Day 2: "Son of Man", What would you consider as proof that John Edward is a fraud?
Brian Westley
Edward is a fraud? Is it even possible?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Son of MAN
news:MoON7.34962$H7.44...@ruti.visi.com...
> OK SoM, ball's in your court; what would it take to convince you that
> Edward is a fraud? Is it even possible?
I didn't say I believed he was speaking to the dead. I only cited him as an
example of someone whose own experiences might not be possible to verify to
those without the talents he claims to possess. From what I can gather from
watching the TV show, he claims to see mental pictures projected from the
deceased which give him clues about what the deceased are trying to
communicate and with whom.
Personally, I do not believe he is the scum of the earth which many, if not
all who have responded to the original message, have said about him.
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
Brian Westley
>"Brian Westley" <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:MoON7.34962$H7.44...@ruti.visi.com...
>> OK SoM, ball's in your court; what would it take to convince you that
>> Edward is a fraud? Is it even possible?
>I didn't say I believed he was speaking to the dead.
I didn't SAY you said you believed him to be speaking to the dead.
>I only cited him as an
>example of someone whose own experiences might not be possible to verify to
>those without the talents he claims to possess.
And I would like to know what you would consider as proof that
he is a fraud.
>From what I can gather from
>watching the TV show, he claims to see mental pictures projected from the
>deceased which give him clues about what the deceased are trying to
>communicate and with whom.
That's what he claims; what would it take for you to conclude that
he's lying and is defrauding people?
>Personally, I do not believe he is the scum of the earth which many, if not
>all who have responded to the original message, have said about him.
And I would like to know what you would consider as proof that
he is a fraud.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Termite of Temptation
> > Edward is a fraud? Is it even possible?
>
> I didn't say I believed he was speaking to the dead. I only cited him as
an
> example of someone whose own experiences might not be possible to verify
to
> those without the talents he claims to possess.
So, since we can't tell whether he's got such "talents" or not, then what
difference does it make whether we believe him or not? If it actually
impacts us, or anyone else, in some concrete way, then it is measurable.
That's what it means for something to be measurable, after all. Thus, if his
talents can't be measured, they don't have any concrete effect.
Here we use Occam's Razor - his powers might as well not exist if they can't
be verified or used.
> From what I can gather from
> watching the TV show, he claims to see mental pictures projected from the
> deceased which give him clues about what the deceased are trying to
> communicate and with whom.
From what I can gather, he operates a lucrative scam using decades-old
parlour tricks, and claims to be "helping people".
> Personally, I do not believe he is the scum of the earth which many, if
not
> all who have responded to the original message, have said about him.
Well, we have only three real options, given his behaviour. Either he can do
what he claims, and is thus puzzling in that he will not subject such powers
to tests such as James Randi's supernatural test (www.randi.org). If they
are untestable, as I pointed out above, then they have no application, i.e.
they are indistinguishable in effect from simple trickery.
The second alternative is that he's a scumbag, doing this act for personal
gain and money. Hence he deserves a slap <slaps Edwards>.
The third is that he's deluded and thinks he does have these powers. The
only reason I give Edwards any slack at all is because there might actually
be a little truth to this option. Surrounded by people marvelling at his
"gift", seemingly able to talk to the dead : he might possibly believe some
of his crap. But I don't give this one much credence.
Duncan
Bill Thacker
Brian Westley <wes...@visi.com> wrote:
>"Son of MAN" <bco...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>
>>From what I can gather from
>>watching the TV show, he claims to see mental pictures projected from the
>>deceased which give him clues about what the deceased are trying to
>>communicate and with whom.
>
>That's what he claims; what would it take for you to conclude that
>he's lying and is defrauding people?
Hmmm.
One type of proof would be to ask him to "read" a dead person who
never actually existed. That is, I could ask him what my dear
departed Uncle Elmo Thacker has to say, and if he claims to
get a reading, I could point out that Uncle Elmo never existed.
But that is only part of the proof; proving that he reads people
who never existed does not prove that he can't read those who did.
A weak proof of the latter might be to find a dying person and have
them agree, after their death, to deliver a particular message
to Edwards. Write that down and seal it. After the person dies,
have Edwards do a reading, and if he doesn't get that message
he's probably a fraud. (Of course, he can always argue that the
dead person failed to keep their part of the bargain - dying might
very well change one's motivations. :-)
But really, I don't see how can can disprove Edwards' claims,
any more than you can disprove the existence of God.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker Atheist #1363 bi...@woods-car.com
Bill's Rail Buggy Page: http://www.woods-car.com
Director of the EAC Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Fast Cars,
and Pornography.
VI VI VI: the editor of the beast.
Q
I would guess that if anything unusual is occuring with JE, its a
matter of projection of thought or some other "psi-fi" concept. He has
submitted to studies by some university (On TLC) and his accuracy
rating in several interview conditions seems to place him well above
the curve of probability even when he's unable to see the subject or
ask questions of the subject for the first 1/2 of the interview. This
would also explain why he doesn't "see" killers of the murdered or
such as all he can know is what the interview subject knows. Even to
him, it could appear that these "messages" are coming from the dead as
they relate to the dead. It also would explain why he's so reassuring
to his audience: they're getting what they need as far as validation
of their decedent relation's fate.
That still leaves us with the unproven idea of psi phenomenon, but at
least it narrows the search from a universal god form or communication
switchboard to a localized interpersonal phenomenon. For all intents
and purposes, if the clients feel they got a good deal, then they did,
no matter how much they paid.
The Q
Brian Westley
>"Brian Westley" <wes...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:MoON7.34962$H7.44...@ruti.visi.com...
>> OK SoM, ball's in your court; what would it take to convince you that
>> Edward is a fraud? Is it even possible?
>I didn't say I believed he was speaking to the dead.
I didn't SAY you said you believed him to be speaking to the dead.
What would it take to convince you that Edward is a fraud?
Answer the question.
What would it take to convince you that Edward is a fraud?
What would it take to convince you that Edward is a fraud?
Got that?
What would it take to convince you that Edward is a fraud?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Boris Fuller
"Termite of Temptation" <womanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F1QN7.2073$qN3.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
do
> what he claims, and is thus puzzling in that he will not subject such
powers
> to tests such as James Randi's supernatural test (www.randi.org). If they
> are untestable, as I pointed out above, then they have no application,
i.e.
> they are indistinguishable in effect from simple trickery.
Why would he have to subject himself to some stupid test designed by some
jealous idiot (without any personal talent or life of his own) who is
clearly obsessively trashing anyone who might have?
Boris
[*head drops onto the desk - thud* jeeeze I can't believe I'm defending
Spiritualists now *shakes head from side to side slowly* qualis artifex
pereo *thud, thud, thud*]
Son of MAN
The Lord would have to reveal to me that Edward is a fraud.
The Word of the Lord is truth.
Likewise, the Lord would have to reveal to me that Edward is sincere.
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
Robert Templeton
news:4v5O7.39987$8n4.2...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
IOW, no evidence would convince you that Edward is a fraud?
Robert Templeton
Termite of Temptation
"Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c08a...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
>
> "Termite of Temptation" <womanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:F1QN7.2073$qN3.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> >
> > Well, we have only three real options, given his behaviour. Either he
can
> do
> > what he claims, and is thus puzzling in that he will not subject such
> powers
> > to tests such as James Randi's supernatural test (www.randi.org). If
they
> > are untestable, as I pointed out above, then they have no application,
> i.e.
> > they are indistinguishable in effect from simple trickery.
>
> Why would he have to subject himself to some stupid test designed by some
> jealous idiot (without any personal talent or life of his own) who is
> clearly obsessively trashing anyone who might have?
Randi doesn't design the test. He agrees a watertight protocol with the
claimant beforehand. And Randi is probably one of the most talented
magicians the world has ever seen, bar Harry Houdini. Randi is "obsessed"
not with trashing anyone but with educating. I'll agree he is often overly
skeptical and harsh, but you would be too if you saw members of your
profession claiming that doing their job was a magical gift.
Duncan
Termite of Temptation
Personally, I (and the rest of the scientific community AFAIK) have yet to
see any compelling evidence for any kind of psychic phenomena. I'd ask you
to post more info on these university studies, but frankly sci.skeptic or
alt.paranormal would be better forums for this kind of discussion.
Duncan
Boris Fuller
Hmm, and how does Mr Randi benefit from this, I wonder.
"To date, no one has ever passed the preliminary tests"
"3. Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.)
of any sort gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF
in any way Mr. Randi may choose."
"Please be advised that several claimants have suffered great personal
embarrassment after failing these tests. I strongly advise you to conduct
proper double-blind tests of any ability you believe you can demonstrate,
before attempting to undergo a testing for this prize. This has saved me and
many claimants much time and work, by showing that the powers were quite
imaginary on the part of the would-be claimant. Please do this, and do not
choose to ignore the need for such a precaution.
-- James Randi "
I suspect that the designed criteria would be so stringent that they would
exclude any possibility of anyone ever winning this "competition". If Mr
Randi is such a good magician why isn't he doing that ... instead of trying
to trash what other people are doing and cashing in on that? He's like that
kid on the beach who, instead of building his own sandcastle, runs the
length of the beach destroying everyone elses.
Boris
Ch'an Fu
we have so many more to save.
get to work!
"as fools are fools, so shall they be
throughout all time, into eternity."
Fred Stone
From his books, he'll go out of his way to design a test that his
claimants can accept. He only insists on enough cameras to capture every
possible angle of view and enough blind or double-blind controls to
eliminate cheating.
I recommend "Flim-Flam" by Randi, where he discusses his methods in
detail.
What no skeptic will accept are completely uncontrolled "tests".
If Mr
> Randi is such a good magician why isn't he doing that ... instead of
> trying to trash what other people are doing and cashing in on that?
> He's like that kid on the beach who, instead of building his own
> sandcastle, runs the length of the beach destroying everyone elses.
He's not destroying anyone with real powers. He's a working stage magician
who debunks other magicians who claim to be doing it by supernatural
powers. He lectures on that and other topics as well. Very entertaining
speaker.
--
Fred Stone
aa # 1369
BAAWA Brewmaster
Robert Templeton
I take it that you didn't read the part where the claimant and Randi AGREE
to a test. It is not a "competition". It is a test, usually double blind,
where Randi plays no part in the judging. No judging should be necessary
since one of the requirements is for unambiguous results (hit or miss).
The money originally put up for the test was Randi's!!!! It was part of
that which he was given from the MacArthur Foundation. Where, oh where, did
it all go? Oh, to Uri Fucking Geller (in legal fees for wrongful libel
suits). That money now, over one million, is in pledges from members of
JREF. So, Randi isn't getting anything from that and had it to lose before
this.
Well, then Harry Houdini, arguably the greatest escape artist up to his
time, was no better when he went around uncovering the shams of so-called
seances and readers. Randi's test is quite civil comparatively. Yet people
as *good* as Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, or John Edward will not even attempt
it. Why? It is not rigged. Again, the ****CLAIMANT**** MUST AGREE TO THE
TERMS OF THE TEST (could you read that?). Need I print that section here
for you? Okay...
1. Applicant must state clearly in advance, and the applicant and Mr. Randi
will agree upon, just what powers or abilities will be demonstrated, the
limits of the proposed demonstration (so far as time, location and other
variables are concerned) and what will constitute both a positive and a
negative result. This is the primary, basic, and most important of these
rules.
4. Tests will be designed in such a way that no "judging" procedure is
required. Results will be self-evident to any observer, in accordance with
the rules which will be agreed upon by all parties in advance of any formal
testing procedure taking place. No part of the testing procedure may be
changed in any way without the express agreement of all parties concerned.
Mr. Randi, though present at formal tests, will not directly interact with
the materials used.
12. EVERY APPLICANT MUST AGREE UPON WHAT WILL CONSTITUTE A CONCLUSION THAT,
ON THE OCCASION OF THE FORMAL TEST, HE OR SHE DID OR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE
CLAIMED ABILITY OR POWER.
Robert Templeton
Member of JREF and CSICOP
Brian Westley
Besides which, there has been at least one person who passed Randi's
tests and was declared genuine (though he didn't claim paranormal powers):
http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm
In 1982, Dr. Arthur Lintgen, a medical diagnostician from Pennsylvania,
claimed that he could identify the music on a phonograph record simply
by examining the pattern of grooves on its surface. Time magazine
asked magician and psychic investigator James (The Amazing) Randi to
investigate Lintgen's extraordinary claim.
etc. etc.
Read it and find out what Randi's test was, and how the guy passed.
He actually did what he claimed he could do.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Bob Dog
<YFUO7.38532$H7.49...@ruti.visi.com>:
>Besides which, there has been at least one person who passed Randi's
>tests and was declared genuine (though he didn't claim paranormal
>powers):
>
>http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm
>
> In 1982, Dr. Arthur Lintgen, a medical diagnostician from
> Pennsylvania, claimed that he could identify the music on a phonograph
> record simply by examining the pattern of grooves on its surface. Time
> magazine asked magician and psychic investigator James (The Amazing)
> Randi to investigate Lintgen's extraordinary claim.
Your words suggest this is something inexplicable. I
remember seeing him on TV performing his trick, but
wasn't impressed; the trick is obvious, given by the
man himself in the link you provided.
This is nothing more than a learned skill and memory
of important data, like human calculators and people
who can name days of the week when given random dates.
I'd like to see how impressive he could be at naming
records from the early 1990s, when technology enabled
record makers to put as much as 30 minutes of music
on a side of vinyl.
The space between grooves, which was part of Lintgen's
trick, were smaller due to improvements in recording
and playback technology. It got so small that putting
a needle on a record between songs in the middle of a
side was impossible, always touching the beginning or
end of a song.
From the linked article:
------------------------------------------------------------
The trick, Lintgen explained, is to examine the physical
construction of the recording and look at the relative
playing time of each one of the movements or separations
on the recording.
According to Lintgen, a Beethoven symphony will have a
slightly longer first movement relative to its second
movement, while Mozart and Schubert would compose in
such a fashion that each movement in many cases would
have the same number of bars. Beethoven, however, had
set out in a new direction and that changed the dynamics
of the recording. In addition, if there was a sonorous
slow beginning, one could look at the recording at that
point and see a long undulating groove that would not
contain the sharp spikes that would identify sharp
percussion.
But how could he identify on one recording the
nationality of the orchestra?
Lintgen said the recording had an upturned edge, a
feature that identified it as being unique to the
Deutsche Grammophon label. Since the recording was a
digital recording, "because of the lack of junk in
between the grooves," Lintgen knew that Deutsche
Grommophon, up to that time, had only recorded German
orchestras for their digital recordings.
------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Dog
Atheist #153
+---------------------------------------------------+
|\Read widely, think deeply, but don't speak lengthy.\
+ +---------------------------------------------------+
\|Religion...when facts and reality aren't enough. |
+---------------------------------------------------+
Rich Goranson
>records from the early 1990s, when technology enabled
>record makers to put as much as 30 minutes of music
>on a side of vinyl.
That technology is a bit older than the early 90s. Side 1 of the Genesis album
"Trick of the Tail" runs about 31 minutes. Trick of the Tail was released in
1976.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA
In Memoriam - The US Constitution
born: 17 September 1787
died: 26 October 2001
Fred Stone
> wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote in
> <YFUO7.38532$H7.49...@ruti.visi.com>:
>
>>Besides which, there has been at least one person who passed Randi's
>>tests and was declared genuine (though he didn't claim paranormal
>>powers):
>>
>>http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm
>>
>> In 1982, Dr. Arthur Lintgen, a medical diagnostician from
>> Pennsylvania, claimed that he could identify the music on a phonograph
>> record simply by examining the pattern of grooves on its surface. Time
>> magazine asked magician and psychic investigator James (The Amazing)
>> Randi to investigate Lintgen's extraordinary claim.
>
> Your words suggest this is something inexplicable. I
> remember seeing him on TV performing his trick, but
> wasn't impressed; the trick is obvious, given by the
> man himself in the link you provided.
>
> This is nothing more than a learned skill and memory
> of important data, like human calculators and people
> who can name days of the week when given random dates.
The point being that Randi was called upon to check him out, did so,
and pronounced him actually able to do what he claimed.
ie Randi isn't a diehard disbeliever.
Of course it's perfectly mundane, since you know how he did it.
So are the psychics.
Brian Westley
>wes...@visi.com (Brian Westley) wrote in
><YFUO7.38532$H7.49...@ruti.visi.com>:
>>Besides which, there has been at least one person who passed Randi's
>>tests and was declared genuine (though he didn't claim paranormal
>>powers):
>>
>>http://www.snopes2.com/music/info/reader3.htm
>>
>> In 1982, Dr. Arthur Lintgen, a medical diagnostician from
>> Pennsylvania, claimed that he could identify the music on a phonograph
>> record simply by examining the pattern of grooves on its surface. Time
>> magazine asked magician and psychic investigator James (The Amazing)
>> Randi to investigate Lintgen's extraordinary claim.
>Your words suggest this is something inexplicable.
Not at all; I'm just showing that Randi sets up tests that are
passable *if* you can do what you claim you can do.
Lintgen could actually DO what he said he could do; paranormal
frauds can't actually do what they claim they can do, so they
can't pass Randi's tests.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Boris Fuller
news:3C0C077D...@disneyland.not...
> hush. what has this to do with anything real?
> we have so many more to save.
> get to work!
> "as fools are fools, so shall they be
> throughout all time, into eternity."
>
The only one I can save is me, dear Fu.
and become a fool gladly,
to stand as a beacon
on the way
(good grief this is very dramatic---exit stage left......dramatically)
You can't make someone more of a fool than they already are.
Boris
Boris Fuller
news:pan.2001.12.03.18...@earthling.com...
Thanks Fred, but self-recommendation is no recommendation at all. I would
rather hear from someone who had attempted the preliminary tests.
>
> What no skeptic will accept are completely uncontrolled "tests".
I suspect Mr Randi would require the presence of the risen Christ himself -
and still claim it were a trick even as he poked his finger in the wounds.
>
> If Mr
> > Randi is such a good magician why isn't he doing that ... instead of
> > trying to trash what other people are doing and cashing in on that?
> > He's like that kid on the beach who, instead of building his own
> > sandcastle, runs the length of the beach destroying everyone elses.
>
> He's not destroying anyone with real powers. He's a working stage magician
> who debunks other magicians who claim to be doing it by supernatural
> powers. He lectures on that and other topics as well. Very entertaining
> speaker.
Does he accept the possibility that there are "real powers"? or is he
working on the premis that since he has none no-one else does either?
Did you pay to hear him speak?
>
> --
> Fred Stone
> aa # 1369
> BAAWA Brewmaster
Boris
Boris Fuller
news:h7UO7.65408$ox2.4...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Of course I read it, idiot.
It is not a "competition". It is a test, usually double blind,
> where Randi plays no part in the judging. No judging should be necessary
> since one of the requirements is for unambiguous results (hit or miss).
yeah, right.
Well, as I quite clearly said. I suspect that agreement on the criteria
would never be reached to Mr Randi's satisfaction apart from a stringency
which would prevent the test ever being passed to his satisfaction. He
would then make a personal fortune out of the publicity because that is his
intention in designing this scam. There is absolutely no danger of the
money ever being successfully claimed, not because psychic phenomena don't
exist but because Randi will ensure that anyone foolish enough to apply will
certainly fail. This isn't an investigation it's a mouse trap.
>
> The money originally put up for the test was Randi's!!!! It was part of
> that which he was given from the MacArthur Foundation. Where, oh where,
did
> it all go? Oh, to Uri Fucking Geller (in legal fees for wrongful libel
> suits). That money now, over one million, is in pledges from members of
> JREF. So, Randi isn't getting anything from that and had it to lose
before
> this.
So, he's not that clever then? I see he now has a clause preventing it
happening again!
I wouldn't touch it with someone else's bargepole!
>
> Well, then Harry Houdini, arguably the greatest escape artist up to his
> time, was no better when he went around uncovering the shams of so-called
> seances and readers. Randi's test is quite civil comparatively.
It is still showmanship.
Yet people
> as *good* as Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, or John Edward will not even
attempt
> it. Why? It is not rigged. Again, the ****CLAIMANT**** MUST AGREE TO
THE
> TERMS OF THE TEST (could you read that?). Need I print that section here
> for you? Okay...
>
[snip patronising bit]
I am merely applying Mr Randi's critical skepticism to his own motivation,
methods and values in the same way that he applies them to others. Surely
neither he nor you can object to that?
I suggest you read my comments more clearly next time and take some time to
consider what I am saying before you go off half-cocked. Better still,
don't bother answering me at all, I don't like your manner and I rarely
listen to people who shout at me.
Boris
Fred Stone
I bet you won't even read the book to find out, will you?
>>
>> What no skeptic will accept are completely uncontrolled "tests".
>
> I suspect Mr Randi would require the presence of the risen Christ himself -
> and still claim it were a trick even as he poked his finger in the wounds.
>
All Randi asks is a fair test. Both parties must agree, and he HAS had
claimants. You may have missed the subthread about the fella who claimed
to be able to tell what kind of music was on an LP just by looking at it.
Randi tested him, and proclaimed him to be truthful, though nothing
supernatural was involved.
>>
>> If Mr
>> > Randi is such a good magician why isn't he doing that ... instead of
>> > trying to trash what other people are doing and cashing in on that?
>> > He's like that kid on the beach who, instead of building his own
>> > sandcastle, runs the length of the beach destroying everyone elses.
>>
>> He's not destroying anyone with real powers. He's a working stage magician
>> who debunks other magicians who claim to be doing it by supernatural
>> powers. He lectures on that and other topics as well. Very entertaining
>> speaker.
>
> Does he accept the possibility that there are "real powers"? or is he
> working on the premis that since he has none no-one else does either?
He's open to the demonstration of real powers, by anyone who cares to
attempt such a demonstration. If he weren't, why waste all this time on
it? Debunking is hardly a living, compared to working the flimflams
yourself.
>
> Did you pay to hear him speak?
Nope. I presume that he *did* receive a lecture fee.
Robert Templeton
> "Robert Templeton" <tem...@nospamvplayground.com> wrote in message
> news:h7UO7.65408$ox2.4...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
AGREE
> > to a test.
>
> Of course I read it, idiot.
Then you didn't comprehend it. No need to lower yourself to ad hominem.
> It is not a "competition". It is a test, usually double blind,
> > where Randi plays no part in the judging. No judging should be
necessary
> > since one of the requirements is for unambiguous results (hit or miss).
>
> yeah, right.
> Well, as I quite clearly said. I suspect that agreement on the criteria
> would never be reached to Mr Randi's satisfaction apart from a stringency
> which would prevent the test ever being passed to his satisfaction. He
> would then make a personal fortune out of the publicity because that is
his
> intention in designing this scam. There is absolutely no danger of the
> money ever being successfully claimed, not because psychic phenomena don't
> exist but because Randi will ensure that anyone foolish enough to apply
will
> certainly fail. This isn't an investigation it's a mouse trap.
Many preliminary tests have been taken (agreed to by both parties); none
proclaiming mysterious powers have been successful. Unlike some other
"successful" studies in the past (by other groups), full disclosure of
correspondence, procedure, testing, analysis are available. Randi, his
organization, and others like it, are all too happy to provide this
information. Why? Because this is how *REAL* science and investigation
happen. Partial and non disclosure experiments are nothing of the sort (see
Dr. Schwartz).
As for ensurances of failure, how can this be? Both parties agree. There
are no hidden procedures or quick switches when the claimant isn't looking.
Read the testing of a group of German dowsers by a skeptical organization
there. This is the type of test that Randi uses. The dowsers claimed
something like 90% (and greater) expectations of hits by their own criteria
for the test that was agreed upon. The test was set up with *lower*
expectations; just enough to preclude chance. The details of the
experimental design and procedures as well as the results are freely
available. Guess what? The dowsers failed miserably. Randi was not
involved.
There is no mouse trap. There is only concern for information leakage,
cheating, and other means to coerce false positives. Sorry, extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence. And, in these cases, extraordinary
measures to ensure unbiased results. These very same procedures are used in
clinical trials for medicinal evaluation. Get an education, please.
> > The money originally put up for the test was Randi's!!!! It was part of
> > that which he was given from the MacArthur Foundation. Where, oh where,
> did
> > it all go? Oh, to Uri Fucking Geller (in legal fees for wrongful libel
> > suits). That money now, over one million, is in pledges from members of
> > JREF. So, Randi isn't getting anything from that and had it to lose
> before
> > this.
>
> So, he's not that clever then? I see he now has a clause preventing it
> happening again!
> I wouldn't touch it with someone else's bargepole!
See, you haven't a clue about what you speak. If you knew anything about
JREF, James Randi, and Uri Geller, you'd know that the lawsuits were brought
on by Uri because of supposed libelous statements by Randi criticizing his
"abilities". They were dismissed each and every time. The problem,
especially for that leveled in Japan, was the cost of defense, lawyers, and
so forth. In essense, the fraud, liar, scum-sucker Uri Geller caused
Randi's rightfully gained MacArthur Foundation fellowship monies to
evaporate in legal fees. If there is someone to whom you should target
disgust, it should be aimed toward Uri Geller. Never have I seen such a
wretch of a human being.
> > Well, then Harry Houdini, arguably the greatest escape artist up to his
> > time, was no better when he went around uncovering the shams of
so-called
> > seances and readers. Randi's test is quite civil comparatively.
>
> It is still showmanship.
No, it's critical thought through rigorous evidencing. Obviously you have
no regard for the scientific method either.
> Yet people
> > as *good* as Van Praagh, Sylvia Browne, or John Edward will not even
> attempt
> > it. Why? It is not rigged. Again, the ****CLAIMANT**** MUST AGREE TO
> THE
> > TERMS OF THE TEST (could you read that?). Need I print that section
here
> > for you? Okay...
> >
> [snip patronising bit]
Yes, snip the bit (three of the twelve conditions) that shows the conditions
of the test which contradict your allegations.
> I am merely applying Mr Randi's critical skepticism to his own motivation,
> methods and values in the same way that he applies them to others. Surely
> neither he nor you can object to that?
Mr. Randi can do whatever pleases himself. He is under no obligation to be
honest or generous. The entire thing could be a huge scam to bring false
light to claimants of supernatural powers. But what about those several
dozen who work with him at JREF (some PhD's), the thousands who are members
and have pledged monies to the challenge, the hundreds of thousands who
understand the issues of critical thinking, incredulity, and perpetuated
shams, the millions who agree with him, either directly or indirectly? Are
we all "in on it" too?
I have read of the many claimants who have discussed the challenge, who have
actually gone out of their way to detail preliminary tests, who have gone
through those tests, failed, and either one of two things occur: 1) they
fail and they realize that their powers aren't up to snuff or 2) they fail,
retain their powers, but blame their failure on everything conceivable (from
evil, negative, skeptical vibes to wrong time of the month to being
hoodwinked). Again, I will restate that both the claimant and JREF agree on
the time, place, requirements, setup, procedures, determinations, and
results. There is nothing hidden from the claimants except that which will
reveal their abilities. Randi has no control over the variables, and, if
the test is properly setup, neither should anybody directly interacting with
the claimant. That is double blind. It is standard procedure in scientific
testing to remove contaminating bias in an experiment (see "clinical trial"
in medical literature).
> I suggest you read my comments more clearly next time and take some time
to
> consider what I am saying before you go off half-cocked. Better still,
> don't bother answering me at all, I don't like your manner and I rarely
> listen to people who shout at me.
This is usenet, I'll do whatever I please, thank you very little.
I did read them, and your blinders were on quite sturdily. You do realize
that if a claimant actually succeeds in passing the preliminary test, that
claimant instantly receives a check for $10,000. That's good payback for an
innate ability. There is also the bolstering of the claimants cause and the
chance to pass the final testing. This entails the sum of $1,000,000 to the
claimant as well as superior vindication of their abilities. Despite the
fact that Mr. Randi retains the goods on the test (which I, for one, think
is well within his rights), the claimant would gain instantaneous world
renowned. In what way does the claimant lose, again?
Thus far, there have been four categories of claimants:
1) Those who bluster and rage about the test and demand retribution or a
fair chance, but who have never submitted the form and continued with the
preliminary test discussions (Pete Stapleton comes to mind).
2) Those who do or donot submit the challenge form and thereafter claim
success because Mr. Randi has not accepted procedures expressly forbidden by
the challenge (see Beneviste).
3) Those who submit the challenge form and never continue with the testing.
4) Those who submit the challenge form, formalize a preliminary testing
procedure, setup a time and place, and perform the required procedures.
Despite the fact that none of those belonging to category 4. have ever
succeeded, I have great respect for their determination and honesty over the
other three.
When you actually understand the contractual agreement, clinical trials,
double-blind experiments, experimental biasing, information leakage, and the
problem of supernatural powers being so easily mimicked by simple
prestidigitation or mentalism, you will see why Mr. Randi must demand strict
controls on his tests.
Robert Templeton
Boris Fuller
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2001 02:37:51 -0500, Boris Fuller wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> > I suspect that the designed criteria would be so stringent that they
> >> > would exclude any possibility of anyone ever winning this
"competition".
> >>
> >> From his books, he'll go out of his way to design a test that his
> >> claimants can accept. He only insists on enough cameras to capture
every
> >> possible angle of view and enough blind or double-blind controls to
> >> eliminate cheating.
> >> I recommend "Flim-Flam" by Randi, where he discusses his methods in
> >> detail.
> >
> > Thanks Fred, but self-recommendation is no recommendation at all. I
would
> > rather hear from someone who had attempted the preliminary tests.
> >
>
> I bet you won't even read the book to find out, will you?
I certainly wouldn't pay money for it, no.
I might read it if I could borrow it for a few minutes, that's probably all
it would take to confirm my assessment.
>
> >>
> >> What no skeptic will accept are completely uncontrolled "tests".
> >
> > I suspect Mr Randi would require the presence of the risen Christ
himself -
> > and still claim it were a trick even as he poked his finger in the
wounds.
> >
>
> All Randi asks is a fair test. Both parties must agree, and he HAS had
> claimants. You may have missed the subthread about the fella who claimed
> to be able to tell what kind of music was on an LP just by looking at it.
>
> Randi tested him, and proclaimed him to be truthful, though nothing
> supernatural was involved.
ha ha, do you mean Randi missed the obvious?
>
> >>
> >> If Mr
> >> > Randi is such a good magician why isn't he doing that ... instead of
> >> > trying to trash what other people are doing and cashing in on that?
> >> > He's like that kid on the beach who, instead of building his own
> >> > sandcastle, runs the length of the beach destroying everyone elses.
> >>
> >> He's not destroying anyone with real powers. He's a working stage
magician
> >> who debunks other magicians who claim to be doing it by supernatural
> >> powers. He lectures on that and other topics as well. Very entertaining
> >> speaker.
> >
> > Does he accept the possibility that there are "real powers"? or is he
> > working on the premis that since he has none no-one else does either?
>
> He's open to the demonstration of real powers, by anyone who cares to
> attempt such a demonstration. If he weren't, why waste all this time on
> it? Debunking is hardly a living, compared to working the flimflams
> yourself.
You would have to ask him that. How would I know? Perhaps he's not a very
good prestigiditator himself and can't compete in an open market. He seems
to be making a rather more comfortable living than I am....perhaps I should
consider a change of occupation.........
Boris (Magic and Mystery inc.)
Boris Fuller
> "Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0d2...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > "Robert Templeton" <tem...@nospamvplayground.com> wrote in message
> > news:h7UO7.65408$ox2.4...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> >
> > > I take it that you didn't read the part where the claimant and Randi
> AGREE
> > > to a test.
> >
> > Of course I read it, idiot.
>
> Then you didn't comprehend it. No need to lower yourself to ad hominem.
At least mine had the virtue of being overt, your ad hominem was implicit in
your assumptions. I was merely trying to lower myself to your level,
dearie. :)
Yes well, I hate to burst your shiny little bubble my friend, but "the
scientific method" is not immune from bias and it does not provide
undisputable fact or unquestionable knowledge. There is no such thing as
objectivity divorced entirely from subjectivity and no such thing as
"absolute Truth". kay?
BTW, define "REAL"
> Get an education, please.
What! Not *the ad hominem attack* !?!?!?
<sarcasm> Oh gosh! that was so wounding and witty!</sarcasm>
So now you are attacking Uri Geller? Sheeesh chill out pal, you'll have a
coronary at this rate! What IS your problem?
>
> > > Well, then Harry Houdini, arguably the greatest escape artist up to
his
> > > time, was no better when he went around uncovering the shams of
> so-called
> > > seances and readers. Randi's test is quite civil comparatively.
> >
> > It is still showmanship.
>
> No, it's critical thought through rigorous evidencing. Obviously you have
> no regard for the scientific method either.
its ok where it is an appropriate method of investigation for the subject
matter - but only with due consideration for its limitations. Some things
aren't easily quantifyable and sometimes it is the subjective that is
important.
>
> > >
> > [snip patronising bit]
>
> Yes, snip the bit (three of the twelve conditions) that shows the
conditions
> of the test which contradict your allegations.
Oh, good grief! that is such an infantile argument. How old are you?
Look, I couldn't give a tinkers cuss what you and your little playmates get
up to when your sex life is as empty as your heads. I'm bored with this
crap. When you are ready to discuss something more interesting, adult to
adult (or even child to child) I'll happily chat with you. If this is the
sum total of your repertoire then go away and play your silly games with
some other mug.
bye-bye
Boris
Robert Templeton
>
> At least mine had the virtue of being overt, your ad hominem was implicit
in
> your assumptions. I was merely trying to lower myself to your level,
> dearie. :)
Just stating an observation, sweety darling...
> Yes well, I hate to burst your shiny little bubble my friend, but "the
> scientific method" is not immune from bias and it does not provide
> undisputable fact or unquestionable knowledge. There is no such thing as
> objectivity divorced entirely from subjectivity and no such thing as
> "absolute Truth". kay?
Yes, the scientific method is not totally immune to bias, that is why
"independent repeatability" and "peer review" are also parts of the process.
If it were not, debaucheries such as "cold fusion" would still be making
headlines and getting funding, though totally false. And, yes, there is no
such thing as "absolute Truth". Did I say that there was anywhere at any
time?
As for an objective reality, there is most definitely one, quite separate
from subjective reality (for the most part), with laws and structure able to
be known. It has been shown, by increasingly more accurate approximation,
every day since the introduction of the scientific method and has been
vindicated by epistemological and technological success with no end in sight
(despite the crowing of post-modernist deconstructivists). Otherwise
science would be impossible, literally.
> BTW, define "REAL"
*Real* science or *real* reality? Real science involves use of the
scientific method to observe phenomena. Real reality is the objective one.
The other reality (subjective) is only real to the particular observer and
stops there.
> > Get an education, please.
>
> What! Not *the ad hominem attack* !?!?!?
> <sarcasm> Oh gosh! that was so wounding and witty!</sarcasm>
Again, an observation. You do not understand enough about how science
works, yet assume to dictate what it can and cannot do, what it is and is
not, and that it is all, in the end, subjective, which, as I stated above,
would spell the end of science, which it hasn't, because what you state is a
premise with an incorrect assumption.
> So now you are attacking Uri Geller? Sheeesh chill out pal, you'll have a
> coronary at this rate! What IS your problem?
Yes and no. Yes, Uri Geller deserves to be attacked. But, no, I was
explaining the reason for Mr. Randi's loss of one million dollars as not
being because of foolishness, but because of legal fees incurred by actions
brought on by Uri Geller. There is a difference. Again, an observation:
you are being disingenuous.
> > No, it's critical thought through rigorous evidencing. Obviously you
have
> > no regard for the scientific method either.
>
> its ok where it is an appropriate method of investigation for the subject
> matter - but only with due consideration for its limitations. Some things
> aren't easily quantifyable and sometimes it is the subjective that is
> important.
The limit of scientific method is subjective reality and unobservable
phenomena (which by its very nature cannot reasonably exist, at least as far
as we can know for certain). It is a tool and method to study phenomena by
collected (in nature) or experimental data to uncover or qualify hypotheses
as theories. Part of that procedure is to remove incorrect hypotheses as
possible models of some portion of objective reality. Testing people
claiming paranormal abilities is a set of experiments in determining
whether or not the claim of paranormal abilities (a hypothesis being
entreated) is actually a sound one, removing other options (hypotheses) as
less probable (such as cheating, deception, self-delusion, manipulation,
guessing, and on and on).
Subjective, again, is important to only one person, the person experiencing
the subjective reality. Beyond that it is useless, especially for science.
What does this have to do with paranormal testing? Are you suggesting that
paranormal abilities are totally subjective? Maybe to an extent, but
whenever someone uses their "subjective" abilities to perform an objective
event (such as finding water with a stick, bending spoons, uncovering
supposedly undisclosed information, talking to dead people, or reading
minds), it immediately falls within the scrutiny of scientific inquiry.
Christians use the same ploy to say that God is unable to be evidenced as it
can only be experienced subjectively. But the tenets of their belief system
show plenty of objective events going on (cause-effect in prayer, acts of
the favored deity, faith healing, supernatural powers, miracles, histories,
and, again, on and on).
> Oh, good grief! that is such an infantile argument. How old are you?
Old enough to see through an attempt to look good at my expense. Ignore my
argument, attack my position. You stated explicitly, might I add, that the
test was rigged:
"There is absolutely no danger of the money ever being successfully claimed,
not because psychic phenomena don't exist but because Randi will ensure that
anyone foolish enough to apply will certainly fail. This isn't an
investigation it's a mouse trap."
Can you provide evidence to support this claim? I can provide evidence to
the contrary.
Why would any of these claimants *agree* to a testing procedure, each one
custom designed for the particular claimant, and that which designates a hit
or miss if they could deduce that somehow they were being biased against?
You can just as easily check out as many of the tests, in detail, as you
like to determine if bias was incorporated or not.
You know, I am not just a "Randi skeptic". He doesn't float my boat and I
don't gobble every endearing word of his without thought. My skepticism has
few bounds and is open to evidence whether or not it conforms to my
preconceived notions and supposed knowledge. I would just as readily
criticize Mr. Randi's experiments if I were to smell something fishy in what
I saw or read. So far, his methods appear to be rather well formulated and
conform to those constructed for the very same purposes by others (Gardener,
Kurtz, Shermer, et al), some being PhDs and scientists (they might just have
a clue about what is involved in scientific experiments).
My point, in the end, is that a character assasination of James Randi, which
I've heard many times from different embattlements, is a baseless argument
since it attacks the person and not his methods. You, at least, are also
attacking his methods. But, you must be equipped with all of the necessary
information in order to do this properly, if at all. The first step is to
understand what he is doing (and the reasoning, logic, science, and 'magic'
behind it) and why he is doing it. Again, it is quite true that this "One
Million Dollar Paranormal Challege" is a stunt. But it is a stunt with real
intent and real procedural process. There is no sham being perpetuated,
otherwise those pledgers would evaporate faster than alcohol on the skin.
Robert Templeton
Boris Fuller
> "Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0ea...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> >
> > At least mine had the virtue of being overt, your ad hominem was
implicit
> in
> > your assumptions. I was merely trying to lower myself to your level,
> > dearie. :)
>
> Just stating an observation, sweety darling...
no you weren't. my love, my dove, my pretty one...
>
> > Yes well, I hate to burst your shiny little bubble my friend, but "the
> > scientific method" is not immune from bias and it does not provide
> > undisputable fact or unquestionable knowledge. There is no such thing
as
> > objectivity divorced entirely from subjectivity and no such thing as
> > "absolute Truth". kay?
>
> Yes, the scientific method is not totally immune to bias, that is why
> "independent repeatability" and "peer review" are also parts of the
process.
> If it were not, debaucheries such as "cold fusion" would still be making
> headlines and getting funding, though totally false. And, yes, there is
no
> such thing as "absolute Truth". Did I say that there was anywhere at any
> time?
>
> As for an objective reality, there is most definitely one, quite separate
> from subjective reality (for the most part), with laws and structure able
to
> be known. It has been shown, by increasingly more accurate approximation,
> every day since the introduction of the scientific method and has been
> vindicated by epistemological and technological success with no end in
sight
> (despite the crowing of post-modernist deconstructivists). Otherwise
> science would be impossible, literally.
no, not "impossible" but all tools have their limitations, do they not?
>
> > BTW, define "REAL"
>
> *Real* science or *real* reality? Real science involves use of the
> scientific method to observe phenomena. Real reality is the objective
one.
> The other reality (subjective) is only real to the particular observer and
> stops there.
so how does the scientist observe?
Boris
Boris Fuller
> "Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0ea...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> >
>
> >
> > What! Not *the ad hominem attack* !?!?!?
> > <sarcasm> Oh gosh! that was so wounding and witty!</sarcasm>
>
> Again, an observation. You do not understand enough about how science
> works, yet assume to dictate what it can and cannot do, what it is and is
> not, and that it is all, in the end, subjective, which, as I stated above,
> would spell the end of science, which it hasn't, because what you state is
a
> premise with an incorrect assumption.
and you seem to "not understand" the difference between an "observation" and
a judgement based on unfounded assumptions. :-D
>
> > So now you are attacking Uri Geller? Sheeesh chill out pal, you'll have
a
> > coronary at this rate! What IS your problem?
>
> Yes and no. Yes, Uri Geller deserves to be attacked.
You know, if you are constantly looking at where other travellers are
putting their feet there is a high probability of you losing your own
footing.
But, no, I was
> explaining the reason for Mr. Randi's loss of one million dollars as not
> being because of foolishness, but because of legal fees incurred by
actions
> brought on by Uri Geller. There is a difference. Again, an observation:
> you are being disingenuous.
then we are not two, my friend (laughs uproariously)
>
> > > No, it's critical thought through rigorous evidencing. Obviously you
> have
> > > no regard for the scientific method either.
> >
> > its ok where it is an appropriate method of investigation for the
subject
> > matter - but only with due consideration for its limitations. Some
things
> > aren't easily quantifyable and sometimes it is the subjective that is
> > important.
>
> The limit of scientific method is subjective reality and unobservable
> phenomena (which by its very nature cannot reasonably exist, at least as
far
> as we can know for certain).
so if we have yet to develop the technological expertese to effectively
record our observed phenomena can we say that the phenomena does not exist?
Until it IS observed?
It is a tool and method to study phenomena by
> collected (in nature) or experimental data to uncover or qualify
hypotheses
> as theories. Part of that procedure is to remove incorrect hypotheses as
> possible models of some portion of objective reality. Testing people
> claiming paranormal abilities is a set of experiments in determining
> whether or not the claim of paranormal abilities (a hypothesis being
> entreated) is actually a sound one, removing other options (hypotheses) as
> less probable (such as cheating, deception, self-delusion, manipulation,
> guessing, and on and on).
Hmmm, so tell me, my great and honoured scientific teacher, what does
"paranormal" mean?
>
> Subjective, again, is important to only one person, the person
experiencing
> the subjective reality. Beyond that it is useless, especially for
science.
> What does this have to do with paranormal testing? Are you suggesting
that
> paranormal abilities are totally subjective?
I am suggesting that ...no I am asserting that...objectivity is an illusion.
ooops, there speaks the heretic and awaits the wrath of the disciples of the
god of science.
Maybe to an extent, but
> whenever someone uses their "subjective" abilities to perform an objective
> event (such as finding water with a stick, bending spoons, uncovering
> supposedly undisclosed information, talking to dead people, or reading
> minds), it immediately falls within the scrutiny of scientific inquiry.
> Christians use the same ploy to say that God is unable to be evidenced as
it
> can only be experienced subjectively. But the tenets of their belief
system
> show plenty of objective events going on (cause-effect in prayer, acts of
> the favored deity, faith healing, supernatural powers, miracles,
histories,
> and, again, on and on).
How is this different from the religion of science?
>
> > Oh, good grief! that is such an infantile argument. How old are you?
>
> Old enough to see through an attempt to look good at my expense.
those are your sour grapes, my dear. This is just a game, and as soon as
you are happy to get on with the game proper I will be relieved to not have
to play these exploratory feignting ploys.
Ignore my
> argument, attack my position. You stated explicitly, might I add, that
the
> test was rigged:
>
> "There is absolutely no danger of the money ever being successfully
claimed,
> not because psychic phenomena don't exist but because Randi will ensure
that
> anyone foolish enough to apply will certainly fail. This isn't an
> investigation it's a mouse trap."
>
> Can you provide evidence to support this claim? I can provide evidence to
> the contrary.
the evidence is on his website. What we are arguing about here is 'merely'
the interpretation.
is it not?
> You know, I am not just a "Randi skeptic". He doesn't float my boat and I
> don't gobble every endearing word of his without thought. My skepticism
has
> few bounds and is open to evidence whether or not it conforms to my
> preconceived notions and supposed knowledge.
Really? So why don't you apply that rigorous sKepticism to the pursuit and
religion of Science?
Seems to me you follow with great blind faith the philosophy of your chosen
belief, unquestioning and ready to defend it against all heretics daring to
question the tenets of your faith.
I would just as readily
> criticize Mr. Randi's experiments if I were to smell something fishy in
what
> I saw or read. So far, his methods appear to be rather well formulated
and
> conform to those constructed for the very same purposes by others
(Gardener,
> Kurtz, Shermer, et al), some being PhDs and scientists (they might just
have
> a clue about what is involved in scientific experiments).
yes, it is the nature of your religion to judge your fellow practitioners on
the way they pray to the great god "objectivity".
even saints are fallible, my beloved.
>
> My point, in the end, is that a character assasination of James Randi,
which
> I've heard many times from different embattlements, is a baseless argument
> since it attacks the person and not his methods.
can you divide the two?
You, at least, are also
> attacking his methods. But, you must be equipped with all of the
necessary
> information in order to do this properly, if at all. The first step is to
> understand what he is doing (and the reasoning, logic, science, and
'magic'
> behind it) and why he is doing it. Again, it is quite true that this "One
> Million Dollar Paranormal Challege" is a stunt.
which is what I am arguing. I am glad we have reached agreement on this.
Thank you.
>
> Robert Templeton
>
Boris
Boris Fuller
> "Boris Fuller" <orour...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c0ea...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
You stated explicitly, might I add, that the
> test was rigged:
>
> "There is absolutely no danger of the money ever being successfully
claimed,
> not because psychic phenomena don't exist but because Randi will ensure
that
> anyone foolish enough to apply will certainly fail. This isn't an
> investigation it's a mouse trap."
>
> Can you provide evidence to support this claim? I can provide evidence to
> the contrary.
sorry *beeeeeeeep* since we did not agree before the event that this new
evidence will be admissible ....and since we have not agreed the criteria to
be achieved and what constitutes exact acheivement of that criteria ...and
since this evidence was not submitted prior to the commencement of this
"test" and agreed according to the outlined procedure...
...it is therefore ruled "inadmissable" as being outside the parameters
outlined in our agreement (a la Mr Wotsisname the great magician's
precedent)
>
> Why would any of these claimants *agree* to a testing procedure,
You would have to ask them that. I am not privi to their motivation since
their evidence is not included in this rather one-sided investigation.
each one
> custom designed for the particular claimant, and that which designates a
hit
> or miss if they could deduce that somehow they were being biased against?
> You can just as easily check out as many of the tests, in detail, as you
> like to determine if bias was incorporated or not.
that would be a good plan I would think, also the balance of the tests might
reveal some hidden bias in the overall design. Also you might look at the
linguistic structure to see if there were ambiguities in the phrasing. Also
the motivation and ability of the people designing the test criteria and
making observations of the results might introduce some irregularity. Also
the equipment used to record the test results might be faulty....oh there
are LOTS of ways you can introduce bias EVEN if you don't mean to. Aren't
there?
But mostly you might look at the whole concept of what is being tested and
if this is an appropriate method of testing it....or if we actually want to
test it at all? Will it cure cancer after all?
>
> Robert Templeton
Boris
>
>