RANDI CHICKEN'S OUT!
Wizard
In article <3321FF...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
>On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James Randi
>refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my word) to
>appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO DISCUSS WITH ED
>DAMES, the terms of a "test"
>
<snip>
>So called "reasons" of the "amazing" RANDI to not
>go on the ART BELL program:
>
> 1. He want's to go to Art Bell's studio, and does
> not have the time to travel
> 2. Randi does not want to dilute the effect of a
> possible CNN joint meeting with Art Bell once
> each week on TV
> 3. Art Bell, according to Randi, will "pander" to
> the other view, and that, according to Randi,
> would be putting himself in the other person's
> ball park.
>Ed Dames has reported he is hung up on every time he calls the JREF
>offices.
>
>Now Dames and Art Bell are asking you to discuss the terms of a test, on
>the air live, and you come up with this nonsense.
People are surprised by this?
I have called on Randi to turn over the money and testing to independent
agents who will determine the success or failure of psychic tests. His
flunkies, er, fans, have always come up with reasons that fair,
independent testing is no good. And Randi, who has earned money as a fake
astrologer, purposely deceiving people and never apologizing for this to
the people he lied to and deceived, has admitted that hešll never give the
money away because he always has an łout.˛
Of course hešs going to avoid Bellšs show. He might have people attack
him, and Randi is basically a coward. One of the things any person
involved in getting himself publicity knows (or should know) is to avoid
any situation where you might end up being shown for being a less than
your reputation implies. Rush Limbaugh does exactly the same thing. He
only goes where he knows the questions will be soft and/or agree with his
opinions.
Randi is not a scientist; He is a showman. He is a faker. As a magician he
knows to prepare for anything which might happen, and if he canšt be in a
situation he can control, he avoids the situation.
Wizard
Bruce Daniel Kettler
On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James Randi
refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my word) to
appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO DISCUSS WITH ED
DAMES, the terms of a "test"
Art Bell reports that he will be contacting RANDI AGAIN to offer the
opportunity for him to appear.
For information on this World Wide Broadcast:
THIS IS ABOUT THE 1 MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE
TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING
ED DAMES IS A "REMOTE VIEWER" and for more info
CLICK AT:
"INSTANT LINKS"
and click at REMOTE VIEWING SITES from the below
WWW SITE
So called "reasons" of the "amazing" RANDI to not
go on the ART BELL program:
1. He want's to go to Art Bell's studio, and does
not have the time to travel
(Art Bell has had his mother and wife, only,
interviewed in person)
2. Randi does not want to dilute the effect of a
possible CNN joint meeting with Art Bell once
each week on TV
(Hey Randi, are you "for real"? Do you really
believe that it would dilute it?)
3. Art Bell, according to Randi, will "pander" to
the other view, and that, according to Randi,
would be putting himself in the other person's
ball park.
(people are interviewed by adversary hosts all
the time, but I think Art Bell would agree
to some ground rules)
Oh, for GOD SAKES, RANDI! CUT OUT THE BS, will you? First you plaster
a statement all over the place that DAMES SUPPOSEDLY LIED WHEN HE SAID
HE OFFERED TO MEET THE CHALLENGE.
Ed Dames has reported he is hung up on every time he calls the JREF
offices.
Now Dames and Art Bell are asking you to discuss the terms of a test, on
the air live, and you come up with this nonsense.
So, JAMES RANDI, do something truly amazing, and go on the AIR VIA THE
PHONE with DAMES, and discuss the details of this test.
Meet this challenge, will you?
GET REAL, WILL YOU?
--
h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
Bruce Daniel Kettler
"Marshall Vale" <jazz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Who the f**k is this Randi guy, Art keeps talkin' about?
>Is he a fan or a
>caller?
James Randi is noted as a "skeptic" so-called, leader.
For more info:
and you might comment to Art Bell, that he should explain who
Randi is:
bolloXs
Randi's a magician who makes more money on telly and in books by calling
himself a professional sceptic. In fact, in the 14 years he's been at theis
to my knowledge, he's never exposed any major paranormalist. The trouble
with him is, he's very fond indeed of thinking that he's exposed some event
simply because the incident is "doable" as a stage trick. He needs to be
told he must show that that's how it was done originally.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
See how they run...
See how they Run...
They all ran after Dames' life...
Dames and Bell came back with strife...
Bell cut off their tails with a carving knife
Did you ever see such a sight in your life
As these blind mice
See how he (Randi) runs...
See how he runs...
(sung to the tune of a USA nursery rhime "Three Blind Mice")
************************************************************
"Skeptics," please ask RANDI WHY HE WON'T GO ON THE ART BELL
PROGRAM.
************************************************************
As a background for those who don't know, James Randi is a famous
"skeptic" who is known as a Stage Magician, and for attempting to
prove that psychic phenomena does not exist.
He's publicly known for having been involved in a feud that
involved ligigation with another famous person, Uri Geller.
Uri Geller was most famous during the 70's as a "spoon bender,"
using the power of the mind.
One of his ways of Randi's attempting to prove psychic phenomena
does not exist, is to offer a monetary prize, pledged by others,
to anyone who can, according to certain terms, prove their
ability. According to Randi, if no one wins, then no-one is
psychic, but that doesn't take into account RANDI'S TRICKS.
Remember, he's a STAGE magician.
On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James
Randi refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my
word) to appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO
DISCUSS WITH ED DAMES, the terms of a "test"
Art Bell reports that he will be contacting RANDI AGAIN to offer
the opportunity for him to appear.
For information on this World Wide Broadcast:
ED DAMES IS A "REMOTE VIEWER" and for more info
CLICK AT:
"INSTANT LINKS"
and click at REMOTE VIEWING SITES from the below
WWW SITE
These are so-called "reasons," sent to one of his followers, of
the "amazing" RANDI to not go on the ART BELL program:
1. He want's to go to Art Bell's studio, and does
not have the time to travel
(Art Bell has had his mother and wife, only,
interviewed in person)
2. Randi does not want to dilute the effect of a
possible CNN joint meeting with Art Bell once
each week on TV
(Hey Randi, are you "for real"? Do you really
believe that it would dilute it? Are you more
interested in the CNN $$$$ than getting the truth
out now? Are you more of a showman than a
"SCIENTIST" looking for the truth? Is it that
you know that setting up the CNN duo will take
more time to stall with?)
3. Art Bell, according to Randi, will "pander" to
the other view, and that, according to Randi,
would be putting himself in the other person's
ball park.
(People are interviewed by adversary hosts all
the time, and I think you could require Art Bell
agree to ground rules)
Oh, for GOD SAKES, RANDI! CUT OUT THE BS, will you? First you
plaster a statement through your fanatic cult followers that
DAMES SUPPOSEDLY LIED WHEN HE SAID HE OFFERED TO MEET THE
CHALLENGE.
Then, Ed Dames (allegedly) was hung up on every time he called
the JREF offices.
Now Dames and Art Bell are asking you to discuss the terms of a
test, on the air live, and you come up with this nonsense.
So, JAMES RANDI, the "amazing," do something truly amazing, and
go on the AIR VIA THE PHONE with DAMES, and discuss the details
of this test.
Meet this challenge, will you? It was a "challenge" FROM YOU,
which your followers have been telling so many about, but now
it's a challenge from Ed Dames for you to put *THE* money where
your mouth is.
GET REAL, WILL YOU?
Karl Mamer
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James Randi
> refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my word) to
> appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO DISCUSS WITH ED
> DAMES, the terms of a "test"
Oh, grow up. Just because a guy doesn't want to waste his
time and money to chase after every crackpot doesn't
mean he's chickened out.
--
"This things gonna have to be prayed back into existence."
Visit the Conspiracy Arc-Hive!
http://www.netizen.org/Arc-Hive
Bruce Daniel Kettler
bolloXs wrote:
><snip> he's very fond indeed of thinking that he's exposed some event
> simply because the incident is "doable" as a stage trick. He needs to > be told he must show that that's how it was done originally.
Simple logic would demand the above solution. I'm going to speculate
upon the mentality of James Randi -- and similarly his brainwashed
followers.
They demonstrate impeccable logic, and great intelligence in other
matters, in their vocations, as Professors, etc. -- but when problems
from their subconscious are triggered, their logic and intelligence are
incapacitated.
One thing that CULTS have in common, is duplication of the attitudes and
habits of the followers. I note that this: "if it can be done, it was
done," and "I found so-and-so 'psychic' was a fraud, so all psychics are
frauds -- illogic from many followers.
This is speculation, here, but I believe that what IRKED Randi so much
was that he found Uri Geller doing what he, Randi, considered to be
"tricks." It made him envious to think that Geller could have some
*ACTUAL* "magick," and not just STAGE or PRETENDED magic.
It was a blow to his pride, and so to compensate for this INABILITY TO
ACCEPT, IT BECAME AN INABILITY TO ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY THAT PSYCHIC
PHENOMENA EXISTS. It was envy, and jealousy, which, probably RANDI DOES
NOT KNOW EXISTS, AS IT'S BEEN COVERED UP, BURIED DEEP IN HIS
SUBCONSCIOUS.
When a person buries things deep within the SUBCONSCIOUS, responding to
matters that concern the HIDDEN GARBAGE, leads one to do things and say
things that are TOTALLY ILLOGICAL.
Now, I cannot attribute ALL THE SUBCONSCOUS MOTIVES OF RANDI to his
followers, as I know others have different irrational motivations to
insist that paranormal phenomena is not real. True skepticism is not
irrational. However, the DOGMA from this cult is.
Click at "skeptics" at the first page of the below site:
--
Tr...@beauty.com
On 8 Mar 1997 23:58:03 -0700, wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>In article <3321FF...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
>
<snip>
>Rush Limbaugh does exactly the same thing. He only goes where he
>knows the questions will be soft and/or agree with his opinions.
Nonsense. He always puts calls disagreeing with him at the front
of the line.
Perhaps you should listen to somebody first before trashing them.
<snip>
TRUTH
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Subject: Re: Will Randi Try To Escape This Challenge??
From: kam...@interlog.com (Karl Mamer)
Date: 1997/03/08
Message-Id: <5ft31o$c...@gold.interlog.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
[More Headers]
Earl Curley <psy...@globalserve.net> writes:
> Bruce Kettler announced:
>
> The latest developments in the Randi-Dames puzzle, according
> to Ed Dames and Art Bell in the March 7, 1997 broadcast:
>
> 1. Ed Dames said he contacted Randi so he could
> accept the approximately 1 million dollar
> challenge to prove REMOTE VIEWING works
> as a function of psychic ability to know
> of what exists in a remote location.
> (prior broadcast)
>
> 2. According to Dames, Randi's organization
> refused to allow Dames' organization to
> meet the challenge. (prior broadcast)
HE WROTE:
Meaningless. "Hi Randi, can you travel at your expense to
to Australia to test this claim." Randi is not going to
accept such a challenge at the drop of a hat. If he
did, he'd be jetting all over the planet to
test every two bit psychic.
MY REPLY:
Say what? Where or how is RANDI ON THE TELEPHONE TO BE ON THE
AIR to discuss the terms of a test, "travel [ing] at [his]
expense to Australia," and how is Ed Dames, president of PSI
TECH, a "two bit" psychic?
Where have you been, man?
> 5. According to Art Bell, he has been in touch
> with James Randi, who offered to place numbers
> in his safe, which Dames should tell what
> they are. Both Dames and Art Bell agree that
> is an unfair test, since Randi has control of
> the contents. (March 7 broadcast)
Why should that matter?
Why should it matter? Are you so brainwashed that you think we
should trust James Randi?
> 7. Art Bell said that he offered Randi the
> opportunity to appear on his program and
> discuss, live, on the air with Ed Dames
> the terms of a future test. Art Bell
> said Randi refused to appear, but asked
> that a statement he'd previously released
> on USENET be read on the air (the *Dames
> lied* statement) Art Bell read it on the
> air.
HE SAID:
Again, Randi has limited funds. Did Bell offer to pay for
his travel expenses?
MY REPLY:
The appearance was announced as to be via telephone, and of
course, the telephone expense would be paid by the producers.
> 8. Ed Dames and Art Bell, again, agreed to meet
> Randi, live on the air, to discuss the terms of
> Dames meeting Randi's challenge.
> (this would require that Randi be on the air
> via telephone -- not in-person)
And what would that prove or demonstrate? Again, does he have
to waste time getting on the blower with every two bit
psychic and two bit radio host?
FOR GOD SAKES, MAN, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT 10 or 15 MILLION
LISTENERS, 310 AFFILIATE STATIONS.
Where have you been?
Ed Dames has been written about in quite a few books on REMOTE
VIEWING, one which is so popular you can find it in the
supermarket.
Where have you been?
> Who is the more credible of the two, Ed Dames, or James Randi?
SAYS HE:
Randi.
SAYS I:
Really, now?
> Well, take a look at my WEB SITE. Read some of the statements of
> Randi's raving fanatic, habitually lying, and slandering
> followers. Then judge for yourself. Just click at "s k e p t i
He said:
Ah, never known a psychic to have raving, fanatic, slandering
followers.
I say:
And, I don't know what he means by that.
--
"This things gonna have to be prayed back into existence."
Visit the Conspiracy Arc-Hive!
http://www.netizen.org/Arc-Hive
Celeborn
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> "Skeptics," please ask RANDI WHY HE WON'T GO ON THE ART BELL
> PROGRAM.
I've got a better question- why are you spamming this to alt.pagan?
Followups adjusted.
Brian Zeiler
On 9 Mar 1997 09:38:18 -0500, kam...@interlog.com (Karl Mamer) wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
>> On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James Randi
>> refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my word) to
>> appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO DISCUSS WITH ED
>> DAMES, the terms of a "test"
>
>Oh, grow up. Just because a guy doesn't want to waste his
>time and money to chase after every crackpot doesn't
>mean he's chickened out.
Are you even more stupid than I originally suspected? Randi issued a
challenge, yet he's avoided acceptance of the challenge by Dames.
____________________________________________________________________________
Science, Logic, and the UFO Debate:
http://www.primenet.com/~bdzeiler/index.html
-----------------------
GO BREWERS!
____________________________________________________________________________
Karl Mamer
"bolloXs" <bol...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes:
> Randi's a magician who makes more money on telly and in books by calling
> himself a professional sceptic. In fact, in the 14 years he's been at theis
> to my knowledge, he's never exposed any major paranormalist.
I guess Uri Geller doesn't ring a bell? Randi has tested many psychics
whose power suddenly vanishes when tested under conditions the psychic
has agreed is a fair test of his power or the psychic actually tries
to cheat. I remember once seeing a program called "That's Incredible"
where Randi tested this psychic who claimed he could rotate pencils
'n' such with his mind. Randi concluded, correctly that he was
blowing on the pencil. So he surrounded the pencil with foam
bits. Sure enough, the psychic tried to blow on the pencil and
managed to blow away all the foam bits.
> The trouble
> with him is, he's very fond indeed of thinking that he's exposed some event
> simply because the incident is "doable" as a stage trick. He needs to be
> told he must show that that's how it was done originally.
Again, you merely demonstrate how little you actually understand.
If one can show you can duplicate a psychic feat using nothing more
than slight of hand, you have not demonstrated that the psyhic
is doing that same, but you have demonstrated he could be doing
the same. You have shown a reason for skepticism, a reason
to withhold judging "hey this psychic guy has amazin' powers!"
The burden of proof now rests with the psychic to demonstrate,
in an environment that controls for slight of hand, that
he's using some unknown power. It's an important subtle point
not lost on scientists but frequently lost on vacuous new age
whackos.
--
"Yes, I guess we do have to keep the world safe for ice cream."
Wizard
No, thatąs what he SAYS he does. In fact, his calls are closely screened
so dissenting views by someone who can defend his/her position never get
aired. Note, too, that Rush never goes on shows where he might get
slammed. Can you imagine him on Polically Incorrect? Heąd end up wetting
his pants!
Try reading the book, _Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot_ for more details
on the ego that walks like a fat man.
Wizard
Bruce McNeely
In article <01bc2c76$760da4e0$f0e62ac2@ukpppraphaels>, "bolloXs"
<bol...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> Randi's a magician who makes more money on telly and in books by calling
> himself a professional sceptic. In fact, in the 14 years he's been at theis
> to my knowledge, he's never exposed any major paranormalist. The trouble
> with him is, he's very fond indeed of thinking that he's exposed some event
> simply because the incident is "doable" as a stage trick. He needs to be
> told he must show that that's how it was done originally.
OH BALLS!!!
Give me a break! A so-called paranormal event that can be explained by a
"stage trick" (i.e. by following the laws of nature) is, in effect,
exposed as a stage trick, fraudulantly presented as woo-woo paranormalism.
The paranormalist is obliged to show that his "feat" is done paranormally,
since it would, by definition, contradict known scientific principles.
Your signature, in fact, is an excellent description of your statement.
(God, I'm being owly today!)
Sincerely,
Bruce Mcneely
Lizz Braver
I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch him
home.
Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
William Barwell
In article <3321FF...@psicounsel.com>,
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James Randi
>refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my word) to
>appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO DISCUSS WITH ED
>DAMES, the terms of a "test"
And.....?
Randi has made his terms plain. They do not include being summoned by
Art Bell to appear on his program.
>
>Art Bell reports that he will be contacting RANDI AGAIN to offer the
>opportunity for him to appear.
>
If Dames wants to take the test, let him apply in writing as per Randi's
challenge. It's that simple.
Take it or shut up.
********* tripe deleted **********
Take the challenge or don't, but if Dames wants to grandstand along with
Art Bell, it certainly doen't mean anything.
Now, let's try another tack, suppose Art Bell were to allow a test,
for demonstration purposes, live, with Dames and any other media
representitives who wish to watch the proceedings. A randomly chosen
word is posted on a wall in a lighted, closed room.
Dames reads it. If he could do that three times in a row,
that would be something.
Why wait on Randi if you want a circus?
Then if Dames succeeds, this whole carnival might be meaningful.
Now, how to keep possible cheating at bay?
Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!
Celeborn
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> Lizz Braver wrote:
>
> > In article <33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>, d...@psicounsel.com
> > says...
>
> > >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>
> > You big goof, I was commenting on your faulty grammar. Not every s
> > deserves an apostrophe. The sentence you wrote had the meaning I
> > construed, not the meaning you meant to convey.
>
> Picky, picky, picky! However, thank's for the lesson. I'll certainly
> look into it, more carefully, in the future.
>
> > By the way, quit spamming.
>
<SNIP>
> To me, spamming is posting to newsgroups that have no interest, not as
> it's interpreted by one person in a newsgroup, but by a number of
> people.
Howzabout when it doesn't fall in the definition of the newsgroup's FAQ
AND you have people complaining?
Or did you just get excited and add alt.pagan by mistake?
Celeborn
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> Shez wrote:
>
> > In article <3322b9f5...@news.pcisys.net>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
> > <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
>
> > >See how they run...
> > >
> > > See how they Run...
>
>
> > >(sung to the tune of a USA nursery rhime "Three Blind Mice")
> > >
> >
> > Hmmmm hate to upset you its an old English nursery Ryme, and was
> > originaly a political satire.
>
> Very interesting.
>
> It's about SKEPTIC-PARANORMAL politics now, so it's kind of
> appropriate.
Though off-topic for a religious newsgroup.
> I see you seem to be posting from the "pagan" newsgroup, so it seems you
> people are finding it interesting.
No more so than your UFO-around-a-comet (that is: not at all.)
> I'm going to include your newsgroup
> in this, in spite of the posting that admonishes me not to, unless I
> hear from more of you. I did wipe out "alt.pagan" in one of my
> responses because of an objection.
No, junior, I trimmed the followups line down. You just keep posting
spam. Do you ever BOTHER to read a newsgroup's FAQ before you post? Are
you unaware that it is common courtesy?
Follwups trimmed.
Brian Zeiler
On 10 Mar 1997 02:50:14 GMT, di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver)
wrote:
>In article <33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>, d...@psicounsel.com
>says...
>>
>>di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>>
>>You are being word-for-word literal here? Are you familiar with
>>commonly used expressions? Well, if not, I'll fill you in, and
>>the others who are not familiar.
>>
>
>You big goof, I was commenting on your faulty grammar. Not every s
>deserves an apostrophe. The sentence you wrote had the meaning I
>construed, not the meaning you meant to convey.
>
>By the way, quit spamming.
>
>Lizz "WHAT a mo'ron" Braver
What a twat...
Glen Quarnstrom
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> babbled:
>One thing that CULTS have in common, is duplication of the attitudes and
>habits of the followers. I note that this: "if it can be done, it was
>done," and "I found so-and-so 'psychic' was a fraud, so all psychics are
>frauds -- illogic from many followers.
Cute. So if 999 out of 1000 people tell you that you're nuts, that
demonstrates that they're a mindwashed cult just because they all
believe the same thing? I'd say there's another, better possibility.
>This is speculation, here, but I believe that what IRKED Randi so much
>was that he found Uri Geller doing what he, Randi, considered to be
>"tricks." It made him envious to think that Geller could have some
>*ACTUAL* "magick," and not just STAGE or PRETENDED magic.
Geller's a fake. I saw him on the Carson show, and he couldn't do ONE
thing, except waffle and sweat a lot. Take away their props, and
subject them to objective observation, and all those con men collapse
like a house of cards.
>It was a blow to his pride, and so to compensate for this INABILITY TO
>ACCEPT, IT BECAME AN INABILITY TO ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY THAT PSYCHIC
>PHENOMENA EXISTS. It was envy, and jealousy, which, probably RANDI DOES
>NOT KNOW EXISTS, AS IT'S BEEN COVERED UP, BURIED DEEP IN HIS
>SUBCONSCIOUS.
Say, Kettlebanger, do you have a license to indulge in all this
psychobabble? If you were about ten times more literate than you are,
you'd begin to start sounding like Bro. Ray Linenoise.
<standard spam snipped>
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
"afa-b's leading curmudgeon"
Glen Quarnstrom
Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>On 8 Mar 1997 23:58:03 -0700, wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>
>>In article <3321FF...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
>>
><snip>
>
>>Rush Limbaugh does exactly the same thing. He only goes where he
>>knows the questions will be soft and/or agree with his opinions.
>
>Nonsense. He always puts calls disagreeing with him at the front
>of the line.
No, he doesn't.
>Perhaps you should listen to somebody first before trashing them.
Perhaps you Limbots should get a better line of crap. I've listened
to Lardbutt more than you have.
Glen Quarnstrom
di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>
>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch him
>home.
You gotta remember that the author of this thread, Idiot D. Bruce, AKA
Kettlebanger, isn't too well known for his writing abilities. Just be
thankful that he hasn't taken to posting in a.f.u.
Glen Quarnstrom
bdze...@primenet.com.spamblock (Brian Zeiler) wrote:
>On 9 Mar 1997 09:38:18 -0500, kam...@interlog.com (Karl Mamer) wrote:
>>Oh, grow up. Just because a guy doesn't want to waste his
>>time and money to chase after every crackpot doesn't
>>mean he's chickened out.
>
>Are you even more stupid than I originally suspected? Randi issued a
>challenge, yet he's avoided acceptance of the challenge by Dames.
I've seen no credible evidence that Dames has done anything but
pretentious posturing. It's up to Dames to accept Randi's challenge,
not otherwise. After all, it's not Dames' million bucks up for grabs.
Shez
In article <3322b9f5...@news.pcisys.net>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> writes
>See how they run...
>
> See how they Run...
>
>
> Dames and Bell came back with strife...
>
> Bell cut off their tails with a carving knife
>
> Did you ever see such a sight in your life
>
> As these blind mice
>
> See how he (Randi) runs...
>
> See how he runs...
>
>
>
>*** O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
Hmmmm hate to upset you its an old English nursery Ryme, and was
originaly a political satire.
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Daniel Kettler
di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch him
>home.
>Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
You are being word-for-word literal here? Are you familiar with
commonly used expressions? Well, if not, I'll fill you in, and
the others who are not familiar.
"Chicken" is a term, found in many USA slang dictionaries. It's
even in a regular dictionary, listing the "slang" as "a timid or
cowardly person." (Webster's New World Dictionary) To
"Chicken-out" with that word combination probably found in a
slang dictionary, would show the "out" to mean to: get out of
something, or to avoid something because of fear.
Reading the context of the posting gives the meaning, anyway.
I must have seen dozens of movies, and read plenty of novels in
which "chicken" or "chicken-out" is used in that context. I
wouldn't be surprised if it's known in other English speaking
countries.
h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
Bruce Daniel Kettler
This was read on the Art Bell show, by Art Bell, the early
morning of March 9, 1997.
This is a letter sent to a "David," a Randi follower, from James
Randi.
COMMENTS OF MINE, BDK, in BRACKETS [ ]
================================================================
[March 7, 1997 apparently]
Thank you for your fax received this morning.
I hasten to reply.
The Art Bell show was delayed, obviously. It was first broadcast
several weeks ago. I fully responded to Bell and to Dames.
Dames will again be a guest on that show tomorrow night, the 8th.
[It was broadcast live the night of the 6th -- morning of 7th]
At that time, Bell has agreed to face him with my rebuttal. That
response was already published on my star list e-mail group, and
has elicited much reaction.
[It was read on the air, word-for-word, the night of the 6th --
morning of 7th]
It will be interesting to hear Dames' reaction to my rebuttal if
it takes place as promised.
[Yes, he did respond, as did Art Bell with an offer for you to
appear on the show and discuss terms of the test.]
Art Bell is a strange "fish." I have declined to appear on his
show, partly because he panders so completely to the nonsense
mongers.
[Doesn't the Holy Bible have the term "whore-mongers"?]
and partly because I just don't have the time to go to his studio
live, and doing it via telephone is a poor substitute.
[monger: "dealer in tricked out wares" "device for deceiving"
used "figuratively" and "derogitorily"]
[whoremonger: a man who associates with whores, specifically
a pimp or panderer]
[Considering the times I've been accused of being a "pimp" or
likened to a peddler of dope for being financially involved in
the paranormal, by Randi's brainwashed followers on USENET, the
above use of words does not surprise me.]
[Art Bell reports that 2 people have been in his "studio" on the
air, which is part of his home: his mother and his wife]
Also, the Cable News Network (CNN) is planning a weekly TV show
featuring Bell and myself discussing these matters, and I don't
want to thin down that combination by appearing on radio with
him.
[That could take a long time to get started, if Art Bell agrees
to take the time to travel each week.]
Please understand that by confronting Ed Dames on a show that is
under the control of another not-so-neutral person, Bell, I am
playing another man's game, and allowing him to write the game
rules.
[Could Mr. Randi consider some signed agreement as to ground
rules for the show, a ROGET'S RULES OF ORDER debate format, as
one example?]
Also, I dignify Dames by going out of my way to get into a
"pissing contest" with him.
There are other ways to defeat him, I assure you. Mr. Dames is
very much on my schedule.
[Yeah, right! -- A USA EXPRESSION MEANING THE OPPOSITE]
Sincerely,
James Randi
Lizz Braver
>
>>I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>
>>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch him
>>home.
>
>>Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
>
>You are being word-for-word literal here? Are you familiar with
>commonly used expressions? Well, if not, I'll fill you in, and
>the others who are not familiar.
>
You big goof, I was commenting on your faulty grammar. Not every s
Bruce Daniel Kettler
William Barwell wrote:
> In article <3321FF...@psicounsel.com>,
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> >On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James Randi
> >refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my word) to
> >appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO DISCUSS WITH ED
> >DAMES, the terms of a "test"
> And.....?
> Randi has made his terms plain. They do not include being summoned by
> Art Bell to appear on his program.
What terms, the one's published at www.randi.org? That's ridiculous.
there's a lot more detail required.
"Summoned," it's a telepone link.
Considering the past circumstances, the LIVE radio discussion appears to
be the only way an agreement regarding the "test" can be worked out, in
an open manner, so all can know what took place, without either Dames or
Randi being able to call the other a "liar" with no evidence to the
public as to what the truth is.
> >Art Bell reports that he will be contacting RANDI AGAIN to offer the
> >opportunity for him to appear.
> If Dames wants to take the test, let him apply in writing as per >Randi's
> challenge. It's that simple.
Sure, and that's supposed to make sense, huh?
> Take it or shut up.
Yeah sure, what a joke! We should all just trust RANDI, and do it his
way, and believe he's going to give everyone a fair shake!
HA HA HA HA HA
You are funny!
<snip>
> Now, let's try another tack, suppose Art Bell were to allow a test,
> for demonstration purposes, live, with Dames and any other media
<snip>
You are writing about a non-existent issue, a usual SKEP-TI-CULT"
tactic. This is NOT ABOUT A TEST ON THE AIR, but a conversation about
how the test will be conducted.
> Pope Charles
> SubGenius Pope Of Houston
> Slack!
--
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Shez wrote:
> In article <3322b9f5...@news.pcisys.net>, Bruce Daniel Kettler
> <d...@psicounsel.com> writes
> >See how they run...
> >
> > See how they Run...
<snip>
> >(sung to the tune of a USA nursery rhime "Three Blind Mice")
> >
> >*** O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
>
> Hmmmm hate to upset you its an old English nursery Ryme, and was
> originaly a political satire.
Very interesting.
It's about SKEPTIC-PARANORMAL politics now, so it's kind of
appropriate.
I see you seem to be posting from the "pagan" newsgroup, so it seems you
people are finding it interesting. I'm going to include your newsgroup
in this, in spite of the posting that admonishes me not to, unless I
hear from more of you. I did wipe out "alt.pagan" in one of my
responses because of an objection.
> --
> Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
> The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Bruce Daniel Kettler
> >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
Picky, picky, picky! However, thank's for the lesson. I'll certainly
look into it, more carefully, in the future.
> By the way, quit spamming.
Well, it's debatable as to what, exactly, is spamming. Standards are
being rewritten all the time. Generally, it's spamming when a person
automatically get's an e-mail and something appears in the USENET
ARCHIVES as to which posts will not appear in to certain ISP's servers.
To me, spamming is posting to newsgroups that have no interest, not as
it's interpreted by one person in a newsgroup, but by a number of
people.
> Lizz "WHAT a mo'ron" Braver
--
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Trudy and Rod Bray wrote:
> RANDI CHICKEN'S WHAT IS OUT???
> Trudy Bray
Australian? Hmmmm. Well, perhaps I should have thought about
expressions -- and how well they are understood. Elsewhere in this
thread, I did discuss it in detail, quoting from a USA dictionary, and
pointing out how many movies and novels show this expression.
I'm interested in how many people in other countries know of this
expression. I'm e-mailing this to someone in Australia for another
first-hand view of the expression from that English speaking country.
In any event, the contents of the postings clearly show the meaning.
CHICKEN -- (not an animal) noun or verb - depending on other
words associated with
it
OUT -- with the above word, now a verb,
running away out of fear
This is in a U.S. dictionary -- not the "out" part but the "chicken"
It indicates an inordinate "fear."
A U.S. slang dictionary would probably (I have to look for mine)
show "chicken-out" in a complete two word combination definition.
Bruce McNeely
Perhaps psicounsel should undertake a scientific study of the proper use
of possessives, apostrophes etc. I would think that someone who implies we
can divine the unknown by paranormal means could write a literate sentence
by the same means, or if not, then get a clue from those who humorously
attempt to correct him. Some psychic!
Sincerely, Bruce McNeely
Tr...@beauty.com
On 9 Mar 1997 15:02:06 -0700, wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>In article <3322e0a6...@news.airmail.net>, Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>
>>On 8 Mar 1997 23:58:03 -0700, wiz...@primenet.com (Wizard) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3321FF...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Rush Limbaugh does exactly the same thing. He only goes where he
>>>knows the questions will be soft and/or agree with his opinions.
>>
>>Nonsense. He always puts calls disagreeing with him at the front
>>of the line.
>>
>>Perhaps you should listen to somebody first before trashing them.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>TRUTH
>
>
>No, that零 what he SAYS he does. In fact, his calls are closely screened
>so dissenting views by someone who can defend his/her position never get
>aired.
I assume that you have some documentation of this? With the lib
media's constant hounding of conservative viewpoints, don't you
think it would make front page news in every newspaper in the US
if Rush were actually caught doing this?
>Note, too, that Rush never goes on shows where he might get
>slammed.
Neither does Bill Clinton. Neither does Molly Ivins. Neither does
Al Franken. Neither do most other lib pundits.
Rush has repeatedly said that he does an entertainment-based
radio show. Do you criticize an orange for not being an apple?
You certainly can, but no one will take you seriously.
>Can you imagine him on Polically Incorrect?
Yes ... he would rule.
<snip>
>Try reading the book, _Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot_ for more details
>on the ego that walks like a fat man.
I read the book. Al Franken is certainly entitled to his own opinion,
and he's a very funny man. I certainly wouldn't count on him for
political analysis though ... you don't go to an apple to get orange
juice.
Does a person have to be thin to be politically involved? If
insulting a person for his appearance because you can't
attack his ideas is what passes for reasoned political debate
among liberals these days, no wonder the Dems lost the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
TRUTH
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Lizz Braver wrote:
>
> In article <33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>, d...@psicounsel.com
> says...
> >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
> >>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch
> >> him
> >>home.
> >>Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
Okay, LIZZ, did I get it right? RANDI CHICKENS' OUT Not possessive
like with "CHICKEN'S" with the apostrophe before the "S"
I know I forget these things, and need reminding sometimes.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Parker Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 01:30:54 GMT, d...@psicounsel.com (Bruce Daniel
> Kettler) wrote:
> >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
> >>I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
> >>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch
> >>him
> >>home.
> >>Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
> Could also be used as a command..
> EXAMPLE
> Randi Chickens Out....
> It is telling randi to get the chickens out, of a room or barn etc...
Well, you could consider looking this up in a slang dictionary.
I found "chicken" to mean more than the fowl, in an ordinary
dictionary, in the USA, WEBSTERS NEW WORLD DICTIONARY, and I
suspect a USA SLANG DICTIONARY will show "CHICKENS' OUT" as a
two word slang verb, to run from a circumstance, out of fear.
The "chicken" part, by itself, can only be a noun.
The apostrophe seems to go, properly like this:
RANDI CHICKENS' OUT
(the non-possessive usage)
I know I've seen enough movies and read enough novels to know
this is the slang meaning in the USA, but am still awaiting input from
Australia and the UK, and other English speaking countries.
I am sending a copy of this post to a fellow in Australia, and
hope for his input on the matter.
> This could be an interesting thread, now if we could only get the
> alt.language.ebonics crowd in on this subject matter? Hmmm.....
Well, I added that group, in this posting. If they don't respond, then
I'll delete it next time, so as not to annoy them.
This is proving to be quite an education in English usage.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> I'd rather die than receive CPR from a smartass....
> Dios mio...Hay una hacha en mi cabeza !!
> http://www.cris.com/~Antirush <<--HOTT SEXX !!!!
> -----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Davis
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>I see you seem to be posting from the "pagan" newsgroup, so it seems you
>people are finding it interesting. I'm going to include your newsgroup
>in this, in spite of the posting that admonishes me not to, unless I
>hear from more of you. I did wipe out "alt.pagan" in one of my
>responses because of an objection.
>
If we object to you including alt.fan.art-bell will you wipe it out?
Jim Davis
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
> O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
Why do you keep writing that? Everytime I click my mouse another
posting comes up showing you to be a simpleton.
dr. digger
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>Lizz Braver wrote:
>
>> You big goof, I was commenting on your faulty grammar. Not every s
>> deserves an apostrophe. The sentence you wrote had the meaning I
>> construed, not the meaning you meant to convey.
Lizz, your comment went way over Bruce's head. He's a bit
slow, as you can see:
>Picky, picky, picky! However, thank's for the lesson. I'll certainly
>automatically get's an e-mail and
See! hehehe.. He didn't get the title "Official Idiot of
afa-b" for nothing.
> h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
<snip>
Bruce, why do you add all these extra space's in here
between the letter's?
Bruce Daniel Kettler
<snip>
"DR" of BS "digger" wrote:
> See! hehehe.. He didn't get the title "Official Idiot of
> afa-b" for nothing.
"OFFICIAL" meaning certain fools decide upon what "official" means
Oh, I did read it in this newsgroups, afa-b, and it has a reason.
The reason, obviously, is because the fools who have invaded this
newsgroup, and scared away the original posters, the actual
"fans," are fanatics, who write without the use rational thinking.
See, when I write about people like you, I have some substance to
it, and when you write, supposedly, about me, all you have is
vacant-minded name calling.
More on this mentality on page 2, and one can click at "skeptics"
from the first page of the SITE listed below.
A mistake in grammar, obviously, is not anything related to the
word, "idiot," so those of you who come up with this nonsense,
are totally LAME.
I N V A D E D data obtained by
sending e-mail to:
s k e p d a t a @ i n f o f r e e . c o m
> > h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
> <snip>
> Bruce, why do you add all these extra space's in here
> between the letter's?
You figure it out.
--
h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
Bruce McNeely
> Lizz Braver wrote:
> >
> > In article <33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>, d...@psicounsel.com
> > says...
> > >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
> > >>I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>
> > >>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch
> > >> him
> > >>home.
>
> > >>Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
>
> Okay, LIZZ, did I get it right? RANDI CHICKENS' OUT Not possessive
> like with "CHICKEN'S" with the apostrophe before the "S"
>
> I know I forget these things, and need reminding sometimes.
>
> --
>
> h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
>
> S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
> O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
"...did I get it right?" Well, you tell me, psychic.
Why do I get the impression when reading this newsgroup that
self-proclaimed psychics are as dumb as stumps?
Can't you call up a vision of your long-deceased grammar teacher to give
you a lesson on the use of apostrophes? My dad used to say about these
clowns "If they're so smart, why aren't they rich?" I say "If they're so
smart, why aren't they literate?"
Sincerely, Bruce McNeely
Bruce Daniel Kettler
From: ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis)
[THIS IS BEING POSTED TO 2 THREADS:
RANDI RUNS AWAY -- aka RANDI CHICKENS' OUT
and
RANDI]
Newsgroups:
alt.paranormal, alt.fan.art-bell, talk.religion.newage,
alt.paranet.paranormal, alt.out-of-body, alt.astrology,
alt.pagan, alt.magick, alt.paranet.ufo,
alt.consciousness.mysticism, alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: RANDI
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 05:31:31 GMT
Organization: Earthlink Network, Inc.
Message-ID:
<33259a0d...@news.earthlink.net>
References:
<332336...@pop.mcn.net>
Reply-To:
ji...@wwdg.com
NNTP-Posting-Host:
cust23.max1.portland.or.ms.uu.net
slyp...@pop.mcn.net wrote:
>maybe it's just me but i am curious why randi is always willing to be so
>ultimately confident when he finds someone who wants to keep this
>testing private, but when he comes about someone who is very confident,
>and wants to make his tests public
See the other postings under:
"RANDI CHICKENS' OUT"
Yes, when it's public, he RUNS AWAY. He is afraid.
>so john q. public can find out what
>happens exactly he chickens out? perhaps there is more than meet the eye
>than randi and his tests?
Yes, much more, like a STAGE MAGICIAN - TRICKSTER, and he's not
getting this BS over on the public, and this will, not too long
from now, show him up in the *MAINSTREAM* MEDIA, not just Art
Bell's radio program.
>if i were to do tests such as this i would be
>more than willing to actually show i was for real and take a challenge
>in public , in private, whatever
Yes, but then you are, it seems, an honest person.
Yes, when Dames says that he tried to contact Randi, and was
refused, and then Randi says Dames lied, and then Dames says,
"no, we tried again, even after he called us liars, and we want
to discuss the terms of a test, live, on the air," and Randi
refuses, obviously:
WE DO NEED A PUBLIC AIRING OF THE CONTROVERSY
Now, it is no longer a "challenge" *from* RANDI, but a challenge
from Art Bell and Ed Dames TO RANDI, to put *THE* money where his
big mouth is.
===================================================================
and from this other person>>>>>>>
Randi does not take challenges, he offers them.
====================================================================
FROM ME, BDK:
Yes, but the situation has changed, and now HE IS BEING
CHALLENGED.
====================================================================
and he continues>>>>>>>>
If anyone can meet his challenge, they can have over a million
dollars. If one doesn't meet the challenge it simply means they
have nothing to offer as evidence, and should be viewed as
unsubstantiated.
====================================================================
Real simple, huh? No, if anyone with any sense meets the
"challenge," they will do it in such a way that the terms are
discussed in public, and that a third party, independent group,
does monitor the procedure and results.
BDK
=====================================================================
The other method used by Randi, is by drawing on his experience
and skills as a magician. He demonstrates methods of performing
tricks that duplicate feats claimed by others as psychic feats.
If the "claimed feat" can be performed by natural trickery, then
performing the "claimed feat" is not evidence of paranormal
activity.
THIS GUY SAYS ---- above ------->>>>>>>>>
======================
Hmmmm, still hasn't addressed the issue about private or public
discussion of the way the test is conducted.
BDK
======================
Randi doesn't prove people frauds, nor does he attempt to. He
simply provides a method that enable them to prove themselves.
If they can't, why believe their extraordinary claims?
and so he goes on, even more, above writing >>>>>>>>>>>>
======================
He "provides a method" Hmmmm. He just dictates the method and
terms, and some people are suckers for that, hmmmm?
Well, you seem to have avoided the matter discussed by the other
person, above. This is AVOIDANCE. Do you people ever get to
actually deal with matters, and stop running away from them?
I should rename this thread again.
"RANDI RUNS AWAY -- and drags his followers along
with him"
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Bruce McNeely wrote:
In article <3323AD...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
Lizz Braver wrote:
In article <33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>,
d...@psicounsel.com
di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
> Why do I get the impression when reading this newsgroup that
> self-proclaimed psychics are as dumb as stumps?
> Can't you call up a vision of your long-deceased grammar
> teacher to give you a lesson on the use of apostrophes?
> My dad used to say about these clowns "If they're so smart,
> why aren't they rich?" I say "If they're so smart, why
> aren't they literate?"
> Sincerely, Bruce McNeely
Your sincere, sure, but lacking the ability for intellectually
honest understanding of your own writing, and thus an inability to
communicate effectively.
You lack the ability to use logic.
1. You equate discussion of, and knowledge of, psychic matters as
a profession of *BEING *A* PSYCHIC."
2. You equate psychic ability with the ability to
use it to ascertain correct grammar through
paranormal means. Also, psychics are
both "smart" and "not-so-smart" because psychic
ability does not necessarily equate with degrees
of intelligence.
Even with ignorance of how these things work,
(or to you, supposed to) you make assumptions.
3. Psychics are, supposedly, "dumb as stumps," because of
grammar and spelling problems. A deficiency with grammer
does not equate with dumbness: "lacking a characteristic
or quality."
4. You equate a need for a refresher about apostrophes,
and, I imagine, problems with spelling, as "illiterate."
"Illiterate," according the the dictionary, is
"ignorant, not knowing how to read or write."
There can be an "illiterate" sentence, but not
illiteracy because of that error.
I believe your problems with illogic, distortion, and English language
usage are a lot more serious than mine with apostrophes. We can live
without apostrophes in the right place, but the world can go to hell in
a handbasket if people in authority "think" like you do.
Also, in the typical SKEP-TI-CULT manner, you seem to think
that by drawing derogatory attention to the person with the
message, you can detract from the value of the message.
This reminds me of the Science Fiction Novel, *1984*, in which
entire meanings of words were changed so the brainwashed
could "think" differently.
More on this CULT MENTALITY:
click at "skeptics" at the below SITE.
Send to autoresponder, skep...@infofree.com
for an instant, automatic, response.
If you don't like what I say, don't keep doing it.
--
Scott A. Munro
On 9 Mar 1997 10:42:11 GMT, "bolloXs" <bol...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Randi's a magician who makes more money on telly and in books by calling
>himself a professional sceptic. In fact, in the 14 years he's been at theis
>to my knowledge, he's never exposed any major paranormalist. The trouble
>with him is, he's very fond indeed of thinking that he's exposed some event
>simply because the incident is "doable" as a stage trick. He needs to be
>told he must show that that's how it was done originally.
Of course, this _is_ bollocks, so you picked a fine name to post
under.
In fact, the person making an extraordinary claim must prove the truth
of that claim.
Showing that a "paranormal event" _could_ be faked does not prove that
it _was_ faked, but the burden of proof is on the person claiming that
it is a true "paranormal event." If an event can be explained equally
well as a paranormal event or as a stage trick, Occam's Razor tells us
we must presume that it is a stage trick until it is proved to be a
paranormal event.
In other words, if it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and
it quacks like a duck, why would you assume that it is a duck-like
alien from Zeta Reticuli?
-----
Scott A. Munro http://www.nextdim.com/users/smunro/
Read my horror story "Immortal"
<http://tale.com/munro/imm-free.htm>
on the web at Mind's Eye Fiction <http://tale.com/>
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
--
> [Considering the times I've been accused of being a "pimp" or
> likened to a peddler of dope for being financially involved in
> the paranormal, by Randi's brainwashed followers on USENET, the
> above use of words does not surprise me.]
No, you've got it wrong AGAIN. (surprise surprise.) You refused to
support your own claims that you are psychic. You employ "tested
psychics," they sell their services and you get a cut. Pimping. Sounds
right to me. If not, feel free to correct me. I still want to know how
your psychics are tested. Or does that mean you have tested advertising
them all over usenet?
--Jon'Big Dave'Walsh
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
--
>
> Bruce McNeely wrote:
>
> In article <3323AD...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
> Lizz Braver wrote:
> In article <33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>,
> d...@psicounsel.com
> di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>
> > Why do I get the impression when reading this newsgroup that
> > self-proclaimed psychics are as dumb as stumps?
>
> > Can't you call up a vision of your long-deceased grammar
> > teacher to give you a lesson on the use of apostrophes?
> > My dad used to say about these clowns "If they're so smart,
> > why aren't they rich?" I say "If they're so smart, why
> > aren't they literate?"
>
> > Sincerely, Bruce McNeely
>
> Your sincere, sure, but lacking the ability for intellectually
> honest understanding of your own writing, and thus an inability to
> communicate effectively.
>
> You lack the ability to use logic.
As do you.
> 1. You equate discussion of, and knowledge of, psychic matters as
> a profession of *BEING *A* PSYCHIC."
You have claimed to have psychic abilities in past posts. This would
make you a psychic in your own eyes.
<<<snip>>>
>
> I believe your problems with illogic, distortion, and English language
> usage are a lot more serious than mine with apostrophes. We can live
> without apostrophes in the right place, but the world can go to hell in
> a handbasket if people in authority "think" like you do.
Can you imagine what kind of a world we would have if you woo-woo people
ran it? From what I have seen, you expect us to believe you with no
evidence to support your claims. You then expect proof of skeptical
assertions. Your logic is, in the words of bRay, "bassackwards".
> Also, in the typical SKEP-TI-CULT manner, you seem to think
> that by drawing derogatory attention to the person with the
> message, you can detract from the value of the message.
Ah...but see, the typical LOO-NI-KULT member's message has no value.
When this is pointed out, anger is spewn like hell-fire towards all who
might be doubt the integrity of "loonies," so-called.
For more on this LUNATIC mentality.....
(coming soon. watch this space.)
--Dave
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
<<snip the inevitable>>
Wizard
In article <bmcneely-100...@kamloops-38.netshop.net>,
bmcn...@commpass.awinc.com (Bruce McNeely) wrote:
! A so-called paranormal event that can be explained by a
>"stage trick" (i.e. by following the laws of nature) is, in effect,
>exposed as a stage trick, fraudulantly presented as woo-woo paranormalism.
>The paranormalist is obliged to show that his "feat" is done paranormally,
>since it would, by definition, contradict known scientific principles.
>Your signature, in fact, is an excellent description of your statement.
>(God, I'm being owly today!)
>Sincerely,
>Bruce Mcneely
Cool. Well, since placebo drugs in tests have show to have some results in
some people, the next time you get a really bad flu, you can have the
placebo‹which has been shown to work in some instances every bit as well
as real drugs‹while Iąll take the antibiotics.
Good luck, Bruce! Some of use will be at your funeral service if the
placebo doesnąt work for you.
Wizard
Glen Quarnstrom
d...@psicounsel.com (Bruce Daniel Kettler) wrote:
>di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>
>>I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>
>>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch him
>>home.
>
>>Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
>
>You are being word-for-word literal here? Are you familiar with
>commonly used expressions? Well, if not, I'll fill you in, and
>the others who are not familiar.
That WHOOOOOOOSH! you all heard was still another clue soaring far
above Brucie's pointed little head.
Instead of posting dozens of redundant, idiotic, drivel-filled
messages to UseNet daily, why not sit down and have somebody explain
simple English grammar to you, Kettlebanger? Then you could work on
humor, style, editing, and logic. That should keep you busy until the
predictions of doom by one or more of your heroes comes true, and none
of us will have to worry about the 'net any longer.
Glen Quarnstrom
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> ducks another clue:
>Lizz Braver wrote:
>
>> In article <33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>, d...@psicounsel.com
>> says...
>
>> >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>
>> You big goof, I was commenting on your faulty grammar. Not every s
>> deserves an apostrophe. The sentence you wrote had the meaning I
>> construed, not the meaning you meant to convey.
>
>Picky, picky, picky! However, thank's for the lesson. I'll certainly
^
>look into it, more carefully, in the future.
>automatically get's an e-mail and something appears in the USENET
^
HawHawHaw! Brucie, you never fail to amuse us with your obtusity.
Wizard
In article <332ca968...@news.airmail.net>, Tr...@Beauty.Com wrote:
>I assume that you have some documentation of this? With the lib
>media's constant hounding of conservative viewpoints, don't you
>think it would make front page news in every newspaper in the US
>if Rush were actually caught doing this?
1) This has been well documented in a variety of locations. See, for
example, the book ˛Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.˛
2) The claim that the media is liberal is another Rush (and other) lie. If
the media is liberal, why did more newspapers support Dole over Clinton?
Why are the airwaves filled with conservatives? Why are the Sunday news
interview programs filled with conservatives asking questions of other
conservatives (and theyąre almost all, wealthy white men)?
3) The very nature of news is that it has to be something new. The fact
that Rush screens his calls very carefully is nothing new.
>
>>Note, too, that Rush never goes on shows where he might get
>>slammed.
>
>Neither does Bill Clinton. Neither does Molly Ivins. Neither does
>Al Franken. Neither do most other lib pundits.
Here is the typical, whining response of a conservative: letąs go back to
third grade! łBobby doesnąt have to eat his carrots so why should I?˛
Actually, Clinton is attacked frequently in newspapers and in press
conferences. Al Franken not only has debated strong Republican pundits,
but he has publicly challenged Rush to a debate. Have you EVER seen Rush
in a debate?
>Rush has repeatedly said that he does an entertainment-based
>radio show. Do you criticize an orange for not being an apple?
>You certainly can, but no one will take you seriously.
Right. And Hitler wasnąt killing anyone. He was just ending the łJewish
problem.˛ Certainly because Rush and Adolf say something means you can
take them seriously.
Now, I know, your response is going to be, łHow dare you compare Rush to
Hitler.˛ Actually, I think the comparison is quite valid. No, I donąt
think heąs going to kill anybody. After all, he and many of his fellow
conservatives did dodge the draft (he stayed in school until he could get
out of the draft). But Hitler insisted that people should do things his
way. And he wanted the government to enforce his will. Rush tells people
he will do their thinking for them. He tells them (or rather, his ghost
writer tells them) łThe Way Things Ought to Be.˛ Look up the definition of
populist demagogue. Youąll see Rustyąs photo there.
>I read the book. Al Franken is certainly entitled to his own opinion,
>and he's a very funny man. I certainly wouldn't count on him for
>political analysis though ... you don't go to an apple to get orange
>juice.
No, you donąt. But the point at hand was whether or not Rush screened his
incoming calls. Are you telling me that Rush wouldnąt have filed a lawsuit
if Franken had made errors about him in that book?
>Does a person have to be thin to be politically involved? If
>insulting a person for his appearance because you can't
>attack his ideas is what passes for reasoned political debate
>among liberals these days, no wonder the Dems lost the House of
>Representatives and the Senate.
>
>TRUTH
Of course not. There are lots of fat and skinny people in politics.
Unfortunately, there are too many who are unwilling to research facts and
are willing to take an idiotŚs misstatements, half-truths, prevarications,
misinterpretations and simplifications as something either astute or
meaningful.
wizard
Wizard
In article <bmcneely-110...@kamloops-80.netshop.net>,
bmcn...@commpass.awinc.com (Bruce McNeely) wrote:
>Why do I get the impression when reading this newsgroup that
>self-proclaimed psychics are as dumb as stumps?
Bruce! Stop insulting stumps!
>
>Can't you call up a vision of your long-deceased grammar teacher to give
>you a lesson on the use of apostrophes? My dad used to say about these
>clowns "If they're so smart, why aren't they rich?" I say "If they're so
>smart, why aren't they literate?"
>
>Sincerely, Bruce McNeely
Wait a second. Arenąt you the Bruce who claims because a magician can
imitate something the real thing must be fake?
Talk about people who are logic imparedŠ
Sincerely, Wizard
dr. digger
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>Parker Williams wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 01:30:54 GMT, d...@psicounsel.com (Bruce Daniel
>> Kettler) wrote:
>
>> >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>
>> >>I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>
>> >>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch
>> >>him
>> >>home.
>
>> >>Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
>
>> Could also be used as a command..
>> EXAMPLE
>
>> Randi Chickens Out....
>
>> It is telling randi to get the chickens out, of a room or barn etc...
>
>Well, you could consider looking this up in a slang dictionary.
>
>I found "chicken" to mean more than the fowl, in an ordinary
>dictionary, in the USA, WEBSTERS NEW WORLD DICTIONARY, and I
>suspect a USA SLANG DICTIONARY will show "CHICKENS' OUT" as a
>two word slang verb, to run from a circumstance, out of fear.
>
>The "chicken" part, by itself, can only be a noun.
>
>The apostrophe seems to go, properly like this:
>
> RANDI CHICKENS' OUT
>
> (the non-possessive usage)
>
>I know I've seen enough movies and read enough novels to know
>this is the slang meaning in the USA, but am still awaiting input from
>Australia and the UK, and other English speaking countries.
>
>I am sending a copy of this post to a fellow in Australia, and
>hope for his input on the matter.
>
>> This could be an interesting thread, now if we could only get the
>> alt.language.ebonics crowd in on this subject matter? Hmmm.....
>
>Well, I added that group, in this posting. If they don't respond, then
>I'll delete it next time, so as not to annoy them.
>
>This is proving to be quite an education in English usage.
>
>--
>
> h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
>
> S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
> O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
This is priceless. You can't make this kind of shit up.
I don't think I'll ever be able to bait Brucie again.
dr. digger
bill...@juno.com
whos yous be callins a chickens Mutha Fuckas, i busta cap in yo ass
like tupac, stay outa this group BIATCH
On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 07:04:54 +0000, Bruce Daniel Kettler
<d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> I'd rather die than receive CPR from a smartass....
>> Dios mio...Hay una hacha en mi cabeza !!
>> http://www.cris.com/~Antirush <<--HOTT SEXX !!!!
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
bolloXs
I think you've missed my point: I expect I put it badly. Randi does a lot
of popular telly and books; he ought to qualify his statements about being
able to duplicate certain (only certain) paranormal stuff by saying "of
course, my duplicating something by trickery doesn't prove that's how it
was done originally. It's just an interesting piece of inferential
evidence. No more nor less interesting than that uri Geller was once a
stage magician himself." And equally no more or less final or helpful than
that Randi tends to pick on cases where he can (however crudely) mimic a
paranormal event; eg his work on prodcuing thought photographs using a tube
and lens becasue the guy who "popularised" thought photos in the 60s
sometimes used a cardboard tube. Randi's tube and what's his name's tube
don't produce the same effect. But you'd never guess that from Randi's
book.
Randi owes this much to the public, or he does his own work a severe
dis-service don't you think?
I was not talking about scientific method. (THough you're quite wrong on
your point about about the burden of proof. The whole difficulty with
paranormal stuff is that by it's nature it's not falsifiable. And what
seems to be often can't be discriminated from the coincidental. Testing
notions is about the scientific communtiy acting together, not about some
kind of advocacy arrangement.)
bolloXs
Of course there are hoaxers about. I guess tarring everbody with the same
brush doesn't ring that bell either? Randi must be more discriminating and
point these things out.
bolloXs
Bruce: putting that case defies belief. Of cousre they aren't the same
thing!
bolloXs
"CHicken" in this sense is a slang verb. So it conjugates I chicken he
chickens etc. Hence "Randi chickens out" (no comma in the air) is quite
right.
bolloXs
Guess work on your part!
Des Kavanagh
bolloXs wrote:
>
> Sorry, I should have said an irregular verb.
Take the potato out of your mouth and say "Bollix".
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
--
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
>
> > You gotta remember that the author of this thread, Idiot D. Bruce, AKA
> > Kettlebanger, isn't too well known for his writing abilities.
>
> I am not known to be able to write impeccably, but you are exagerrating
> the importance of an apostrophe. Your attributing the word "idiot" to
> me only points to the fact that you name-call from a mind that is nearly
> void of reasoning ability.
>
> I, on the other hand, make astute observations about people's inability
> to think clearly, and I don't have to place a name on it, like "idiot."
>
> I realize that people of such a deficient mentality as you seldom place ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bruce, please tell us, in twenty words or less, the difference between
somebody with a mental deficiency and an idiot. Enquiring minds want to
know.
> rational arguments on USENET -- obviously, little that makes sense.
>
> So, to compensate for that inability, you think by calling people names,
> that others will read the allegation, and will believe you, even though
> my writing shows none of the traits of an idiot.
Um, your making a grand assumption there buckaroo. That assumption being
that your writing DOESN'T show any traits of "mental deficiency."
> You think that people will believe you, and will not find my writing
> valuable. It's a lame assumption, far removed from reality, and that
> certainly shows the extent of your reasoning capacity, and your
> disposition toward self delusion.
For more information on this "loony," so-called, and the evil kult
behavior he and other "LOO-NI-KULT" members exibit....
(Coming soon to a WEB SITE near you. Watch this space.)
--Dave
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
<<snipped the you know what.>>
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
>
> More on this mentality on page 2, and one can click at "skeptics"
> from the first page of the SITE listed below.
>
> A mistake in grammar, obviously, is not anything related to the
> word, "idiot," so those of you who come up with this nonsense,
> are totally LAME.
So, its not lame that you seem to seriously believe an evil cult of
skeptics is pursuing you and trying to debunk paranormal activity to
please an evil master? You're right...you have the coolest delusions.
Mine are LAME in comparison.
--Dave
"I never invaded anything, I swear, it was like this when I got here."
D A V E data obtained by
sending email to:
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I N V A D E D data obtained by
>
> sending e-mail to:
<<<snip>>>
Close call, I almost forgot to cut the tail end of this beast off.....
Ray Cochener
William Barwell wrote:
>
> In article <3321FF...@psicounsel.com>,> >On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James Randi
> >refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my word) to
> >appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO DISCUSS WITH ED
> >DAMES, the terms of a "test"
>
> And.....?
>
> Randi has made his terms plain. They do not include being summoned by
> Art Bell to appear on his program.
>
> >
> >Art Bell reports that he will be contacting RANDI AGAIN to offer the
> >opportunity for him to appear.
> >
>
> If Dames wants to take the test, let him apply in writing as per Randi's
> challenge. It's that simple.
>
> Take it or shut up.
>
Personally, I did that. After talking with him in e-mail for a
month, I sent the SASE to him and wrote an application. His response? He
stopped writing e-mail.
I haven't heard from him since.
He likes grandstanding, but since he lost the 1 million in
court, I think he's been affraid to give the test to anyone else.
bolloXs
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
> bdze...@primenet.com.spamblock (Brian Zeiler) wrote:
> >On 9 Mar 1997 09:38:18 -0500, kam...@interlog.com (Karl Mamer) wrote:
> >>Oh, grow up. Just because a guy doesn't want to waste his
> >>time and money to chase after every crackpot doesn't
> >>mean he's chickened out.
"Chase after"? He can do it from his home, be on the phone and ON THE
AIR LIVE, surrounded by experts of the JREF, the brainstormers who have
been writing all the various types of tests for Remote Viewers.
BD ZEILER:
> >Are you even more stupid than I originally suspected? Randi issued a
> >challenge, yet he's avoided acceptance of the challenge by Dames.
> I've seen no credible evidence that Dames has done anything but
> pretentious posturing. It's up to Dames to accept Randi's challenge,
> not otherwise. After all, it's not Dames' million bucks up for grabs.
ME BDK:
You don't consider a statement broadcasted to an audience of millions on
the radio to be credible evidence? You think that's "pretentious
posturing."?
Dames HAS ACCEPTED THE CHALLENGE. It is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THERE
TO BE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MANNER THE TEST IS CONDUCTED, and DAMES HAS
OFFERED TO DISCUSS THIS WITH RANDI BEFORE MILLIONS ON THE RADIO.
That's, supposedly, "pretentious posturing."???????????????
For GOD SAKES, MAN, GET REAL WILL YOU! ???????????????
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> >One thing that CULTS have in common, is duplication of the
> >attitudes and
> >habits of the followers. I note that this: "if it can be done, it
> >was
> >done," and "I found so-and-so 'psychic' was a fraud, so all psychics > >are
> >frauds -- illogic from many followers.
> Cute. So if 999 out of 1000 people tell you that you're nuts, that
> demonstrates that they're a mindwashed cult just because they all
> believe the same thing?
Not hardly, but we are talking about similarity of a GROUP, not the
general public.
>I'd say there's another, better possibility.
I don't see how your above writing relates, logically, to the one I
wrote above it. 999 out of 1000 people saying a certain thing, does not
signify truth or falsehood. The fact is, that it illogical for anyone
to say that if some certain thing, like "psychic" fraud, occurs, that
therefore everything psychic is fraudulent. There are no 999 out of
1000 people, out of the general public, who believe such a ridiculous
assumption, but amongst this CULT, obviously, this pattern exists.
> >This is speculation, here, but I believe that what IRKED Randi so
> >much
> >was that he found Uri Geller doing what he, Randi, considered to be
> >"tricks." It made him envious to think that Geller could have some
> >*ACTUAL* "magick," and not just STAGE or PRETENDED magic.
> Geller's a fake. <snip>
That was not what the subject was about in this post. It was about my
speculation of Randi's reaction to Geller's claim, not whether what he
perceived was actually fake or real.
Note the word "could" in the above paragraph of mine.
<irrevelant comment snipped>
> >It was a blow to his pride, and so to compensate for this INABILITY > >TO
> >ACCEPT, IT BECAME AN INABILITY TO ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY THAT PSYCHIC
> >PHENOMENA EXISTS. It was envy, and jealousy, which, probably RANDI > >DOES
> >NOT KNOW EXISTS, AS IT'S BEEN COVERED UP, BURIED DEEP IN HIS
> >SUBCONSCIOUS.
> Say, Kettlebanger, do you have a license to indulge in all this
> psychobabble?
Don't need one, Glen. It's up to the readers to think whatever they
want.
<snip>
You're not that typical, so reference to the "skeptic" pages not so
heavily pushed in this post.
Your character assassination not so heavy, and not quite cultish enough.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
> di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
> >I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
> >If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch him
> >home.
> You gotta remember that the author of this thread, Idiot D. Bruce, AKA
> Kettlebanger, isn't too well known for his writing abilities.
I am not known to be able to write impeccably, but you are exagerrating
the importance of an apostrophe. Your attributing the word "idiot" to
me only points to the fact that you name-call from a mind that is nearly
void of reasoning ability.
I, on the other hand, make astute observations about people's inability
to think clearly, and I don't have to place a name on it, like "idiot."
I realize that people of such a deficient mentality as you seldom place
rational arguments on USENET -- obviously, little that makes sense.
So, to compensate for that inability, you think by calling people names,
that others will read the allegation, and will believe you, even though
my writing shows none of the traits of an idiot.
You think that people will believe you, and will not find my writing
valuable. It's a lame assumption, far removed from reality, and that
certainly shows the extent of your reasoning capacity, and your
disposition toward self delusion.
Those wishing to see a sample of my writing ability, and to learn more
of this mentality that produces such nonsense as Glen, the writer, you
may click at:
"skeptics"
from the first page of the web site listed below.
Also, I have an autoresponder:
and when you send e-mail to it, you will have a text file returned to
you, automatically, within seconds.
Bruce McNeely
> --
> Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> >
> > Bruce McNeely wrote:
> >
> > In article <3323AD...@psicounsel.com>, d...@psicounsel.com wrote:
> > Lizz Braver wrote:
> > In article <33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>,
> > d...@psicounsel.com
> > di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
> >
> > > Why do I get the impression when reading this newsgroup that
> > > self-proclaimed psychics are as dumb as stumps?
> >
> > > Can't you call up a vision of your long-deceased grammar
> > > teacher to give you a lesson on the use of apostrophes?
> > > My dad used to say about these clowns "If they're so smart,
> > > why aren't they rich?" I say "If they're so smart, why
> > > aren't they literate?"
> >
> > > Sincerely, Bruce McNeely
> >
Well! What a surprise! Big Dave says that the Other Bruce has made claims
of psychic powers in previous posts. I did not know this and thought i had
made an honest mistake in my original post when I implied he was a
"self-proclaimed psychic". Gee. That means I must be a psychic, too.
Anyway, I admit my rant about apostrophes was a bit picayune, but it sure
was a dumb mistake, compounded by an even a dumber attempt at a
correction.
My humble, grovelling (and sincere) apologies for pointing this out.
Anyway, you still haven't given any examples of my faulty logic,
distortions or misuse of the English language except to dispute my
implication that you were a self-proclaimed psychic. Big Dave has
helpfully pointed out that you are. So wht's the problem?
Perhaps I should amend my statement to say "Why do I get the impression
that people who believe that psychic powers exist are as dumb as stumps?"
Would that make you happy?
Sincerely,
Bruce McNeely
Glen Quarnstrom
bhe...@spamfree.polarnet.com (dr. digger) wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>
>>Parker Williams wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 1997 01:30:54 GMT, d...@psicounsel.com (Bruce Daniel
>>> Kettler) wrote:
>>
>>> >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>>
>>> >>I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>>
>>> >>If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch
>>> >>him
>>> >>home.
>>
>>> >>Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
>>
>>> Could also be used as a command..
>>> EXAMPLE
>>
>>> Randi Chickens Out....
<Kettlebanger flails at the point sailing over his pointy little head>
>>This is proving to be quite an education in English usage.
>This is priceless. You can't make this kind of shit up.
It is pretty damn funny, isn't it? Just his mindless persistence in
spamming his nonsense is amusing in a sick kind of way.
>I don't think I'll ever be able to bait Brucie again.
Aw, I wouldn't go *that* far.
Glen Quarnstrom
"bolloXs" <bol...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>Sorry, I should have said an irregular verb.
No, what you should have said was "Good night, Gracie."
Glen Quarnstrom
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
>
>> di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>
>> >I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>
>> >If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch him
>> >home.
>
>> You gotta remember that the author of this thread, Idiot D. Bruce, AKA
>> Kettlebanger, isn't too well known for his writing abilities.
>
>I am not known to be able to write impeccably, but you are exagerrating
>the importance of an apostrophe. Your attributing the word "idiot" to
>me only points to the fact that you name-call from a mind that is nearly
>void of reasoning ability.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>I, on the other hand, make astute observations about people's inability
>to think clearly, and I don't have to place a name on it, like "idiot."
Ok, then, you're a cretin. That's much better than "idiot." You
could look it up.
>I realize that people of such a deficient mentality as you seldom place
>rational arguments on USENET -- obviously, little that makes sense.
What was that again about not indulging in namecalling?
"Deficient mentality" = "idiot" in my book.
>So, to compensate for that inability, you think by calling people names,
>that others will read the allegation, and will believe you, even though
>my writing shows none of the traits of an idiot.
Well, keep practicing, and maybe someday you can improve to the idiot
level.
>You think that people will believe you, and will not find my writing
Unlike you, I'm not selling anything, so I don't give a crusted crap
whether people believe me or not.
>valuable. It's a lame assumption, far removed from reality, and that
>certainly shows the extent of your reasoning capacity, and your
>disposition toward self delusion.
The only one who's deluded here is you, Kettlebanger. I see through
you like a window.
>Those wishing to see a sample of my writing ability, and to learn more
>of this mentality that produces such nonsense as Glen, the writer, you
>may click at:
So what is there at your SPAM site that would make us change our mind
as to your mental level, Idiot? You spew kilobytes of drivel on this
newsgroup daily; none of it even marginally rational, and all of it
extremely redundant. A semi-intelligent computer program could do
better.
<spam snipped, as if anybody cared to see it for the 100th time>
Now, go get a basic English text, Brucie, and learn how to write
intelligibly. Then you can work on writing intelligently. After you
master that, perhaps you can get somebody to teach you to write
entertainingly.
(Well, I can dream, can't I?)
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
> Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> Glen Quarnstrom wrote:
my writing to Glen:
Your attributing the word "idiot" to me only points to the fact that you
name-call from a mind that is nearly void of reasoning ability.
I, on the other hand, make astute observations about people's inability
to think clearly, and I don't have to place a name on it, like "idiot."
I realize that people of such a deficient mentality as you seldom
place
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
DAVE WROTE:
Bruce, please tell us, in twenty words or less, the difference between
somebody with a mental deficiency and an idiot. Enquiring minds want to
know.
I ANSWER:
Did I say there was a difference? I wrote that I did not have to use
the word, but it's obvious that one reading could decide what word to
place for obvious deficiency in abilities to read, and to understand
ordinary speech, as you are showing here.
No, Dave, there's no difference, and I never wrote there was, but you
seem, as always, to not have the ability to comprehend the writing of
others, or to think logically. Anyone wanting to look back at Dave's
prior writing can see that:
and use my e-mail address to see a clear view of this:
d...@psicounsel.com
You need help, Dave, seriously. You are obviously very angry and
frustrated.
MY PRIOR TO GLEN:
> ><SNIP> rational arguments on USENET -- obviously, little that makes sense.
> > So, to compensate for that inability, you think by calling people
> >names,
> > that others will read the allegation, and will believe you, even > >though
> > my writing shows none of the traits of an idiot.
> Um, your making a grand assumption there buckaroo. That assumption
> >being
> that your writing DOESN'T show any traits of "mental deficiency."
Dave, no, my writing does not show that, but you, in a totally deluded
manner, wishing such did exist, can only see what you want.
People who are rational, who read this, can see you have a problem with
wishing I was that way, so somehow you would then appear to be alright.
See, Dave, your image of yourself as being OKAY, depends upon THE
INVESTMENT YOU HAVE PLACED IN THE IDEA THAT I'M NOT OKAY. It won't work
Dave. You have a serious problem, obviously, because you ARE INSISTING
THAT I have one, and you are SO OBSESSED with THIS EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT
THAT YOU WON'T LET IT GO!
See, Dave, when I leave the keyboard, after writing to you, I don't give
a damn what happens after that. However, you continue time after time,
after time, and you just can not let it go, emotionally. It would seem
to me, from your symptoms, that you must dwell upon this for hours
before going back to the keyboard to again prove you are okay.
You can help yourself a great deal by not using USENET as an outlet for
your frustrations and anger. You seem to have some very deep feelings
of inadequacy, and they are best dealt with in more productive ways in
real life.
my earlier writing to Glen:
> > You think that people will believe you, and will not find my writing
> > valuable. It's a lame assumption, far removed from reality, and that
> > certainly shows the extent of your reasoning capacity, and your
> > disposition toward self delusion.
> For more information on this "loony," so-called, and the evil kult
> behavior he and other "LOO-NI-KULT" members exibit....
> (Coming soon to a WEB SITE near you. Watch this space.)
You are, in the above, regressing backward's, to a silliness, and
obvious display of immaturity, and it's an escape mechanism.
Dave, quit while you are ahead, if you can! Are you capable of letting
it go? You seem obsessed with this need to prove yourself.
Don't force me to again expose you.
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
Bruce McNeely wrote:
<<<<snip a lot>>>>
> Well! What a surprise! Big Dave says that the Other Bruce has made claims
> of psychic powers in previous posts. I did not know this and thought i had
> made an honest mistake in my original post when I implied he was a
> "self-proclaimed psychic". Gee. That means I must be a psychic, too.
Just in case Bruce says I'm making it up, here's the post. Came off Art
Bells BBS.
Notice the section where he says. "I have developed my psychic ability
to the point that I'm accurate beyond chance, but would like the
accuracy to improve." There you go. A self admission. Don't let him
weasel you on points like this.
__________________________________________________________________-
Bruce Daniel Kettler - 03:28pm Feb 1, 1997 PST (#39 of 153)
Well, I see here a number of people don't think that REMOTE VIEWING is
science. Yes, it is. I have a page about that on my web site, and it's
called
"Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena" click at that from the first
page of:
http://www.psicounsel.com
I wonder about the tapes that Ed Dames is selling. I understand one tape
is
available in March and 4 more in June. I'm very much interested in
getting those
tapes. I have developed my psychic ability to the point that I'm
accurate beyond
chance, but would like the accuracy to improve.
On the subject of BULLETIN BOARDS. Do you know that the alt.fan.art-bell
USENET newsgroup used to consist of actual fans. it's now been overrun
by a
bunch of really nasty people. I feel that those of you who are afraid to
post there
should go ahead, IN DROVES, IN MASSE, and take a look at my latest
postings
there. Look for the SUBJECT: "HALE-BOPP" or one's that begin with that,
and
see my e-mail address: "d...@psicounsel.com"
For some background on the mentality that permeates such taken over
groups,
look at my web page, and click on "skeptics."
-------------------------------------------------end
re-post-------------------
> Sincerely,
> Bruce McNeely
--
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
SKEP-TI-CULT® Administration
Officer #01-22112-324
"The Badge Means We Don't Care"
Celeborn
Bruce, in skipping over the headers of this thread, I find that nobody
from alt.pagan is participating. Most of the regulars here are so used
to outside spam that they just ignore it, but I will not.
If you don't get it, massive crossposting to innapropriate newsgroups is
damned rude. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but being rude to ohers makes
them hostile to you. PLEASE start trimming alt.pagan out of this.
Next we follow standard procedure and complain to your ISP.
Followups trimmed.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Bruce Daniel Kettler wrote:
> Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
> > <<<<snip a lot>>>>
> > > "self-proclaimed psychic". Gee. That means I must be a psychic, > > > too.
I wrote:
> Yes, you are psychic, too. Everyone is.
etc. etc. etc. ........ >>>>>>> as I did reply.
and I notice, quite clearly, that this THREAD IS ABOUT
RANDI HAVING RUN AWAY, AFRAID TO FACE
DAMES REGARDING HIS FAMOUS "CHALLENGE."
You people are all running away, too.
Randi will not meet DAMES ON THE AIR. He's proclaimed that Dames had
lied about being willing to meet the 1.1. million dollar challenge.
None of you so-called "skeptics" want to address that, so you nit-pick
at me, the messenger, trying to discredit me.
You are avoiding the issue. Get on the horn with your master, the
"amazing" RANDI, and ask him why he will not confront DAMES AND ART BELL
on the air, live, and work out the details of a TEST.
What is he and what are all of you running from?
Those reading this, consider clicking at
"skeptics" at the site listed below,
and learn more about this mentality.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
> Bruce McNeely wrote:
> <<<<snip a lot>>>>
> > made an honest mistake in my original post when I implied he was a
> > "self-proclaimed psychic". Gee. That means I must be a psychic, too.
Yes, you are psychic, too. Everyone is.
You might consider learning something about what the other side is
saying, and the terms used, before you discuss it. It would not be
necessary to believe it, but if you knew what it was, the dialogue would
have some santity to it.
NEARLY EVERYONE INTO PSYCHIC PHENOMENA says
EVERYONE IS PSYCHIC.
That's lesson number 1. You should know that.
Then, they say that means EVERYONE HAS PSYCHIC ABILITY WHICH CAN BE
DEVELOPED.
There is lesson 2.
QUOTING ME:
"I have developed my psychic ability to the point that I'm accurate
beyond chance, but would like the accuracy to improve."
"Psychic beyond chance," and there are DEGREES, it's not I AM or I AM
NOT.
There you have lesson 3 -- DEGREES OF ABILITY. Got it?
McNeely, I DIDN'T SAY I WAS "A" PSYCHIC, and that's what our discussion
was about, in a previous post. That was the term I used.
I wrote that I never said I was "a" psychic.
You equate having psychic ability with being "a" psychic.
NOT I, SAID THIS:
There you go. A self admission.
Don't let him weasel you on points
like this.
There's nothing to weasel anyone about. I'm psychic, and you are
psychic, and I am developing my ability. What's to hide, and what is
different than I'd written in my post to you?
Nothing.
And the problem, McNeely, is that you have not learned what the other
person is writing about. It's folly to discuss things you are ignorant
of, whether you believe those things or not.
> Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh
> jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
> SKEP-TI-CULT® Administration
> Officer #01-22112-324
> "The Badge Means We Don't Care"
--
Bruce Daniel Kettler
> >> >di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
<snip>
> This is priceless. You can't make this kind of s**t up.
> I don't think I'll ever be able to bait Brucie again.
> dr. digger
Why not do something constructive, and ask RANDI to APPEAR ON THE ART
BELL SHOW (via telephone) and DISCUSS TERMS ABOUT THE 1.1 MILLION DOLLAR
CHALLENGE, WITH DAMES, AS SUCH DISCUSSION HAS BEEN OFFERED?
Bruce Daniel Kettler
di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
GLEN WROTE:
You gotta remember that the author of this thread, Idiot D. Bruce, AKA
Kettlebanger, isn't too well known for his writing abilities.
I ANSWER:
See, "idiot" was supposed to apply to missing an apostrophe. That's
just throwing words around.
I WROTE BEFORE:
I, on the other hand, make astute observations about people's inability
to think clearly, and I don't have to place a name on it, like "idiot."
I ALSO WROTE:
> >I realize that people of such a deficient mentality as you seldom
> > place
> >rational arguments on USENET -- obviously, little that makes sense.
> What was that again about not indulging in namecalling?
*VACANT MINDED* NAME CALLING IS WHAT I WROTE. You call people names
without substance. Oh, what's the use, you'll never be able to get
it.
> "Deficient mentality" = "idiot" in my book.
Well, my point, which your lack of reading comprehension shows you
missed, was that I did not have to use the word, "idiot."
Obviously you have a deficiency, as you cannot even read and
understand what I've written.
My point, which is obviously the fact, is that when I show
something about people like you, I have pointed out some fact
to substantiate it. People like yourself, just resort to
name-calling, like misuse of the word "idiot." I don't even
have to use such words, because I have examples, of you, THAT ARE VALID.
You on the other hand have to make wildly ILLOGICAL CONNECTIONS:
ie:
missing an apostrophe = idiot
<snip>
More exagerration, from GLEN, below:
> Now, go get a basic English text, Brucie, and learn how to write
> intelligibly. <snip>
You write that missing an apostrophe is, supposedly, not writing
intelligently. That is really quite ridiculous.
> gl...@cyberhighway.net
> "afa-b's leading fool"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This thread was about
RANDI CHICKENS' (not plural) OUT
and I notice that people writing, who are of the same persuasion
as RANDI, will NOT ADDRESS RANDI, WILL NOT ASK RANDI TO DISCUSS THE
DETAILS OF RANDI'S CHALLENGE, HOW DAMES WILL BE TESTED, WITH DAMES, ON
THE AIR ON THE ART BELL SHOW. THEY WILL NOT, AS IT WOULD BE RATIONAL TO
DO SO, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS WOULD BE THE REASONABLE THING FOR RANDI TO
DO.
All people of that persuasion will do is continue to nit-pick and attack
me, in some wildly sick attempt to discredit the messenger, and avoid
the issue.
The issue:
Randi said Dames lied when he offered to meet the challenge to
win 1.1 million dollars by proving psychic phenomena is real,
to show that either he or others in his firm can pass a test to
prove it.
Now, Dames and Art Bell have announced that Randi can meet him (via
telephone) on the air to a 15 million plus potential audience, to
discuss terms for the test.
The idea that Dames should submit to Randi's rules, and trust Randi to
administer the test on his own terms, without discussion, IS TOTALLY
ABSURD!
So, TO THE POINT, and away from all these AVOIDANCES AND DISTRACTIONS
AND CHARACTER ASSASSINATIONS --- RANDI, PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More on this CULT of deceivers:
click at
"skeptics"
at the below site:
Dr. Hugh Morles
Dear Bruce--
Thanks for taking the "uc" out of Mr. Vale's totally in appropriate "FUCK".
We don't need that kind of goddamnedmotherfuckingchikenshit language on
this NG. Glad your such a standup, righteous dude.
--
Sincerely,
Dr. Hugh Morles
Millenium Mindfodder, Ink.
"Gimme back my beer." -- G.W. Hayduke
"We were somewhere near Barstow when the drugs kicked in." -- H.S.T
Montezuma, New Mexico
"Gimme back my beer." -- G.W. Hayduke
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote in article
<33233b33...@news.pcisys.net>...
> "Marshall Vale" <jazz...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Who the f**k is this Randi guy, Art keeps talkin' about?
> >Is he a fan or a
> >caller?
>
> James Randi is noted as a "skeptic" so-called, leader.
>
> For more info:
>
> http://www.randi.org
>
> and you might comment to Art Bell, that he should explain who
> Randi is:
>
> http://www.artbell.com
>
> art...@aol.com
Wayne Dyer
Wizard wrote:
> In article <bmcneely-100...@kamloops-38.netshop.net>,
> bmcn...@commpass.awinc.com (Bruce McNeely) wrote:
> ! A so-called paranormal event that can be explained by a
> >"stage trick" (i.e. by following the laws of nature) is, in effect,
> >exposed as a stage trick, fraudulantly presented as woo-woo paranormalism.
> >The paranormalist is obliged to show that his "feat" is done paranormally,
> >since it would, by definition, contradict known scientific principles.
> >Your signature, in fact, is an excellent description of your statement.
> >(God, I'm being owly today!)
> >Sincerely,
> >Bruce Mcneely
>
> Cool. Well, since placebo drugs in tests have show to have some results in
> some people, the next time you get a really bad flu, you can have the
> placebo‹which has been shown to work in some instances every bit as well
> as real drugs‹while Iąll take the antibiotics.
ObNitPick: Influenza is caused by a virus, which would be unaffected by
antibiotics, so you'd also be taking a placebo, in a sense.
ObSecondaryNitPick: Placebos do not "work in some instance every bit as
well as real drugs" unless the "real drug" is ineffective at treating
the condition. Placebos also cause side effects, such as nausea, headache,
itching, sleeplessness, somnolence, drowsiness, etc. The extent to
which a placebo works or causes side effects is a measure of the natural
variability in people's responses to doing *nothing*.
> Good luck, Bruce! Some of use will be at your funeral service if the
> placebo doesnąt work for you.
The stage trick shows that it is one plausible explanation for the
observed phenomenon. If some guy pulls chickens out of mid-air, & Randi
shows he can do it by sleight-of-hand, then the burden is upon the
original chicken puller to prove that he's NOT doing a trick. If the
chicken puller *won't* allow for such testing, it's reasonable to be
suspicious.
However, it's not reasonable to assume that just because Mr. Chicken Puller
shows us that the feathers are *real* that he's got some kind of supernatural
pull with poultry.
--
Wayne Dyer :: dwd...@eskimo.com :: http://www.eskimo.com/~dwdyer/
Lo, I am bored and lacking mirth...
Dr. Hugh Morles
Kettle--your insightfulness and brilliance are incredible. Say, didn't I
meet you at the Montana State Hospitial when I toured there in '95? You
were wearing a football helmet in the beige padded room.
--
Sincerely,
Dr. Hugh Morles
Millenium Mindfodder, Ink.
"Gimme back my beer." -- G.W. Hayduke
"We were somewhere near Barstow when the drugs kicked in." -- H.S.T
Montezuma, New Mexico
"Gimme back my beer." -- G.W. Hayduke
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote in article
<33235a5e...@news.pcisys.net>...
> di...@ohww.norman.ok.us (Lizz Braver) wrote:
>
> >I'm still wondering about the subject line to this thread.
>
> >If Randi Chicken's out, then call Mrs. Chicken and have her fetch him
> >home.
>
> >Lizz "Apostrophe's" Braver
>
> You are being word-for-word literal here? Are you familiar with
> commonly used expressions? Well, if not, I'll fill you in, and
> the others who are not familiar.
>
> "Chicken" is a term, found in many USA slang dictionaries. It's
> even in a regular dictionary, listing the "slang" as "a timid or
> cowardly person." (Webster's New World Dictionary) To
> "Chicken-out" with that word combination probably found in a
> slang dictionary, would show the "out" to mean to: get out of
> something, or to avoid something because of fear.
>
> Reading the context of the posting gives the meaning, anyway.
>
> I must have seen dozens of movies, and read plenty of novels in
> which "chicken" or "chicken-out" is used in that context. I
> wouldn't be surprised if it's known in other English speaking
> countries.
Jim Rogers
Not follow-ups; I snipped several inappropriate groups BDK likes to spam
bolloXs wrote:
> Randi's a magician who makes more money on telly and in books by calling
> himself a professional sceptic. In fact, in the 14 years he's been at theis
> to my knowledge, he's never exposed any major paranormalist. The trouble
> with him is, he's very fond indeed of thinking that he's exposed some event
> simply because the incident is "doable" as a stage trick. He needs to be
> told he must show that that's how it was done originally.
That's a way of simply showing that "This sleight-of-hand trick hasn't
been sufficiently ruled out -- see how easy it is to make something look
that way?" Put a guard up against such trickery, and the psychic/etc
demurs. Use your head. What does that tell you?
Randi has exposed several: see "The Faith Healers" for one.
Jim
Bruce Daniel Kettler
Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
> > More on this mentality on page 2, and one can click at "skeptics"
> > from the first page of the SITE listed below.
Also, remember the autoresponder for page 2: skep...@infofree.com
<snip>
> So, its not lame that you seem to seriously believe an evil cult of
> skeptics is pursuing you
On my "skeptic" pages I pointed out how it's a pattern of people who
are brainwashed into this CULT mentality to attribute statements to
people that had never been made.
Where do you find my writing that indicates "skeptics are pursuing
me." You are trying to point to an alleged paranoia on my part,
and you did use the word "lunatic" and "paranoid" about me in a former
posting.
> and trying to debunk paranormal activity to
> please an evil master?
Where is "evil" used in my postings. As for "master," yes, all CULT
FOLLOWERS have masters. There are HINDU CULTS, AND CHRISTIAN CULTS,
MOSLEM CULTS, and all kinds of CULTS, and RANDI IS A CULT LEADER,
and so appears, psychologically, as a MASTER. Is there something,
supposedly, wierd about that assertion? No, I don't think so, not to
anyone who has examined the details I've pointed out on my WEB PAGES,
and the writing of others on those pages, and then verified the facts.
None of his followers publicly question the most illogical assertions of
his, including his lame excuses for RUNNING FROM PUBLICLY DISCUSSING THE
DETAILS OF THIS TEST OF ED DAMES.
click at "skeptics"
> You're right...you have the coolest delusions.
> Mine are LAME in comparison.
And that, above, is supposed to be witty! ha ha ha
> jw3...@nyssa.swt.edu
--
Cam Bailey
Brian Zeiler wrote:
> Are you even more stupid than I originally suspected? Randi issued a
> challenge, yet he's avoided acceptance of the challenge by Dames.
I never heard the original challenge, or Dames acceptance, but yesterday
I read where Dames expects Randi to fly to Australia? to do the test.
If I was so confident that I could win the million dollars, I'd be
flying first class to the states and banging on Randi's door.
Cam
By the way, I was all for the Pack, but the Brewer's have about as much
chance as I do of getting beamed aboard the Hale-Bopp companion.
Jim Rogers
Brian Zeiler wrote:
> On 9 Mar 1997 09:38:18 -0500, kam...@interlog.com (Karl Mamer) wrote:
> >Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> writes:
> >> On the March 7-8 live broadcast, Art Bell reports that James Randi
> >> refused, through a communication via a RANDI *follower* (my word) to
> >> appear, via phone, on the ART BELL RADIO PROGRAM TO DISCUSS WITH ED
> >> DAMES, the terms of a "test"
> >Oh, grow up. Just because a guy doesn't want to waste his
> >time and money to chase after every crackpot doesn't
> >mean he's chickened out.
> Are you even more stupid than I originally suspected? Randi issued a
> challenge, yet he's avoided acceptance of the challenge by Dames.
Not quite; AFAIK, Dames hasn't formally "accepted" the challenge, just
ranted on Art Bell's show about it, demanding that Randi discuss terms
on the air, which is quite a different thing.
If the facts related so far are true, I'm not sure why Randi would be
insisting on appearing in person at the studio instead of by phone, but
I can imagine he'd not want to be under so much control of Bell's
ability to cut him off. I don't tune in to Art Bell, but from the sounds
of it here, I wouldn't trust him to moderate a confrontation like that
fairly; perhaps Art's control over the phone links just amplifies
Randi's concerns. It would mine.
Jim
Ronald Bobo
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
<33243f75...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> bdze...@primenet.com.spamblock (Brian Zeiler) wrote:
>
>
> ><snip>
> >Are you even more stupid than I originally suspected? Randi issued a
> >challenge, yet he's avoided acceptance of the challenge by Dames.
> ><snip>
>
> Nope. He's avoided acceptance of appearing on a radio show
> to discuss the legal terms.
>
> Only an idiot would try to negotiate legal conditions on Art
> Bell's show!
Now, if Randi changes his mind and goes on the show, how will you
explain that last paragraph to him? You should choose your words more
carefully, Twitchy.
Ron
Ronald Bobo
bolloXs <bol...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in article
<01bc2daa$28af5240$LocalHost@ukpppraphaels>...
> I think you've missed my point: I expect I put it badly. Randi does a lot
> of popular telly and books; he ought to qualify his statements about
being
> able to duplicate certain (only certain) paranormal stuff by saying "of
> course, my duplicating something by trickery doesn't prove that's how it
> was done originally. It's just an interesting piece of inferential
> evidence. No more nor less interesting than that uri Geller was once a
> stage magician himself." And equally no more or less final or helpful
than
> that Randi tends to pick on cases where he can (however crudely) mimic a
> paranormal event; eg his work on prodcuing thought photographs using a
tube
> and lens becasue the guy who "popularised" thought photos in the 60s
> sometimes used a cardboard tube. Randi's tube and what's his name's tube
> don't produce the same effect. But you'd never guess that from Randi's
> book.
>
> Randi owes this much to the public, or he does his own work a severe
> dis-service don't you think?
>
> I was not talking about scientific method. (THough you're quite wrong on
> your point about about the burden of proof. The whole difficulty with
> paranormal stuff is that by it's nature it's not falsifiable. And what
> seems to be often can't be discriminated from the coincidental. Testing
> notions is about the scientific communtiy acting together, not about some
> kind of advocacy arrangement.)
Randi likes to pick and choose the effects he "duplicates." For instance,
Geller put a permanent bend in nitinol wire - Randi has never duplicated
this.
Uri once took another person's fork from him, and the handle immediately
exploded (or shattered) into pieces. No duplication of this one from
Randi. And
on and on...
Ron
>
>
Ronald Bobo
twi...@worldnet.att.net wrote in article
<332590c0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> "bolloXs" <bol...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >I think you've missed my point: I expect I put it badly. Randi does a
lot
> >of popular telly and books; he ought to qualify his statements about
being
> >able to duplicate certain (only certain) paranormal stuff by saying "of
> >course, my duplicating something by trickery doesn't prove that's how it
> >was done originally. <snip>
>
> Really? How about:
>
> "... the opposition claim's that I seek to prove that
> 'psychics' use trickery by duplicating their wonders by
> trickery. I have never claimed - nor could I, as a logical
> person, claim - that my duplication of 'psychical' feats
> shows that 'psychics' use similary trickery. What it does
> show is that it is more logical to suspect trickery..."
> Page 3 Flim-Flam.
>
> Randi, in every book I have read by him, always qualifies
> his abilities and make a statement such as the one above.
But on television, I have seen him demonstrate spoon bending and
starting a watch, using trickery, and claim that is the same way Geller
does it.
Ron
Gratuitous Pseudonym
In article <3325e9ee...@news.earthlink.net>,
ji...@wwdg.com (Jim Davis) wrote:
>Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I see you seem to be posting from the "pagan" newsgroup, so it seems you
>>people are finding it interesting. I'm going to include your newsgroup
>>in this, in spite of the posting that admonishes me not to, unless I
>>hear from more of you. I did wipe out "alt.pagan" in one of my
>>responses because of an objection.
>>
>
>If we object to you including alt.fan.art-bell will you wipe it out?
>
Bruce has always been completely disrespectful of the topic of the newsgroups
he posts to. His irrelevant, off-topic, and often incomprehensible rants
spread over a dozen unrelated newsgroups got him a nomination for Kook of the
Month at least once.
This time he threatens to post off-topic stuff to a newsgroup which has
previously protested his "contributions" unless someone does what he wants
them to. Sort of a very poor man's extortion.
Jamie Lednik
[alt.pagan and alt.astrology snipped. It's really pushing it to say
these two somehow relate to this thread]
Dr. Tim wrote:
>
> >Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I see you seem to be posting from the "pagan" newsgroup, so it seems you
> >>people are finding it interesting. I'm going to include your newsgroup
> >>in this, in spite of the posting that admonishes me not to, unless I
> >>hear from more of you. I did wipe out "alt.pagan" in one of my
> >>responses because of an objection.
>
If I'm not mistaken, you shouldn't be including ANY unrelated NGs to the
thread. I missed the original post, so perhaps it does relate, but I
don't see it presently. Crossposting is frowned upon in general I
believe. This makes me wonder if you are also responsible for a slew of
other crosspostings that have recently invaded this NG.
> I'd like to thank Bruce for providing us with an example of unbridled
> arrogance. I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly am more
> inclined to use his 1-900 psychic hotline.
>
It doesn't help, that's for sure.
> Dr. Tim, BsD, Please pardon my discordant harmonic overtones
>
But what about your wounded, inner child? ; )
> Let's get drunk and talk about aliens
Sure, name the place and I'm there.
> Art Bell Parody Pages:
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/4695
bolloXs
Well, I don't know the programme you mean. He didn't give any
qualifications on a tv programme on ITV in England about four years ago
which investigated a number of claims in the studio; nor in a more serious
tv show on Channel 4 in England in 1986 called After Dark, nor does he give
any qualification in his book "james Randi Psychic Investigator" (Granada
TV, 1991). The book in particular is crude becasue it is almost entirely a
serious of parlour tricks (mostly Victorian) which anyone now would
recognise as that at once.
In fairness to Randi though he does state in the book that one of the
difficulties that gets between him and the greater even-handedness (eg
time) he'd like to see is television itself: a single shot of a spoon on a
table bending or not ain't good telly. But he still ought to be more
explicit.
I want to see the fairness or millions of viewers will think that he's
succeeded in doing in a 30 minute tv show what thousands of people havn't
achieved in years: giving joe public some really good evidence.
Peter F. Curran
In article <01bc2e74$63591dc0$16d992cf@default>,
"Ronald Bobo" <RonBo...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>
>bolloXs <bol...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in article
><01bc2daa$28af5240$LocalHost@ukpppraphaels>...
>> of popular telly and books; he ought to qualify his statements about
>being
>> able to duplicate certain (only certain) paranormal stuff by saying "of
>> course, my duplicating something by trickery doesn't prove that's how it
>> evidence. No more nor less interesting than that uri Geller was once a
>> stage magician himself." And equally no more or less final or helpful
>than
>> that Randi tends to pick on cases where he can (however crudely) mimic a
>> paranormal event; eg his work on prodcuing thought photographs using a
>tube
>> and lens becasue the guy who "popularised" thought photos in the 60s
>> sometimes used a cardboard tube. Randi's tube and what's his name's tube
>> don't produce the same effect. But you'd never guess that from Randi's
>> book.
>>
>> Randi owes this much to the public, or he does his own work a severe
>> dis-service don't you think?
>>
>> I was not talking about scientific method. (THough you're quite wrong on
>> your point about about the burden of proof. The whole difficulty with
>> paranormal stuff is that by it's nature it's not falsifiable. And what
>> seems to be often can't be discriminated from the coincidental. Testing
>> notions is about the scientific communtiy acting together, not about some
>> kind of advocacy arrangement.)
>
> Randi likes to pick and choose the effects he "duplicates." For instance,
>Geller put a permanent bend in nitinol wire - Randi has never duplicated
>this.
>
Nitinol(sp)? Is a metal that can display some of the "memory" like
characteristics of things like rubber. It is soft, and easily bent.
When heated it tends to return to the original shape it was cast in.
Note that it only "tends" to do this. If you put a sharp bend in
it, perhaps by bending it across the edge of a fingernail, it won't
go back after heating. This is no mystery.
> Uri once took another person's fork from him, and the handle immediately
>exploded (or shattered) into pieces. No duplication of this one from
>Randi. And
>on and on...
>
Uri never said he was going to make the handle explode. I've
heard that in the process of pre-bending the spoon, the handle
probably broke. Uri, not wishing to be caught, flung the pieces
away claiming the darn thing exploded. This seems a much more
reasonable explanation than Uri actually performing some sort of
telekinetic feat! After all, Uri wouldn't submit to a controlled
where he could be carefully observed. He is _most likely_ just
a good performer.
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
--
dough knot male: nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu
Use address in Organization line, finger
for PGP key. Antispaam test in progress.
Bruce McNeely
Wizard, if you are in the habit of routinely taking antibiotics for
influenza, I will probably get to your funeral service before you get to
mine. Ever hear of "superbugs"? Also, I'm not clear on the point you're
making about placebos. The placebo effect is hopefully accounted for when
doing scientific tests of drugs by the double blind study. Tests of
paranormal should have similar precautions (against fraud or unconscious
bias), but they usually don't.
Sincerely, Bruce McNeely
Bruce McNeely
> Jon 'Big Dave' Walsh wrote:
> --
>
> h t t p : // w w w . p s i c o u n s e l . c o m
>
> S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y
> O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
Point taken, Kettler. I will accept your word that someone who is psychic
is not necessarily a psychic, although it doesn't make a whole lot of
sense to me.
In other words, I am human, but I am not a human. I am male, but I am not
a male. Right...
By the way, have you learned from the other persons how to use apostrophes yet?
Sincerely,
Bruce McNeely
P>S> I am not avoiding the discussion of the Dames challenge. I haven't
heard yet what the other person (i.e. Randi) has to say. This will come
soon, no doubt.
Matt Kriebel
Peter F. Curran (nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu) wrote:
: In article <01bc2e74$63591dc0$16d992cf@default>,
: "Ronald Bobo" <RonBo...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
: > Randi likes to pick and choose the effects he "duplicates." For instance,
: >Geller put a permanent bend in nitinol wire - Randi has never duplicated
: >this.
: >
Bobo like to pick and choose as to what memories he will retain about
what. It has already been explained to him as to why the Nitinol kinking
is unimpressive. He sems to ignore the fact that anyone, *anyone* get put
a kink in Nitinol with relative ease.
: Nitinol(sp)? Is a metal that can display some of the "memory" like
: characteristics of things like rubber. It is soft, and easily bent.
: When heated it tends to return to the original shape it was cast in.
Yup.
: Note that it only "tends" to do this. If you put a sharp bend in
: it, perhaps by bending it across the edge of a fingernail, it won't
: go back after heating. This is no mystery.
And Bobo has already been told this.
(Fingernails won't work though, teeth or hard metal edges work just fine
however)
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...
George Black
In article <3323e632...@news.earthlink.net>,
>> O F P S Y C H I C (click mouse)
>
>posting comes up showing you to be a simpleton.
Well. It is a study of -psychic phenomena- click the mouse button for the same
old load of nothing rubbish.
If this was my sig it would be here.
Regards
George
BillyDove
REMOVE THIS THREAD YOU PUNK BITCH
BillyDove
begin 644 finger.gif
<uuencoded_portion_removed>
&(%-E=``[
`
end
Dan Pressnell
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>I am not known to be able to write impeccably,
You are not known to write sensibly.
Dan
Dan Pressnell
Bruce Daniel Kettler <d...@psicounsel.com> wrote:
>*VACANT MINDED* NAME CALLING IS WHAT I WROTE.
Vacant-minded name calling is all you ever write.
Dan