
In other words, you want to "beat the rules"; rules that will not allow
Dawes to doctor his "talents".
And now for more spin:
>Someone may have used hyperbole,
Someone? and this from the King of hyperbole?
>but
>translating that so far from the actual meaning, as if it were
>serious, is deception from you.
Oh! I see. We are not allowed to derive from your hyperbole the true
intent and meaning of your statements, because that would be deceptive?
Dream on.
>The "hyperbole" had been so
>out-of-touch with reality that it was not hyperbole, but rather
>pure bul****t.
Well, you wrote the bullshit, so we will let you describe it..
>People have only offered to negotiate publicly.
When you have accepted the Challange, as prescribed, then Randi will gladly
negotiate the protocols. He apparantly is totally disinterested in your
blatent attempt at a smear campaign disguised as a radio show.
> It being public,
>on the radio, it's difficult to present options that would allow
>cheating -- as authenticly presented rebuttal would preclude
>that.
Of course! So your object is to publicly prevent Randi from cheating, and
you would, of course, openly announce that intention. Gee, don't you just
love these open, honest and unbiased invitations? How much more honest an
unbiased can you get than this assurance from a operator of an organization
that fleeces the gullible by pretending to be "psychic?
>Your writing is of attempted cheating, and that has
>nothing to do with the full context of this thread.
Since the whole aim of the Challange is to test subjects in such a way that
_prevents_ cheating- as many others have tried- it is The Point. And it is
The Point that you are so frightened of, and that you are attempting to
circumvent.
Your "hyperbole" is patently obvious- why are you so surprised when people
like Scot see right through it?
>For those new to this, it's about a 1.1 million dollar bogus
>offer for people to be able to win the money if they can prove
>psychic ability. According to the propagandist cultists, no-one
>can win because, supposedly, no-one is psychic.
More mis-information from Kettlebanger. Kettler and other wannabes like to
call it "bogus", only because they are too cowardly to try and win. No one
has ever shown a single fact to prove Kettler's contention. Yet still they
like to throw mud, when all they have to do is demonstrate the abilities
that they claim, and prove once and forever the legitementcy of Randi's
prize.
But remember, you are not allowed under Kettler's rules to think for
yourself, so the above may be deceptive . ;)
hutch
"Once an idea is created, it never disappears, no matter
how often it is disproved" -- as quoted by Milton Rothman
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Arne Langsetmo wrote:
> In <3399B4...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> >Sherilyn wrote:
> >> In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
> >> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
> >> [snip misleading stuff about Randi Challenge]
> >If it was so misleading, how come you did not reply to it.
> _I did_ reply to it, so where the h___ is _your_ response?
> *mutter* Idiot. . .
A reply includes, in my estimation, an addressing of the issue
presented,
not the beginning a new non-issue. There is nothing in your post, or
the
one from the previous poster, to respond to.
> >Typical, as the above, from the SKEP-TI-CULT. It's propagandizing,
> >and by omission, misleading.
> Sherilyn posted the _full_ text of the challenge. How can you
> possibly say _that_ was misleading? _You_ are the idiot that
> snipped it!!! Who is trying to mislead? Who is engaging in
> a game of omission?
The issue had little to do with an entire text of the challenge.
You are involved in silliness. Read the previous posts, and discuss
that, or your words will continue to appear as irrelevancies and
nonsense to all who have read them.
<snip>
--
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Bruce Hutchinson bhu...@cris.com wrote:
> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) scribed:
> >sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
> >>On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz
> >>(Hawker
> >>Flora) wrote:
<snip>
I had written:
> >Your writing is so far from reality, so out-of-touch with the
> >*actual* previous writing, with so much of it manufactured from
> >the cesspool which clouds your mind, that it reeks, and is far
> >from funny.
In my estimation of a person's mentality, I have a basis for it, not
fabricated, out of context, or misquoted writing. Also, I do it as a
defense, not because of the others disbelief, but in response to their
attack.
Bruce Hutchinson
bhu...@cris.com wrote:
> Lets see. You refuse to accept Randi's rules, prefering to set your own.
> You openly suggest that he is a cheater and a liar (without a shred of
> proof, I might add), so therefore you must be allowed to make up new rules;
> mainly because you know he will find you out.
The above, as is usual for the clouded mind of the brainwashed cultist,
is total nonsense:
1. I didn't suggest he was a cheater and a liar.
2. I never advocated making new rules
Anyone would be expected to conduct a test under controlled conditions,
whether the person taking the test, or the one administering it, to be
sure there are no fabrications. This does not imply a person being a
cheater, only adept at trickery, since that is his bragged-about
profession. (ie: "amazing" Randi)
The rules, as they exist, can be followed. They include some
negotiation and agreement.
Since the rules will be followed, it would be expected for James Randi
to acknowledge an offer made on a radio broadcast last March, and heard
by millions. That offer was declined by James Randi. It was to discuss
the testing procedure over the radio, on the Art Bell show, with Ed
Dames.
If one is to discuss the testing, and one cannot con an entire audience
by presenting a proposition that would allow cheating, that that is a
fair and open forum, and James Randi has run away from that opportunity.
Technicalities regarding how a person is supposed to sign something
before negotiating are ridiculous. How does one sign something about
negotiating, and consider what follows negotiation? Those are dictated
terms, and they tie the hands of the person who has agreed to so much
beforehand. That's trickery.
> In other words, you want to "beat the rules"; rules that will not allow
> Dawes to doctor his "talents".
No, nothing like the above. I don't see how an open forum on the radio
would allow that. There's room for rebuttal of any proposition that
would allow one to "doctor" their talents.
You people sure do have your minds clouded by doctrine, dogma, and blind
loyalty for your master, James Randi. You need a breath of fresh air.
"...pathetic attempts to justify the psychic's
cowardise, his little parody was quite firmly
grounded in reality. Not that we expect a KotM
winner to know what reality is..."
The quote above shows how typically a person of your persuasion, finding
that they are lost trying to find some logic or substance to their
argument, think they can attack the opponent's mentality and thus show a
lack of credibility in their judgement. "kotM" (kook of the month) is
nothing more than the attempt of a band of cultists to discredit a
person, so their arguments, hopefully, will not carry any weight on
USENET or the WEB. It's fruitless and primitive behavior.
YAHOO www.yahoo.com
TYPE: "Skeptics what they do and why"
RONCRAFT
In article <339b34a8...@news.cris.com>, bhu...@cris.com (Bruce
Hutchinson) writes:
>Yet still they
>like to throw mud, when all they have to do is demonstrate the abilities
>that they claim, and prove once and forever the legitementcy of Randi's
>prize.
>
>
Hutchinson, you're throwing your own mud, or are they cow flops, into
alt.prophecy.nostradamus where it means nothing and isn't appreciated.
How about staying with sci.skeptic where you belong unless you can
contribute comments appropriate to the nostradamus newsgroups? Thanks.
Glen Quarnstrom
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>Glen Quarnstrom gl...@cyberhighway.net wrote:
>
>> twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> >Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>> >>Sherilyn wrote:
>> >><snip>
>
>> >> How about possible cheating by Randi?
>
>> >If you have any evidence that he has cheated, please post
>> >it. If not, please drop it.
>
>In the above paragraph, you wrote of something that was not about what
>had been written in the paragraph above it. Possible cheating, and
>evidence of cheating are two different things.
Only in that twisted mass of neurons that passes as a brain under that
"dead cat doo" of yours.
>You seem to have a
>problem with logic, knowing what a point is, and following either the
>logic or the point. This is evident throughout the archives in many of
>your posts, and has been commented upon by others.
Well, I guess that proves it, then. You've completely destroyed my
argument, point by point, complete with detailed quotes and
references. In addition, you've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt
that Randi is a lying, cheating scumbag.
Unfortunately, you've still failed to show any evidence of paranormal
psychic ability, by yourself or others.
>In order to *rightfully and acceptably* (acceptable by reasonable
>people) state that one has need to precluude the possibility of cheating
>on the part of Randi, one does not have an obligation to prove prior
>cheating by him.
OK. Here are several rumors I've heard about you: You're a
transvestite who sexually abuses young boys. You've also been
intimately involved with a variety of farm animals and birds. You are
a crack dealer, and have held up several convenience stores.
I have no obligation to prove any of this, however. The mere
allegation is enough to put you under suspicion, and you must disprove
this beyond any shadow of uncertainty, or else you will just be
"running away" from your perversions. In fact, you should be required
to appear on Art Bell's radio show to refute the allegations, and to
negotiate the terms of our acceptance of your "innocence."
>In nearly every system of testing of psychics, certainly anything that
>could be considered "scientific" *both sides* are obligated to prove
>that proper controls are in place to eliminate the possiblity of
>falsifying the results.
Duh! Randi's challenge, in fact, provides for exactly that. Too bad
you didn't read it before you inserted your whole damn keyboard in
your mouth.
Tom Schuler
>In the above paragraph, you wrote of something that was not about what
>had been written in the paragraph above it.
It's downright frightening how badly a perfectly good language can be
mutilated.
>In order to *rightfully and acceptably* (acceptable by reasonable
>people) state that one has need to precluude the possibility of cheating
>on the part of Randi, one does not have an obligation to prove prior
>cheating by him.
It's uncanny. No wonder he is so popular among kook watchers. It is barely
possible to follow such strings of verbiage. Then, when you do manage to
penetrate to the meaning, the point is so ludicrous that it startles one.
Avital Pilpel
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> In the above paragraph, you wrote of something that was not about what
> had been written in the paragraph above it. Possible cheating, and
> evidence of cheating are two different things.
No kidding, Bruce?
So i think it is very possible that you are a pedophile. not that i have any
evidence, but it is possible. Is that OK with you? After all, "possible
pedophilia, and proof of pedophilia are two different things".
--
Avital Pilpel.
=====================================
The majority is never right.
-Lazarus Long
=====================================
Arne Langsetmo
In <339B61...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>
>Arne Langsetmo wrote:
>
>> In <3399B4...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
>> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>> >Sherilyn wrote:
>> >> In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
>> >> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
>
>> >> [snip misleading stuff about Randi Challenge]
>
>> >If it was so misleading, how come you did not reply to it.
>
>> _I did_ reply to it, so where the h___ is _your_ response?
>> *mutter* Idiot. . .
>
>A reply includes, in my estimation, an addressing of the issue
>presented, not the beginning a new non-issue. There is nothing
Bruce, you nitwit! There was _plenty_ in _my_ previous post to
respond to. And you _never_ did! I have included it in its
entirety below, so that you don't have any excuse for not
going and looking it up, as I requested in the prior post to
this.
>> >Typical, as the above, from the SKEP-TI-CULT. It's propagandizing,
>> >and by omission, misleading.
>
>> Sherilyn posted the _full_ text of the challenge. How can you
>> possibly say _that_ was misleading? _You_ are the idiot that
>> snipped it!!! Who is trying to mislead? Who is engaging in
>> a game of omission?
>
>The issue had little to do with an entire text of the challenge.
>You are involved in silliness. Read the previous posts, and discuss
>that, or your words will continue to appear as irrelevancies and
>nonsense to all who have read them.
If you continue to _fail_ to respond to my past (and present) points,
_you_ will be a shoo-in for a repeat KotM. Now was it misleading
to post the _actual text_ of the challenge? The terms of the
challenge, after all, is the subject of discussion here. . .
Which you snipped, rather than _discuss_ those very terms.
Don't worry. I have the relevant portions included in the
prior post below. . . complete with commentary on your
cluelessness as to the meaning of the terms. . . Perhaps
you'd like to give it another go, so you don't look quite
the idiot.
><snip>
>--
>
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
>http://www.psicounsel.com
>
[snip]
Here is the full text of my _first_ post. Now reply to the
points made, Mr. Kettler. . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
. . . (begin included post) . . .
220 298974 <5n5jvd$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> article
Path: ix.netcom.com!news
From: zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo)
Newsgroups:
alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.paranet.skeptic,alt.fan.art-bell
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To James Randi
Date: 5 Jun 1997 05:48:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 237
Message-ID: <5n5jvd$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <339366...@psicounsel.com>
<33937fdf...@news.cris.com>
<3393A0...@psicounsel.com> <3394da0a...@news.cris.com>
<3394F8...@psicounsel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ala-ca19-21.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 04 10:48:29 PM PDT 1997
Xref: ix.netcom.com alt.paranormal:77579 sci.skeptic:298974
alt.paranet.skeptic:16098 alt.fan.art-
bell:53549
In <3394F8...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>
>Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>
>> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com>
>> >Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
>
>> >> >CC: ra...@randi.org
>
>> >> >There has been some RECENT NEW controversy on Usenet
>> >> >regarding the matter of Ed Dames, yourself, and a 1.1
>> >> >Million Dollar Challenge. As I understand, if a
>> >> >person can prove psychic ability, they will win that
>> >> >money.
>
>> >> WRONG! The Challange CLEARLY states that the potential
>> >> claimants must _first_ agree to the terms and conditions
>
>And, I can assume, that this coming from one as close to
>James Randi as you are, such a long-time defender of the
>faith, that the official word is that the rumors are just
>rumors, that all I've been reading on the WEB about new
>offers coming from Randi via registered mail, etc. are
>just rumors. It's what I wrote I suspected in my original
>post of this subject, and I'm gratified to have that
>confirmed by you.
Hey, Brucie, you brilliant KotM, Bruce Hutchinson doesn't
speak for Randi, as you would know if you really read the
challenge (quotes are from "http://www.randi.org/chall.htm"
as of June 5, 1997):
". . .the implementation and management of the challenge
will be carried out by James Randi and/or the James
Randi Educational Foundation."
Nor does Bruce H. say he does. He says only what is in
the challenge itself:
". . . [A]ll claimants must agree to the rules set forth
here before _any_ formal agreement is entered into. A
claimant will declare agreement by signing this form
where indicated before a notary public and returning the
form to me.
Tell me, Mr. Kettler: What part of this don't you
understand?
You can choose to believe any rumours you want, but then
you believe in psychic abilities, so I'm surprised you
don't know the actual truth of the matter already. As
for me, I don't put any stock in rumours on the web.
So why even mention them?
>> >I have read the terms, and my posts show a clear
>> >comprehension of them, and so have many other people
>> >read them.
>
>Wasn't there a former version at www.randi.org with
>the word "contract" in it?
>
>Last time I looked, the word was not there. I would
>have to check my copy to see, but it seems to me that
>it *did* have the word "contract" in it.
Are you given to responding to your own comments? Talk
to yourself a lot, do you, Mr. Kettler? Wonder why. . .
What difference does it make if there _was_ the word
"contract" in there? Perhaps you could explain _why_
this is of _any_ importance.
>> Your posts show only blurred "interpretations", but
>> certainly no comprehension.
>
>No, I've many times referred to the demand to "read
>this, sign that, etc" It's in my March 13 post "Randi
>Ran Away" (archives: www.dejanews.com) I did not
>misinterpret what was written at the JREF site, but
>rather had not seen any sense to it.
The important part is not whether _you_ can figure it out.
There is just no getting around the fact that certain
people can't read _plain_ English, as demonstrated above.
The important part is what the offer actually _says_, and
how a court will interpret that, should it come to that.
The offer is straight-forward, and quite fair, IMHO:
"The eventual test procedure must be agreed upon by
both parties before any testing procedures will take
place. We do not act as a judges. We do not design
the protocol independently of the claimant. . ."
"Claimant must state clearly in advance, and claimant
and Mr. Randi will agree upon, just what powers or
abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the
proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and
other variables are concerned) and what will constitute
both a positive and a negative result."
This language seems to anticipate and provide for the
various different types of claimed abilities, amd means
of demonstrating such, by allowing an agreed upon test
procedure to resolve the claim. Note that this is the
_test procedure_, _not_ the _terms_ of the challenge.
In addition, the claimant must state _in advance_ just
what abilities it is that they claim. Signing the
agreement, agreeing to the terms, and stating what
abilities are claimed must be done before any negotiation
of the test procedures. This is what Mr. Dames needs to
do, _not_ make some blustering challenge to an open
"debate" on Art Bell's show concerning the "terms" of
the agreement. What part of _this_ don't _you_
understand, Mr. Kettler?
>> >There is provision for a "contract." As such *all*
>> >terms are subject to negotiation. There can be no
>> >scientific inquiry without discussion.
>
>> >If terms must be agreed to before negotiations, then
>> >this is a bogus offer.
>> >
>> >It is an illogical and tricky illusion your master
>> >wishes to put over on the public.
>
>> Yeah- he sure did pull a fast on psychic frauds.
>
>Let's see this deceptive technique, in debate, has a name.
>Is it "clouding the issue?" Is it "changing the subject"?
>I am not sure of the exact terms.
No great surprise that you have no idea what name this
goes by in debate. It's called "satire". But it seems it
went over your head completely, Mr. Kettler.
Back to your original comment here: _Any_ public offer
like this is a contract, when it has been accepted or
performed by another party, whether it says so or not. I
guess you don't have much education in the law. It is
called a unilateral contract. But that doesn't mean that
it has to be _negotiated_; in fact, the opposite is true.
Unilateral contracts are by definition _not_ negotiated.
I have absolutely _no_ idea where you got the kooky idea
that any potential acceptor has the right to renegotiate
the terms of such a contract. That woud be laughed out
of court in two seconds flat.
And what this has to do with "scientific inquiry", I
don't know. Enlighten me, Mr. Kettler. Are unilateral
contracts subject to renegotiation in the interest of
"scientific inquiry"?
>> He wrote a Challange in language so clear and explicit
>> that everyone, except you and your wannabe buddies,
>> seems to understand.
>
>I understand what was written, but the reason, the logic,
>the sense, just does not seem to be there. If one is to
>negotiate, then one is to negotiate, not sign a paper
>before negotiations about how to negotiate. . . .
I'll excuse your limited comprehensive abilities. But,
if one is _not_ to negotiate, then one is _not_ to
negotiate. The _terms_ are _not_ subject to negotiation.
Has Mr. Dames fulfilled the prerequisites by accepting
the challenge as described? Has he stated what it is
that he claims he can do?
> . . . It ceases to be a negotiation when one has to
>agree to terms beforehand. It is a dictator-type
>transaction, with the illusion of negotiation.
Covered above. Tough luck. _Public_ offers cannot be
subject to negotiation, as the other party is unknown
until the offer is accepted by someone. Which is
probably _why_ Randi insists on acceptance _before_
any negotiation on test procedures.
><snip>
>
>> hutch
>
>> "Once an idea is created, it never disappears, no matter
>> how often it is disproved" -- as quoted by Milton Rothman
>
>I will take it, from your post, that the subject is closed.
You can take it from me that the essential nature of public
offer and acceptance is substantially as I described above.
If you can get Randi to make a separate agreement on terms
other than he has publicly offered, more power to you. But
don't say that any refusal of Mr. Randi to "negotiate" on
radio is an abrogation of his challenge. It is not, and
to say so is arguably false, with any attendant legal
ramifications.
>If I, or anyone else does not like the terms of Randi's
>challenge, we can go soak our heads, I guess. Okay, I'll
>go soak my head.
Oh, so that's how you get the fabulous "do", Mr. Kettler.
I really love the great picture of you on the Skep-ti-cult®
page ("http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998"). ;-)
>I also assume that Randi still does not want to negotiate
>under any other conditions than those he has dictated: >>>
>sign this first, and then we talk
Assume what you want. With half a brain, you might be
able to figure it out. . .
>Those two points are well taken, and so there's nothing
>more to discuss.
Never _was_ much to discuss. Which makes your "open letter"
to Randi all the more curious. . .
>--
>
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
[snip]
A word of advice, Mr. Kettler. If you have trouble with
understanding plain English, seek the counsel of someone
who _does_, before shooting your mouth off in public.
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Skep-ti-cult® Member
ID #11-21568-211
. . . (end included post) . . .
Arne Langsetmo
In <339B66...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>
>Bruce Hutchinson bhu...@cris.com wrote:
>
>> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) scribed:
>> >sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
>> >>On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz
>> >>(Hawker
>> >>Flora) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>I had written:
>
>
>Bruce Hutchinson
> bhu...@cris.com wrote:
>
>> Lets see. You refuse to accept Randi's rules, prefering to set
>> your own. You openly suggest that he is a cheater and a liar
>> (without a shred of proof, I might add), so therefore you must
>> be allowed to make up new rules; mainly because you know he will
>> find you out.
>
>The above, as is usual for the clouded mind of the brainwashed
>cultist, is total nonsense:
>
>1. I didn't suggest he was a cheater and a liar.
Oh? So what is this?:
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were
>in place to preculude cheating by James Randi.
. . .
>What about trickery by the master trickster,
>himself, James Randi?
>2. I never advocated making new rules
What exactly are you asking for by demanding that Randi
re-negotiate the terms of the challenge on the Art
Bell show? If not new terms, then _what_ is to be
"negotiated"?
>Anyone would be expected to conduct a test under controlled
>conditions, whether the person taking the test, or the one
>administering it, to be sure there are no fabrications.
And the challenge says:
"The eventual test procedure must be agreed upon by
both parties before any testing procedures will take
place. We do not act as a judges. We do not design
the protocol independently of the claimant. . ."
"Claimant must state clearly in advance, and claimant
and Mr. Randi will agree upon, just what powers or
abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the
proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and
other variables are concerned) and what will constitute
both a positive and a negative result."
(from the Randi challenge text). Isn't that _exactly_
what the challenge provides for: a mutually agreed
protocol, so that both sides may protect against cheating
by the other side? So what's your problem here?
>This does not imply a person being a cheater, only adept
>at trickery, since that is his bragged-about profession.
>(ie: "amazing" Randi)
Randi is open about _his_ profession. And he makes
allowance for it in his challenge. To imply that
his profession requires a "re-negotiation" to eliminate
the possibly of cheating that you have _clearly_
implied above, when his challenge already provides for
precations against cheating _bilaterally_, is a slur on
Randi. Tell me, Mr. Kettler: Are _you_ and Ed Dames
open about the nature of _your_ "profession"?
>The rules, as they exist, can be followed. They include some
>negotiation and agreement.
On protocol. _Not_ the terms. The signed agreement with
the terms must be made first. And, as pointed out by others,
the negotiations, if any, do _not_ have to be in the forum of
choice of any challenger.
>Since the rules will be followed, it would be expected for
>James Randi to acknowledge an offer made on a radio broadcast
>last March, and heard by millions. That offer was declined
>by James Randi. It was to discuss the testing procedure over
>the radio, on the Art Bell show, with Ed Dames.
You can expect what you want, including that the Hale-Bopp
"companion" that you have mentioned on your web page will
free you of your earthly vessel, if you wish, but you have
no right to _demand_ that Randi discuss the testing procedure
on the Art Bell show. I wouldn't expect Randi to do so.
The offer does _not_ constitute acceptance of the Randi
challenge, and until such an acceptance is made, there are
no meaningful negotioations `of any kind to be made. Part
of the acceptance _as specified_ by the challenge is the
detailing of exactly _what_ powers will be demonstrated.
Did Dames do this?
>If one is to discuss the testing, and one cannot con an
>entire audience by presenting a proposition that would
>allow cheating, that that is a fair and open forum, and
>James Randi has run away from that opportunity.
Giving your sentence here the most charitable parsing I can,
I will try to respond to the point you seem to be attempting
to make: It _doesn't_ matter what _anyone_ else thinks of
the procedures. This is the business of the _parties_ to
the challenge, and if they agree that a coin flip is a fair
test, so be it. _You_ are not a party (until _you_ accept
the challenge), so butt out. BTW: In terms of the ability
of the audience on the Art Bell show to evaluate the fairness
and accuracy of any such proposed test: Have you _listened_
to the callers on his show? I'm surprised that we didn't
have _more_ than 39 people leaving their earthly vessels
behind. . .
>Technicalities regarding how a person is supposed to sign
>something before negotiating are ridiculous. How does one
>sign something about negotiating, and consider what follows
>negotiation? Those are dictated terms, and they tie the
>hands of the person who has agreed to so much beforehand.
>That's trickery.
Nope. That's kindness. Randi didn't have to offer _any_
mutually acceptable test procedure. It's _his_ challenge.
He is being kind to do so. All he asks is that people
perform some preliminaries first to show a genuine interest
in taking the challenge, probably for the very reason that
he doesn't want his time wasted on stupid "negotiations"
or pointless debates such as this. . .
[snip]
>
>You people sure do have your minds clouded by doctrine,
>dogma, and blind loyalty for your master, James Randi.
>You need a breath of fresh air.
Despite the hallucinations of of your stablemate, Mr.
Curley, I am not Randi, nor am I one of Randi's "loyal
subjects". But I _will_ defend his good reputation from
the baseless attacks that you mount against him here.
It's the _least_ I can do for a person that has brought
much light to a needed area. . .
[snip]
Thanks, Bruce. We can speak for ourselves. . . ;-)
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Skep-ti-cult® Member
ID #11-21568-211
[snip]
>--
>
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
[snip]
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com, part of the brainwashed cultists that
falsely call themselves "skeptics", wrote:
> In <339B61...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> >Arne Langsetmo wrote:
> >> In <3399B4...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
> >> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> >> >Sherilyn wrote:
> >> >> In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
> >> >> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
<snip>
> >> >Typical, as the above, from the SKEP-TI-CULT. It's propagandizing,
> >> >and by omission, misleading.
> >> Sherilyn posted the _full_ text of the challenge. <snip>
Anyone who wants to see it can access it at:
These posts are long enough.
> If you continue to _fail_ to respond to my past (and present) points,
> _you_ will be a shoo-in for a repeat KotM. Now was it misleading
> to post the _actual text_ of the challenge?
Mostly, the "points" you people know how to make, consist of references
to supposed problems of the person who writes, not about what was
written. Your writing of this subject, taken into context with the
entire discussion, lacks any coherence or logical sense.
I never wrote that posting the "_actual text_" of the challenge was,
itself, misleading. It was the omission of other material.
> The terms of the
> challenge, after all, is the subject of discussion here. . .
> Which you snipped, rather than _discuss_ those very terms.
The above is actually quite misleading. The terms were discussed, quite
recently, in this thread when it was of the title "...open letter
to...". If you would rather call it avoidance only because you never
read it, then so be it. I won't go into repeated detail for no other
purpose than to please you, you pompous ass.
I have discussed the terms of the challenge, and rather than repeat
myself, because you jumped into a discussion not having read what took
place beforehand, I will refer to the archives:
and enter "Bruce Daniel Kettler" as the author, and search for any
subject with "Randi" in it.
> Don't worry. I have the relevant portions included in the
> prior post below. . . complete with commentary on your
> cluelessness as to the meaning of the terms. . . Perhaps
> you'd like to give it another go, so you don't look quite
> the idiot.
You are the obvious idiot -- apparent to anyone who has followed the
thread and does not have their judgement clouded by your cult mentality.
The relevant part of the terms have been acknowledged and replied to by
me. Are you a "newbie" who has no knowledge of the fact that it's a
common practice to check the archives before jumping into a subject?
Could it be that you don't even know what the archives are? Are you that
clueless?
> ><snip>
> Hey, Brucie, you brilliant KotM, Bruce Hutchinson doesn't
> speak for Randi
The above is not part of the discussion. It's only your attempt to
discredit me, to falsely convey the idea that I'm unable to read or
understand the terms of the challenge. In a strictly legal sense,
no-one speaks for James Randi. The terms of the challenge, which you
quoted, have to do with other matters, not whether Bruce Hutchinson has
acquaintance with the latest communication of the JREF.
This character assassination is the main weapon in the arsenal of you
people. It's apparent in my writing, and from the quotes and references
to others writing at my site:
click at:
"skeptics"
> ". . .the implementation and management of the challenge
> will be carried out by James Randi and/or the James
> Randi Educational Foundation."
So what?
> Nor does Bruce H. say he does.
I never said he did, clueless!
> ". . . [A]ll claimants must agree to the rules set forth
> here before _any_ formal agreement is entered into.
That which you quote above, I acknowledged in a recent post, though not
with specific reference to the exact wording.
> A claimant will declare agreement by signing this form
> where indicated before a notary public and returning the
> form to me.
I wrote that I knew the above existed, and that I knew what it meant,
within the past week or so.
You and all the readers, if they don't know yet, should learn
how
to access the archives. It's a good exercise:
> Tell me, Mr. Kettler: What part of this don't you
> understand?
That question was asked of me by "twitch" and I answered it March 13,
1997,
and the subject header is "Randi Ran Away..." so use the name "Bruce
Daniel
Kettler" and you will then know the answer to the question.
If the reader prefers to look at a WWW site, the posting can be read at
that site. Just go to YAHOO (www.yahoo.com) and enter "Skeptics What
they do and why" and near the top of the page click at the "Dames-Randi"
reference.
That's enough repitition for you, you clueless, pompous ass!
--
E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
http://www.psicounsel.com
ART BELL CLUB: /artbellclub after "com"
WEBMASTER: /webmaster after "com"
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote, from his typically thoroughly
washed out brain, brainwashed by the cult of so-called "skeptics",
wrote:
> In <339B66...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> >Bruce Hutchinson bhu...@cris.com wrote:
> >> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) scribed:
> >> >sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
> >> >>On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz
> >> >>(Hawker Flora) wrote:
> ><snip>
> >Bruce Hutchinson
bhu...@cris.com wrote:
> >> Lets see. You refuse to accept Randi's rules, prefering to set
> >> your own. You openly suggest that he is a cheater and a liar
> >> (without a shred of proof, I might add), so therefore you must
> >> be allowed to make up new rules; mainly because you know he will
> >> find you out.
All the above was replied to, and the reader may access the archives if
the reading of this comes after it was removed from their server.
For those just joining, the subject matter, here, it's about a 1.1
million dollar offer by the James Randi Educational Foundation
(JREF-www.
randi.org) to a person who can prove psychic ability, um, "according
to the rules," which the reader can find out about at www.randi.org
By the way, there's an interesting, and separate thread, in
alt.paranormal,
about this subject, the Randi Challenge. Just look for "Randi" in the
subjects.
This subject goes back years in the archives.
Archives are at
> >The above, as is usual for the clouded mind of the brainwashed
> >cultist, is total nonsense:
> >1. I didn't suggest he was a cheater and a liar.
> Oh? So what is this?:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> >A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were
> >in place to preculude cheating by James Randi.
> . . .
> >What about trickery by the master trickster,
> >himself, James Randi?
You have misrepresented my writing by quoting it out of context.
I have a list of the deceptive tactics of your cult, and that is
at my web site. One of those tactics is quoting out of context.
http://www.psicounsel.com click at "skeptics"
You people, obviously, are a breed of liars. You give birth to more of
your breed by written and spoken words, and, fortunately, your numbers
are dwindling even with your fanatical "screwing with minds and giving
birth (proselytizing)" activity.
As I pointed out in a previous post, the reading of which is beyond your
laziness, evidently, the fact that he is a trickster shows his ability,
not necessarily his disposition. Also, if you follow the point
logically, and look into the history of testing psychics (not by James
Randi, necessarily) it is an obligation of both sides of the issue to be
sure that trickery is not possible. Proving a disposition toward deceit
is not necessary for one to place rigid controls for testing of
psychics.
Pointing out one's talents at trickery does not imply that the necessary
lack of character to exercise those talents, is there also.
> >2. I never advocated making new rules
> What exactly are you asking for by demanding that Randi
> re-negotiate the terms of the challenge on the Art
> Bell show? If not new terms, then _what_ is to be
> "negotiated"?
It is obvious by the wording of the challenge,
...that the way the test is conducted is negotiable. These
circumstances of a test are "terms." That which is negotiable can be a
set of "terms" If need be, Randi could tell Ed Dames, on the air,
"look, the only thing I have to discuss here, is that you have to sign
this and notarize it, before we can continue talking about the test."
Perhaps they could talk about Randi's rule to sign first, and the
contents of what must be signed. A new date for airing the discussion
could then be set, and Randi could talk about his organization, give out
the address, WWW site, and phone number and tell all about "skepticism,"
and just have a grand old time. All guests are given full promotional
opportunities.
> >Anyone would be expected to conduct a test under controlled
> >conditions, whether the person taking the test, or the one
> >administering it, to be sure there are no fabrications.
> And the challenge says:
> "The eventual test procedure must be agreed upon by
> both parties before any testing procedures will take
> place. We do not act as a judges. We do not design
> the protocol independently of the claimant. . ."
So, as I have been writing, it is negotiable. It has to be agreed by
both parties, so that means it is negotiable. That's what I've been
writing, that an offer was made by Ed Dames to discuss this, in an open
and free forum, on the air before millions. (378 affiliate stations)
Any bogus offer by Dames can be rebutted by Randi, publicly. What is
Randi afraid of?
> "Claimant must state clearly in advance, and claimant
> and Mr. Randi will agree upon, just what powers or
> abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the
> proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and
> other variables are concerned) and what will constitute
> both a positive and a negative result."
> (from the Randi challenge text). Isn't that _exactly_
> what the challenge provides for: a mutually agreed
> protocol, so that both sides may protect against cheating
> by the other side? So what's your problem here?
The administration of the test has to be negotiated, the protocol, the
witnesses, and all that is essential to the administration of a
foolproof test, one that neither side can fabricate the results of.
A perfectly fair way to negotiate it would be on the air. That offer
was made publicly, and Randi has refused.
That's all folks!
...unless Randi has something else to say.
> >This does not imply a person being a cheater, only adept
> >at trickery, since that is his bragged-about profession.
> >(ie: "amazing" Randi)
> Randi is open about _his_ profession. And he makes
> allowance for it in his challenge. To imply that
> his profession requires a "re-negotiation" to eliminate
> the possibly of cheating <snip>
Again, you are writing nonsense, and I am tired of answering each and
every one of your ridiculous statements.
Instead of wasting your time writing this garbage, why don't you get on
the phone and talk to James Randi. Ask *HIM* why he will not discuss
this with Ed Dames on the Art Bell show? Read the archives, and
discover what has already been discussed, and don't go on asking me
questions I answered months ago.
<snip> You write too much. You seem to have a high degree of
intelligence and education with a limited degree of imagination. Why
not put your intelligence to work, and stop writing so much?
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Tom Schuler d...@teleport.com wrote:
> In article <339AD5...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
> >In the above paragraph, you wrote of something that was not about what
> >had been written in the paragraph above it.
> It's downright frightening how badly a perfectly good language can be
> mutilated.
The writing you quoted, that of what I had referred to in a certain
paragraph, taken *in* context, can be understood readily, by the
reader. After you went over it, it seemed to not be comprehensible.
Here's what's mutilated: your mind.
> It's uncanny. No wonder he is so popular among kook watchers.
<snip>
You made no points, but in the typical manner of the cult you are a
brainwashed follower of, you tried to discredit me. The kotM is nothing
more than a propaganda tool for deceitful liars like yourself.
More on this band of fanatical cultists who call themselves "skeptics"
YAHOO (search engine) www.yahoo.com
TYPE: "Skeptics What They Do And Why"
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In <twaddling-ya024080...@news.concentric.net>
> twad...@my.tent.now (Major Margaret Houlihan BsD) writes:
> >In article <5n7it1$oq7$1...@wolfen.thecore.com>, zo...@thecore.com
> (Joseph G. Mitzen) wrote:
> >* Dr. D - this person has never, not once, exhibited any of the
> >* characteristics of the legendary Kettler. I only found ONE
> >* twisted Kettler sentence in all of his posts.
You people are so fu*****g lame! Nearly everyone, at some point, makes
mistakes in their writing. If a person writes a lot on USENET, then
people like yourself can pick out the mistakes in grammar and spelling
and collect it into one post or rewrite to the WEB. To some readers, it
would seem like all the person had written was with bad grammar and
spelling.
The other thing, popular amongst you fools, is to take writing out of
context and when quoted that way, it makes the writer's reasoning seem
faulty.
The only thing one can deduce about you people, from that, is deceit.
I'm sometimes careless or lazy. For that reason I do not always
proof-read, or do so carefully enough.
> >learned how to snip posts, even using brackets on
> >* occasion, become well-read in various philosophies,
What a jerk! I've always shown I was well-read and educated.
What a bunch of as*****es!
> > "linear thought"?
The concept was on my WEB SITE a long, long time ago. I've read of it,
and written of it, for decades, and you write like I first heard of it
from Karczewski.
YAHOO: www.yahoo.com
TYPE: "skeptics what they do and why"
There you can see, with a variety of examples, and with the writing of
others, how this band of cultists use character assassination to attack
the person, rather than the *SUBJECT* of the person's writing or
speech. It's primitive behavior.
<snip?
This is just *TOO* ludicrous!
Pharaoh Chromium 93
It is a fact that in the consciousness continuum effects can be
made to occur regardless of spacial configurations. Just because
one cannot reproduce it in a "scientific" manner doesn't mean certain
phenomena do not or cannot be made to occur. You skeptics have obviously
never practiced symbolic sorcery or made any strange phenomena occur
at a distance once in your existence. Those who have know that
since we live in an energy world certain events or occurances can
be brought into manifestation if the focus of intent and will is strong
enough.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Avital Pilpel ap...@columbia.edu wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> > In the above paragraph, you wrote of something that was not about what
> > had been written in the paragraph above it. Possible cheating, and
> > evidence of cheating are two different things.
Taken *IN* context, in the way a sensible person would report a person's
writing, my point had been that the possibility of cheating should be
eliminated by both parties, in the design of any test for psychic
ability. Also, my point was that my pointing out the possibility of
cheating had a purpose, and that purpose was not to show a deceitful
disposition on the part of the person who *could* cheat.
> No kidding, Bruce?
Taken out of context, your writing seems to have substance. Actually,
when given full exposure, it reveals the shallowness of your mentality,
how utterly void you are of truth.
> So i think it is very possible that you are a pedophile. not that i have any
> evidence, but it is possible. Is that OK with you? After all, "possible
> pedophilia, and proof of pedophilia are two different things".
Anything is possible. So for that reason I could be a pedophile, an axe
murderer, or anything you want to put under the category of "possible"
obviously, since you have never even seen me.
Obviously, to any *thinking* person, the point you make above, and the
point I had made previously, are definately *not* parallel.
Still, even with what you consider a "point" it bears no resemblance to
truth, and makes no point, except what a jerk you are.
> Avital Pilpel.
Steve Terrell
Pharaoh Chromium 93 wrote:
But it can't occur when opportunities to cheat are removed? Hmm....
Chow,
Steve
RONCRAFT
In article <5ngj0j$g...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne
Langsetmo) writes:
>Despite the hallucinations of of your stablemate, Mr.
>Curley, I am not Randi, nor am I one of Randi's "loyal
>subjects". But I _will_ defend his good reputation from
>the baseless attacks that you mount against him here.
>It's the _least_ I can do for a person that has brought
>much light to a needed area. . .
>
>
First, Randi's preformed valuable services in exposing street corner
psychic kinds of fraud. However, he seems to have bugged out when
confronted with more complex stuff that's not so easy to handle. It seems
that Randi partisans and opponents both distort facts, but Randi's
followers emphasize their distortions with very nasty personal attacks.
You guys thereby lose credibility. If you can't argue without personal
attacks, you don't have an argument, and you do present yourselves as an
immature and very spoiled children kicking at their mommas when they don't
get their way. Second, please confine your warfare to appropriate
newsgroups, and remove alt.prophecy.nostradamus from your spamming lists.
One would think you guys studied netiquette under Josef Goebbels.
Roncraft
John Mcgowan
-=> While talking of An Open Letter To James Randi, Scot Justice
-=> said to All on 07 Jun 97 18:07:49: From: sc...@edge.net
SJ> (Scot Justice) Subject: Re: An Open Letter To James Randi
SJ> Organization: EdgeNet Media
SJ> On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz (Hawker
SJ> Flora) wrote:
> WHAT DO YOU MEAN? What rules? Who says I have to qualify for the finals?
> Who says I have to run a full 10,000m? Who says I can't negotiate the
> rules? That's not fair. How can I win unless I rig the race?!!!
SJ> You must understand, the rules are so that physic-bullshitters can't
SJ> win, and you know why, because they aren't real physics.... Go
SJ> figure:)
Scot, by your own admission you agree the Randi Tests are rigged. `Rigged
so that the psychic-bullshitters can't win, ...' are your exact words.
How are you so informative that this is where the rigging stops.
So now we have one obvious supporter claiming the Amazing Randi is rigging
his tests. Yet unless you are a part of the design of the tests and the
are one of the ones in on the tests from the point of negotiations to it's
finality, how do you know what goes on behind the scenes?
The choice now is clear. Either you are a Skeptic-Bullshitter, or there is
something obviously there that shows you that Randi is rigging the tests.
Due to the fact the you fail to claim and support that you are a
co-conspirator with Mr. Amazing, then obviously some fact shows you he rigs
the tests he administers. Since you are not involved in the inner circle,
you can not possibly know everything that goes on behind the scenes from the
point negotiations begin until it's finality. Ergo, trusting that you are
not a bull-shitter yourself, my only insight from you is that Randi is less
than honest because he rigs his challenges, but we do not know how far the
`rigging' goes.
Maybe you can clarify your points better, with some factual backup.
{ John.M...@Ghostrdr.Wierius.Com }
--
|Fidonet: John Mcgowan 1:114/314
|Internet: John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Stolenchild
Brucie,
You should lay off antagonizing Randi, you're a fraud. We know it. He
know's it. If you're
smart, you'd realize it. You have no more psychic ability that toad
shit. Now leave or we
shall taunt you a second time.
BTW, we're having FUN giving you new doo's. Wait till you see "Peggy
Sue" Kettler! =
Bruce Daniel Kettler, part of the self-proclaimed scam-artist psychics
wrote:
> =
(Bullshit deleted)
-- =
SKEP-TI-CULT=AE Official Charter Member #20-17839-569 =
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/4585
Home of The Hindsight Institute Remote Viewing Daycamp
Remove .spamfree From My Email Address Before Replying
"Art Bell's Coast to Coast...where the Reality challenged meet and
greet!"
"Art Bell's Coast to Coast...it's only funny until someone gets hurt!"
twi...@worldnet.att.net
John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) wrote:
<snip>
>Scot, by your own admission you agree the Randi Tests are rigged. `Rigged
>so that the psychic-bullshitters can't win, ...' are your exact words.
>
Amazing. The same lack of logic that allows John to declare
victory when he got his ass kicked allows him to
misunderstand others.
John, psychic-bullshitters can't win since they are
bullshitters. (You don't know what a bullshitter is? Look
in the mirror.)
Psychics can still win if they are truly psychic. None have
yet won.
><snip>
>Maybe you can clarify your points better, with some factual backup.
>
Ah John, why don't you try posting some factual backup.
Not just more Mcgowan-quality research (tm) but some facts
with proper references so people can check them out.
Not Mcgowan-quality references such as:
>Now I am sure you will ask where I got my figures, I will get back with you
> on it
Message-Id: <676_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
You never did get back with us.
>the figures came from the source through the
>financial page of a well respected newspaper.
Message-Id: <f4b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
Oh, that is a good reference!
>Since the Street says
Message-Id: <237_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
Was it asphalt or concrete?
>I was told
Message-Id: <92b_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
But you never listen!
Steve Terrell
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> ...
>
> As I pointed out in a previous post, the reading of which is beyond your
> laziness, evidently, the fact that he is a trickster shows his ability,
> not necessarily his disposition. Also, if you follow the point
> logically, and look into the history of testing psychics (not by James
> Randi, necessarily) it is an obligation of both sides of the issue to be
> sure that trickery is not possible. Proving a disposition toward deceit
> is not necessary for one to place rigid controls for testing of
> psychics.
>
Hmmm...The Randi challenge makes sure of no trickery...
> ...
>
> It is obvious by the wording of the challenge,
>
> http://www.randi.org
>
> ...that the way the test is conducted is negotiable. These
> circumstances of a test are "terms." That which is negotiable can be a
> set of "terms" If need be, Randi could tell Ed Dames, on the air,
> "look, the only thing I have to discuss here, is that you have to sign
> this and notarize it, before we can continue talking about the test."
> Perhaps they could talk about Randi's rule to sign first, and the
> contents of what must be signed. A new date for airing the discussion
> could then be set, and Randi could talk about his organization, give out
> the address, WWW site, and phone number and tell all about "skepticism,"
> and just have a grand old time. All guests are given full promotional
> opportunities.
>
It is negotiable AFTER the claimant signs the form before a notary public.
It says so right there in hte first paragraph of the challenge! Ed Dames
didn't do that, did he? Geeeee wiz! Here it is--->
*quote*
This statement outlines the general rules covering my offer concerning
psychic, supernatural or paranormal claims. Since claims will vary greatly
in character and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each
claimant. However, all claimants must agree to the rules set forth here
before any formal agreement is entered into. A claimant will declare
agreement by signing this form where indicated before a notary public and
returning the form to me.
*unquote*
> > >Anyone would be expected to conduct a test under controlled
> > >conditions, whether the person taking the test, or the one
> > >administering it, to be sure there are no fabrications.
>
> > And the challenge says:
>
> > "The eventual test procedure must be agreed upon by
> > both parties before any testing procedures will take
> > place. We do not act as a judges. We do not design
> > the protocol independently of the claimant. . ."
>
> So, as I have been writing, it is negotiable. It has to be agreed by
> both parties, so that means it is negotiable. That's what I've been
> writing, that an offer was made by Ed Dames to discuss this, in an open
> and free forum, on the air before millions. (378 affiliate stations)
> Any bogus offer by Dames can be rebutted by Randi, publicly. What is
> Randi afraid of?
>
So, as the challenge states, it is negotiable AFTER the signed form is
returned. I agree that Randi's ability to expose cheating does not
logically imply that he is incapable of cheating. This is, I hate to
admit, logical. However, using the same logic, the fact that Randi does
not reply publicy does not logically impy that he is afraid of anything.
(This ignores the fact that he DID reply publically in his mailing
list...) And logically, since we have no logical reason to think he is
afraid, we logically have no reason to think he has anything to hide from
Ed Dames.
> ...
>
> The administration of the test has to be negotiated, the protocol, the
> witnesses, and all that is essential to the administration of a
> foolproof test, one that neither side can fabricate the results of.
>
> A perfectly fair way to negotiate it would be on the air. That offer
> was made publicly, and Randi has refused.
>
No, you are wrong. By your own defintion above of what is fair, the
perfect way to negotiate it would be in a manner that both parties agree
too. One party may not think it if fair because if he has a bad "radio
personality", it could possibly dammage his credibility. For example, some
time ago there was a doctor who appeared on some morning TV show. He felt
uncomfortable in front of the camera, and ended up accidentally using the
same needle on both hosts. It was an honest mistake, but it may have
ruined his reputation. (Sorry about not remembering any of the names.
This did happen and is not an urban legend.)
Besides, on the radio, people do not have time to think their thoughts
through all the way before making statements. Ed Dames is trying to
pressure Randi to make mistakes on the air so he can discredit him. The
fact that Ed ONLY wants to discuss terms in "real time" shows that he is
just looking for publicity and does not wnat to give any consideration
towards a well though out agreement with each person having plenty of time
to come to terms.
How much air time wsa Art going to give? Hmmmm?
Also, if you think that the radio would be such a true open forum, what's
to stop Ed from working out the details with Randi off the air and then
reading the terms of the agreement on the air to see if the public can find
anything unfair in it?
> ...
>
> E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
> http://www.psicounsel.com
>
> ART BELL CLUB: /artbellclub after "com"
> WEBMASTER: /webmaster after "com"
Chow,
Steve
Avital Pilpel
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> You made no points, but in the typical manner of the cult you are a
> brainwashed follower of, you tried to discredit me.
No need for us to try; you are doing a wonderful job all by yourself.
> The kotM is nothing
> more than a propaganda tool for deceitful liars like yourself.
>
In that case, why are you so pissed? Becasue you know, deep down, that you are a
kook and we are right? Am I hitting a nerve?
Mr. Ed
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> The other thing, popular amongst you fools, is to take writing out of
> context and when quoted that way, it makes the writer's reasoning seem
> faulty.
Is there ANYBODY who actually believes these to be the words of NAMBLA
(National Association of Morbidly Bald Losers of America) kettlephile
Bruce Kettler??!!
He couldn't use the word "amongst" if his life depended upon it.
Naw, this is Jon, Tim or Glen.
Mr. tse-Ed
Kama Master, Kolon Master and Semi-Kolon Master
Keeper of the Afab Koan
"If a tree falls in the forest...what is the sound of one hand
laughing?"
"Ramayana will come manana if you bring me a banana"
Mr. Ed
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> The writing you quoted, that of what I had referred to in a certain
> paragraph, taken *in* context, can be understood readily, by the
> reader.
Now THIS piece of mutilated mutated syncopated aerated degenerated
convoluted unmuted and disputed tripe is a good forgery!
You're getting better Jon.
Avital Pilpel
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> Obviously, to any *thinking* person, the point you make above, and the
> point I had made previously, are definately *not* parallel.
>
Yes they are. Your "objective point" wants to make "any sensible person" think
that although you have no evidence whatsoever, Randi might be cheating. Of course
he _logically_ might be; but the purpose of your post was not to claim this truism,
but by _claiming_ it to get people to think that there is reason to believe Randy
_is_ cheating. So it is parallel to my post: My post is posting a truism (that
you _might_ be a pedophile), in an attermpt to get people believe that you are
_are_ one... Get it?
> Still, even with what you consider a "point" it bears no resemblance to
> truth, and makes no point, except what a jerk you are.
>
>
Well, Dear KoTM, unlike your claims about your reception of this award, being
called a jerk by you _is_ an honor to me...
Tom Schuler
In article <5nggbj$8...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo) wrote:
>Bruce, you nitwit! There was _plenty_ in _my_ previous post to
>respond to. And you _never_ did! I have included it in its
>entirety below, so that you don't have any excuse for not
>going and looking it up, as I requested in the prior post to
>this.
You seem to be assuming that Bruce is capable of reading something he finds
unpleasant with any degree of comprehension at all. If he finds it too
uncomfortable, he'll just ignore it and make up something more amusing. He's
been ignoring the terms of the challenge for as long as he has known about it.
He has had it spelled out to him many times. It doesn't put a dent in his
delusions, though.
Bruce lives in a world entirely supported by preconceived ideas. Any
information which does not conform to those preconceptions is discarded
without examination. Bruce does not learn, in any real sense of the term.
That is what makes him such a stellar example of a kook.
Tom Schuler
In article <339BF1...@psicounsel.com>,>Tom Schuler d...@teleport.com wrote:
>> It's uncanny. No wonder he is so popular among kook watchers.
>
><snip>
>
>You made no points, but in the typical manner of the cult you are a
>brainwashed follower of, you tried to discredit me. The kotM is nothing
>more than a propaganda tool for deceitful liars like yourself.
I made a point. You snipped it. Then you forgot it. Brilliant kookiness.
I don't need to discredit you, Bruce. You have done a good job of that
yourself. One doesn't get voted KotM by earning credibility, but by forsaking
it. But hang in there! True kooks never give up on a bad idea.
Tom Schuler
In article <339BF0...@ibm.net>, Pharaoh Chromium 93 <pc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>It is a fact that in the consciousness continuum effects can be
>made to occur regardless of spacial configurations. Just because
>one cannot reproduce it in a "scientific" manner doesn't mean certain
>phenomena do not or cannot be made to occur. You skeptics have obviously
>never practiced symbolic sorcery or made any strange phenomena occur
>at a distance once in your existence. Those who have know that
>since we live in an energy world certain events or occurances can
>be brought into manifestation if the focus of intent and will is strong
>enough.
You cannot assert causality without demonstrating it. What you are mistaking
for causality is correlation. They are not the same thing. Suppose I turn on
a light switch and a car accident happens simultaneously three blocks away.
If I throw the switch again, no car accident occurs. This is a correlation.
If it were causality, it could be demonstrated repeatedly. Throw the switch,
cars crash.
"Symbolic sorcery", as you call it, is the attribution of causality to
correlation. If it were not, you could demonstrate it scientifically. It is
your mind which is being manipulated, not some invisible, undetectable form of
energy.
Tom Schuler
In article <339C1075...@hfab1.sc.ti.com>,
Steve Terrell <st...@hfab1.sc.ti.com> wrote:
>Pharaoh Chromium 93 wrote:
>
>> It is a fact that in the consciousness continuum effects can be
>> made to occur regardless of spacial configurations. Just because
>> one cannot reproduce it in a "scientific" manner doesn't mean certain
>> phenomena do not or cannot be made to occur.
>
Sure it can, Steve. All you have to do is leave open exactly where, when, and
how the occurrence will manifest. Then, you wait for something to happen
which is sort of close to what you intended and declare that to be your
result.
It's a bit of post hoc reasoning, but it does work. The key words are "made
to occur". The beloved Pharoah believes that anything which correlates to his
magic symbol manipulation and his intent must have been caused by that intent
and his actions. It's called, aptly enough, "magical thinking".
Dan Pressnell
On Mon, 09 Jun 97 15:37:36 GMT, d...@teleport.com (Tom Schuler) wrote:
>Bruce lives in a world entirely supported by preconceived ideas. Any
>information which does not conform to those preconceptions is discarded
>without examination. Bruce does not learn, in any real sense of the term.
>That is what makes him such a stellar example of a kook.
Yep. The "create your own reality" thing...
Dan
Drakkus
On Mon, 09 Jun 1997 08:01:32 -0400, Pharaoh Chromium 93 <pc...@ibm.net>
wrote:
-It is a fact that in the consciousness continuum effects can be
-made to occur regardless of spacial configurations. Just because
-one cannot reproduce it in a "scientific" manner doesn't mean certain
-phenomena do not or cannot be made to occur. You skeptics have obviously
-never practiced symbolic sorcery or made any strange phenomena occur
-at a distance once in your existence. Those who have know that
-since we live in an energy world certain events or occurances can
-be brought into manifestation if the focus of intent and will is strong
-enough.
As a fellow CM, I am ashamed of your drivel, Pharaoh. "Consciousness
continuum" indeed! You're trying the age-old tactic of feeding people
impressive bullshit to intimidate them and convince them you know
something they don't.
That's the tactic that makes us look bad in the first place!
Here on sci.skeptic, I try to maintain a balance between my own belief
in ceremonial magick and my approach to rational thought and
skepticism by conceding that my belief is a belief in the impossible.
I know damn well that magick doesn't stand up to scientific
examination, but I believe it anyway. Thus I keep my New Age hide safe
while being able to swim, and feed, with the sharks. I don't offer to
prove it.
You should be doing the same. Skepticism is a mode of thought, a means
of determining what is false from what is fact. It is not always
impartial in application... I must say, the phrase "hostile logic"
comes to mind... but it is invariably fair where it is applied. It can
be nothing BUT fair.
The reason so many Pagans tend to avoid skepticism is because most of
them are not strong enough in faith to invalidate the need to prove.
You're trying to justify yourself. That's wrong. Rationalizing your
beliefs is a MISTAKE, kiddo. To the skeptic, say only "I know it's
impossible. I believe it anyway. Now let's go on to the fakers, the
liars, the bullshitters, the profiteers, and the charlatans. To the
harmful people."
Simply admitting one's belief is rationally impossible and believing
it anyway is the only argument a faithful person can use against the
skeptic, and it takes a lot of personal strength and real belief to do
it. Concede to every point the skeptic makes until he or she says "So
you can't believe it anymore."
You have to remember that faith and irrationality is a realm of
thought where no skeptic dares to tread AS A SKEPTIC.
Don't prove. Believe.
-Drakkus (Alan Zeni Jr.) -=-Posting from SOUTH AFRICA! WHOOHOO!!-=-
dra...@labyrinth.net
http:/www.zeni.com/drakkus
"I'm not a human, I just play one in real life."
Glen Quarnstrom
Bruce "I've got a dead cat on my head" Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com>
wrote:
<lots of snippage>
>You people sure do have your minds clouded by doctrine, dogma, and blind
>loyalty for your master, James Randi. You need a breath of fresh air.
>
> "...pathetic attempts to justify the psychic's
> cowardise, his little parody was quite firmly
> grounded in reality. Not that we expect a KotM
> winner to know what reality is..."
>
>The quote above shows how typically a person of your persuasion, finding
>that they are lost trying to find some logic or substance to their
>argument, think they can attack the opponent's mentality and thus show a
>lack of credibility in their judgement. "kotM" (kook of the month) is
>nothing more than the attempt of a band of cultists to discredit a
>person, so their arguments, hopefully, will not carry any weight on
>USENET or the WEB. It's fruitless and primitive behavior.
>
>More on this cult:
>
> YAHOO www.yahoo.com
>
Give it up, KettleBanger. You've already won the Kook of the Month
award. You can't win it twice, it seems, so all your campaigning is
for naught. Even if there's more than one Kettler, they won't give
you the prize again. I suppose you could go for the Golden Killfile
Award, but that seems to be a lesser honor than KotM.
Don't be greedy, Brucie. You've got the award. Now back off and let
bRay have a shot at it.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
"afa-b's leading curmudgeon"
Glen Quarnstrom
Dan Pressnell <dpre...@ns.delete-this.vvm.com> wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>>
>> Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com, part of the brainwashed cultists that
>> falsely call themselves "skeptics", wrote:
>
>And of course, YOU are a good example of a true sketpic, as you have
>told us, Bruce....
No, no, the word that best describes old KotM Kettler is "septic."
HTH
pharaoh chromium 93
Tom Schuler wrote:
>
> In article <339C1075...@hfab1.sc.ti.com>,
> Steve Terrell <st...@hfab1.sc.ti.com> wrote:
> >Pharaoh Chromium 93 wrote:
> >
> >
>
> Sure it can, Steve. All you have to do is leave open exactly where, when, and
> how the occurrence will manifest. Then, you wait for something to happen
> which is sort of close to what you intended and declare that to be your
> result.
>
> It's a bit of post hoc reasoning, but it does work. The key words are "made
> to occur". The beloved Pharoah believes that anything which correlates to his
> magic symbol manipulation and his intent must have been caused by that intent
> and his actions. It's called, aptly enough, "magical thinking".
I am speaking of a certain instances from my own experience. Would I
declare what the events were you would probably laugh or deride me in
some way. Yet you have no clue and have never in your life made anything
manifest itself "out of the ordinary". The whole crux of the problem
is that such things do not occur which are supernatural but that which
are natural. Consciousness is part of nature. The observer has an
effect on the energy world. I have personally caused an energy form
(more
like a shadow) to manifest in a certain location and to cause physical
effects from Florida to Minnesota. I had personal verification from the
person who experienced the event. Distance does not matter as long as
you
have been familiar with the location and the observer at the location.
There are other factors involved: recentness of being at said location,
the rapport with the individual at said location, etc. Would you deny
modern day field physics and say that it is a chimera?
Arne Langsetmo
In <339BDE...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>
>Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com, part of the brainwashed
>cultists that falsely call themselves "skeptics", wrote:
Nope. Skep-ti-cultists®. . . ;-)
>> In <339B61...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
>> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>> >Arne Langsetmo wrote:
>> >> In <3399B4...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
>> >> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>> >> >Sherilyn wrote:
>> >> >> In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel
>> >> >> Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
>
>[Bruce snips a bunch of stuff about _his_ nonresponsiveness here]
>
>> >> >Typical, as the above, from the SKEP-TI-CULT. It's
>> >> >propagandizing, and by omission, misleading.
>
>> >> Sherilyn posted the _full_ text of the challenge. . .
>[here Bruce snips my comment that the full text, which _he_
> keeps snipping, is _not_ misleading by omission, being the
> plain, unedited, un-spun text of the challenge, rather than
> the mangled and fractured interpretations of the challenge
> that Bruce keeps putting forward.]
>
>Anyone who wants to see it can access it at:
>
> http://www.randi.org
>
>These posts are long enough.
They need to be longer, Bruce. You keep snipping anything
you don't like in them that will put you in a bad light.
But, don't worry. I _do_ know how to use the archives,
despite your assertion to the contrary, and will continue
to put back in what is necessary to illustrate your
prevarication and dissembling. . .
>> If you continue to _fail_ to respond to my past (and
>> present) points, _you_ will be a shoo-in for a repeat
>> KotM. Now was it misleading to post the _actual text_
>> of the challenge?
>
>Mostly, the "points" you people know how to make, consist
>of references to supposed problems of the person who writes,
>not about what was written. Your writing of this subject,
>taken into context with the entire discussion, lacks any
>coherence or logical sense.
Translation: Arne will call Bruce a horse's patootie whenever
Bruce lies, obfuscates an issue, misunderstands what is said
to him, or avoids a point. TS, Bruce, if the shoe fits. . .
>I never wrote that posting the "_actual text_" of the challenge
>was, itself, misleading. It was the omission of other material.
You wrote, after Sherilyn posted the full text of the challenge:
>> >Typical, as the above, from the SKEP-TI-CULT. It's
>> >propagandizing, and by omission, misleading.
I'm not sure how you can call that propagandizing. Was the
text wrong? Was it presented in a slanted light? Did it
selectively highlight certain parts of the text to put in
a false emphasis, or leave out other relevant portions that
apply to the point at hand? The full text was inserted for
the benefit of any _other_ readers, so that they may
independently _read_ the challenge, and see who is the
dissembler here. . . If _you_ have difficulty reading and
comprehending the full text, that is _your_ problem.
Apparently it is.
>> . . . The terms of the
>> challenge, after all, is the subject of discussion here. . .
>> Which you snipped, rather than _discuss_ those very terms.
>
>The above is actually quite misleading. The terms were
>discussed, quite recently, in this thread when it was of
>the title "...open letter to...". If you would rather call
>it avoidance only because you never read it, then so be it.
>I won't go into repeated detail for no other purpose than
>to please you, you pompous ass.
>
>I have discussed the terms of the challenge, and rather
>than repeat myself, because you jumped into a discussion
>not having read what took place beforehand, . . .
>
The above is dissembling. I have been lurking in your
"Randi Runs Away" thread and other spin-offs for a while,
and have even responded to some of these, with little
apparent response from you. Despite repeated posts
from _many_ people saying that the _first_ thing that
Mr. Dames has to do is to sign and return the acceptance,
you _still_ have given no evidence that he has done so!
Rather, I remember your posts saying that the public
offer on Art Bell's show to a debate constituted
acceptance, which is _not_ what the challenge itself
says, and which was pointed out to you in prior posts,
and inplicitly by Sherilyn when she posted the challenge
text itself.
I have _also_ heard you say that Dames must be allowed
to negotiate the "terms" _before_ he signs anything,
under the mistaken assumption that negotiation is a
prerequisite for the formation of a contract (a mistake
of yours covered below). This _seems_ to be an
implicit admission on _your_ part than Dames has in fact
_not_ signed the agreement! Is it, Bruce?
We are _still_ waiting for confirmation from _anyone_
that Dames has signed the challenge and returned it to
Randi, and has indicated exactly _what_ powers he intends
to demonstrate, as required by the challenge. Perhaps
I missed this confirmation in the flood of posts skirting
the subject. If so, give me a message ID, and I'll pull
it up. Otherwise, I will keep on insisting that Dames
_has_ to do this first before you, Art Bell, or Dames
has _any_ right to demand that Randi negotiate the
test protocols, much less do so live on Art Bell's show.
> . . . I will refer
>to the archives:
>
> http://www.dejanews.com
>
and enter "d...@psicounsel.com", and search for any
post with "KotM" in it.
[snip]
>> Don't worry. I have the relevant portions included in the
>> prior post below. . . complete with commentary on your
>> cluelessness as to the meaning of the terms. . . Perhaps
>> you'd like to give it another go, so you don't look quite
>> the idiot.
>
>You are the obvious idiot -- apparent to anyone who has
>followed the thread and does not have their judgement
>clouded by your cult mentality.
We'll leave _that_ judgement to the lurkers and posterity.
What say you, lurkers? Shall we take a vote, Bruce?
>The relevant part of the terms have been acknowledged and
>replied to by me. Are you a "newbie" who has no knowledge
>of the fact that it's a common practice to check the archives
>before jumping into a subject?
Nope. Check the archives yourself, searching Randi in the
subject with me as the author. You will see that I have
been following this and related threads for quite a while
now, and have repeatedly pointed out that Dames has to
sign the accepance _first_. . .
It is not _you_ that has to acknowledge and reply to the
terms of the challenge (as you have pointed out to others;
short term memory problem?). It is Dames. To give the
above paragraph a more charitable parsing, if you mean
that you have read these portions of the challenge and
_understand_ them, then demonstrate it, for crissake!!!
>Could it be that you don't even know what the archives
>are? Are you that clueless?
Nope. If you took the time to investigate, you would find
that I even _post_ from DejaNews on occasion. . . Don't
underestimate your tormentors, Mr. Kettler. Such a
misapprehension can make things much more painful for
you. . .
>> ><snip>
>
>> Hey, Brucie, you brilliant KotM, Bruce Hutchinson doesn't
>> speak for Randi.
>
>The above is not part of the discussion. It's only your
>attempt to discredit me, to falsely convey the idea that
>I'm unable to read or understand the terms of the challenge.
Did a pretty bang-up job of it, too. . . Although you
have made your _own_ contribution to this effort as well.
> . . . In a strictly legal sense,
>no-one speaks for James Randi.
Which is precisely _what_ I said. But you were insinuating
that Bruce H. did:
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com>
>Bruce Hutchinson wrote:
[snip]
>And, I can assume, that this coming from one as close to
>James Randi as you are, such a long-time defender of the
>faith, that the official word is that the rumors are just
^^^^^^^^
>rumors, that all I've been reading on the WEB about new
>offers coming from Randi via registered mail, etc. are
>just rumors. It's what I wrote I suspected in my original
>post of this subject, and I'm gratified to have that
>confirmed by you.
^^^^^^^^^
Now, are you not implying that Bruce Hutchinson was speaking
for Randi here? If so, you were wrong, and needed to be
corrected.
> . . . The terms of the challenge, which you
>quoted, have to do with other matters, not whether Bruce
>Hutchinson has acquaintance with the latest communication
>of the JREF.
They have to do with who administers the challenge, which
was _directly_ on point as to _who_ speaks for Randi.
See the actual quote a few paragraphs below.
>This character assassination is the main weapon in the
>arsenal of you people. It's apparent in my writing, and
>from the quotes and references to others writing at my
>site:. . .
You assassinate your own character _quite_ well, Bruce.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel to find a quote
of _yours_ to make you hoist by your own petard. . .
Sto being such an idiot, and we'll stop pointing it
out. . .
[snip]
>> > ". . .the implementation and management of the
>> > challenge will be carried out by James Randi
>> > and/or the James Randi Educational Foundation."
>So what?
The relevance of this was just pointed out above. Too
bad it went right over your head. . .
>> Nor does Bruce H. say he does.
>
>I never said he did, clueless!
But you _clearly_ implied that he _did_ speak for Randi. See
above. . . I was just pointing out that Bruce Hutchinson
never made such a claim.
[here Mr. Kettler snipped this:
Arne: He [Bruce H.] says only what is in the challenge
Arne: itself:
]
>> ". . . [A]ll claimants must agree to the rules set
>> forth here before _any_ formal agreement is entered
>> into.
>
>That which you quote above, I acknowledged in a recent post,
>though not with specific reference to the exact wording.
And have yet to show _any_ evidence that this has been done
by Mr. Dames.
>> A claimant will declare agreement by signing this form
>> where indicated before a notary public and returning the
>> form to me.
>
>I wrote that I knew the above existed, and that I knew what
>it meant, within the past week or so.
Yet you continue to insist that Dames has the right to
"negotiate" publicly on the Art Bell show before signing
_anything_!!! I _don't_ see _any_ evidence that you
_do_ know what this means! Shall we drag out some old
quotes of your:
BDK>2. Ed Dames has made it clear to you, James Randi, that
BDK>PSI TECH wishes to meet the challenge and discuss terms
BDK>on the Art Bell Show.
BDK>I have read the terms, and my posts show a clear
BDK>comprehension of them, and so have many other people
BDK>read them. There is provision for a "contract." As
BDK>such *all* terms are subject to negotiation. . .
BDK>If terms must be agreed to before negotiations, then
BDK>this is a bogus offer.
All of this nonsense was refuted in my prior post, which
you chose to ignore, Bruce. . .
> You and all the readers, if they don't know yet,
> should learn how to access the archives. It's
> a good exercise:
>
> http://www.dejanews.com
I agree, Bruce. There they can see your idiocy in its
full and wondrous glory. . . And also see just how much
bandwidth you waste.
>> Tell me, Mr. Kettler: What part of this don't you
>> understand?
>
>That question was asked of me by "twitch" and I answered
>it March 13, 1997, and the subject header is "Randi Ran
>Away...". . .
Ahhh, you don't understand _any_ of it. I see. . .
From a prior post:
>No, I've many times referred to the demand to
>"read this, sign that, etc" It's in my March
>13 post "Randi Ran Away" (archives:
>www.dejanews.com) I did not misinterpret what
>was written at the JREF site, but rather had
>not seen any sense to it.
You clearly admit you simply _don't_ understand it.
Do you ever wonder _why_ people keep asking you
the above question?
> . . . so use the name "Bruce Daniel
>Kettler" and you will then know the answer to the question.
I prefer to use my own name, thank you anyways. Yours has
been pretty badly sullied, I'm afraid. . . ;-)
[snip]
>That's enough repitition for you, you clueless, pompous ass!
And enough "repitition" from you. . . This is _all_ rather
repetitive, redundant, and, ultimately, tedious. . . ;-)
>--
>
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
[snip]
I would like to point out at this time that Bruce Kettler
completely ignores the _rest_ of my post, where I attempt
to enlighten him on the subtleties of unilateral contract.
Contrary to his claim above that such material is repetitive,
I have made some points there that he has _never_ addressed.
Therefore, I will include them _once_ again, so that he
may be given _one more_ chance to respond to them,
rather than ignoring them, as he has accused Sherilyn
(unjustly) of doing. . .
From my prior post, the rest of the text. . .:
. . (begin included post) . . .
220 298974 <5n5jvd$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> article
Path: ix.netcom.com!news
From: zu...@ix.netcom.com(Arne Langsetmo)
Newsgroups:
alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,alt.paranet.skeptic,alt.fan.art-bell
Subject: Re: An Open Letter To James Randi
Date: 5 Jun 1997 05:48:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom
Lines: 237
Message-ID: <5n5jvd$l...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>
References: <339366...@psicounsel.com>
<33937fdf...@news.cris.com>
<3393A0...@psicounsel.com> <3394da0a...@news.cris.com>
<3394F8...@psicounsel.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ala-ca19-21.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Wed Jun 04 10:48:29 PM PDT 1997
Xref: ix.netcom.com alt.paranormal:77579 sci.skeptic:298974
alt.paranet.skeptic:16098 alt.fan.art-
bell:53549
In <3394F8...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
. . (snipped portions included above) . . .
>> >I have read the terms, and my posts show a clear
>> >comprehension of them, and so have many other people
>> >read them.
>
>Wasn't there a former version at www.randi.org with
>the word "contract" in it?
>
>Last time I looked, the word was not there. I would
>have to check my copy to see, but it seems to me that
>it *did* have the word "contract" in it.
Are you given to responding to your own comments? Talk
to yourself a lot, do you, Mr. Kettler? Wonder why. . .
What difference does it make if there _was_ the word
"contract" in there? Perhaps you could explain _why_
this is of _any_ importance.
>> Your posts show only blurred "interpretations", but
>> certainly no comprehension.
>
>No, I've many times referred to the demand to "read
>this, sign that, etc" It's in my March 13 post "Randi
>Ran Away" (archives: www.dejanews.com) I did not
>misinterpret what was written at the JREF site, but
>rather had not seen any sense to it.
The important part is not whether _you_ can figure it out.
There is just no getting around the fact that certain
people can't read _plain_ English, as demonstrated above.
The important part is what the offer actually _says_, and
how a court will interpret that, should it come to that.
The offer is straight-forward, and quite fair, IMHO:
"The eventual test procedure must be agreed upon by
both parties before any testing procedures will take
place. We do not act as a judges. We do not design
the protocol independently of the claimant. . ."
"Claimant must state clearly in advance, and claimant
and Mr. Randi will agree upon, just what powers or
abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the
proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and
other variables are concerned) and what will constitute
both a positive and a negative result."
This language seems to anticipate and provide for the
various different types of claimed abilities, amd means
of demonstrating such, by allowing an agreed upon test
procedure to resolve the claim. Note that this is the
_test procedure_, _not_ the _terms_ of the challenge.
In addition, the claimant must state _in advance_ just
what abilities it is that they claim. Signing the
agreement, agreeing to the terms, and stating what
abilities are claimed must be done before any negotiation
of the test procedures. This is what Mr. Dames needs to
do, _not_ make some blustering challenge to an open
"debate" on Art Bell's show concerning the "terms" of
the agreement. What part of _this_ don't _you_
understand, Mr. Kettler?
>> >There is provision for a "contract." As such *all*
>> >terms are subject to negotiation. There can be no
>> >scientific inquiry without discussion.
>
>> >If terms must be agreed to before negotiations, then
>> >this is a bogus offer.
>> >
>> >It is an illogical and tricky illusion your master
>> >wishes to put over on the public.
>
>> Yeah- he sure did pull a fast on psychic frauds.
>
>Let's see this deceptive technique, in debate, has a name.
>Is it "clouding the issue?" Is it "changing the subject"?
>I am not sure of the exact terms.
No great surprise that you have no idea what name this
goes by in debate. It's called "satire". But it seems it
went over your head completely, Mr. Kettler.
Back to your original comment here: _Any_ public offer
like this is a contract, when it has been accepted or
performed by another party, whether it says so or not. I
guess you don't have much education in the law. It is
called a unilateral contract. But that doesn't mean that
it has to be _negotiated_; in fact, the opposite is true.
Unilateral contracts are by definition _not_ negotiated.
I have absolutely _no_ idea where you got the kooky idea
that any potential acceptor has the right to renegotiate
the terms of such a contract. That woud be laughed out
of court in two seconds flat.
And what this has to do with "scientific inquiry", I
don't know. Enlighten me, Mr. Kettler. Are unilateral
contracts subject to renegotiation in the interest of
"scientific inquiry"?
>> He wrote a Challange in language so clear and explicit
>> that everyone, except you and your wannabe buddies,
>> seems to understand.
>
>I understand what was written, but the reason, the logic,
>the sense, just does not seem to be there. If one is to
>negotiate, then one is to negotiate, not sign a paper
>before negotiations about how to negotiate. . . .
I'll excuse your limited comprehensive abilities. But,
if one is _not_ to negotiate, then one is _not_ to
negotiate. The _terms_ are _not_ subject to negotiation.
Has Mr. Dames fulfilled the prerequisites by accepting
the challenge as described? Has he stated what it is
that he claims he can do?
> . . . It ceases to be a negotiation when one has to
>agree to terms beforehand. It is a dictator-type
>transaction, with the illusion of negotiation.
Covered above. Tough luck. _Public_ offers cannot be
subject to negotiation, as the other party is unknown
until the offer is accepted by someone. Which is
probably _why_ Randi insists on acceptance _before_
any negotiation on test procedures.
><snip>
>
>> hutch
>
>> "Once an idea is created, it never disappears, no matter
>> how often it is disproved" -- as quoted by Milton Rothman
>
>I will take it, from your post, that the subject is closed.
You can take it from me that the essential nature of public
offer and acceptance is substantially as I described above.
If you can get Randi to make a separate agreement on terms
other than he has publicly offered, more power to you. But
don't say that any refusal of Mr. Randi to "negotiate" on
radio is an abrogation of his challenge. It is not, and
to say so is arguably false, with any attendant legal
ramifications.
>If I, or anyone else does not like the terms of Randi's
>challenge, we can go soak our heads, I guess. Okay, I'll
>go soak my head.
Oh, so that's how you get the fabulous "do", Mr. Kettler.
I really love the great picture of you on the Skep-ti-cult®
page ("http://www.swt.edu/~jw34998"). ;-)
>I also assume that Randi still does not want to negotiate
>under any other conditions than those he has dictated: >>>
>sign this first, and then we talk
Assume what you want. With half a brain, you might be
able to figure it out. . .
>Those two points are well taken, and so there's nothing
>more to discuss.
Never _was_ much to discuss. Which makes your "open letter"
to Randi all the more curious. . .
>--
>
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
[snip]
A word of advice, Mr. Kettler. If you have trouble with
understanding plain English, seek the counsel of someone
who _does_, before shooting your mouth off in public.
. . (snip sig) . . .
. . (end included post) . . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Skep-ti-cult® Member
ID #11-21568-211
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
The subject matter, here, is about a 1.1 million dollar offer for those
who first "follow the rules" and then prove they are psychic to James
Randi.
Rules are at www.randi.org Comments on those rules, anyone?
Most people find this subject old, tired, and boring. It's pretty much
understood, by free-thinking people that PROBABLY no one *CAN* win it,
and therefore no-one *WILL* win it, because there *ARE* psychics but
probably *NO* legitimate offers of any decent amount.
This writer, Arne, is tricky. Of all the cultists who have come at me
lately, this one is the most clever. He is clever, deceitful, and a
classical trickster. One has to answer him carefully.
Good work Arne, but you will be transparent to anyone with brains by the
time they finish reading this.
> In <339BEE...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> >Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com
> >> In <339B66...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
> >> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> >> >Bruce Hutchinson bhu...@cris.com wrote:
> >> >> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) scribed:
> >> >> >sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
> >> >> >>On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz
> >> >> >>(Hawker Flora) wrote:
> >> >Bruce Hutchinson bhu...@cris.com wrote:
> >> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> >> >A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were
> >> >in place to preculude cheating by James Randi.
> >> . . .
> >> >What about trickery by the master trickster,
> >> >himself, James Randi?
> >You have misrepresented my writing by quoting it out of context.
You also did this by writing your interepretation, which does not even
fit what you quoted.
> OK, Bruce. I thought I had it pretty well nailed.
> Fill in the context and show how this is a
> misrepresentation. Go on. We're waiting. . .
All one has to do is read the text quoted. In that, I did not say Randi
*WOULD* cheat, only that he *COULD* cheat. That's all I needed to
present to make my point.
Also, that he MAY HAVE cheated in the past is an important point. Can
Randi show any controls of past tests where proper controls were in
place to prove *HE* did not cheat?
> >You people, obviously, are a breed of liars. You give birth to
> >more of your breed by written and spoken words, and, fortunately,
> >your numbers are dwindling even with your fanatical "screwing
> >with minds and giving birth (proselytizing)" activity.
> Bruce, have you ever considered a career in literature? Comedy?
> Political speech-writing? Goebbels would be standing in awe.
> ROFL. . .
You didn't like my "giving birth"? Gosh, perhaps someone else will find
it worthwhile. Perhaps it's the truth of it you don't like, that you
people
breed sick monsters, much like any mind control cult does.
See more about this cult at my pages:
YAHOO: www.yahoo.com
TYPE: "Skeptics what they do and why"
> >As I pointed out in a previous post, the reading of which is
> >beyond your laziness, evidently, the fact that he is a
> >trickster shows his ability, not necessarily his disposition.
> Let me assure you, Mr. Kettler, I have read those posts.
> They were well responded to by others, who pointed out
> that his abilities in this respect are of no importance
> to the subject matter here _unless_ you also imply that
> he may _use_ these abilities to frustrate any demonstration
> of genuine psychic powers. . . Which I _still_ maintain
> that you did, above. . .
Of course, I said he *MAY* I never said he was incapable, morally, of
that, and it is logically imperative that controls be placed for RANDI
or for ANYONE administering such a test. That does not imply dishonesty
on the part of the PARTICULAR person. Safeguards are employed
EVERYWHERE that large sums of money are in the balance, and where
psychic testing is done in universities (see:
www.psicounsel.com/scistudy.html) and in this case also the reputations
of prominent people such as Ed Dames.
For anyone to ASSUME that RANDI or ANYONE should be trusted in such
matters is so ludicrous and out of touch with the real world, that I'd
have to assume the presentation of such an idea to only come from the
mind of a deluded cult follower, which I've witnessed much of here on
USENET from the SKEP-TI-CULT.
See: http://www.psicounsel.com/page9328-a.htm and the comment on the
word:
"SKEP-TI-CULT"
Check the ARCHIVES www.dejanews.com
Look for headers with "Randi" in them
> >Also, if you follow the point
> >logically, and look into the history of testing psychics
> >(not by James Randi, necessarily) it is an obligation of
> >both sides of the issue to be sure that trickery is not
> >possible. Proving a disposition toward deceit is not
> >necessary for one to place rigid controls for testing of
> >psychics.
> No one said it wasn't. But, as indicated below, Randi _does_
> allow for mutually agree-on testing protocols for the
> purpose of giving _all_ people confidence in the results.
How about a public discussion of that? We don't know what he agreed to
for safeguards in the past, as none of the discussions were public.
> >Pointing out one's talents at trickery does not imply that
> >the necessary lack of character to exercise those talents,
> >is there also.
True rational skepticism, not the false so-called "skepticism" of your
cult, demands that one assume the *POSSIBILITY* of the worst of
everyone's character, and disposition towards unconscious mistakes while
designing such a test. It is assumed by Randi of the Psychic, and it
must be be assumed of the test *GIVER* also. Anything less is not a true
test.
> But it is irrelevant unless that "lack of character" is also
> there. Your point?
The point, obviously, is that it *COULD* be there. Allowance is made,
in all societies, where there are high stakes, for *EVERYONE'S*
*POSSIBLE* lack of character. Just look around at the world.
<snip>
> >It is obvious by the wording of the challenge,
> >
> > http://www.randi.org
> >
> >...that the way the test is conducted is negotiable. These
> >circumstances of a test are "terms." That which is negotiable
> >can be a set of "terms". . . .
> Nope. Not legally. The challenge is quite explicit in saying
> that the _rules_ (i.e. the terms) of the challenge _must_ be
> agreed to in advance <snip>
You are playing semantics. You are attempting to trick and deceive the
audience with word games.
"term" (in the dictionary): "conditions of a contract, an agreement"
What Randi has in his "challenge" is provision for an agreement to be
reached, a future agreement after the signing of his original one, and
that includes the manner that a test will be conducted. That is what I
have correctly referring to as "terms."
<snip> [irrelevancies]
http://www.dejanews.com
> (from the Randi Website, URL given above. . .)
> This is the legally binding offer, and it contains all the
> terms of the agreement.
Again, you are into weird semantics, and deception with the use of them.
I've explained, accurately, that there are original terms, and there are
terms that are negotiated later after a person is supposed to sign the
original document. There is no disputing of that fact, only your use of
semantics to try to indicate, falsely, that I'm not interpreting
properly.
You are, in the classic tradition of your fellow cultists, attempting to
discredit the person, rather than that person's argument.
> > . . . If need be, Randi could tell Ed Dames,
> >on the air, "look, the only thing I have to discuss here,
> >is that you have to sign this and notarize it, before we
> >can continue talking about the test."
> Randi has _already_ said this, on his web page.
Okay, Randi has already said this on his web page. This argument is
valid. I've acknowledged it in a previous post, directed at a different
poster. I wrote that anyone not wanting to follow Randi's rules can go
soak their head. I wrote, jokingly, that, since there was nothing more
to write, I will go soak my head.
Apparently, you don't read the archives, do you? If you did, you would
know what I wrote, and not waste bandwidth rewriting old garbage.
However, I also pointed out, at some point in my postings, that the
demand for a written agreement prior to negotiation of conditions of the
test is not fair or logical. The reader may examine the written
agreement: http://www.randi.org and determine for his/her self how fair
demanding such an agreement is.
I also pointed out that, generally, the propaganda resulting from this
so-called "testing" and "challenge" that, supposedly, since no-one has
won, there are no actual psychics, is becoming less credible to the
general public. It will continue to become *EVEN LESS* as time goes
on. If Art Bell agrees to appear on CNN with James Randi, that will put
a dent in it. Even without that, Art Bell is growing in listenership at
a rapid pace, and all the activities of James Randi and his JREF will
become more transparent to the general public directly, and through the
press that listens to Art Bell.
"Rots a ruck, Charlie!" (a USA expression)
Anyway, it's been fun, but I'm getting bored, so I'll snip the rest of
this without reading it. I believe I wrote of the fact that you write
too much. Do you have anything else going on in your life other than
your fanatical obsession to prove your master, Randi, right?
<snip>
Bye
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Terry Smith Te...@gastro.apana.org.au wrote:
> > From: Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com>
> > Message-Id: <3399B4...@psicounsel.com>
> > Sherilyn wrote:
> > <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
<snip>
> offer of over $1,000,000 to any of them who can demonstrate their claimed
> `powers' does far more to expose the charlatans from the believers that it
> can do to sway the congnitively capable.
You make it look so clear, and so honest, and so sure. It has been
debated,
at length, on USENET, about how honest this "challenge" is. We do not
know
that this offer is real, in that effective controls may be placed to be
sure that the test is conducted honestly by James Randi and the JREF.
We only know the propaganda, and all the BS you cultists are full of.
More on this by clicking at "skeptics" on my web page.
More on the prior discussion by accessing the archives at
www.dejanews.com and using the "search" function for "Randi" in the
headers.
<snip>
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Arne Langsetmo
zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> In <760_970...@ghostrdr.wierius.com>
> John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com (John Mcgowan) writes:
<snip>
> Nope. Acceptance of the terms by someone in the prescribed
> manner forms a contract, at which point whoever has accepted
> may initiate legal action for breach of contract should
> Randi not comply with the terms of the contract in good
> faith.
Isn't there something in the contract about the person being tested not
being permitted to initiate legal action?
I am not positive, but the reader may check:
http://www.randi.org
> >All else is double-speak.
> Does that include Mr. Kettler's inane ramblings, and _yours_?
Oh, sure, anyone who disagrees with you, and shows your games so they
become more transparent to readers, is "inane." Nice try, tricky.
> > > > Moreover, the results must be obvious to any observer,
> > > > requiring no interpretation. Presumably, anyone who
> > > > has accepted this challenge has met these conditions.
> > > A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were in place
> > > to preculude cheating by James Randi.
> > > > And since no one has succeeded under such terms, it is
> > > > clear that by their own definition those claiming
> > > > possession of paranormal abilities have failed to
> > > > demonstrate those abilities under conditions which
> > > > preclude trickery or chance.
> > > What about trickery by the master trickster, himself,
> > > James Randi?
> > EF> It is the claimant who is supposed to demonstrate an
> > EF> alleged ability, not Randi. Since a precondition of
> > EF> the actual demonstration is an agreement by both parties
> > EF> of which shall constitute a positive and a negative
> > EF> result, and that the result must be self-evident and
> > EF> require no interpretation, how could Randi possibly
> > EF> cheat?
Randi could cheat if controls are not in place to be sure that he does
not. Nothing is that simply "self-evident". Any magician will tell you
that. It should be evident, with no possibility of trickery, to others.
<snip> You write too much.
J. Morales
gee...@nursing.home (Glen Quarnstrom) wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>> >> How about possible cheating by Randi?
>>
>>> >If you have any evidence that he has cheated, please post
>>> >it. If not, please drop it.
>>
>>In the above paragraph, you wrote of something that was not about what
>>had been written in the paragraph above it. Possible cheating, and
>>evidence of cheating are two different things.
[snip]
>>In nearly every system of testing of psychics, certainly anything that
>>could be considered "scientific" *both sides* are obligated to prove
>>that proper controls are in place to eliminate the possiblity of
>>falsifying the results.
>Duh! Randi's challenge, in fact, provides for exactly that. Too bad
>you didn't read it before you inserted your whole damn keyboard in
>your mouth.
I believe the evidence shows it is working right now: pre-emptively
disqualifying Mr. Kettler by not permitting him to "cheat".
It appears to be a cleverly-worded challenge indeed.
>--
>gl...@cyberhighway.net
>"afa-b's leading curmudgeon"
JRM
J. Morales
Pharaoh Chromium 93 <pc...@ibm.net> wrote:
>It is a fact that in the consciousness continuum effects can be
>made to occur regardless of spacial configurations. Just because
>one cannot reproduce it in a "scientific" manner doesn't mean certain
>phenomena do not or cannot be made to occur. You skeptics have obviously
>never practiced symbolic sorcery or made any strange phenomena occur
>at a distance once in your existence. Those who have know that
>since we live in an energy world certain events or occurances can
>be brought into manifestation if the focus of intent and will is strong
>enough.
What a shame the "consciousness continuum" is all in your head!
JRM
Matt Kriebel
John Mcgowan (John.M...@ghostrdr.wierius.com) wrote:
: Since then much information was uploaded as to not only how Randi could
: cheat, but also Randi's Factual Discrepencies to lead one to the thought that
: it is possible that Randi does cheat.
Is that the part where you mumbling something about magnets and then
refused to give details? I'm still wondering how one could use magnets to
disrupt so many diferent kinds of dowsers. You never did give a reply.
Oh, as for 'factual discrepancies' you refer to, they are non-existant.
they mostly exist when you state flatly that since dowsing works for you
then Randi must be cheating whn he tests dowsers. Not exactly ironclad
evidence.
Matt Kriebel * This .sig is no longer small or easily digestible!
got...@netaxs.com * No, I'm not a goth. I just have an architecture fetish.
***************************************************************************
The truth is out there... But the speculation is way, *way* out there...
Celestin d'Olanie
<snip>
> A reply includes, in my estimation, an addressing of the issue
> presented,
> not the beginning a new non-issue. There is nothing in your post, or
> the
> one from the previous poster, to respond to.
<snip>
Please address the issue regarding why Art's metaphorical cock is so far
up your metaphorical ass.
--
Visit Muthaship -- where gangsta rap meets conspiracy theory.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/7303/
Arne Langsetmo
>washed out brain, brainwashed by the cult of so-called "skeptics",
>wrote:
>
>> In <339B66...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
>> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>> >Bruce Hutchinson bhu...@cris.com wrote:
>> >> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) scribed:
>> >> >sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
>> >> >>On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz
>> >> >>(Hawker Flora) wrote:
>
>
>> >Bruce Hutchinson
> bhu...@cris.com wrote:
>
>> >> Lets see. You refuse to accept Randi's rules, prefering to set
>> >> your own. You openly suggest that he is a cheater and a liar
>> >> (without a shred of proof, I might add), so therefore you must
>> >> be allowed to make up new rules; mainly because you know he will
>> >> find you out.
[snip Bruce K.'s response _here_ to some _prior_ posts. . .]
>
>> >The above, as is usual for the clouded mind of the brainwashed
>> >cultist, is total nonsense:
>
>> >1. I didn't suggest he was a cheater and a liar.
>
>> Oh? So what is this?:
>
>> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>
>> >A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were
>> >in place to preculude cheating by James Randi.
>> . . .
>> >What about trickery by the master trickster,
>> >himself, James Randi?
>
>You have misrepresented my writing by quoting it out of context.
>I have a list of the deceptive tactics of your cult, and that is
>at my web site. One of those tactics is quoting out of context.
[snip]
OK, Bruce. I thought I had it pretty well nailed.
Fill in the context and show how this is a
misrepresentation. Go on. We're waiting. . .
>You people, obviously, are a breed of liars. You give birth to
>more of your breed by written and spoken words, and, fortunately,
>your numbers are dwindling even with your fanatical "screwing
>with minds and giving birth (proselytizing)" activity.
Bruce, have you ever considered a career in literature? Comedy?
Political speech-writing? Goebbels would be standing in awe.
ROFL. . .
>As I pointed out in a previous post, the reading of which is
>beyond your laziness, evidently, the fact that he is a
>trickster shows his ability, not necessarily his disposition.
Let me assure you, Mr. Kettler, I have read those posts.
They were well responded to by others, who pointed out
that his abilities in this respect are of no importance
to the subject matter here _unless_ you also imply that
he may _use_ these abilities to frustrate any demonstration
of genuine psychic powers. . . Which I _still_ maintain
that you did, above. . .
>Also, if you follow the point
>logically, and look into the history of testing psychics
>(not by James Randi, necessarily) it is an obligation of
>both sides of the issue to be sure that trickery is not
>possible. Proving a disposition toward deceit is not
>necessary for one to place rigid controls for testing of
>psychics.
No one said it wasn't. But, as indicated below, Randi _does_
allow for mutually agree-on testing protocols for the
purpose of giving _all_ people confidence in the results.
>Pointing out one's talents at trickery does not imply that
>the necessary lack of character to exercise those talents,
>is there also.
But it is irrelevant unless that "lack of character" is also
there. Your point?
>> >2. I never advocated making new rules
>
>> What exactly are you asking for by demanding that Randi
>> re-negotiate the terms of the challenge on the Art
>> Bell show? If not new terms, then _what_ is to be
>> "negotiated"?
>
>It is obvious by the wording of the challenge,
>
> http://www.randi.org
>
>...that the way the test is conducted is negotiable. These
>circumstances of a test are "terms." That which is negotiable
>can be a set of "terms". . . .
Nope. Not legally. The challenge is quite explicit in saying
that the _rules_ (i.e. the terms) of the challenge _must_ be
agreed to in advance:
"This statement outlines the general rules covering my
offer concerning psychic, supernatural or paranormal
claims. Since claims will vary greatly in character
and scope, specific rules must be formulated for each
claimant. However, all claimants must agree to the rules
^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^
set forth here before any formal agreement is entered
^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
into."
(from the Randi Website, URL given above. . .)
This is the legally binding offer, and it contains all the
terms of the agreement.
> . . . If need be, Randi could tell Ed Dames,
>on the air, "look, the only thing I have to discuss here,
>is that you have to sign this and notarize it, before we
>can continue talking about the test."
Randi has _already_ said this, on his web page. Why would
he _want_ to go on the air and say it again? A short and
stupid conversation, I would say. . . Unless you (and/or
Art Bell or Ed Dames) think that there is political "hay"
to be made by making Randi reiterate this position on the
air, and thus _appear_ to be denying Dames an opportunity
to take the challenge to those who are ignorant of the
actual terms of the challenge.
>Perhaps they could talk about Randi's rule to sign first,
>and the contents of what must be signed.
Bell and Dames can talk about this as much as they want.
It's a public document, and there is no need for Randi to
take part. . . If they do, and start trashing Randi for
his "intransigence", rest assured I will do my best to
call in and set them straight, and to tape the show for
the benefit of Mr. Randi, should they publicly misrepresent
his position to his detriment.
> . . . A new date for airing the discussion
>could then be set, . . .
A waste of time, when as much could be accomplished by
Mr. Dames simply _signing the form_!!!
> . . . and Randi could talk about his organization,
>give out the address, WWW site, and phone number and tell
>all about "skepticism," and just have a grand old time.
>All guests are given full promotional opportunities.
I'm sure that if Randi thinks it is in his interest to do
this, he wil avail himself of the offer. Apparently he
does not (understandably).
>> >Anyone would be expected to conduct a test under controlled
>> >conditions, whether the person taking the test, or the one
>> >administering it, to be sure there are no fabrications.
>
>> And the challenge says:
>
>> "The eventual test procedure must be agreed upon by
>> both parties before any testing procedures will take
>> place. We do not act as a judges. We do not design
>> the protocol independently of the claimant. . ."
>
>So, as I have been writing, it is negotiable. It has to be
>agreed by both parties, so that means it is negotiable.
>That's what I've been writing, that an offer was made by Ed
>Dames to discuss this, in an open and free forum, on the air
>before millions. (378 affiliate stations). Any bogus offer
>by Dames can be rebutted by Randi, publicly. What is Randi
>afraid of?
Let's see:
"A claimant will declare agreement by signing this form
where indicated before a notary public and returning
the form to me. The eventual test procedure must be
agreed upon by both parties before any testing
procedures will take place."
(from the challenge text).
It says the _test_ procedure will be agreed _before_ _any
testing_. It doesn't say before acceptance of the agreement.
In fact, it says "the _eventual_ test procedure", indicating
that this is to be done _subsequent_ to acceptance of the
agreement.
>> "Claimant must state clearly in advance, and claimant
>> and Mr. Randi will agree upon, just what powers or
>> abilities will be demonstrated, the limits of the
>> proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and
>> other variables are concerned) and what will constitute
>> both a positive and a negative result."
>
>> (from the Randi challenge text). Isn't that _exactly_
>> what the challenge provides for: a mutually agreed
>> protocol, so that both sides may protect against cheating
>> by the other side? So what's your problem here?
>
>The administration of the test has to be negotiated, the
>protocol, the witnesses, and all that is essential to the
>administration of a foolproof test, one that neither side
>can fabricate the results of.
Which Randi has _already_ provided for in the challenge
terms.
>A perfectly fair way to negotiate it would be on the air.
>That offer was made publicly, and Randi has refused.
But what Randi hasn't refused to do is to accept Dames'
acceptance of the challenge. And Randi is under no
obligation to negotiate, on the air or _anywhere_, the
test procedure until Dames accepts the terms of the
challenge, and indicates, as required by the challenge:
"just what powers or abilities will be demonstrated. . ."
Once Dames does so, _then_ such negotiations may begin.
It is up to Randi and Dames to agree on reasonable procedures
for such negotiation, and it is up to Randi (and Dames) to
decide whether a negotiation in the circus atmosphere
of the Art Bell show is the best way to reach agreement
on the actual testing procedure. It may seem to be a "fair"
way to _you_, Mr. Kettler, but _your_ opinion doesn't count.
>That's all folks!
>
> ...unless Randi has something else to say.
>
>> >This does not imply a person being a cheater, only adept
>> >at trickery, since that is his bragged-about profession.
>> >(ie: "amazing" Randi)
>
>> Randi is open about _his_ profession. And he makes
>> allowance for it in his challenge. To imply that
>> his profession requires a "re-negotiation" to eliminate
>> the possibly of cheating <snip>
>
>Again, you are writing nonsense, and I am tired of answering
>each and every one of your ridiculous statements.
Then _don't_ answer my points. A fair reader may asume
you concede the points. . .
>Instead of wasting your time writing this garbage, why
>don't you get on the phone and talk to James Randi. Ask
>*HIM* why he will not discuss this with Ed Dames on the
>Art Bell show?. . .
Mainly because _I_ have no _incentive_ to drag him on
to the Art Bell show. I can _see_ what his reasons for
_not_ doing so may be, and can understand that he chooses
to ignore this bogus "challenge".
> . . . Read the archives, and
>discover what has already been discussed, and don't go
>on asking me questions I answered months ago.
Been there, done that. Answered unsatisfactorily.
><snip> You write too much. You seem to have a high
>degree of intelligence and education with a limited
>degree of imagination. Why not put your intelligence
>to work, and stop writing so much?
I _use_ my imagination and my intelligence when I write
(unlike some people). Writing is a joy, and I find
it intellectually stimulating and good practise. Why
do you recommend that I _not_ use my skills?
In addition, to be honest, I get a visceral pleasure
from ripping phony "psychics" and intellectually dishonest
people like yourself to shreds. I wish you were a little
bit more sport, though. Make it challenging; start
flopping around a bit. . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Skep-ti-cult® Member
ID #11-21568-211
>--
>
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
[snip]
Arne Langsetmo
In <339BF0...@ibm.net> Pharaoh Chromium 93 <pc...@ibm.net> writes:
>
>It is a fact that in the consciousness continuum effects can be
>made to occur regardless of spacial configurations. Just because
>one cannot reproduce it in a "scientific" manner doesn't mean certain
>phenomena do not or cannot be made to occur. You skeptics have
>obviously never practiced symbolic sorcery or made any strange
>phenomena occur at a distance once in your existence. Those who
>have know that since we live in an energy world certain events or
>occurances can be brought into manifestation if the focus of intent
>and will is strong enough.
Talk about strange "occurances". . . If you will it hard enough,
can you make good spelling and sentient thoughts appear on my
monitor as well?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
P.S.:
Sign up for the Randi challenge. This one should be fun to
watch. . . ;-)
Glen Quarnstrom
KotM Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>read it, then so be it. I won't go into repeated detail for no other
>purpose than to please you, you pompous ass.
>You are the obvious idiot -- apparent to anyone who has followed the
>Could it be that you don't even know what the archives are? Are you that
>clueless?
>I never said he did, clueless!
>That's enough repitition for you, you clueless, pompous ass!
...and then he wrote:
>This character assassination is the main weapon in the arsenal of you
>people. It's apparent in my writing, and from the quotes and references
'Nuff said.
Arne Langsetmo
In <339C99...@ibm.net> pharaoh chromium 93 <pc...@ibm.net> writes:
>
>Tom Schuler wrote:
>>
>> In article <339C1075...@hfab1.sc.ti.com>,
>> Steve Terrell <st...@hfab1.sc.ti.com> wrote:
>> >Pharaoh Chromium 93 wrote:
>> >
>> >> made to occur regardless of spacial configurations. Just because
>> >> one cannot reproduce it in a "scientific" manner doesn't mean
>> >> certain phenomena do not or cannot be made to occur.
>> >
>> > Hmm....
>>
>> Sure it can, Steve. All you have to do is leave open exactly where,
>> when, and how the occurrence will manifest. Then, you wait for
>> something to happen which is sort of close to what you intended
>> and declare that to be your result.
>>
>> It's a bit of post hoc reasoning, but it does work. The key words
>> are "made to occur". The beloved Pharoah believes that anything
>> which correlates to his magic symbol manipulation and his intent
>> must have been caused by that intent and his actions. It's called,
>> aptly enough, "magical thinking".
>
>I am speaking of a certain instances from my own experience. Would I
>declare what the events were you would probably laugh or deride me in
>some way. Yet you have no clue and have never in your life made
>anything manifest itself "out of the ordinary". The whole crux of the
>problem is that such things do not occur which are supernatural but
Huh? English, please?
> . . . Consciousness is part of nature. The observer has an
>effect on the energy world. I have personally caused an energy form
>(more like a shadow) to manifest in a certain location and to cause
>physical effects from Florida to Minnesota. I had personal
>verification from the person who experienced the event. . . .
Why not be a bit more specific as to _what_ was observed, and how it
was measured?
> . . . Distance does
>not matter as long as you have been familiar with the location
>and the observer at the location.
>There are other factors involved: recentness of being at said
>location, the rapport with the individual at said location, etc.
>Would you deny modern day field physics and say that it is a
>chimera?
No. I would ask you to formulate a theory as to how the effect
has been achieved, couched in the language of modern day field
theory. . .
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
Bob Casanova
On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 14:28:47 -0700, Lou Minatti
<slar...@concentric.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>OK. Here's reality: You're sounding more and more like a stock character
>from an old Ed Wood movie.
>
>> Your writing is so far from reality, so out-of-touch with the
>> *actual* previous writing, with so much of it manufactured from
>> the cesspool which clouds your mind, that it reeks, and is far
>> from funny.
>
>The fools! The fools! Their simple human minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Cut! *Beautiful!* Print it!
;-)
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The Marfa Mystery Lights:
>http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/MARFA.HTM
>(By sending me unsolicited commercial email, you agree to the Terms and
>Conditions as listed here: http://www.concentric.net/~Slaroche/SPAM.HTM)
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to casanova @ crosslink.net (without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Arne Langsetmo
In <339BF7...@psicounsel.com> Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>
>Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
[snip]
>You people are so fu*****g lame! Nearly everyone, at some point,
>makes mistakes in their writing. If a person writes a lot on
>USENET, then people like yourself can pick out the mistakes in
>grammar and spelling and collect it into one post or rewrite to
>the WEB. To some readers, it would seem like all the person had
>written was with bad grammar and spelling.
Bruce:
I'm afraid you missed the point of my reply to Major Houlihan.
Please read my comment again.
They had been positing that the improved grammar was an
indication that some _other_ nefarious individual had been
forging headers under _your_ name. Not one to let attribution
be wrongly placed for the material you have so kindly provided
us, I simply posted a comment that the grammatical mistakes
and tortured language of your recent posts indicated that the
posts were, _indeed_, from you!!! I wasn't complaining at
all about the mistakes themselves. I am thankful that you
do not know how to write coherent sentences. This provides
an almost unforgable "signature" of Kettler authenticity,
a guarantee that we _are_ getting the real poop. I meant
no offence, and I am sorry you took it the wrong way. :-)
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
[snip]
>E-mail: d...@psicounsel.com
[snip sig]
Scot Justice
On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 15:22:42 GMT, d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce
Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
>>You must understand, the rules are so that physic-bullshitters
>>can't win, and you know why, because they aren't real
>>physics.... Go figure:)
>
>>Scot
>
Congratulations Brucey, you actualy quoted me without adding shit. I'm
impressed. Guess the "Physics of America" initiated a code of ethics.
>In order for something to be truly funny, Scot, or to actually
>make a valid point through humor, it has to have
>an element of realism to it. I don't mean it has to be absolutely
>true, in the story content, but it has to be based upon reality.
It is real. All I hear is losers like you screaming about the Randi
challenge is rigged, a fruad or too difficult to do. I disagree. I
just wish you psi-bullshitters would just shut up and take the
challenge. But that's just a dream, you psi-bsres don't have the
testicles to take the challenge, because you are a fake.
I laugh my ass off every time I read the post by the physic (who
charges for his services) states that he can't control his abilities
and they "just happen". And to this person I always want to ask, if
you can't control your physic ability to take the Randi challenge,
then how can you ever charge for looking into the future.
>Your writing is so far from reality, so out-of-touch with the
>*actual* previous writing, with so much of it manufactured from
>the cesspool which clouds your mind, that it reeks, and is far
>from funny.
Bruce,from you, I take the above statement as a compliment.
>No-one has *actually* said anything similar to the idea that they
>want to *beat* some rules. Someone may have used hyperbole, but
>translating that so far from the actual meaning, as if it were
>serious, is deception from you. The "hyperbole" had been so
>out-of-touch with reality that it was not hyperbole, but rather
>pure bul****t.
Bruce, the psi-bullshitter inside of me made me do
this......ooooooohhhhh....aaaahhhhh....I see a death on the 16th of
August. Death somewhere, at sometime on the 15th, oh I mean the 16th.
>People have only offered to negotiate publicly. It being public,
>on the radio, it's difficult to present options that would allow
>cheating -- as authenticly presented rebuttal would preclude
>that. Your writing is of attempted cheating, and that has
>nothing to do with the full context of this thread. The thread
>is clear, here. It's in the archives for all to see, and it
>dates back many months, in any posting with "Randi" in the title,
>and Bruce Daniel Kettler as the writer: http://www.dejanews.com
Bruce, I would never negotiate on Artys show for any reason. Ole Arty
would obviously lean his support for the psi-bser, and there would be
no way to come up with a solution.
I see this a little clearer than you. Randi made an offer and put in
writing the terms of the participant of the challenge. If you can't
live with it, shut your mouth. No one cares of your complaints. Either
shit or get off the pot. (remember Major Ed "Physic of the Insane"
Danes doesn't want to take the challenge until Randi come up with the
cash up front, I say if Danes can't live with the terms Randi has laid
out, shut the fuck up and stop whining)
>For those new to this, it's about a 1.1 million dollar bogus
>offer for people to be able to win the money if they can prove
>psychic ability. According to the propagandist cultists, no-one
>can win because, supposedly, no-one is psychic.
Brucey, please prove the above statemente that the money is bogus (or
did the "Sweet spirits" wisper this in your ear?). With facts. And
don't wiggle around like a psi-bser when confronted with Randis
challenge.
Hope this post hasn't sprained your brain:)
Scot
Bruce Hutchinson
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> scribed:
>Bruce Hutchinson bhu...@cris.com wrote:
>
>> d...@psicounsel.spamblock.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) scribed:
>> >sc...@edge.net (Scot Justice) wrote:
>> >>On Fri, 6 Jun 1997 09:47:33 +1200, freshf...@igrin.co.nz
>> >>(Hawker
>> >>Flora) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>I had written:
>
>> >Your writing is so far from reality, so out-of-touch with the
>> >*actual* previous writing, with so much of it manufactured from
>> >the cesspool which clouds your mind, that it reeks, and is far
>> >from funny.
>
>In my estimation of a person's mentality, I have a basis for it, not
>fabricated, out of context, or misquoted writing. Also, I do it as a
>defense, not because of the others disbelief, but in response to their
>attack.
>
>Bruce Hutchinson
> bhu...@cris.com wrote:
>
>> Lets see. You refuse to accept Randi's rules, prefering to set your own.
>> You openly suggest that he is a cheater and a liar (without a shred of
>> proof, I might add), so therefore you must be allowed to make up new rules;
>> mainly because you know he will find you out.
>
>The above, as is usual for the clouded mind of the brainwashed cultist,
>is total nonsense:
Ahhh, the "Clouded Mind"- "Only the Shadow Knows..."
Lets see what comes out of Kettler's fog...
>1. I didn't suggest he was a cheater and a liar.
Naughty, Naughty! You are starting down the road to Curly-ism here.
Kettler wrote, and I quote:
>A lot is presumed here, that fair controls were
>in place to preculude cheating by James Randi.
Are you really sure that you want that lie of yours to stand? The above is
proof of your ulterior motives, I'm afraid.
>2. I never advocated making new rules
OK- Then accept Randi's Challenge AS IT IS WRITTEN! If you have no
interest in changing the rules, then there is nothing to discuss- on Bell's
show, or anywhere else.
You have been acting the horse's ass here for over a year over this issue,
and then in one sentence, you back-track over all your idiotic blathering.
What is it going to be?. Cowardise or acceptance.
>
>Anyone would be expected to conduct a test under controlled conditions,
>whether the person taking the test, or the one administering it, to be
>sure there are no fabrications. This does not imply a person being a
>cheater, only adept at trickery, since that is his bragged-about
>profession. (ie: "amazing" Randi)
And your profession is cheating and trickery of the worst kind. So what's
your point?
>The rules, as they exist, can be followed.
Good! Accpet the Challange.
>They include some
>negotiation and agreement.
ONLY after the claiment has signed Randi's Challange, agreeing to abide by
the Terms. The negotiations only involve setting the scope of the
claiments abilities, and agreement on the protocols and testing procedures.
Please notice, that this happens AFTER you have signed the Challange.
>Since the rules will be followed, it would be expected for James Randi
>to acknowledge an offer made on a radio broadcast last March, and heard
>by millions.
It would NOT! Only in the mind of a twisted ass- who's only object here is
self promotion- would such an expectation spring up. Randi's expectation
is that if you think your abilities are legit, that you will sign up for
the Challange. He is not interested in cowards who think that by smearing
Randi on Bell's show, they will get the press coverage that made Geller a
"star".
>That offer was declined by James Randi. It was to discuss
>the testing procedure over the radio, on the Art Bell show, with Ed
>Dames.
Yeah right! Randi is not as stupid as your gullible customers.
>If one is to discuss the testing, and one cannot con an entire audience
>by presenting a proposition that would allow cheating, that that is a
>fair and open forum, and James Randi has run away from that opportunity.
Randi walked calmly and- for him- politely away from a coward and a jerk.
All this grandstanding for your own self-promotion does not- and will not-
interest him one little bit.
>Technicalities regarding how a person is supposed to sign something
>before negotiating are ridiculous. How does one sign something about
>negotiating, and consider what follows negotiation? Those are dictated
>terms, and they tie the hands of the person who has agreed to so much
>beforehand. That's trickery.
No it isn't. Randi has the money, and the prestige. It is HIS Challange.
If you want a piece of it, go and try to get it. Otherwise, shut up.
>You people sure do have your minds clouded by doctrine, dogma, and blind
>loyalty for your master, James Randi. You need a breath of fresh air.
>
> "...pathetic attempts to justify the psychic's
> cowardise, his little parody was quite firmly
> grounded in reality. Not that we expect a KotM
> winner to know what reality is..."
>
>The quote above shows how typically a person of your persuasion, finding
>that they are lost trying to find some logic or substance to their
>argument, think they can attack the opponent's mentality and thus show a
>lack of credibility in their judgement.
Attack? Nah... you are so obvious in your attempts to cast aspersions and
come up with any number of excuses, it is too easy. Your continued
demonstrations of your inability to process intelligent thoughts regarding
this issue do not leave much doubt as to both your ultimate goals or your
morals.
> "kotM" (kook of the month) is
>nothing more than the attempt of a band of cultists to discredit a
>person, so their arguments, hopefully, will not carry any weight on
>USENET or the WEB. It's fruitless and primitive behavior.
Yeah! And don't you just love it?
hutch
All progress is based upon a universal innate desire
on the part of every organism to live beyond its
income. --Samual Butler
Terry Smith
> Sherilyn wrote:
> In article <3393A0...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
> ...
> [snip misleading stuff about Randi Challenge]
> If it was so misleading, how come you did not reply to it.
It'd be a WOFTAM. Only the most naive user would fail to realise you're as
trustworthy as the Window's Calculator running on a Pentuim 66. Loud
bleatings from spew-age sellers about a publicly verifiable and clear
offer of over $1,000,000 to any of them who can demonstrate their claimed
`powers' does far more to expose the charlatans from the believers that it
can do to sway the congnitively capable.
It really irritates bullshit artists like you, Curley and the Stapleton
misfit, and they spend a lot of time attempting to denigrate a clear and
open invitation to earn a lot of money. It may serve some purpose - those
who are unable to comprehend the clear terms of Randi's challenge are the
type of uneducated and gullible person you parasites feed on, but it is a
clear indicator to anyone competent in English that you need to avoid or
misrepresent this offer.
Weaseling little ploys like `What if Randi cheats' and `He doesn't have
the money' [He doesn't, the Foundation does, and will make up any
shortfall from the pledgers who do] detract only temporarily from your
true message.
The message is `I will not accept any challenge to demonstrate my powers
unless I am able to cheat, or decide myself if I was succesful'.
Terry
--
|Fidonet: Terry Smith 3:800/846.23
|Internet: Te...@gastro.apana.org.au
|Adelaide - Southern Miasmic Plain
|Commercial posts stored for US$500 per day.
|Use of my system constitutes acceptance of this offer
Sherilyn
[note follow-ups]
In article <339B66...@psicounsel.com>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes
...
[The Randi Challenge rules]
>
>Since the rules will be followed, it would be expected for James Randi
>to acknowledge an offer made on a radio broadcast last March, and heard
>the testing procedure over the radio, on the Art Bell show, with Ed
>Dames.
Mr Kettler, could you please cite the part of the rules of the Randi
Challenge wherein Randi offers to discuss anything on radio? I have
searched hard and cannot find it. As you know, it's at:
http://www.randi.org/
Meanwhile, though I am aware that you have read it, I will reproduce a
small part of the challenge upon which I have a further question.
"Since claims will vary greatly in character and scope, specific
rules must be formulated for each claimant. However, all
claimants must agree to the rules set forth here before any
formal agreement is entered into. A claimant will declare
agreement by signing this form where indicated before a notary
public and returning the form to me."
I know you have read this and dismissed it before. It is my
understanding that Mr Ed Dames has not complied with this first
requirement of Mr Randi's challenge prior to making his announcement on
the Art Bell show. If this is so, I would just like you to explain,
without being too unnecessarily abusive to the English tongue and the
requirements of punctuation and grammar, why you think this requirement
of Mr Randi's should not apply in the case of Ed Dames.
--
Sherilyn
Tom Schuler
>I know damn well that magick doesn't stand up to scientific
>examination, but I believe it anyway.
Certainly it does, Drakkus. At least, some parts of it. For instance, what
is the placebo effect except magick? It is mental activity which affects our
sensory experience. You can conjure real pain relief out of nothing but
imagination. The induction of lucid dreams is the reliable and measurable
form of astral projection. You haven't actually gone anywhere, but you
certainly feel like you have and what can be learned during such experiences
can be very useful.
A good part of what we usually consider "reality" is our set of beliefs and
expectations. Change them, and you change the world as you perceive it. This
often leads us to believe that we have direct mental power over physical
events, like the Pharoah believes. Science is one way to focus in on the
difference between what we experience from external causes and what we
experience from our own internal ones. No one who studies magick should ever
neglect science as a mental discipline and a means to check out what you are
experiencing.
>To the skeptic, say only "I know it's impossible. I believe it anyway.
How about, "I know it seems impossible, but something happened, and I'm not
yet satisfied with the explanations I've gotten. I need to study this some
more." Scientists on the frontiers of knowledge think this way a lot.
>Don't prove. Believe.
Don't believe. Experience and consider alternative explanations. Keep your
doubts healthy.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>Arne Langsetmo zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>The subject matter, here, is about a 1.1 million dollar
>offer for those who first "follow the rules" and then
>prove they are psychic to James Randi.
>Rules are at www.randi.org Comments on those rules, anyone?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing, below, is a recent comment posted by
John.M...@Ghostrdr.Wierius.Com in a different thread
<snip>
The `How Could Randi Cheat' Thread began as a result of some
Randi-Fanatic issuing that precise question to prove that Randi
doesn't cheat. Wrong Move.
That threw the convo into a Hypothetical Mode, which was
seriously attacked as not being proven by fact. :) Excuse me,
but a Hypothetical discussion does not require proof-positives.
The issuer of the original comments did not even have the brains
to know the difference between `Could' and `Does'.
============================================================
In this thread, the writer, Arne, seems to be confusing the
"could" and "does", but he's smart enough to be doing it
deliberately. It's "clouding the issue." It could also be
blurring the lines between meanings, and obvious trickery with
semantics. --BDK
============================================================
Since then much information was uploaded as to not only how Randi
could cheat, but also Randi's Factual Discrepencies to lead one
to the thought that it is possible that Randi does cheat. The
convo got off track many times due to personal attacks by the
Randi Cultists in an attempt to disrupt the convo, and no facts
were submitted by them to prove Randi does not cheat, except
comments Randi made.
If you suspect someone of being a liar, do you automatically take
their word as Fact with out back up facts from other sources? I
hope not. I think better of you than that.
---------------------
---------------------
end quoted comment
=====================
=====================
Arne Langsetmo
In <339f9a4a...@news.cyberhighway.net> gee...@nursing.home (Glen
Thanks, Glen. Coudn't have said it better than Bruce did there
even if I had tried. . . :-)
-- Arne