The whole Paranormal Claim idea is flawed
|-|ercules
it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
If they know you might be paranormal, they won't sign a test protocol and
just blacklist you.
The only way a $prize challenge would be fair is to accept the psychic's terms
for a demonstration, which may be revealed DURING the demonstration in
front of witnesses and media. This is not a problem as for the test phase it must
be repeatable.
I've applied to a dozen paranormal prizes. here is my demo video
http://tinyurl.com/JREF1Mchallenge
Here is the video of a control for comparison
http://tinyurl.com/JEFF-WAGG-JREF-DEBUNKER-CHEATS
Any skeptics want to put their money where their mouth is? (shut up Raven)
Herc
--
Paranormal Claimant: I live in Kings Beach, in Queensland where I met Eve, I was born in Melbourne, lived at
7 Hercules St when I was 7, and lived at 4 Macintosh St when I applied for the $100,000 paranormal prize!
Skeptics: Your neurons are misfiring!???
martin
"The whole Paranormal Claim idea is flawed"
Thank christ we agree on something.
george
I see he reintroduced aus.tv.. along with all the other groups he
crossposts to...
Groups amended
raven1
<radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Any skeptics want to put their money where their mouth is?
I did. You chickened out.
> (shut up Raven)
No.
Davej
> Because you have to define an impossible event into a contract,
> it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
Yeah, the flaw is that you can't do anything except produce shit.
alpha-omega
> On Sep 9, 2:28 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Because you have to define an impossible event into a contract,
> > it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
When you say copout I assume you mean 'explain how you have deluded
yourself'
JessHC
> Because you have to define an impossible event into a contract,
> it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
"Impossible event" being the operative concept.
> If they know you might be paranormal, they won't sign a test protocol and
> just blacklist you.
No, they just won't let the subject set the test protocol.
> The only way a $prize challenge would be fair is to accept the psychic's terms
> for a demonstration, which may be revealed DURING the demonstration in
> front of witnesses and media.
No, the only way for a challenge to be fair is for the psychic to
clearly make his claim, determine what will statistically constitute
success or failure beforehand, and then fail the psychic when he
doesn't do what he claims.
> This is not a problem as for the test phase it must be repeatable.
Which you've failed so far.
> I've applied to a dozen paranormal prizes. here is my demo videohttp://tinyurl.com/JREF1Mchallenge
Application isn't evidence of psychic powers.
> Here is the video of a control for comparisonhttp://tinyurl.com/JEFF-WAGG-JREF-DEBUNKER-CHEATS
You don't get to determine the controls.
> Any skeptics want to put their money where their mouth is? (shut up Raven)
Why? You failed in your previous attempt.
JohnN
> Because you have to define an impossible event into a contract,
> it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
If you were a real psychic then you would have known that and not
applied.
Herc, you can't predict how many balls you have between your legs with
your pants off.
JohnN
|-|ercules
> On Sep 9, 3:28 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Because you have to define an impossible event into a contract,
>> it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
>
> If you were a real psychic then you would have known that and not
> applied.
>
Well I was politely invited to the $100,000 competition by Peter Bow-Ditch
but it made me think of World War II trenches, wrong ditch!
Herc
Wolfgang Wildeblood
> Because you have to define an impossible event into a contract,
> it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
Have you ever even bothered to check whether James Randi actually HAS
a million dollars?
|-|ercules
Yes, why would he make a public announcement the prize would discontinue
on March 26 2010 and be used by JREF?
Originally he lied that had no access to the money other than the prize, triple backflip!
He realized his $200,000p.a. donations wou,d dry up without the million dollar carrot.
Herc
Terrys
wrote:
>
> Have you ever even bothered to check whether James Randi actually HAS
> a million dollars?
This was done to death in the '90s in sci.skeptic when the Geller
groupies were busy trying to defame him. Google is your friend - it
was a verifiable escrow account. Check some of Herc's bizzare word-
association games regarding "Goldman-Sachs" ect in recent posts. He
knew it was there - and he had no claim to it!
|-|ercules
What's so bizarre about the most famous $1,000,000 supernatural prize
being held at GoldMan Sachs being STRANGE?
The paranormal prize is in sacks of gold. It's a coincidence right?
Go on! Admit numerology scores a hit there!
No need to rationalize it away, it's a coincidence = it's a hit for supernatural!
Herc
Scott Balneaves
> "Terrys" <merry...@gmail.com> wrote ...
>> On Sep 10, 2:36 pm, Wolfgang Wildeblood <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Have you ever even bothered to check whether James Randi actually HAS
>>> a million dollars?
>>
>> This was done to death in the '90s in sci.skeptic when the Geller
>> groupies were busy trying to defame him. Google is your friend - it
>> was a verifiable escrow account. Check some of Herc's bizzare word-
>> association games regarding "Goldman-Sachs" ect in recent posts. He
>> knew it was there - and he had no claim to it!
>
>
> What's so bizarre about the most famous $1,000,000 supernatural prize
> being held at GoldMan Sachs being STRANGE?
>
> The paranormal prize is in sacks of gold. It's a coincidence right?
Dude, the paranormal prize isn't in sacks of gold. It's going to be a BCD
representation of $1,000,000.00 applied to a specific account number sitting in
a SQL database on a mainframe computer in a server room somewhere.
What, when the government borrows money from the Fed, you think they actually
DRIVE DOWN THERE with sacks and sacks of cash? Banking's been electronic for a
long, long time.
>
> Go on! Admit numerology scores a hit there!
>
> No need to rationalize it away, it's a coincidence = it's a hit for supernatural!
It's not a coincidence, it's JUST PLAIN INCORRECT.
>
> Herc
|-|ercules
Whuh? Is it a good metaphor or not?
Considering it's the famous $1,000,000 supernatural prize!
Herc
A B
news:8evsk9...@mid.individual.net...
Er, Herc, it's a bank. A very big bank. SOMEBODY connected with you is
bound to have money there. And the pun would be just as good whoever it
was.
JessHC
> "Scott Balneaves" <sbaln...@alburg.net> wrote ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In alt.atheism |-|ercules <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Terrys" <merryter...@gmail.com> wrote ...
> >>> On Sep 10, 2:36 pm, Wolfgang Wildeblood <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Have you ever even bothered to check whether James Randi actually HAS
> >>>> a million dollars?
>
> >>> This was done to death in the '90s in sci.skeptic when the Geller
> >>> groupies were busy trying to defame him. Google is your friend - it
> >>> was a verifiable escrow account. Check some of Herc's bizzare word-
> >>> association games regarding "Goldman-Sachs" ect in recent posts. He
> >>> knew it was there - and he had no claim to it!
>
> >> What's so bizarre about the most famous $1,000,000 supernatural prize
> >> being held at GoldMan Sachs being STRANGE?
>
> >> The paranormal prize is in sacks of gold. It's a coincidence right?
>
> > Dude, the paranormal prize isn't in sacks of gold. It's going to be a BCD
> > representation of $1,000,000.00 applied to a specific account number sitting in
> > a SQL database on a mainframe computer in a server room somewhere.
>
> > What, when the government borrows money from the Fed, you think they actually
> > DRIVE DOWN THERE with sacks and sacks of cash? Banking's been electronic for a
> > long, long time.
>
> >> Go on! Admit numerology scores a hit there!
>
> >> No need to rationalize it away, it's a coincidence = it's a hit for supernatural!
>
> > It's not a coincidence, it's JUST PLAIN INCORRECT.
>
> Whuh? Is it a good metaphor or not?
Not.
> Considering it's the famous $1,000,000 supernatural prize!
Still not.
JessHC
> "Terrys" <merryter...@gmail.com> wrote ...
Except it isn't either.
JessHC
> "Wolfgang Wildeblood" <wolfgangwildebl...@gmail.com> wrote
When will you realize you aren't psychic and you aren't a god? My
guess is when you start taking your medication.
JessHC
> "JohnN" <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
Probably another figment of your imagination.
|-|ercules
>
> (aus.tv deleted as per request from people with no interest in kooks)
Now the ex president of Australian Skeptics Inc. is calling the paranormal prize applicants "kooks"???
I'm going to let it slip as I was mocking your surname.
I've pointed out to you 20 times Peter, my paranormal claim was I can tell people's names
from what they say write or do! Right? Remember?? My second claim after you dismissed
bibliomancy as 'post facto rationalization'.
Recently you said you never even invited me to the $100,000 challenge you said I invited myself.
Here is you politely inviting me to the $100,000 challenge.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.out-of-body/msg/9ce14f8854504863?hl=en
------------------------------------------------------------------
"|-|erc" <h...@c-h-e-s-s.com> wrote:
>Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do
>local preliminary tests which noone has passed.
No problem being in Australia, Herc.
The Australian Skeptics have their own prize (it's only $100,000, but
it's still worth winning).
The rules are simple:
1) Tell us what you are going to do.
2) Tell us the conditions under which you can do it. For example, if
it only works on Fridays in rooms with red flock wallpaper we will
book a suite at Madame Heloise's House of Happiness (I have a frequent
flocker card).
3) Do it.
4) Bank the cheque (note Australian spelling).
As I am on the committee, I will not be eligible for the $20,000
spotter's fee for introducing you (although it would come in mighty
handy) so you will be able to keep the whole $100,000 for yourself.
Details at http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/chalenge.htm
We don't have a committee meeting in January, but if you can get the
stuff to us by 13 February you should be able to get that new Lexus in
March.
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
------------------------------------------------------------------
A post you later said never happened.
All I am saying Peter is this post is a BOW. And then you DITCHED my application.
It's in my paranormal claim that names fit the messages (when they reply to me).
IOW I could have predicted you would ditch my application.
I'm not saying your surname is PROOF DEFINITIVE I'm just saying it fits my claim.
Herc
Terrys
, alt.atheism, alt.astrology, alt.conspiracy, rec.org.mensa,
alt.astrology, sci.math, aus.tv all cut out, you sad sack of shit. No
group needs to be there twice.
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote
>
>
>
> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That's a great big WTF?
>
> > (aus.tv deleted as per request from people with no interest in kooks)
>
> Now the ex president of Australian Skeptics Inc. is calling the paranormal prize applicants "kooks"???
Not at all - he's calling you a kook. You are.
>
> I'm going to let it slip as I was mocking your surname.
>
> I've pointed out to you 20 times Peter, my paranormal claim was I can tell people's names
> from what they say write or do! Right? Remember?? My second claim after you dismissed
> bibliomancy as 'post facto rationalization'.
>
> Recently you said you never even invited me to the $100,000 challenge you said I invited myself.
>
> Here is you politely inviting me to the $100,000 challenge.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.out-of-body/msg/9ce14f8854504863?h...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "|-|erc" <h...@c-h-e-s-s.com> wrote:
> >Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do
> >local preliminary tests which noone has passed.
>
> No problem being in Australia, Herc.
A clear response to your applying - you don't invite people who are
already there, weasel.
>
> A post you later said never happened.
A `post' that's clearly not an `invite', but a response.
>
> All I am saying Peter is this post is a BOW. And then you DITCHED my application.
All we're pointing out are that loopy word-association games like that
have very little to do with `paranormal powers', and are more properly
associated with OCD, or schizophrenia.
>
> It's in my paranormal claim that names fit the messages (when they reply to me).
>
That is not a `paranormal claim'. Even if they did _without selective
recall_, it would be an observation, not a `power'.
>
> I'm not saying your surname is PROOF DEFINITIVE I'm just saying it fits my claim.
>
Which is not a claim of paranormal `power'.
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
> "|-|ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>>>> On Sep 9, 3:28 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Because you have to define an impossible event into a contract,
>>>>> it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
>>>>
>>>> If you were a real psychic then you would have known that and not
>>>> applied.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well I was politely invited to the $100,000 competition by Peter Bow-Ditch
>>>but it made me think of World War II trenches, wrong ditch!
>>>
>>>Herc
>>
>> That's a great big WTF?
>>
>> (aus.tv deleted as per request from people with no interest in kooks)
>
>
>Now the ex president of Australian Skeptics Inc. is calling the paranormal prize applicants "kooks"???
The word fits most of them well.
>
>I'm going to let it slip as I was mocking your surname.
That's OK. I had heard them all before I left kindergarten.
I see no invitation there, just a plain language statement of what you
have to do to win. You never managed to make it to Step 1.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>A post you later said never happened.
I have never said it never happened.
>
>All I am saying Peter is this post is a BOW. And then you DITCHED my application.
>
>It's in my paranormal claim that names fit the messages (when they reply to me).
>
>IOW I could have predicted you would ditch my application.
I didn't ditch anything. Did you ever actually make a formal
application? You know, one where you precisely stated what you could
do and the conditions under which you could do it.
>
>I'm not saying your surname is PROOF DEFINITIVE I'm just saying it fits my claim.
Just as the name Cooper fits someone shaped like a barrel.
>
>
>Herc
>
>
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter
|-|ercules
You're splitting hairs between "for introducing you" to the competition,
and "inviting" me to the competition? Whoaa classic!
It was something like "I can get answers from God from random quotes
of information." There were no constraints to think of at the time as it
works uniformly for me, I had never channeled for other people then.
I followed the rules on the web site to state what it is you can do. Isn't discussing
examples good enough to "work together with the applicant" on the test protocol.
I showed him some examples and he said it was "post facto rationalization" and I
was mentally ill and kill filed me.
I.e. he assumed no power existed and worked backwards to the explanation,
no test required!
Herc
|-|ercules
AND YOU DAMN WELL SO DID DITCH ME!!!!
After Barry was about as helpful as a lump of mould, I politely emailed you several
times to move the application along.
You tell everyone I kept sending senile emails to you, that (arguably) was well after
months of requests to honor your invitation.
You ignores / ditches me plain and simple.
You didn't have the guts to speak up against the CEO Barry.
Herc
Peter Bowditch
I advised you that there was a prize on offer in Australia, a fact
which had seemingly escaped your psychic powers. The invitation is
open to anyone.
>
>It was something like "I can get answers from God from random quotes
>of information." There were no constraints to think of at the time as it
>works uniformly for me, I had never channeled for other people then.
In other words, you didn't state precisely what your claim was or when
it worked.
>
>I followed the rules on the web site to state what it is you can do. Isn't discussing
>examples good enough to "work together with the applicant" on the test protocol.
No. You have to establish a test protocol. You didn't do that but
instead threatened to poison food in supermarkets.
>
>I showed him some examples and he said it was "post facto rationalization" and I
>was mentally ill and kill filed me.
He was correct on both counts.
>
>I.e. he assumed no power existed and worked backwards to the explanation,
>no test required!
He was correct on that as well.
Peter Bowditch
Do you know it's kooky to reply to yourself (except to correct errors,
of course)?
>
>
>After Barry was about as helpful as a lump of mould, I politely emailed you several
>times to move the application along.
And I believe I told you that I was not on the relevant subcommittee.
>
>You tell everyone I kept sending senile emails to you, that (arguably) was well after
>months of requests to honor your invitation.
>
>You ignores / ditches me plain and simple.
>
>You didn't have the guts to speak up against the CEO Barry.
I had nothing to speak against him about. I agreed totally with the
way he treated you, especially after you threatened to poison food.
>
>Herc
Please stop emailing me.
|-|ercules
What? You miss the story Peter.
You invited me to be tested. Barry turned me away because he said bibliomancy was impossible.
You breached your offer and the offer on Australian Skeptics website.
You broke the law, and so did Barry.
Now you're saying it was my responsibility to come up with a test protocol with my initial
application instead of working it out with the skeptics together.
Here are the conditions on your website which you have broken.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
1 Briefly, this is what you have to do. You first apply in writing, clearly stating what you are claiming to be able to do.
2 Representatives from the Australian Skeptics will work with you to define a suitable, and mutually agreeable, test procedure
Now you say I have to independently work out the test procedure and include that with a formal application.
You can repeat that I threatened you until the cows come home as an excuse, that was
in MARCH and it was merely a colorful demand to "please reply in a day or two", I was applying for the competition
since the previous year.
This is clearly breach of contract, and if I WIN my case against WIN Television for defaming me as an extortionist
for the sigline "Please reply in a day or two" then Peter BOW-DITCH will the first person to be hung with paranormal
evidence in 200 years - BOW DITCH.
Herc
|-|ercules
> Do you know it's kooky to reply to yourself (except to correct errors,
> of course)?
I noticed it does reduce the probability of getting a reply, but I see nothing wrong
with it since I continued the story what happened after Barry ditched me and you
"were on a different committee" and couldn't and wouldn't help get my claim tested.
Herc
|-|ercules
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>After Barry was about as helpful as a lump of mould, I politely emailed you several
>>times to move the application along.
>
> And I believe I told you that I was not on the relevant subcommittee.
NO YOU DIDN'T.
I DIDN'T HEAR A PEEP OUT OF YOU UNTIL I GOT OUT OF PRISON
AND FOUND YOU TELLING MENSA YOU'D PUT THE BAD GUY AWAY
AND I WOULDN'T BE BOTHERING THEM AGAIN AND THEY TOLD YOU WTF?
Herc
Terrys
I took out , alt.atheism, alt.astrology, alt.conspiracy,
rec.org.mensa, alt.astrology, sci.math.
>
> I DIDN'T HEAR A PEEP OUT OF YOU UNTIL I GOT OUT OF PRISON
> AND FOUND YOU TELLING MENSA YOU'D PUT THE BAD GUY AWAY
No, the person who `put you away' was yourself, by your behaviour.
Believe it or not Graham, most people _do_ want to help you.
Until you accept that _everyone_ is `special', or in your metaphoric
view, `son of God', your head will hurt.
'I want it, and it's mine" is not going to work for wealth, and will
get you into a lot of deserved serious trouble when used as a
justification for stalking young women.
Keep bleating, you have no credibility whatsoever - and that's all
down to you.
Peter Bowditch
Peter Bowditch
No, I did not.
>Barry turned me away because he said bibliomancy was impossible.
Was that after or before you didn't say what you could do?
>
>You breached your offer and the offer on Australian Skeptics website.
There is no offer on that web site. There is a general invitation to
apply for testing to win a prize. There are rules. You can't make up
your own.
>
>You broke the law, and so did Barry.
No, the person who broke the law was the one who claimed that he had
won the prize without actually doing anything to win it and then
threatened to put poison in food in supermarkets. That would be you.
>
>Now you're saying it was my responsibility to come up with a test protocol with my initial
>application instead of working it out with the skeptics together.
No, you have to work it out with the challenge coordinator. You didn't
do that, but instead went straight to "I've win, give me the money".
>
>Here are the conditions on your website which you have broken.
>
>http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
>
>1 Briefly, this is what you have to do. You first apply in writing, clearly stating what you are claiming to be able to do.
Did you do that?
>2 Representatives from the Australian Skeptics will work with you to define a suitable, and mutually agreeable, test procedure
Did you work with them to define a mutually-acceptable test procedure?
No.
>
>Now you say I have to independently work out the test procedure and include that with a formal application.
No, I say you have to work out a mutually-agreeable method. That means
that you can't set the rules yourself.
>
>You can repeat that I threatened you until the cows come home as an excuse, that was
>in MARCH and it was merely a colorful demand to "please reply in a day or two", I was applying for the competition
>since the previous year.
When you follow "please reply in a day or two" with a threat to poison
food it is not a "colourful demand". It is a criminal extortion
attempt.
>
>This is clearly breach of contract, and if I WIN my case against WIN Television for defaming me as an extortionist
>for the sigline "Please reply in a day or two" then Peter BOW-DITCH will the first person to be hung with paranormal
>evidence in 200 years - BOW DITCH.
If WIN called you an extortionist all they have to do is produce in
court your email saying that you are planning to poison food unless
you get paid and they will win. By your rules you won't be able to
beat someone named WIN anyway.
>
>Herc
Please do not email me again or I might have to as someone to restore
the court order preventing you from harassing anybody or anything to
do with Australian Skeptics.
|-|ercules
> "|-|ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>>After Barry was about as helpful as a lump of mould, I politely emailed you several
>>>>times to move the application along.
>>>
>>> And I believe I told you that I was not on the relevant subcommittee.
>>
>>
>>NO YOU DIDN'T.
>>
>>I DIDN'T HEAR A PEEP OUT OF YOU UNTIL I GOT OUT OF PRISON
>>AND FOUND YOU TELLING MENSA YOU'D PUT THE BAD GUY AWAY
>>AND I WOULDN'T BE BOTHERING THEM AGAIN AND THEY TOLD YOU WTF?
>
> I told Mensa what? When?
After my court case in March 2002 you posted to uk.org.mensa that I wouldn't
be bothering them any more as you caught me.
Anyway, enough history!!
I propose a truce, no prizes, no competitions, no claims, no onus, no tests, no obligations,
just bring some closure and I stop harassing Aus skeptics for good?
Herc
|-|ercules
It's higher up in the thread.
>>>>>>As I am on the committee, I will not be eligible for the $20,000
>>>>>>spotter's fee for introducing you (although it would come in mighty
>
>>Barry turned me away because he said bibliomancy was impossible.
>
> Was that after or before you didn't say what you could do?
I said I can answer questions with random quotes.
What are you missing here.
Barry said it was an interesting claim then said I had made no claim.
>
>>
>>You breached your offer and the offer on Australian Skeptics website.
>
> There is no offer on that web site. There is a general invitation to
> apply for testing to win a prize. There are rules. You can't make up
> your own.
>
You offer $100,000 to win the challenge.
>>
>>You broke the law, and so did Barry.
>
> No, the person who broke the law was the one who claimed that he had
> won the prize without actually doing anything to win it and then
> threatened to put poison in food in supermarkets. That would be you.
>
That email was very sarcastic.
It was to Skep...@KASM.com
S@KASM = sarcasm
It fits the paranormal claim made on the email itself - by name by nature
>>
>>Now you're saying it was my responsibility to come up with a test protocol with my initial
>>application instead of working it out with the skeptics together.
>
> No, you have to work it out with the challenge coordinator. You didn't
> do that, but instead went straight to "I've win, give me the money".
>
You just said above it's MY job to state the test protocol.,
>>>>> I didn't ditch anything. Did you ever actually make a formal
>>>>> application? You know, one where you precisely stated what you could
>>>>> do and the conditions under which you could do it.
>>
>>Here are the conditions on your website which you have broken.
>>
>>http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
>>
>>1 Briefly, this is what you have to do. You first apply in writing, clearly stating what you are claiming to be able to do.
>
> Did you do that?
Yes, and Barry said it was an interesting claim.
>
>>2 Representatives from the Australian Skeptics will work with you to define a suitable, and mutually agreeable, test procedure
>
> Did you work with them to define a mutually-acceptable test procedure?
> No.
I described my power and he said that's impossible and kill filed me.
I'VE BEEN TELLING 10,000 PEOPLE THIS FOR 10 YEARS, DON'T YOU GET IT?
>
>>
>>Now you say I have to independently work out the test procedure and include that with a formal application.
>
> No, I say you have to work out a mutually-agreeable method. That means
> that you can't set the rules yourself.
>
>>
>>You can repeat that I threatened you until the cows come home as an excuse, that was
>>in MARCH and it was merely a colorful demand to "please reply in a day or two", I was applying for the competition
>>since the previous year.
>
> When you follow "please reply in a day or two" with a threat to poison
> food it is not a "colourful demand". It is a criminal extortion
> attempt.
YOU HAD MY NAME AND ADDRESS!
>
>>
>>This is clearly breach of contract, and if I WIN my case against WIN Television for defaming me as an extortionist
>>for the sigline "Please reply in a day or two" then Peter BOW-DITCH will the first person to be hung with paranormal
>>evidence in 200 years - BOW DITCH.
>
> If WIN called you an extortionist all they have to do is produce in
> court your email saying that you are planning to poison food unless
> you get paid and they will win. By your rules you won't be able to
> beat someone named WIN anyway.
>
My "extortion" lawyer was named Paul Wonnocot., WON-AT-COURT
I never demanded money with threats. I said you ripped me off $100,000
which is ENTIRELY TRUE.
Herc
|-|ercules
> the court order preventing you from harassing anybody or anything to
> do with Australian Skeptics.
HAhahaha!
Haven't you noticed you're on my postcard bandit list with 40 FBI and 10 AFP
email addresses, news stations and lowlife skeptics emails?
Why do you think all the morning TV shows are showing skeptic debates
and people calling James Randi a fraud on "classic TV fights"??
Herc
|-|ercules
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>2 Representatives from the Australian Skeptics will work with you to define a suitable, and mutually agreeable, test procedure
>
> Did you work with them to define a mutually-acceptable test procedure?
> No.
Now I remember...
Barry gave me a test!
He asked for the names, ages, and types of the 10 mammals on his property.
(there was a side story where I channeled "newbie questions" but let's not get into that)
He said the test was easy and I failed miserably.
I argued that no quote in a book would answer his question, and it would be
a 1,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000:1 FLUKE to guess such a question.
He said that was ridiculous and cut off communications saying I failed.
Now you know from all the QUESTIONS OF LEGITIMATE INTEREST - SMALL ANSWER SIZE
discussion in sci.skep over the last months that his test was not easy!
Herc
BruceS
> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You didn't have the guts to speak up against the CEO Barry.
>
> I had nothing to speak against him about. I agreed totally with the
> way he treated you, especially after you threatened to poison food.
LOL---this is just too classic. "I believe that's my stapler." If
this makes no sense, do yourself a favor and watch the movie Office
Space. And stay away from the guac.
BruceS
>
> He asked for the names, ages, and types of the 10 mammals on his property.
A little off topic, but have you tried answering the 5 questions I
posted on the 2nd in response to your request? If you have, I haven't
seen the answer post, so please direct me to it. If not, is there a
reason my questions weren't legitimate for your purposes?
Peter Bowditch
I am missing a precise statement of what you can do.
>
>Barry said it was an interesting claim then said I had made no claim.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>You breached your offer and the offer on Australian Skeptics website.
>>
>> There is no offer on that web site. There is a general invitation to
>> apply for testing to win a prize. There are rules. You can't make up
>> your own.
>>
>
>You offer $100,000 to win the challenge.
Which you didn't win.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>You broke the law, and so did Barry.
>>
>> No, the person who broke the law was the one who claimed that he had
>> won the prize without actually doing anything to win it and then
>> threatened to put poison in food in supermarkets. That would be you.
>>
>
>That email was very sarcastic.
>
>It was to Skep...@KASM.com
>
>S@KASM = sarcasm
>
>It fits the paranormal claim made on the email itself - by name by nature
It also fits the definition of extortion.
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Now you're saying it was my responsibility to come up with a test protocol with my initial
>>>application instead of working it out with the skeptics together.
>>
>> No, you have to work it out with the challenge coordinator. You didn't
>> do that, but instead went straight to "I've win, give me the money".
>>
>
>You just said above it's MY job to state the test protocol.,
Yes, and then you have to come to some mutual arrangement. You did not
do that.
>
>>>>>> I didn't ditch anything. Did you ever actually make a formal
>>>>>> application? You know, one where you precisely stated what you could
>>>>>> do and the conditions under which you could do it.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Here are the conditions on your website which you have broken.
>>>
>>>http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
>>>
>>>1 Briefly, this is what you have to do. You first apply in writing, clearly stating what you are claiming to be able to do.
>>
>> Did you do that?
>
>Yes, and Barry said it was an interesting claim.
He was being polite. He would have said the same to someone who
claimed to be a character from the Old Testament, even though that
person would obviously have been mad.
>
>
>>
>>>2 Representatives from the Australian Skeptics will work with you to define a suitable, and mutually agreeable, test procedure
>>
>> Did you work with them to define a mutually-acceptable test procedure?
>> No.
>
>I described my power and he said that's impossible and kill filed me.
>
>I'VE BEEN TELLING 10,000 PEOPLE THIS FOR 10 YEARS, DON'T YOU GET IT?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>Now you say I have to independently work out the test procedure and include that with a formal application.
>>
>> No, I say you have to work out a mutually-agreeable method. That means
>> that you can't set the rules yourself.
>>
>>>
>>>You can repeat that I threatened you until the cows come home as an excuse, that was
>>>in MARCH and it was merely a colorful demand to "please reply in a day or two", I was applying for the competition
>>>since the previous year.
>>
>> When you follow "please reply in a day or two" with a threat to poison
>> food it is not a "colourful demand". It is a criminal extortion
>> attempt.
>
>YOU HAD MY NAME AND ADDRESS!
Rather foolish of you then to try extortion.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>This is clearly breach of contract, and if I WIN my case against WIN Television for defaming me as an extortionist
>>>for the sigline "Please reply in a day or two" then Peter BOW-DITCH will the first person to be hung with paranormal
>>>evidence in 200 years - BOW DITCH.
>>
>> If WIN called you an extortionist all they have to do is produce in
>> court your email saying that you are planning to poison food unless
>> you get paid and they will win. By your rules you won't be able to
>> beat someone named WIN anyway.
>>
>
>
>My "extortion" lawyer was named Paul Wonnocot., WON-AT-COURT
But I thought he lost.
>
>I never demanded money with threats. I said you ripped me off $100,000
>which is ENTIRELY TRUE.
As you didn't win the money you could not have been ripped off.
>
>
>Herc
george
> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You invited me to be tested.
>
> No, I did not.
>
give it up mate.
You are dealing with a retard and no matter what sense you make it
won't get through..
Good try though
|-|ercules
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
> you have to come to some mutual arrangement. You did not
> do that.
Anyone spot the contradiction in terms?
Herc
|-|ercules
Advice noted, but I have faith in Peter's Australian "Have A Go!" attitude and common sense!
Herc
JessHC
Which explains your need to spam the world with crap.
JessHC
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote
>
> > you have to come to some mutual arrangement. You did not
> > do that.
>
> Anyone spot the contradiction in terms?
Since there wasn't one, no. You undoubtedly see one, though.
JessHC
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote
You're making it overly complicated: he said you failed because you
failed.
JessHC
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote
Because they're sore losers. Just like you.
JessHC
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>
>
>
> > "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote ...
> >>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote...
> >>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote
>
> >>>>>>>>"JohnN" <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 9, 3:28 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Because you have to define an impossible event into a contract,
> >>>>>>>>>> it's too easy for the skeptics to copout.
>
> >>>>>>>>> If you were a real psychic then you would have known that and not
> >>>>>>>>> applied.
>
> >>>>>>>>Well I was politely invited to the $100,000 competition by Peter Bow-Ditch
> >>>>>>>>but it made me think of World War II trenches, wrong ditch!
>
> >>>>>>>>Herc
>
> >>>>>>> That's a great big WTF?
>
> >>>>>>> (aus.tv deleted as per request from people with no interest in kooks)
>
> >>>>>>Now the ex president of Australian Skeptics Inc. is calling the paranormal prize applicants "kooks"???
>
> >>>>> The word fits most of them well.
>
> >>>>>>I'm going to let it slip as I was mocking your surname.
>
> >>>>> That's OK. I had heard them all before I left kindergarten.
>
> >>>>>>I've pointed out to you 20 times Peter, my paranormal claim was I can tell people's names
> >>>>>>from what they say write or do! Right? Remember?? My second claim after you dismissed
> >>>>>>bibliomancy as 'post facto rationalization'.
>
> >>>>>>Recently you said you never even invited me to the $100,000 challenge you said I invited myself.
>
> >>>>>>Here is you politely inviting me to the $100,000 challenge.
>
> >>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>>>>"|-|erc" <h...@c-h-e-s-s.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do
> >>>>>>>local preliminary tests which noone has passed.
>
> >>>>>>No problem being in Australia, Herc.
> >>>>>>The Australian Skeptics have their own prize (it's only $100,000, but
> >>>>>>it's still worth winning).
> >>>>>>The rules are simple:
> >>>>>>1) Tell us what you are going to do.
> >>>>>>2) Tell us the conditions under which you can do it. For example, if
> >>>>>>it only works on Fridays in rooms with red flock wallpaper we will
> >>>>>>book a suite at Madame Heloise's House of Happiness (I have a frequent
> >>>>>>flocker card).
> >>>>>>3) Do it.
> >>>>>>4) Bank the cheque (note Australian spelling).
> >>>>>>As I am on the committee, I will not be eligible for the $20,000
> >>>>>>spotter's fee for introducing you (although it would come in mighty
> >>>>>>handy) so you will be able to keep the whole $100,000 for yourself.
A thread which you've been repeatedly told doesn't belong in
alt.atheism, and probably doesn't in aus.tv or a majority of the other
groups you're spamming.
JessHC
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote...
> > "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>After Barry was about as helpful as a lump of mould, I politely emailed you several
> >>>>times to move the application along.
>
> >>> And I believe I told you that I was not on the relevant subcommittee.
>
> >>NO YOU DIDN'T.
>
> >>I DIDN'T HEAR A PEEP OUT OF YOU UNTIL I GOT OUT OF PRISON
> >>AND FOUND YOU TELLING MENSA YOU'D PUT THE BAD GUY AWAY
> >>AND I WOULDN'T BE BOTHERING THEM AGAIN AND THEY TOLD YOU WTF?
>
> > I told Mensa what? When?
>
> After my court case in March 2002 you posted to uk.org.mensa that I wouldn't
> be bothering them any more as you caught me.
>
> Anyway, enough history!!
>
> I propose a truce, no prizes, no competitions, no claims, no onus, no tests, no obligations,
> just bring some closure and I stop harassing Aus skeptics for good?
Yeah, threats are an effective bargaining tool.
george
See how he pretended I was corresponding with him...
I -was- messaging Peter..
No matter what herc does he fails at
Peter Bowditch
I know that, but he is blaming me specifically for his failure to even
start to meet the conditions for the Australian Skeptics challenge.
Life was much simpler when he was still under the court order to stay
away from me.
I usually ignore him but he has been putting my name in spam to LEOs.
ScienceWins
ROFL! <mutters> Okay, but I'm going to burn down the building.
Awesome movie. A cult classic without gods.
---
Does belief in astrology cause stupidity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
There is no such thing as a "virgin daughter of a Republican."
BruceS
> BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 13, 4:49=A0am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> >You didn't have the guts to speak up against the CEO Barry.
> >> I had nothing to speak against him about. I agreed totally with the
> >> way he treated you, especially after you threatened to poison food.
> >LOL---this is just too classic. "I believe that's my stapler." If
> >this makes no sense, do yourself a favor and watch the movie Office
> >Space. And stay away from the guac.
>
> ROFL! <mutters> Okay, but I'm going to burn down the building.
>
> Awesome movie. A cult classic without gods.
I love that he comes out with so much money, but is still such a
loser, while a guy can go from IT to shoveling trash and be a winner.
There are so many good bits in that movie. "So you're stealing."
"No, no, I'm not explaining it right."
The old guy with the walker is hilarious too, and the lawyer
explaining about prison, and, and...
|-|ercules
>
>>On Sep 14, 12:44 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >You invited me to be tested.
>>>
>>> No, I did not.
>>>
>> give it up mate.
>>You are dealing with a retard and no matter what sense you make it
>>won't get through..
>>Good try though
>
> I know that, but he is blaming me specifically for his failure to even
> start to meet the conditions for the Australian Skeptics challenge.
> Life was much simpler when he was still under the court order to stay
> away from me.
>
> I usually ignore him but he has been putting my name in spam to LEOs.
Has it ever occurred to you that you've single handedly held up the world's
religion for ten years Peter?
Why do you insist Barry was being cooperative about mutually setting up a test?
He gave me the 10 mammals test instead.
Barry is an atheist, he refused to test whether I was Genesis Adam. THAT'S IT!
And it's not a "sure sign" I'm mad, if you offer to test paranormal claims you
can't use Occam's razor on them.
Herc
--
The problem with Occam's Razor is no Skeptic has ever managed to put it down
and start making logical deductions again.
panam...@hotmail.com
snippy..
> And it's not a "sure sign" I'm mad, if you offer to test paranormal claims you
> can't use Occam's razor on them.
One of y'all has to claim sig on *that* little jem! <g>
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Terrys
> On Sep 14, 5:48 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> snippy..
>
> > And it's not a "sure sign" I'm mad, if you offer to test paranormal claims you
> > can't use Occam's razor on them.
>
> One of y'all has to claim sig on *that* little jem! <g>
>
---
The problem with Occam's Razor is no Skeptic has ever managed to put
it down
and start making logical deductions again. [|-|erc(2010)].
|-|ercules
> On Sep 14, 5:48 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> snippy..
>
>> And it's not a "sure sign" I'm mad, if you offer to test paranormal claims you
>> can't use Occam's razor on them.
>
> One of y'all has to claim sig on *that* little jem! <g>
I thought I just did!
Terrys
>
> I thought I just did!
Go away weasel, grown-ups are talking.
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>> george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 14, 12:44 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >You invited me to be tested.
>>>>
>>>> No, I did not.
>>>>
>>> give it up mate.
>>>You are dealing with a retard and no matter what sense you make it
>>>won't get through..
>>>Good try though
>>
>> I know that, but he is blaming me specifically for his failure to even
>> start to meet the conditions for the Australian Skeptics challenge.
>> Life was much simpler when he was still under the court order to stay
>> away from me.
>>
>> I usually ignore him but he has been putting my name in spam to LEOs.
>
>Has it ever occurred to you that you've single handedly held up the world's
>religion for ten years Peter?
Wow! How powerful is that?
>
>Why do you insist Barry was being cooperative about mutually setting up a test?
Because that's the rules of the challenge.
>
>He gave me the 10 mammals test instead.
Which should have been a doddle for God.
>
>Barry is an atheist, he refused to test whether I was Genesis Adam. THAT'S IT!
What test was proposed that would prove that you were someone who died
several millennia ago (if he ever lived at all)? What test protocol
was agreed?
You went straight from "This vague thing is something I do" to "Give
me the money or I will poison food".
>
>And it's not a "sure sign" I'm mad, if you offer to test paranormal claims you
>can't use Occam's razor on them.
Of course we can.
>
>Herc
JessHC
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>
>
>
> > george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 14, 12:44 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >You invited me to be tested.
>
> >>> No, I did not.
>
> >> give it up mate.
> >>You are dealing with a retard and no matter what sense you make it
> >>won't get through..
> >>Good try though
>
> > I know that, but he is blaming me specifically for his failure to even
> > start to meet the conditions for the Australian Skeptics challenge.
> > Life was much simpler when he was still under the court order to stay
> > away from me.
>
> > I usually ignore him but he has been putting my name in spam to LEOs.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that you've single handedly held up the world's
> religion for ten years Peter?
>
> Why do you insist Barry was being cooperative about mutually setting up a test?
>
> He gave me the 10 mammals test instead.
>
> Barry is an atheist, he refused to test whether I was Genesis Adam. THAT'S IT!
>
> And it's not a "sure sign" I'm mad, if you offer to test paranormal claims you
> can't use Occam's razor on them.
Yeah, no point in going all rational.
Richard Cornford
> Peter Bowditch wrote ...
<snip>
>> I know that, but he is blaming me specifically for his failure
>> to even start to meet the conditions for the Australian Skeptics
>> challenge. Life was much simpler when he was still under the
>> court order to stay away from me.
>
>> I usually ignore him but he has been putting my name in spam
>> to LEOs.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that you've single handedly held up
> the world's religion for ten years Peter?
>
> Why do you insist Barry was being cooperative about mutually setting
> up a test?
>
> He gave me the 10 mammals test instead.
If you claim "... I can answer questions with random quotes." then you
should expect a test where you get asked questions and get judged on
your ability to answer them. One of the problems you are having with
your claims of paranormal abilities is your inability to clearly state
what exactly your supposed paranormal ability is. It does not appear
to be an ability to "answer" questions, but rather an ability to
generate responses to a sub-set of questions (that pass your long, and
largely informal, list of 'caveats'). But generating responses is not,
of itself, a paranormal ability, so your claim actually appears to be
that you are capable of generating responses that are more 'apt' than
they would be if they were just random quotes. That is not a
particularly useful ability, but then nobody requires that paranormal
abilities be useful, on the other hand it is a testable claim.
> Barry is an atheist, he refused to test whether I was Genesis
> Adam. THAT'S IT!
Being "Genesis Adam" is not a paranormal ability, so it simply does
not qualify you for any paranormal prize. It may be that there are
paranormal abilities that are a consequence of being "Genesis
Adam" (though I don't recall that individual being credited with any
unusual abilities). If so then prizes could be awarded for the
consequent paranormal abilities, if demonstrated.
(Abnormal is not the same as paranormal.)
> And it's not a "sure sign" I'm mad,
For someone claiming to be "Genesis Adam" there are three
possibilities:-
1. They are "Genesis Adam".
2. They are mad.
3. They are "Genesis Adam" and they are mad.
The odds certainly favour insanity. There are likely to be plenty of
other signs that could decide the issue independently of any questions
about your identity. Maybe your should ask someone appropriately
qualified what those signs would be.
> if you offer to test paranormal claims you can't use Occam's
> razor on them.
If you are giving prizes for demonstrated paranormal abilities it is
reasonable to just reject all claims that do not represent a
paranormal ability.
|-|ercules
> "|-|ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>>> george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sep 14, 12:44 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >You invited me to be tested.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I did not.
>>>>>
>>>> give it up mate.
>>>>You are dealing with a retard and no matter what sense you make it
>>>>won't get through..
>>>>Good try though
>>>
>>> I know that, but he is blaming me specifically for his failure to even
>>> start to meet the conditions for the Australian Skeptics challenge.
>>> Life was much simpler when he was still under the court order to stay
>>> away from me.
>>>
>>> I usually ignore him but he has been putting my name in spam to LEOs.
>>
>>Has it ever occurred to you that you've single handedly held up the world's
>>religion for ten years Peter?
>
> Wow! How powerful is that?
>
>>
>>Why do you insist Barry was being cooperative about mutually setting up a test?
>
> Because that's the rules of the challenge.
Non sequitur
>
>>
>>He gave me the 10 mammals test instead.
>
> Which should have been a doddle for God.
Speculation
>>
>>Barry is an atheist, he refused to test whether I was Genesis Adam. THAT'S IT!
>
> What test was proposed that would prove that you were someone who died
> several millennia ago (if he ever lived at all)? What test protocol
> was agreed?
Based on Genesis Adam of the bible.
I AM GENESIS ADAM - the bible was a prophecy.
So was James Bond.
Nostradamus = nostrils = to smell = to predict (before you taste)
Modern prophet = Ian Fleming
My claim is creation is merely the coming together of 1 male and 1 female
as the final phase of evolution.
homo sapiens 1 >> homo sapiens 2 = destiny
>
> You went straight from "This vague thing is something I do" to "Give
> me the money or I will poison food".
Barry is supposed to help work out how to eliminate vagueness.
I said use blind judges and controls.
APPLICATION : DECEMBER 2001
YOU RIPPED ME OFF COMMENT : FEBRUARY 2002
IDLE POISON COMMENT : MARCH 2002
>>
>>And it's not a "sure sign" I'm mad, if you offer to test paranormal claims you
>>can't use Occam's razor on them.
>
> Of course we can.
I made a testable claim, you cherry picked other applicants (if any) because you all
hate religious people.
Herc
raven1
<radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Based on Genesis Adam of the bible.
>
>I AM GENESIS ADAM - the bible was a prophecy.
>
>So was James Bond.
>
>Nostradamus = nostrils = to smell = to predict (before you taste)
>
>Modern prophet = Ian Fleming
You are so far off the deep end that you can't even see the shore. Get
help.
JessHC
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>
>
>
> > "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Too bad your psychic powers don't let you in on the fact you're wrong.
ScienceWins
>On Sep 14, 8:46=A0am, ScienceW...@Apikoros.Org (ScienceWins) wrote:
>> ROFL! <mutters> Okay, but I'm going to burn down the building.
>> Awesome movie. A cult classic without gods.
>I love that he comes out with so much money, but is still such a
>loser, while a guy can go from IT to shoveling trash and be a winner.
>There are so many good bits in that movie. "So you're stealing."
>"No, no, I'm not explaining it right."
>The old guy with the walker is hilarious too, and the lawyer
>explaining about prison, and, and...
Funny also how they cut up and passed out cake and they were one short.
Guess who was the poor guy who didn't get any. LOL!