James Randi steals $1,000,000.00 in prize money.
Corey White
prize. I don't think James Randi qualifies to take his own challenge, but
after he takes the prize money to Vegas he may prove he has psychic powers
after all.
In other news, I am starting a new $1,000,000 prize. It will be a website
where psychics everywhere can register to play, and I will put up $5,000 to
buy lottery tickets with. The top lotto numbers the psychics picks will be
played, and we will see if we can win $1,000,000 for the site.
Happy Thanks-Giving
Cardinal Chunder
> Acording to my source, James Randi has stolen the million dollar
> prize. I don't think James Randi qualifies to take his own challenge, but
> after he takes the prize money to Vegas he may prove he has psychic powers
> after all.
Let's hope your "source" is not feeding you bullshit since you're the
one in the firing line for making false accusations.
> In other news, I am starting a new $1,000,000 prize.
I wish to verify the existence of this money. Please let us know how we
might do this.
> It will be a website
> where psychics everywhere can register to play, and I will put up $5,000 to
> buy lottery tickets with. The top lotto numbers the psychics picks will be
> played, and we will see if we can win $1,000,000 for the site.
>
> Happy Thanks-Giving
I see so you don't have a million. You're buying $5000 worth of lottery
tickets and crossing your fingers.
Sounds like you should be speaking to an arse called Ron Hubbard in
uk.rec.psychic. He's always boasting about his lotto winning prowess. Of
course when called upon to demonstrate that or his other amazing powerz
he runs away.
Corey White
news:dm6sb...@news1.newsguy.com:
> Corey White wrote:
>> Acording to my source, James Randi has stolen the million
>> dollar
>> prize. I don't think James Randi qualifies to take his own
>> challenge, but after he takes the prize money to Vegas he may prove
>> he has psychic powers after all.
>
>
>> In other news, I am starting a new $1,000,000 prize.
>
> I wish to verify the existence of this money. Please let us know how
> we might do this.
>
Scratch & Sniff, Cardinal.
>> It will be a website
>> where psychics everywhere can register to play, and I will put up
>> $5,000 to buy lottery tickets with. The top lotto numbers the
>> psychics picks will be played, and we will see if we can win
>> $1,000,000 for the site.
>>
>> Happy Thanks-Giving
>
> I see so you don't have a million. You're buying $5000 worth of
> lottery tickets and crossing your fingers.
>
The point was that if we are psychic we don't need to actually have a
million in prize money to test our powers, the money is already up for
grabs through the lottery.
> Sounds like you should be speaking to an arse called Ron Hubbard in
> uk.rec.psychic. He's always boasting about his lotto winning prowess.
> Of course when called upon to demonstrate that or his other amazing
> powerz he runs away.
>
I've used divination to win the lottery before, and it is a lot of fun.
Al Hastings
where, (that would be a terrible waste of money....that's at least $40
grand a year in intrest alone)...rather, his prize is backed by an
insurance company. Like on that TV show "who wants to be a
millionaire?" ABC is responsible for up to $125 grand, anything after
that, the insurance company covers it..and believe you me, those
vultures make sure everything is legit before they have to pay a dime.
Who is your source that says this about Mr. Randi? I doubt it is true,
but if I see him wearing some bling-bling, sporting some spinning rims,
hangin with 50 cent and flava-flav, and playing a seat in the world
series of poker...i might be suspicious....then again..some nonprofits
are evil and should be taxed...
-Al
george
Gee. Is it kook season already?
and the irony meter is still in the shop from the battering it got
last year...
I wonder if the doofus is aware that the challenger is (now) the JREF
Al Hastings
"and in celebrity news..Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes said they had a
good thanksgiving..Tom said,'yea, this is only the -second- time this
year we used the turkey baster'." -Conan O'Brian
Tom
"Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:dm6sb...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Corey White wrote:
>> Acording to my source, James Randi has stolen the million dollar
>> prize. I don't think James Randi qualifies to take his own challenge,
>> but after he takes the prize money to Vegas he may prove he has psychic
>> powers after all.
>
> Let's hope your "source" is not feeding you bullshit since you're the one
> in the firing line for making false accusations.
>
>> In other news, I am starting a new $1,000,000 prize.
>
> I wish to verify the existence of this money. Please let us know how we
> might do this.
>
>> It will be a website where psychics everywhere can register to play, and
>> I will put up $5,000 to buy lottery tickets with. The top lotto numbers
>> the psychics picks will be played, and we will see if we can win
>> $1,000,000 for the site.
>>
>> Happy Thanks-Giving
>
> I see so you don't have a million. You're buying $5000 worth of lottery
> tickets and crossing your fingers.
He's not even doing that. He's *talking about* buying $5000 in lottery
tickets. He's also talked about having caused President Bush to run his
(President Bush's) bicycle into a policeman, which was somehow going to
bring down his entire administration.
He talks about lots of things.
Al Hastings
First off..thier is no vault with one million dollars (that would be
plain stupid and wasteful..the intrest alone on one million is roughly
$40 grand a year), and he does not supply all of the money...the
insurance company does...and those vultures are sure things will be
legit before they pay for it. Like ABC's "who wants to be a
millonaire?" game show...ABC will pay up to $125 grand in prize
money..anything over that the insurance company pays for...
-A
kdml...@hotmail.com
Corey White wrote:
> Acording to my source, James Randi has stolen the million dollar
> prize.
So, call Goldman Sachs and find out:
The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge "FAQ"
Index of "Frequently Asked Questions":
...
3.1. Does the prize money really exist?
The short answer: Yes.
The medium-length answer: The money is held in the form of immediately
negotiable bonds held by Goldman Sachs, a highly respected investment
firm. Anyone can verify that the money exists by requesting the
information in writing from the JREF. They will in turn forward you the
most recent account statement from Goldman Sachs.
The long answer: The JREF is a 'tax exempt' organization, so they are
required by law to have a level of financial transparency. That means
that the public can request things like an annual report and copies of
JREF's 990 (the tax return non-profits file). Go to
http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php (search for
Randi) to look up JREF's 990. Contained within these types of documents
is enough information to verify that the organization does indeed have
special assets in a reserved account to cover the prize, should it ever
be won. The contract between the claimant and JREF is binding enough
that the JREF must pay the prize if someone wins it. As a savvy
applicant, all you need to do is verify that the organization has the
funds to cover the prize. Also, if JREF were not able to hold up its
end of the bargain, the IRS would investigate and pull the JREF's tax
exempt status. It would mean severe penalties for the JREF, and Randi
himself would also be personally liable and subject to potential
incarceration. Rest assured: the money is there [8].
Long answer, continued: The JREF prize fund is maintained in a way that
is similar to an endowment fund. Non-profits often create reserves of
assets called endowments to build up enough money to take care of the
organization in the case of bad financial times, or to save up money
for a project down the road, like building a new facility or starting a
large new program that would require a lot of capital. Endowment funds
are held separately from the other money coming in and out of an
organization. For example, The JREF prize money is being held
separately from the general operating funds of the organization. This
prevents the JREF from accidentally spending the prize money. It is
never a good idea to just let large sums of money sit in a savings
account for years and years, so most non-profits invest their endowment
funds. The way they invest it is really not important. JREF invests in
bonds, which is fine. If a claimant wins the prize, it must be awarded
within ten days, as per the Challenge rules and the legally binding
contract you entered into when you signed the application.
I know you are going to ask, "What if the bonds cannot be easily
liquidated?" If the JREF did not pay a winning claimant in a reasonable
amount of time, they would be open to a lawsuit for breach of contract.
The claimant will be paid. The JREF states that the funds are held in
immediately negotiable bonds so that a claimant can feel at ease about
the ability of the JREF to pay. The fact that the JREF will do so is
going above and beyond the requirements of the law and the generally
accepted practices of good, responsible non-profits. It is an enormous
act of good faith on JREF's part [9]. The million dollars exists.
Arguments to the contrary are utterly pointless, and they will not be
entertained by the JREF.
3.2. That's interesting evidence, but I still don't believe that the
money exists.
It's important to realize that if at this point you still doubt that
the money exists, your doubt is in the entire American bond system in
general and Goldman Sachs specifically, and not with the JREF. There is
really not any more evidence the JREF can provide you. For concerns
regarding Goldman Sachs, please inquire at their Web site,
http://www.gs.com/.
Should you remain unconvinced of the existence of the prize funds, you
are free to choose not to apply. The JREF will under no circumstances
go beyond the aforementioned measures in providing proof of the prize
funds' existence. As stated clearly in the Challenge rules, "The JREF
will not cater to such vanities."
Al Hastings
(sorry for the double post...my mail server has been reealllllly slow)
Instead of having your own million dollar challange, I suggest you keep
the money for your legal defense fund after threatening to kill the
president and slandering Mr Randi...
...if Mr Randi did take the money (which I seriously doubt)..that's
certainly his right...it's his own non profit company and he can do
what he darn well pleases..as long as he is not molesting children..I
could care less.
welcome to politics kid..some non profits are very evil...they take in
-billions- and don't have to pay a dime in taxes....they have people
lobbying for them nonstop to prevent laws to have them pay any kind of
tax...instead of Mr Randi's foundation...I can think of other nonprofit
entities you can rally against..
-Al
Lordofth...@gmail.com
Corey White wrote:
Why don't you tell everyone how you predicted the CA evening 3 pick
yesterday and failed?
LLH
Cardinal Chunder
> Cardinal Chunder <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in
> news:dm6sb...@news1.newsguy.com:
>
>> Corey White wrote:
>>> Acording to my source, James Randi has stolen the million
>>> dollar
>>> prize. I don't think James Randi qualifies to take his own
>>> challenge, but after he takes the prize money to Vegas he may prove
>>> he has psychic powers after all.
>>
>>> In other news, I am starting a new $1,000,000 prize.
>> I wish to verify the existence of this money. Please let us know how
>> we might do this.
>>
>
> Scratch & Sniff, Cardinal.
>
It's a simple question. JREF supplies you as much detail as any
reasonable person would possibly require. Why don't you?
>>> It will be a website
>>> where psychics everywhere can register to play, and I will put up
>>> $5,000 to buy lottery tickets with. The top lotto numbers the
>>> psychics picks will be played, and we will see if we can win
>>> $1,000,000 for the site.
>>>
>>> Happy Thanks-Giving
>> I see so you don't have a million. You're buying $5000 worth of
>> lottery tickets and crossing your fingers.
>>
>
> The point was that if we are psychic we don't need to actually have a
> million in prize money to test our powers, the money is already up for
> grabs through the lottery.
That's right it is. So how come you're not a millionaire.
>> Sounds like you should be speaking to an arse called Ron Hubbard in
>> uk.rec.psychic. He's always boasting about his lotto winning prowess.
>> Of course when called upon to demonstrate that or his other amazing
>> powerz he runs away.
>>
>
> I've used divination to win the lottery before, and it is a lot of fun.
Divination being another word for guessing.
mar...@sympatico.ca
point. The most important reason that psychics should not apply for the
prize is that the bearded one has no intention of paying out even if
you win.
He will come out with some reason that you haven't won. It is not hard
to come up with something if you have lots of time on your hands to
think about it as of course the Amazing One has now that he is old and
somewhat too gone at the game to do magic shows at kid birthday parties
any more.
Then of course the only way to get the money is to sue him. Sorry. Too
much aggro. We spiritual people haven't got the time. We are too busy
making real money from our clients who are far more honest and likely
to pay up especially if we take the money in advance.
Cardinal Chunder
> It doesn't matter if the money exists or not. That is not the important
> point. The most important reason that psychics should not apply for the
> prize is that the bearded one has no intention of paying out even if
> you win.
Then you take the $10,000 that is immediately handed over to you and sue
him for the rest.
> He will come out with some reason that you haven't won. It is not hard
> to come up with something if you have lots of time on your hands to
> think about it as of course the Amazing One has now that he is old and
> somewhat too gone at the game to do magic shows at kid birthday parties
> any more.
Any reasons he comes up with after the fact are irrelevant. Either you
perform as mutually agreed or you don't. If your test is to identify
bottles with water in them, or what objects are in a box, or your
ability to hover or whatever your claim is and you succeed then you win.
Randi's personal judgement is irrelevant.
> Then of course the only way to get the money is to sue him.
Which should be no problem for a psychic, especially one with $10,000
immediately paid to them and the extremely lucrative book, TV, lecture
deals that would instantly appear following a successful demonstration.
> Sorry. Too
> much aggro. We spiritual people haven't got the time.
Yeah right. How long do you think a million dollars would stay unclaimed
if it was given to anyone who could demonstrate they could play the violin?
> We are too busy
> making real money from our clients who are far more honest and likely
> to pay up especially if we take the money in advance.
Scamming rubes sure beats taking a challenge that a lack of powers
prevents you from winning.
Martin Swain
<snip>
> Scamming rubes
Call it what you want, if they're his customers, they're happy
and he is happy, then as far as I can see it's none of your
damn business.
Evangelise much, fundy?
mar...@sympatico.ca
There is as much chance of the bearded old charlatan handing over
$10,000 as there is of me being elected Pope or you being a real
Cardinal.
Many times in the past psychics have won his challenge and the results
have indeed been self evident. However the old renegade has always
refused to pay up. As I have already mentioned he sent me a cheque for
a million dollars when I won the challenge but the bloody thing
bounced. Of course I knew it would because I am psychic.
If a psychic were to identify the right objects in the box he still
would get nothing. Randi's personal judgement IS relevant. If it wasn't
then he would be a million dollars lighter. He would just move the goal
posts like he always does. Do you think we are all naive or something?
You have indeed just admitted by implication that you would likely have
to sue the old fraud and that is always a losing battle. I should know
since I have had more writs than hot dinners. I must say that they are
great for billet switching. You have to tear them up first though.
And of course the lucrative book deals etc; are just as likely as the
old fraud giving a certified check to a NEUTRAL UNBIASED judge not of
his choosing who would hand it over INSTANTLY if he or she deemed the
challenge to be won.
I would be delighted to offer my services as a judge in this matter. I
would of course put all my bias aside and give an objective verdict.
(povided of course I could have a quiet word beforehand with the
challenger about certain monetary matters)
Cardinal Chunder
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> Scamming rubes
>
> Call it what you want, if they're his customers, they're happy
> and he is happy, then as far as I can see it's none of your
> damn business.
Thanks I'll call it what it is. Scamming rubes. As for being my business
or not, does that mean I should state my opinion in a group designed for
such things.
> Evangelise much, fundy?
Meaning?
Martin Swain
By which you mean, toe the party line with your skeptic pals?
>
>> Evangelise much, fundy?
>
>
> Meaning?
That by sticking your opinion in other people's business,
you are seizing the opportunity to evangalise your religion.
Cardinal Chunder
> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>> Martin Swain wrote:
>>
>>> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Scamming rubes
>>>
>>>
>>> Call it what you want, if they're his customers, they're happy
>>> and he is happy, then as far as I can see it's none of your
>>> damn business.
>>
>>
>> Thanks I'll call it what it is. Scamming rubes. As for being my
>> business or not, does that mean I should state my opinion in a group
>> designed for such things.
>
> By which you mean, toe the party line with your skeptic pals?
What you call "toeing" the party line is called by thinking critically
by everyone else.
>>> Evangelise much, fundy?
>>
>>
>> Meaning?
>
> That by sticking your opinion in other people's business,
This is a public discussion forum Mr Moron. If you don't like what you
hear, I suggest you set up your own moderated private mailing list.
> you are seizing the opportunity to evangalise your religion.
I'm sad to be the one to have to break it to you, but thinking
rationally isn't a religion.
Cardinal Chunder
> Don't be silly old chap. I didn't come off the banana boat you know.
> There is as much chance of the bearded old charlatan handing over
> $10,000 as there is of me being elected Pope or you being a real
> Cardinal.
Since the cheque is held by a neutral third party, he doesn't have to
hand anything over.
> Many times in the past psychics have won his challenge and the results
> have indeed been self evident.
Utter and complete bollocks. Or do you intend to cite examples?
> However the old renegade has always
> refused to pay up. As I have already mentioned he sent me a cheque for
> a million dollars when I won the challenge but the bloody thing
> bounced. Of course I knew it would because I am psychic.
Uhuh.
> If a psychic were to identify the right objects in the box he still
> would get nothing.
No, he or she would get a million dollars.
> Randi's personal judgement IS relevant. If it wasn't
> then he would be a million dollars lighter. He would just move the goal
> posts like he always does. Do you think we are all naive or something?
The test is self-evident. Someone either does what they claim or they
don't. Judgement doesn't come into it.
> You have indeed just admitted by implication that you would likely have
> to sue the old fraud and that is always a losing battle. I should know
> since I have had more writs than hot dinners. I must say that they are
> great for billet switching. You have to tear them up first though.
I haven't admitted anything as you might understand if you read what I
said properly.
> And of course the lucrative book deals etc; are just as likely as the
> old fraud giving a certified check to a NEUTRAL UNBIASED judge not of
> his choosing who would hand it over INSTANTLY if he or she deemed the
> challenge to be won.
Bullshit. If any psychic ever won the million, they would absolutely
certainly become millionaires irrespective of the JREF million (which
they would also receive) just from book advances.
> I would be delighted to offer my services as a judge in this matter. I
> would of course put all my bias aside and give an objective verdict.
> (povided of course I could have a quiet word beforehand with the
> challenger about certain monetary matters)
Judges are not required as you well know.
Martin Swain
"Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:dmo43...@news2.newsguy.com...
> Martin Swain wrote:
>> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>>> Martin Swain wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Scamming rubes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Call it what you want, if they're his customers, they're happy
>>>> and he is happy, then as far as I can see it's none of your
>>>> damn business.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks I'll call it what it is. Scamming rubes. As for being my business
>>> or not, does that mean I should state my opinion in a group designed for
>>> such things.
>>
>> By which you mean, toe the party line with your skeptic pals?
>
> What you call "toeing" the party line is called by thinking critically by
> everyone else.
Everyone except the rubes and the hustlers right?
F.Y.I. The fundamental principle of groups is exclusion. i.e. 'everyone
else'
>
>>>> Evangelise much, fundy?
>>>
>>>
>>> Meaning?
>>
>> That by sticking your opinion in other people's business,
>
> This is a public discussion forum Mr Moron. If you don't like what you
> hear, I suggest you set up your own moderated private mailing list.
Name calling isn't exactly rational behaviour there, sunshine.
>
>> you are seizing the opportunity to evangalise your religion.
>
> I'm sad to be the one to have to break it to you, but thinking rationally
> isn't a religion.
You're not sad. You're lying about that, aren't you?
Just so you know, it is a religion the way you guys do it.
'Thinking rationally", heh. If you were to actually think about
what that means, you would start to understand what I am telling
you. Thinking *is* rationality, so why the extra qualifier? Because
you are actually not talking about *thinking*, but rather you are
making a reference to a set of beliefs (opinions if you prefer), that are
requisites for membership in your group.
Notice also that by stipulating 'rationally', you are implying that
people who do not conform to your belief system do not think,
which, while it is a great lever for group bonding via the exclusion
principle, is blantantly false. People certainly do think, & if you attempt
to proceed through life on any other premise you will be doing
yourself a vast disservice.
mar...@sympatico.ca
language. It is most unbecoming of a supposed Cardinal and I am afraid
that his Holiness the Pope will be most displeased when he is informed
about it.
As a psychic reverend myself and holy man of the cloth I must say how
much I disapprove of his profanity. I have always thought that if a
person cannot put his point across without bad language he has already
lost the argument.
The chap is obviously young and a member of the British lower classes.
I see an awful psychic vision of him as we speak. Regrettably nature
has not been kind to him. I shall pray for him since I rather think he
needs it.
But to his silly little argument which we psychic people can easily see
through. First the cheque is NOT held by a "neutral" person. It is held
by a person of Randi's choosing although he and you will of course will
deny it. Second this person does NOT have the authority to give the
cheque over on his own volition and judgement. He will only give it
over if the bearded one tells him to give it over. And of course he
won't even if the psychic brings back Randi's grandmother. Or Harry
Smith.
Who is Harry Smith? Oh he's just someone that knew Randi when he was
younger. In my capacity as a medium I have been in touch with him in
the spirit world and he informs me that he was quite pleased that Randi
came to his funeral in the late seventies. He does apologise that he
will not be able to return the favour when the time comes.
Now as to the various psychics that I know who have been foolish enough
to waste their time trying to win money from the old fraud. This rather
silly young Cardinal fellow is requesting examples of them winning but
not being paid out despite the fact that the information they produced
was self evident.
I am sorry. His request is denied. I am too busy and important a person
to go into the full details. Besides it is self evident who they are.
Or at least as self evident as the self evidence required to win the
prize which is obviously and self evidently non existent. There. I do
hope that was self evident.
And please do not contradict me when I say that if the correct objects
in the box are identified the psychic will get nothing. He will NOT get
a million dollars. Randi will come out with some baloney so that he can
get out of it. Wouldn't you? I know I bloody would.
It might be a bit embarrasing for the bearded one but better a little
embarrasment now at not giving up the money than losing a million
dollars.
This rather rude young man with the bad language seems to put forward
the arrogant proposition that a judge is not required.I do not approve
of arrogance and I must admonish him severely for it.
A judge IS required. I am MARK LEWIS and I require it. If there is no
NEUTRAL judge then the definition of "self evident" becomes a little
more flexible and dare I say it less self evident.
Now do try harder. There's a good boy. And please moderate your
language. There are children here.
kdml...@hotmail.com
> First the cheque is NOT held by a "neutral" person. It is held
> by a person of Randi's choosing although he and you will of course will
> deny it.
Number 8 of THE THIRTEEN OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE:
"At the formal test, in advance, an independent person will be placed
in charge of a personal check from James Randi for US$10,000. In the
event that the claimant is successful under the agreed terms and
conditions, that check shall be immediately surrendered to the
claimant, and within ten days the James Randi Educational Foundation
will pay to the claimant the remainder of the reward, for a total of
US$1,000,000. One million dollars in negotiable bonds is held by an
investment firm in New York, in the "James Randi Educational Foundation
Prize Account" as surety for the prize funds. Validation of this
account and its current status may be obtained by contacting the
Foundation by telephone, fax, or e-mail. "
> Now as to the various psychics that I know who have been foolish enough
> to waste their time trying to win money from the old fraud. This rather
> silly young Cardinal fellow is requesting examples of them winning but
> not being paid out despite the fact that the information they produced
> was self evident.
>
> I am sorry. His request is denied. I am too busy and important a person
> to go into the full details.
But you can blather on and on here, right?
Besides, "full details" are not necessary. First and Last names will
do. Unless you are "too busy" to type them. :-)
> Besides it is self evident who they are.
> Or at least as self evident as the self evidence required to win the
> prize which is obviously and self evidently non existent. There. I do
> hope that was self evident.
>
> And please do not contradict me when I say that if the correct objects
> in the box are identified the psychic will get nothing. He will NOT get
> a million dollars. Randi will come out with some baloney so that he can
> get out of it.
The Contest rules state:
"This is the primary and most important of these rules: Applicant must
state clearly in advance, and applicant and JREF will agree upon, 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."
and
"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. This form must be accompanied
by a brief, two-paragraph description of the applicant's claim, along
with a concise test protocol proposal that describes how the claim will
be demonstrated, the circumstances under which the demonstration will
take place, and the degree of accuracy the applicant claims to achieve
(i.e.; what results will constitute a successful demonstration). "
So, the whole point is to have the claimant make their claims so that
their sucess (or failure) will be self-evident. "I will correctly tell
using dowsing whether at least 8 out of 10 glasses contain water".
Either they get 8 or more correct, or they don't. Period. WHat kind
of "baloney" can Randi come out with?
>Wouldn't you?
No.
>I know I bloody would.
That's what differentiates people like you from people like Randi.
mark lewis
him. Anyway it takes one to know one.
As for this "independent" person I shall merely enquire if you have heard
the one about the three bears? Who is this "independent" person and how do
we know he is empowered to hand over the cheque whether Randi likes it or
not.? You have just said that there are no judges. As far as I am concerned
one man's self evidence is another man's load of crap. Anyway I expect he
has been secretly instructed by JREF not to hand over the cheque under any
circumstances. I do not believe for one moment that this person is
"independent"
And who is the cheque made out to before the test starts? I am afraid that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence you know.
As for the names of the many, many, many, many psychics who have won the
prize and been diddled out of it I am afraid that they are too numerous to
mention. I shall mention one though. His name was Earl Curley. I expect you
know him. The other was David Hoxton. Another was Jimmy van Moody.
There was of course the famous and most wonderful medium who has passed away
herself. Her name was Minnie Moanworthy. Then there was Harold MacGregor.
That should do for now. I am not going to tell you any more. You did say
that no information except the first and last names were required.
As for what bull Randi would come up with if you got it right I am certainly
not going to help him out with any ideas. However if I ever join the
sceptics camp then I will certainly give him a hand. However I am afraid
that there is no money in being a sceptic. That is why Randi had to steal
the prize money just like Corey said.
At the moment I am afraid that there is far more money in soothsaying than
there is in truthsaying so I am afraid that I will have to decline help in
aiding the old buzzard to figure out how to get out of awkward situations.
I am sure he can come up with something. He is renowned for his
resourcefulness under fire.
Except of course for the time he locked himself into a safe at the Toronto
Sun headquarters. Still I suppose you can't be on the ball all the time.
Now be off with you my boy. I know you have homework to do.
I get a psychic vibe as to what you are going to do next. It should keep you
occupied for a while anyway. Some people have a lot of time on their hands.
I might as well oblige them.
<kdml...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133494081.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Happy Dog
> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.
>> I'm sad to be the one to have to break it to you, but thinking rationally
>> isn't a religion.
>
> You're not sad. You're lying about that, aren't you?
>
> Just so you know, it is a religion the way you guys do it.
> 'Thinking rationally", heh. If you were to actually think about
> what that means, you would start to understand what I am telling
> you. Thinking *is* rationality, so why the extra qualifier?
Do you agree with this statement:
"People sometimes have incoherent thoughts."
or
"People sometimes have crazy thoughts."
Are they not "thinking"?
> Notice also that by stipulating 'rationally', you are implying that
> people who do not conform to your belief system
What "belief system"?
moo
Cardinal Chunder
> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:dmo43...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Martin Swain wrote:
>>> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>>>> Martin Swain wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cardinal Chunder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Scamming rubes
>>>>>
>>>>> Call it what you want, if they're his customers, they're happy
>>>>> and he is happy, then as far as I can see it's none of your
>>>>> damn business.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks I'll call it what it is. Scamming rubes. As for being my business
>>>> or not, does that mean I should state my opinion in a group designed for
>>>> such things.
>>> By which you mean, toe the party line with your skeptic pals?
>> What you call "toeing" the party line is called by thinking critically by
>> everyone else.
>
> Everyone except the rubes and the hustlers right?
Yes, correct. And the deluded of course.
> F.Y.I. The fundamental principle of groups is exclusion. i.e. 'everyone
> else'
No it isn't. Groups can mean lots of things - companionship, solidarity,
or merely something to do on a weekend. Not that being able to use your
head means you're a member of some group except in a statistical sense.
Perhaps you think that there is a skeptic cabal out to get you?
>>>>> Evangelise much, fundy?
>>>>
>>>> Meaning?
>>> That by sticking your opinion in other people's business,
>> This is a public discussion forum Mr Moron. If you don't like what you
>> hear, I suggest you set up your own moderated private mailing list.
>
> Name calling isn't exactly rational behaviour there, sunshine.
>
You called me a fundy, supplied a lame reason for doing so and I called
you a moron. What's your point?
>>> you are seizing the opportunity to evangalise your religion.
>> I'm sad to be the one to have to break it to you, but thinking rationally
>> isn't a religion.
>
> You're not sad. You're lying about that, aren't you?
Don't be ludicrous. Thinking straight isn't a religion.
> Just so you know, it is a religion the way you guys do it.
> 'Thinking rationally", heh. If you were to actually think about
> what that means, you would start to understand what I am telling
> you. Thinking *is* rationality, so why the extra qualifier? Because
> you are actually not talking about *thinking*, but rather you are
> making a reference to a set of beliefs (opinions if you prefer), that are
> requisites for membership in your group.
Thinking is rationality? So am I rational if I think that God is telling
me to go out and kill women? Am I rational if I think I see patterns and
significance in meaningless random things? Am I rational when I claim
supernatural powers but these powers mysteriously fail whenever anybody
else asks to see them demonstrated?
> Notice also that by stipulating 'rationally', you are implying that
> people who do not conform to your belief system do not think,
> which, while it is a great lever for group bonding via the exclusion
> principle, is blantantly false. People certainly do think, & if you attempt
> to proceed through life on any other premise you will be doing
> yourself a vast disservice.
It's not a belief system. It is the antithesis of belief.
Cardinal Chunder
> I must protest strongly against this Cardinal upstart and his dreadful
> language. It is most unbecoming of a supposed Cardinal and I am afraid
> that his Holiness the Pope will be most displeased when he is informed
> about it.
>
> As a psychic reverend myself and holy man of the cloth I must say how
> much I disapprove of his profanity. I have always thought that if a
> person cannot put his point across without bad language he has already
> lost the argument.
What's wrong with swearing?
> The chap is obviously young and a member of the British lower classes.
> I see an awful psychic vision of him as we speak. Regrettably nature
> has not been kind to him. I shall pray for him since I rather think he
> needs it.
Wrong.
> But to his silly little argument which we psychic people can easily see
> through. First the cheque is NOT held by a "neutral" person. It is held
> by a person of Randi's choosing although he and you will of course will
> deny it. Second this person does NOT have the authority to give the
> cheque over on his own volition and judgement. He will only give it
> over if the bearded one tells him to give it over. And of course he
> won't even if the psychic brings back Randi's grandmother. Or Harry
> Smith.
Bollocks. Read the rules.
> Who is Harry Smith? Oh he's just someone that knew Randi when he was
> younger. In my capacity as a medium I have been in touch with him in
> the spirit world and he informs me that he was quite pleased that Randi
> came to his funeral in the late seventies. He does apologise that he
> will not be able to return the favour when the time comes.
In your capacity as a medium, you are either deluded or simply lying.
Either way its more bollocks.
> Now as to the various psychics that I know who have been foolish enough
> to waste their time trying to win money from the old fraud. This rather
> silly young Cardinal fellow is requesting examples of them winning but
> not being paid out despite the fact that the information they produced
> was self evident.
>
> I am sorry. His request is denied. I am too busy and important a person
> to go into the full details. Besides it is self evident who they are.
> Or at least as self evident as the self evidence required to win the
> prize which is obviously and self evidently non existent. There. I do
> hope that was self evident.
"I have no proof" is so much more succinct than your two paragraph rant
don't you think?
> And please do not contradict me when I say that if the correct objects
> in the box are identified the psychic will get nothing. He will NOT get
> a million dollars. Randi will come out with some baloney so that he can
> get out of it. Wouldn't you? I know I bloody would.
Bollocks. The rules are very clear, you either do what you claim to do
in the self evident manner agreed or you don't.
> It might be a bit embarrasing for the bearded one but better a little
> embarrasment now at not giving up the money than losing a million
> dollars.
> This rather rude young man with the bad language seems to put forward
> the arrogant proposition that a judge is not required.I do not approve
> of arrogance and I must admonish him severely for it.
A judge isn't required whether you like it or not. I think now that
you're just pissed that with no human to blame for failure you're
"talents" must be self-evident.
> A judge IS required. I am MARK LEWIS and I require it. If there is no
> NEUTRAL judge then the definition of "self evident" becomes a little
> more flexible and dare I say it less self evident.
Egomania noted.
In response the world says "Mark Lewis who?". A few internet savvy
voices say "there is kook on Usenet called Mark Lewis, perhaps it's
him". The world responds, "meh".
> Now do try harder. There's a good boy. And please moderate your
> language. There are children here.
I'll swear when and where I'll like if its all the same to you.
mar...@sympatico.ca
have led a very sheltered life.
If you cannot express yourself in a socially appropriate manner that is
the norm in the very exclusive circles in which I frequent I am afraid
that I cannot deign to communicate with you further.
As a holy man of the cloth and psychic reverend I am most appalled at
the bad language emanating from this awful lower class British person.
(Yes. He is British. I am psychic and know these things.) If he cannot
show respect to men of the cloth then I am afraid that he is not an
appropriate person for someone of my distinction and propriety to
exchange words with.
On the other hand I will be quite happy to discuss these matters with
the rest of the sceptical gentlemen here who at least have the courtesy
to moderate their language on such a distinguished forum like
alt.magic.
I shall finish by addressing this upstart with a message from the Holy
Bible. Go Forth and Multiply and do not use profanity further.
You are now dismissed.
Cardinal Chunder
> It is NOT all the same to me. I do not approve of bad language since I
> have led a very sheltered life.
Well boo hoo.
> If you cannot express yourself in a socially appropriate manner that is
> the norm in the very exclusive circles in which I frequent I am afraid
> that I cannot deign to communicate with you further.
Well boo hoo again. Besides which you're a hypocrite as a brief google
demonstrates.
> As a holy man of the cloth and psychic reverend I am most appalled at
> the bad language emanating from this awful lower class British person.
> (Yes. He is British. I am psychic and know these things.) If he cannot
> show respect to men of the cloth then I am afraid that he is not an
> appropriate person for someone of my distinction and propriety to
> exchange words with.
> On the other hand I will be quite happy to discuss these matters with
> the rest of the sceptical gentlemen here who at least have the courtesy
> to moderate their language on such a distinguished forum like
> alt.magic.
Wrong, and more bollocks from a hypocrite whose sworn in their posts before.
> I shall finish by addressing this upstart with a message from the Holy
> Bible. Go Forth and Multiply and do not use profanity further.
>
> You are now dismissed.
Piss on you hypocrite.
Martin Swain
> Do you agree with this statement:
>
> "People sometimes have incoherent thoughts."
Not really. I can't say my own thoughts are ever incoherent,
at least. They might be weird, but incoherent? I can't say
there's ever been a time when I failed to understand myself.
> or
>
> "People sometimes have crazy thoughts."
I guess I have, occasionally, had some odd thoughts. Very
very seldom though, and never to the extent that I would
label them crazy. At least, not in more than a peripheral
way, which I suppose is the same for almost everyone.
> Are they not "thinking"?
No.
>
>>Notice also that by stipulating 'rationally', you are implying that
>>people who do not conform to your belief system
>
>
> What "belief system"?
Don't ask me, I don't belong to that group and am not familiar
with thier beliefs. I am just noting the behaviour of the individuals
within the group, and drawing attention to similarities that it
has with the group-oriented behaviour of people in certain other
groups, specifically religous adherants. It's not a big deal, don't
take it personally or anything.
mar...@sympatico.ca
truly admonished him for his bad language. However I am afraid that his
boo-hooing will emit no sympathy from me. Let us hope his severe
reprimand will be a lesson to him in future.
I have been informed by Mr Raymond Haddad who owns alt.magic that he
does not appreciate profanity in this distinguished and high class
exclusive forum of the magic world and he naturally appreciates the
fact that I told this awful personage to improve his unseemly
vocabulary.
There once was a lady here known as the Screaming Witch who was quite
mortally offended by all the bad language and she departed this forum
because of this. I cannot allow gentle females like this gentle psychic
lady to be frightened off by awful people and I hope she returns now
that I have decided to make an effort to keep this hallowed forum on
the straight and narrow.
Sceptical people are welcome here providing they remember that there
are lots of high class and intellectually minded participants in alt
magic who would appreciate a higher level of intelligent debate. We are
known for our high intellectual calibre here and visitors should behave
themselves.
Edward Hutchison
"Sceptical people are welcome here providing they remember that there
are lots of high class and intellectually minded participants in alt
magic who would appreciate a higher level of intelligent debate."
I agree. We should all strive for a higher level of ignorance.
Incidentally, I have enjoyed the attempts of others to parse Mark's
comments. But, surely, his humorous rants hardly deserve such critical
attention. It is as though someone watched a Tom and Jerry cartoon and then
felt compelled to write a book to point out all of the logical
inconsistencies and improbable situations contained therein. Mark is just
Mark--a funny guy who usually writes with verve and humor--and is about as
deserving of careful analysis and scrutiny as the next toothpaste
commercial.
--
Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS
Objective reviews of Internet poker sites and a point system
for evaluating poker starting hands: www.ERHutchison.com
104
> Happy Dog wrote:
>
>> Are they not "thinking"?
>
>
> No.
*applause*
104
> I must protest strongly against this Cardinal upstart and his dreadful
> language. It is most unbecoming of a supposed Cardinal and I am afraid
> that his Holiness the Pope will be most displeased when he is informed
> about it.
>
> As a psychic reverend myself and holy man of the cloth I must say how
> much I disapprove of his profanity. I have always thought that if a
> person cannot put his point across without bad language he has already
> lost the argument.
>
> The chap is obviously young and a member of the British lower classes.
And what is your point about the "British lower classes" exactly?
mar...@sympatico.ca
this is because I am the only one who has ever read his books except
for himself and his mother.
I think he should take an opportunity here to plug them. Even TV
programmes stop for a commercial break.
One was a mentalism book which I enjoyed very much despite a bad review
in a magic magazine from someone who did not appreciate the material as
much as I did and the other is a very useful text on hypnosis
especially from a therapy situation.
Edward Hutchison
Alas, you are right about my marketing efforts. They stink.
Since you get around a lot, perhaps I could appoint you the exclusive
distributor of my books in your neighborhood. You could sell them
door-to-door, and if you sell enough you could win a pony.
(I am old enough to recall when the promise of a new bicycle or a pony was
sufficient to get me--and every other kid in my neighborhood--to venture
forth and sell Cloverine brand salve and greeting cards. Naturally, my
sales efforts served only to get my neighbors to quit answering their
doorbells and I remain bicycleless and ponyless til this day.)
--
Edward Hutchison
Madison, MS
kdml...@hotmail.com
mark lewis wrote:
> As for the names of the many, many, many, many psychics who have won the
> prize and been diddled out of it I am afraid that they are too numerous to
> mention. I shall mention one though. His name was Earl Curley. I expect you
> know him. The other was David Hoxton. Another was Jimmy van Moody.
> There was of course the famous and most wonderful medium who has passed away
> herself. Her name was Minnie Moanworthy. Then there was Harold MacGregor.
>
> That should do for now. I am not going to tell you any more. You did say
> that no information except the first and last names were required.
I searched the Challenge Applications forum at randi.org, where all
Challenge applications are posted/mentioned, and did not find any of
those names.
I did a little Googling, and Earl Curley seems to be spreading lies
about Randi molestinglittle boys, or something like that. I saw nothign
about him accepting or winning Randi's Challenge (somethign that would
have been world news if it happened).
If that's the best you can do, I can't be bothered to continue this
discussion. (hint: that's your cue to tell everyone I'm "running away
from the truth" or something.)
Michael Gray
<kdml...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Mark Lewis" is lying. (Again).
Pure and simple.
I wouldn't give this twisted actor the time of day, let alone $1m.
Happy Dog
>> Do you agree with this statement:
>>
>> "People sometimes have incoherent thoughts."
>
> Not really. I can't say my own thoughts are ever incoherent,
> at least. They might be weird, but incoherent? I can't say
> there's ever been a time when I failed to understand myself.
Solipsistic idiot. Crazy people often make perfect sense to themselves.
>
>> or
>>
>> "People sometimes have crazy thoughts."
>
> I guess I have, occasionally, had some odd thoughts. Very
> very seldom though, and never to the extent that I would
> label them crazy. At least, not in more than a peripheral
> way, which I suppose is the same for almost everyone.
>
>> Are they not "thinking"?
>
> No.
What do you call the mental process they are using then?
>
>>
>>>Notice also that by stipulating 'rationally', you are implying that
>>>people who do not conform to your belief system
>>
>>
>> What "belief system"?
>
> Don't ask me, I don't belong to that group and am not familiar
> with thier beliefs. I am just noting the behaviour of the individuals
> within the group, and drawing attention to similarities that it
> has with the group-oriented behaviour of people in certain other
> groups, specifically religous adherants. It's not a big deal, don't
> take it personally or anything.
So you use the term "belief system" to refer to the OP's mindset without
knowing WTF you're talking about?
moo
Happy Dog
news:1133662535....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> mark lewis wrote:
>
>> As for the names of the many, many, many, many psychics who have won the
>> prize and been diddled out of it I am afraid that they are too numerous
>> to
>> mention. I shall mention one though. His name was Earl Curley.
>: Earl Gordon Curley, would be psychic. Serious liar, serious libeler.
>: Randi pretty much jsut gnored him, which was the right choice.
>Cruley
>: was just a mean drunk. Somewhere, Curley drank too much and decided
>to
>: scale up from being a nuisance libeler to being an outright scumbag.
>He
>: did this by accusing Randi of pedophilia. Randi gave Curlkey a
>chance to
>: back down. Curley got sullen and muttered threats. Randi said he
>would
>: come to Toronto (where Curley lived) on other business and asked to
>meet
>: with Curley to resolve the issue. Curley made threats that Randi
>would
>: be arrested the moment he entered Canada. Randi came to Toronto,
>Curley
>: hid under his bed and pissed himself. Randi had enough and filed
>suit.
>: Curley boasted of his upcoming victory against the advice of his
>lawyer
>: and even a court order. Curley's situation looked pretty bad until
>he
>: figured out a foolproof method of getting out of the trial.
>:
>: He died.
>:
>: Reasons unknown, but most speculate health conditions brought on by
>: chronic alchohlism. Its a lesson in decay, Curley started as a
>conherant
>: human being, by the end he was a sloppy libelous nearly homeless
>waste.
- Angelsea
mar...@sympatico.ca
people always do with me.
I see you did the homework as I predicted. I knew you had loads of time
on your hands. You say that you came up blank. Of course I am not
referring to your brains here because I am renowned for my tact and
diplomacy.
However I must say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence. It is a most extraordinary claim to say that MARK LEWIS is
not correct so I must ask you to provide PROOF that you came up blank.
As for Earl he is now in the spirit world but when he was alive he
informed me that he won the Randi prize but the old buzzard was
sensible enough not to pay out.
I have also heard the rumours that you refer to but not from Earl
Curly. In fairness I do not believe them to be true and more
importantly have not seen a scintilla of evidence for them. I think
this is a dastardly thing to say publicly about someone without
definite proof since the mud sticks whether it is true or not.
The old fraud is a fantastic showman and has a wonderful sense of
humour which unfortunately he does not reveal to the public when he is
on TV trying to debunk people and failing miserably. I think he would
do much better if he would show his funny side.
A lot of his supporters show their funny side. Unfortunately it is
funny peculiar rather than funny ha-ha.
mar...@sympatico.ca
minutes to 10am Eastern Time and I shouldn't be wasting my time amusing
myself on here.
Cheerio. I have to go and earn some money by doing very wicked things.
george
104 wrote:
> mar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> > I must protest strongly against this Cardinal upstart and his dreadful
> > language. It is most unbecoming of a supposed Cardinal and I am afraid
> > that his Holiness the Pope will be most displeased when he is informed
> > about it.
> >
> > As a psychic reverend myself and holy man of the cloth I must say how
> > much I disapprove of his profanity. I have always thought that if a
> > person cannot put his point across without bad language he has already
> > lost the argument.
> >
> > The chap is obviously young and a member of the British lower classes.
>
> And what is your point about the "British lower classes" exactly?
He's an envious chinless wonder 10 year old hiding in his bedroom
mar...@sympatico.ca
weather I must say you have obviously never been to Canada in December.
Michael Gray
I judge Mark's mental age to be between 12 and 13.
Seriously.
george
There have been at least 6 others who have posted to the JREF forums in
the same juvenile manner.
Gets boring after a while
Michael Gray
Only 6?
I had gained the impression that it was more than that.
Tom
<mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1133707422.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Have fun storming the castle!
Cardinal Chunder
The weird thing is if you Google up his name you find the arse was
having spouting virtually the same bullshit four years ago.
When he doesn't get his way he starts whining about bad language, and
promptly goes on to endorse someone else who is swearing in virtually
every post.
Simply put, he's a kook and a rather childish one at that.
mar...@sympatico.ca
there my boy. Do not upset yourself.
It might be better not to play out of your league in the future though.
Goodbye once and for all.
george
I'm refering to the under 6 age & IQ posters.
The others at 10 in age & IQ are in comparison practically geniuses
Michael Gray
What I can't fathom is those who appear to worship his every word.
A grammatical analysis suggests that they are real people too, not
mere sock-puppets.
They must be the most gullible people on usenet.
(Dusts off 10 deeds to Brooklyn Bridge, all genuine, of course!)
mar...@sympatico.ca
question on a separate thread entirely. After all this thread is a
little all over the place and a trifle out of sequence.
I have started a thread entitled "The genius of Mark Lewis and the
stupidity of Michael Gray" The answer to your question as to why people
worship my every word will be over there.
However I have not cross posted to the sceptic groups because there are
far too many people over there that require psychiatric treatment. The
thread is on alt.magic only and your name is up in lights.
I hope you are suitably grateful to me for making you famous.
lensman1955
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
> mar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> > It is NOT all the same to me. I do not approve of bad language since I
> > have led a very sheltered life.
>
> Well boo hoo.
>
> > If you cannot express yourself in a socially appropriate manner that is
> > the norm in the very exclusive circles in which I frequent I am afraid
> > that I cannot deign to communicate with you further.
>
> Well boo hoo again. Besides which you're a hypocrite as a brief google
> demonstrates.
Wow. Whereas profanity reminds me of my English teacher who once
observed; "Profanity is the attempt of a weak and feeble mind to
express itself forcefully!" YOU have actually found a legitimate reason
for swearing. It will get Mark Lewis to stop communicating with you!
Me, I just started to ignore him after he acknowledged that he lies to
upset people and rattle their cages!
lensman1955
Think he has a chance?
naebad
Naebad
mar...@sympatico.ca
posted. If you were ignoring me you wouldn't have mentioned me.
Of course I am a very mentionable person. You are most unmentionable.
Now go and wash your unmentionables. You haven't cleaned them for quite
some time.
Tom
"lensman1955" <lensm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1133981494.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It would take a miracle.
104
Where's my answer about the "British lower classes" ?
kdml...@hotmail.com
mar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> However I must say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
> evidence. It is a most extraordinary claim to say that MARK LEWIS is
> not correct so I must ask you to provide PROOF that you came up blank.
People are 'incorrect' all the time. People don't understand things, or
lie about things all the time.
If you claim to be different from everyone else in the world, then THAT
is an extraordinary claim, and YOU need to provide evidence of that.
> As for Earl he is now in the spirit world but when he was alive he
> informed me that he won the Randi prize but the old buzzard was
> sensible enough not to pay out.
So, your best evidence is something a guy who is now dead supposedly
once told you?
And you wonder why people don't beleive you.
> I have also heard the rumours that you refer to but not from Earl
> Curly. In fairness I do not believe them to be true
The fact he made the accusations is well documented.
It's funny that you beleive him when he says he won the Challenge, but
"do not believe [] to be true" his accusations about Randi. Beleiving
only certain pieces of evidence is what we call 'bias'.
> The old fraud is a fantastic showman and has a wonderful sense of
> humour which unfortunately he does not reveal to the public when he is
> on TV trying to debunk people and failing miserably.
Do you mean Randi?
1) Calling people names instead of addressing the real issue is an Ad
Hominem argument. Ad Hominem arguments are often used when someone has
no REAL arguments to use.
2) When has Randi (assuming you mean thim) ever "failed miserably" to
debunk something?
lensm...@hotmail.com
You wanted an answer, from MARK!
A real answer? One someone could be expected to understand?
BWHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks! It's been a rough week and I needed that.
mar...@sympatico.ca
been forced to watch videos of himself performing.
Mike Combs
news:1134015199....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> So, your best evidence is something a guy who is now dead supposedly
> once told you?
A guy who had a well-deserved reputation on Usenet for being deceptive. It
was Earl's invention of a fictitious poster (who was backing him up in his
arguments) which lead to the coining of the now-common online term "sock
puppet" for such a poster.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.
george
Mike Combs wrote:
> <kdml...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134015199....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > So, your best evidence is something a guy who is now dead supposedly
> > once told you?
>
> A guy who had a well-deserved reputation on Usenet for being deceptive. It
> was Earl's invention of a fictitious poster (who was backing him up in his
> arguments) which lead to the coining of the now-common online term "sock
> puppet" for such a poster.
>
This'll take you back Mike.
From: Garrison Hilliard <garr...@efn.org>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic
Subject: Toronto . . . (fwd)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:19:58 -0800
Organization: Oregon Public Networking
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.961209...@garcia.efn.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garcia.efn.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: psy...@globalserve.net
Path:
harold.midland.co.nz!news.hn.netlink.co.nz!news.uoregon.edu!news.efn.org!garcia.efn.org!garrison
Xref: harold.midland.co.nz alt.paranormal:9229 sci.skeptic:48485
Status: N
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 09 Dec 96 14:17:46 EST
From: James Randi (skepti...@vmetze.mrl.uiuc.edu)
Cc: Earl Gordon Curley <psy...@globalserve.net>
Subject: Toronto . . .
To those of you on the list who are bored by "L'Affaire Curley," my
apologies. However, in accordance with my stated agreement, I am
hereby
publicly announcing -- with a copy to Curley -- my availability in the
city of
Toronto.
I will be arriving in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, on Saturday, December
14th,
1996, and staying at the Park Plaza Hotel, at Four Avenue Road. I will
be there
until Tuesday, December the 17th, departing around 1400 hours. This
visit is
for two purposes. First, I'll be meeting with my Canadian lawyers to
plan the
action against Curley, and second, I'll be responding to Curley's
invitation,
made in November. It read:
It's really time to take Randi public where
he's always wanted to be. Randi, come
back to Canada. There are a few people
waiting to talk to you after I supplied them
with the tape . . .
I am asking Curley to contact me and inform me of which of the four
days and at
what time he and these "few people" will be available to meet with me.
This is
official notice that I hereby accept his offer, as stated above.
James Randi.
He hid under his bed until James Randi left
Tom
"Mike Combs" <mike...@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote in message
news:dn9u4l$jd3$1...@home.itg.ti.com...
> <kdml...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1134015199....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> So, your best evidence is something a guy who is now dead supposedly
>> once told you?
>
> A guy who had a well-deserved reputation on Usenet for being deceptive.
> It
> was Earl's invention of a fictitious poster (who was backing him up in his
> arguments) which lead to the coining of the now-common online term "sock
> puppet" for such a poster.
One of the great Usenet pioneers was our Earl, the first documented sock
puppeteer.
Lizz Holmans
wrote:
And as I never tire of pointing out, I'm the only skeptic he ever
asked for a date.
Lizz 'more like a sick puppet' Holmans
--
I was too far out all my life
george
about then :-)
lensm...@hotmail.com
mar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
> I am sorry to hear that poor old Ed had a rough week. I expect he has
> been forced to watch videos of himself performing.
Go play with your Svengali decks, Mark. You know nothing about me or my
life and yet you admitted to making up lies to "rattle my chain." Well,
it's rattled. Go to Hell and stay there!
Mike Combs
news:1134072263.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> This'll take you back Mike.
Ah, memories!
mark lewis
I have always wondered what drove poor old Earl to drink.
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b7jhp1dvga6hojors...@4ax.com...
mark lewis
invitation. If you cannot stand the heat then do not enter the thread
kitchen.
I CAN stand the heat. I don't have to "go to hell" as you term it.
I am the devil. I actually live there.
<lensm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134121851.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
104
> You were the one who entered this thread to talk about me without a formal
> invitation. If you cannot stand the heat then do not enter the thread
> kitchen.
>
> I CAN stand the heat. I don't have to "go to hell" as you term it.
>
> I am the devil. I actually live there.
Dear Mr Devil (I won't call you God cuz no-one would be there to
understand), what about the "British Lower Classes" did your earlier
comment in this thread mean?
lensm...@hotmail.com
mark lewis wrote:
> You were the one who entered this thread to talk about me without a formal
> invitation. If you cannot stand the heat then do not enter the thread
> kitchen.
This is usenet. We don't need no stinkin' invitations! You don't like
that? Go to e-mail.
> I CAN stand the heat. I don't have to "go to hell" as you term it.
Maybe not, but they're preparing a creche for you anyway!
Hey! Dante's Inferno fans (Or people like me who had to read the
"popularized" version by Larry Niven) Think about the circles of Hell
and how they separate the sinners into different ones. Where would Mark
go?
> I am the devil. I actually live there.
You're not that important. And if you were, that would be one of the
most horrible places in Dante's book to be. (I'll leave you to dig up
Dante's (or even Niven's) volumes to find out why!)
Michael Gray
>
>mark lewis wrote:
>> You were the one who entered this thread to talk about me without a formal
>> invitation. If you cannot stand the heat then do not enter the thread
>> kitchen.
>
>This is usenet. We don't need no stinkin' invitations! You don't like
>that? Go to e-mail.
>
>> I CAN stand the heat. I don't have to "go to hell" as you term it.
>
>Maybe not, but they're preparing a creche for you anyway!
>
>Hey! Dante's Inferno fans (Or people like me who had to read the
>"popularized" version by Larry Niven) Think about the circles of Hell
>and how they separate the sinners into different ones. Where would Mark
>go?
Beelzebub's kindergarten, for an eternity.
mar...@sympatico.ca
trifle pretentious you know.
As for Randi failing miserably I shall merely mention the name Rosemary
Altea. She outwitted him badly and ran rings around him on the Larry
King show. I also got great amusement the time Doris Stokes sent him
off with a flea in his ear when he phoned into a radio programme she
was on.
lensm...@hotmail.com
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/lkl.00.html
I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing her cold reading and making general
comments. ("I see a man in a uniform..." I mean really! Who hasn't been
in a uniform at some point in their lives?)
And then ducking and weaving at the idea of actually having to agree to
the test.
Randi refused to commit himself on the specifics of the test on live
television. And that's fine in my opinion because the actual specifics
had to be hammered out. But she wouldn't even say; "Yes, work out what
you want me to do and I'll tell you if I can do it!"
By the way; here are my predictions; The sun will come up tomorrow,
there will be unsettled weather somewhere in the United States. Wow!
I'm a hundred precent! Give me the million!
Alan Morgan
<mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Please do not speak Latin, there's a good chap. It does make you look a
>trifle pretentious you know.
>
>As for Randi failing miserably I shall merely mention the name Rosemary
>Altea. She outwitted him badly and ran rings around him on the Larry
>King show.
I don't see that from the transcript (link elsewhere in this thread).
Admittedly, the two rosebushes rather than one is interesting, but
coming up with a thin person of unknown height with chest/breathing
problems when told that a caller's father died is a big zero in my book.
Altea's second prediction (someone being in hospital before they died
and something to do with a house) is sufficiently vague that it would
apply to many people (note that the caller brings in two different
family members to fit the pieces). I can make this prediction apply
to me as well as the caller could.
The tall person in uniform who was wearing a hat with a leg injury
sorta fit the father and sorta fit the great-grandfather and the
caller was perfectly happy with that. Again, I can make this prediction
apply to me as well as the caller could.
I do that that Randi could have been more direct about the sort
of confidence level he requires before he would give out the
money. He looked like he was waffling there. However, Altea did
*not* run rings around him.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Cyli
>
>mar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
>> Please do not speak Latin, there's a good chap. It does make you look a
>> trifle pretentious you know.
>>
>> As for Randi failing miserably I shall merely mention the name Rosemary
>> Altea. She outwitted him badly and ran rings around him on the Larry
>> King show. I also got great amusement the time Doris Stokes sent him
>> off with a flea in his ear when he phoned into a radio programme she
>> was on.
>
>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/lkl.00.html
>
>
>I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing her cold reading and making general
>comments. ("I see a man in a uniform..." I mean really! Who hasn't been
>in a uniform at some point in their lives?)
>
>And then ducking and weaving at the idea of actually having to agree to
>the test.
>
>Randi refused to commit himself on the specifics of the test on live
>television. And that's fine in my opinion because the actual specifics
>had to be hammered out. But she wouldn't even say; "Yes, work out what
>you want me to do and I'll tell you if I can do it!"
She couldn't. He'd already pointed out how she does what she does.
She'd know she couldn't pass a real test. A real test would ask for
names, dates, exact relationships and corroborating evidence of all
kinds.
>By the way; here are my predictions; The sun will come up tomorrow,
>there will be unsettled weather somewhere in the United States. Wow!
>I'm a hundred precent! Give me the million!
I think she's one of the sincere, rather than a charlatan, but it's
sooo easy to delude yourself on this stuff. And when you're doing
something psychic (or attempting it) for someone, they're all too
willing to not only believe, but to add back reality into it if it's a
predication.
A year after a tarot reading about getting a boyfriend, for instance,
someone will come back and tell the reader how right they were, when
all the reader said was that there would be some troubles when a
relationship was found. And it turns out that the guy's got a couple
of ex-wives, a few children, a jail record, a cocaine habit, and....
Which I would have regarded as more worthy of a warning to keep away
from men for a year.
If one of the cards was the Sun reversed, which in the Waite deck is a
child on horseback, they'll remember that and think the reader
predicted that one of his kids tried to stab her with a steak knife or
that she had a miscarriage or whatever, even if the reader never said
a word about kids. But they'll think he or she did.
I think the best proof that either there is nothing after death or
that the dead don't really want to communicate to the living is the
old Houdini challenge. His estate had $50,000.00 (a huge sum for the
day) tucked away in trust for anyone who could get a certain message
through to his wife. He seems to have really wanted to believe in an
afterlife. She maintained the trust for decades (until the specified
date passed) and then gave the message to the public. No psychic had
ever come close to it. And it wasn't that she wanted to prove the
opposite, especially at first.
Cyli
r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels.
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli
email: cyl...@gmail.com.invalid (strip the .invalid to email)
Michael Gray
wrote:
Doris Stokes?
Sincere??!?!?!?!?!?!????
That's the best laugh I've had all day!
My, you are naíve...
lensm...@hotmail.com
Alan Morgan wrote:
> In article <1134283227.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <mar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Please do not speak Latin, there's a good chap. It does make you look a
> >trifle pretentious you know.
> >
> >As for Randi failing miserably I shall merely mention the name Rosemary
> >Altea. She outwitted him badly and ran rings around him on the Larry
> >King show.
>
> I don't see that from the transcript (link elsewhere in this thread).
> Admittedly, the two rosebushes rather than one is interesting, but
> coming up with a thin person of unknown height with chest/breathing
> problems when told that a caller's father died is a big zero in my book.
Not to mention the fact that she gives herself a perfect out. She says
she might not be talking to the father, it might be an uncle or cousin
or such. Thus, if the woman's father HADN'T been thin with a breathing
problem, she could have claimed it was a near relative and wait for the
person to say; "Well, my Uncle Bob was pretty thin..."