Very New and need to know.
- Thread starter thatmexdude
- Start date
actually i cant fukin stand the man....always grabbing peple by the hand and patronizing people to be 'positive'shaman_ said:
you want me to say yes, and then throw moree skeptical stuff at me...my cynical side tells me, no?
i am moreinterested in two scientists Randi lied against.....tell one fib, more follows. after all, old Randi's got a reputation to keep up, AND dont want to be givin away no dosh
oh maaaan, yer soo naive, seriously...like oh NO your precious randi, why he'd NEVERlie would he, to back up his mission to totaly debunk ALL ever reports of any 'anamolous' activty....? get real dude. cant you see it??shaman_ said:
of course thre will be charlatans to be exposed. fine. agreed. but old Randi writes off ALL. even offering 1million smackers to prove his religion. of bleedin course this dude is off on one, and will most certainly corrupt dATA to push his agenda. if yo cant see this ...well, sorry fo you
duendy said:
Duendy you think you are able to tell if someone is lying by watching them. Which one of us is naive?
I asked you to point out where he lied. You did not do this. All you have done is found a web page where someone says something negative about James Randi. You desperately cling to this because if you can discredit Randi you therefore prove that psychic powers are more likely to exist. That isn't a logical train of thought but then again you are not a logical person. You seem to be emotional and artistic but not logical.
Ah so you are saying Randi has rigged the tests?duendy said:
It seems readily apparent that woo-woo's (the mystery-mongers and significance junkies) hate James Randi because her rubs their collective faces in the excrement of nonsense that those who make wild and unfounded claims about the paranormal spout.
I've yet to read an attack on Randi that has any actual supporting fact or criticism that can actually be demonstrated. The only real criticism that woo-woo's can level at Randi is that he doesn't believe their nonsense.
Then you have the woo-woo's quick post links to anti-Randi diatribes, but rarely do you have a woo-woo with the guts to actually comment on any specific points. Its as if it is good enough to them that someone else said "Randi is full of shit" and therefore it must be so and simply linking to it is evidence enough. But then, this is the failing of the woo-woo crowd to begin with. They believe without seeing any evidence or applying critical thought.
Perhaps Randi is wrong. I would argue that if that is the case, he is right far more times though, again, I've yet to see a valid criticism of him. And we're left with woo-woo's who haven't the courage to quote significant passages from a link to discuss.
The bottom line: Randi exposes the scams that the so-called psychics and proponents of ESP and the like cite as factual and even charge money for "seminars" and "classes." Randi has a million dollar challenge that NO ONE has been able to take him up on. Rather than try to meet the rigors of the test, the woo-woo's whine and cry that he renigs. They want the standard to be reduced to meet their lies rather than demonstrate their claims meet the challenge. Either they have the power or they don't.
If you claim you have ESP, precognition, telekinesis, remote viewing ability, or any of that other poppycock you have to provide the evidence of your claim -otherwise you are a liar. Its as simple as that.
I've yet to read an attack on Randi that has any actual supporting fact or criticism that can actually be demonstrated. The only real criticism that woo-woo's can level at Randi is that he doesn't believe their nonsense.
Then you have the woo-woo's quick post links to anti-Randi diatribes, but rarely do you have a woo-woo with the guts to actually comment on any specific points. Its as if it is good enough to them that someone else said "Randi is full of shit" and therefore it must be so and simply linking to it is evidence enough. But then, this is the failing of the woo-woo crowd to begin with. They believe without seeing any evidence or applying critical thought.
Perhaps Randi is wrong. I would argue that if that is the case, he is right far more times though, again, I've yet to see a valid criticism of him. And we're left with woo-woo's who haven't the courage to quote significant passages from a link to discuss.
The bottom line: Randi exposes the scams that the so-called psychics and proponents of ESP and the like cite as factual and even charge money for "seminars" and "classes." Randi has a million dollar challenge that NO ONE has been able to take him up on. Rather than try to meet the rigors of the test, the woo-woo's whine and cry that he renigs. They want the standard to be reduced to meet their lies rather than demonstrate their claims meet the challenge. Either they have the power or they don't.
If you claim you have ESP, precognition, telekinesis, remote viewing ability, or any of that other poppycock you have to provide the evidence of your claim -otherwise you are a liar. Its as simple as that.
I'm not saying that you did. I am responding to the comment that I am naive. You seem to believe in everything that is paranormal or anti-science and find it hard to believe that someone could lie or make a mistake regarding an experience. Yes there are small body language give aways but I think you underestimate how good people are at lying. Anyway my point was that I think the pot was calling the kettle black. Not important.duendy said:
I suspect that you didn't even read the whole article. You just thought that you found something that validated your preconcieved notions regarding Randi.duendy said:
I generally don't post I link unless I am prepared to discuss what it says.duendy said:
Randi exposes the deluded and the fraudulent and he done a very good job doing so. If you are a real psychic then you have nothing to fear from Mr Randi. In fact he would be very excited to meet you. Of course, one has not has not surfaced yet....duendy said:
Like many believers you are trying very hard to twist this to make Randi look like an evil fanatic out to smear the name of innocent people or something. Doing this helps you explain away why no one has passed the test yet.
Of course he is. That's why he can pick the frauds.duendy said:
But that is not what I asked. Are you saying he has rigged the tests?
Read the previous post by skinwalker. ..twice.
Last edited:
no, i dont have to read twice and meticulously study what either one of you--you or Skin, says. justa glance over both your posts is much of a muchness. an accusatory attitude which totally discounts its own ineptitude regarding examining evidence etc.......you Skin for example make out you know every 'expose' Randi has ever done......yeah sure kid, dont try to kid a a kidder. you just look up to him like some kinda guru which proves toyou your delusion about the primacy of materialistic science....THAT
again and again i sayshit, and neithere on of yus listens. whats that way to me? that boooy i bet they can really invesigate evidence etc? NO. it shows you neither listen nor care.
so...thanklessly--cause feel you wont hear me again--i repeat.
i have no doubt that Randi has exposed charlatans. i have seen it myself. i say a docu about the Indian guru Sai Baba, who many Hindus believe is like a god. and we could see him doing magic tricks, swift of hand etc. he gies ashes to te poor and jewels to the rich...that shoulda been a hint!
so, dont put me down as some alround gullible. i admit when somethin is phony. riiiiight? got that?
but YOU lot. no. you are quite prepared to believe old Randy has and singlehandedly discounted all known --implying for ever in the past--'paranormal events' abduction experiences, etc. nowhere do you say or admit that he cold be wrong, or that any experience reported could be true, tho you dont understand it. ie., showing a humility befpre the unknown. tis shows your utter immaturity and amateurishness.....
you aint te only skeptics i have met you know. true skeptics aren't lik Randi and PSYCOP and yous, the real skeptic is asking QUESTIONS. not concluding and calling people--some they have never heard--taken the time tolisten to/know---LIARS
you'll are like a granite wall of knowyness and smugness. this is constructive criticism. take it or leave it
again and again i sayshit, and neithere on of yus listens. whats that way to me? that boooy i bet they can really invesigate evidence etc? NO. it shows you neither listen nor care.
so...thanklessly--cause feel you wont hear me again--i repeat.
i have no doubt that Randi has exposed charlatans. i have seen it myself. i say a docu about the Indian guru Sai Baba, who many Hindus believe is like a god. and we could see him doing magic tricks, swift of hand etc. he gies ashes to te poor and jewels to the rich...that shoulda been a hint!
so, dont put me down as some alround gullible. i admit when somethin is phony. riiiiight? got that?
but YOU lot. no. you are quite prepared to believe old Randy has and singlehandedly discounted all known --implying for ever in the past--'paranormal events' abduction experiences, etc. nowhere do you say or admit that he cold be wrong, or that any experience reported could be true, tho you dont understand it. ie., showing a humility befpre the unknown. tis shows your utter immaturity and amateurishness.....
you aint te only skeptics i have met you know. true skeptics aren't lik Randi and PSYCOP and yous, the real skeptic is asking QUESTIONS. not concluding and calling people--some they have never heard--taken the time tolisten to/know---LIARS
you'll are like a granite wall of knowyness and smugness. this is constructive criticism. take it or leave it
duendy said:
Sorry if I gave you the impression that I've read all Randi has written, etc. I've only read a few of his articles and one of his books. What I was saying is that I've yet to see a criticism of Randi that holds up.
Woo-woo's offer up many, but all I've seen had major flaws. If you want to discuss the fine points of a critique of Randi (or any other skeptic), I'd be happy to participate.
But if you are simply a cowardly, woo-woo or lying claimant of "special abilities," you can resort to just leaving undiscussed links and making pejorative comments.
duendy said:
Of course he could be wrong. I've just yet to see it. I've read a lot of criticisms of Randi et al, but none demonstrate successfully that he was wrong or dishonest. Moreover, I've no misconceptions about Randi "singlehandedly discounting" the paranormal. Indeed, his challenge is an invitation for the paranormal to come to him to demonstrate singlehandedly that it is true. This has yet to occur. Instead, the woo-woo crowd bitches and cries that his challenge is unfair. Unfair? Why? Because he demands that the test be under controlled conditions? That's how science is done you silly git (see, I speak a little Brit
)duendy said:
I'm calling anyone who claims they have paranormal "powers" (psi, telekinesis, precognition, teleportation, etc) liars if they refuse to offer evidence. Some might be unintentional liars, in that they truly believe they have these "gifts," but liars nonetheless. Randi and the people who are members of CSICOP are, indeed, true skeptics. Woo-woo's like to make the statements that imply "true skeptics believe silly shit like ESP" without evidence, but I'll contend that Randi and CSICOP members (as well as other criticized skeptics) do ask questions. The problem is, the question very often offends the claimant. Like: "where's the evidence?"
Where's the evidence? If you can't produce it, you are a liar if you make the claim. Don't be a liar, and repeat claims for which you have no evidence. My statement here is provocative and intentionally so. I think we deserve not to have a science board, even in the pseudoscience sub-forums, overrun by woo-woo's and kids saying, "is my dream a preminition(sic)?" Or, "I have this gift I didn't ask for... blah, blah, blah."
If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you should have some extraordinary, or at least some prosaic, evidence for us to examine. An anecdote isn't good enough.
Last edited:
Yet another woo-woo posts a link without discussion.
It would be interesting to see one of these many woo-woo's, for a change, act as though they have minds of their own. Are you capable of actually extracting one or two of the key points at that woo-woo site which are worth discussing. The points that demonstrate that, indeed, a "pseudo-skeptic cult" exists.
Bear in mind, that you'll have to demonstrate two things: 1) that the members of CSICOP aren't actually skeptics (hence the word 'pseudo,' or 'fake'), and 2) that a cult is established. I should think that the latter would be easier than the former and I could conditionally agree given an appropriate definition of the word "cult," but you will need to bear in mind that will include EVERY SINGLE WOO-WOO and then some.
It would be interesting to see one of these many woo-woo's, for a change, act as though they have minds of their own. Are you capable of actually extracting one or two of the key points at that woo-woo site which are worth discussing. The points that demonstrate that, indeed, a "pseudo-skeptic cult" exists.
Bear in mind, that you'll have to demonstrate two things: 1) that the members of CSICOP aren't actually skeptics (hence the word 'pseudo,' or 'fake'), and 2) that a cult is established. I should think that the latter would be easier than the former and I could conditionally agree given an appropriate definition of the word "cult," but you will need to bear in mind that will include EVERY SINGLE WOO-WOO and then some.
SkinWalker said:
well well
let all things have a logical progression ja?
let those who first claim without substantiation begin
demonstrate to me that the members of csicops are "true sceptics"
define terms if you have to
ps: this outta keep you busy for the rest of your agenda ridden and dishonest life
Last edited:
so ahh
why did truzzi defect from the church?
Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers.(truzzi)
why did truzzi defect from the church?
Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers.(truzzi)
the church of csicop - an overview
After the true skeptics had been purged from the committee, CSICOP and its magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, degenerated into little more than a propaganda outlet for the systematic ridicule of anything unconventional. Led by a small, but highly aggressive group of fundamentalist pseudoskeptics such as chairman and humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz, science writer and magician Martin Gardner and magician James Randi, CSICOP sees science not as a dispassionate, objective search for the truth, whatever it might be, but as holy war of the ideology of materialism against "a rising tide of irrationality, superstition and nonsense".
Kurtz and his fellows are fundamentalist materialists. They hold the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as an article of faith, and they cling to that belief just as fervently and irrationally as a devout catholic believes in the Virgin Mary. They are fighting a no holds barred war against belief in the paranormal, and they see genuine research into such matters as a mortal threat to their belief system. Since genuine scientific study has the danger that the desired outcome is not guaranteed, CSICOP wisely no longer conducts scientific research of its own (such would be a waste of time and money for an entity that already has all the answers), and instead largely relies on the misrepresentation or intentional omission of existing research and the ad-hominem - smear, slander and ridicule. (borner)
and this is what our resident pseudo skeptic skinwalker, puts on a pedestal and prostrates himself to so abjectly and with such fanatical devotion
"true skeptics!"
yeah, find another sucker to peddle your irrational beliefs to
After the true skeptics had been purged from the committee, CSICOP and its magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, degenerated into little more than a propaganda outlet for the systematic ridicule of anything unconventional. Led by a small, but highly aggressive group of fundamentalist pseudoskeptics such as chairman and humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz, science writer and magician Martin Gardner and magician James Randi, CSICOP sees science not as a dispassionate, objective search for the truth, whatever it might be, but as holy war of the ideology of materialism against "a rising tide of irrationality, superstition and nonsense".
Kurtz and his fellows are fundamentalist materialists. They hold the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as an article of faith, and they cling to that belief just as fervently and irrationally as a devout catholic believes in the Virgin Mary. They are fighting a no holds barred war against belief in the paranormal, and they see genuine research into such matters as a mortal threat to their belief system. Since genuine scientific study has the danger that the desired outcome is not guaranteed, CSICOP wisely no longer conducts scientific research of its own (such would be a waste of time and money for an entity that already has all the answers), and instead largely relies on the misrepresentation or intentional omission of existing research and the ad-hominem - smear, slander and ridicule. (borner)
and this is what our resident pseudo skeptic skinwalker, puts on a pedestal and prostrates himself to so abjectly and with such fanatical devotion
"true skeptics!"
yeah, find another sucker to peddle your irrational beliefs to