Bioelectromagnetics

[Ed]

As an aside, would the tall chap in the back go by the name of Lucianarchy? Something about the gleam in the eye made me wonder.

 

[cbish]

Again from the challenge page:

This challenge was first thrown down in 1999. We have had not one single person daring to take it up and thereby win a thousand pounds.

You're kidding!! In all this time, not one person willing to sacrifice their newborn child??? Incredible! Don't people understand this is science? It must be part of the vast conspiracy to suppress some forms of research.

Write to me or E-mail me in the usual way to enter. Entrants must agree that we will let visitors to our website know the results of this trial, with the outcome verified by the coroner or doctor attending the infant.

You may want to include local law enforcement. Maybe Child Protecitive Services. I'm sure they'd be interested.


From your staff philosophy:

We don't judge intelligence by the length of someone's hair,

nor brilliance by the letters after their name.

Nor do a bunch of people wearing white lab coats make up a research team.

 

[BillHoyt]

In regards to the Coghill challenge.

http://www.cogreslab.co.uk/



WHOA!!!!!

Ummm....other than some ethical concerns, why would a human infant have to be used. Why not another mammal?

You're getting there, but I don't you have the full picture needed to give you the moral outrage you should have. [urlrogbot] claims to believe that the infant will die under these conditions. He is betting it will die. Now apart from the fact that rogbot is full of donkey dong, he believes it, and under his version of the facts, the infant will die.

So, either rogbot is, shall we say, quite a bit less than convinced about these deadly power lines (and therefore, shall we say, prevaricates quite a bit) or he is despicable and morally bankrupt. Neither interpretation is charitable. I have asked rogbot to respond to this interpretation of his challenge by presenting a reasonable third possibility. I keep hearing crickets.

 

[CFLarsen]

As we have seen, Roger Coghill does not want to take responsibility for endangering the life of an infant. No, it's the evil power companies' responsibility!

Hey, Roger is just doing good here, by being prepared to put a child's life at stake, only to prove himself right.

Anything for science, right?

 

[BillHoyt]

My Challenge: I stand by the challenge. In a scenario where one party (The NRPB) is saying something is safe to expose infants to, and another party (myself) says it is a life threatening hazard to these infants, who is the guilty party? The NRPB is letting these infants become exposed to high E-fields all the time, not me.

rogbot,

Do you or don't you believe the infant will die or be seriously harmed? Do you or don't you? Yes or no.

 

[BillHoyt]

rogbot,

Do you or don't you believe the infant will die or be seriously harmed? Do you or don't you? Yes or no.

 

[Cleopatra]

I don't know what makes you believe Bill that if you insult this man you will make him reply to your question.

 

[BillHoyt]

I don't know what makes you believe Bill that if you insult this man you will make him reply to your question.

I don't know what makes you believe I want him to reply. I already know the answer. I want him to know the answer. I want others to know the answer. The answer is perfectly clear:

o If he believes the power lines will be harmful, his challenge is a moral outrage.

o If he doesn't believe the power lines will be harmful, his constant claims of harm are a moral outrage.

Do you see a way out of rogbot's problem here? He clearly doesn't, and clearly won't answer because he can't. His challenge either exposes his lies or his moral bankruptcy.

I welcome anybody's rational explanation of how this is not so.

 

[Cleopatra]

Do you see a way out of rogbot's problem here? He clearly doesn't, and clearly won't answer because he can't. His challenge either exposes his lies or his moral bankruptcy.

I welcome anybody's rational explanation of how this is not so.

I suspect the answer as well-- I am not qualified to suggest that I know the answer. Also, I have noticed that he tries to move the discussion here and disassociate himself from the woo-woo crystal he promotes although his lab sells equally woo-woo objects. I mean you don't need to be a scientist to know once you see Atlantis mentioned.

But it's exactly those observations that gives us the luxury to be gentle and polite. I guess we will never agree on that. Oh well.

 

[BillHoyt]

I suspect the answer as well-- I am not qualified to suggest that I know the answer. Also, I have noticed that he tries to move the discussion here and disassociate himself from the woo-woo crystal he promotes although his lab sells equally woo-woo objects. I mean you don't need to be a scientist to know once you see Atlantis mentioned.

But it's exactly those observations that gives us the luxury to be gentle and polite. I guess we will never agree on that. Oh well.

Cleopatra,

There are no qualifications involved in these questions at all. It is basic logic. Either rogbot believes the infants will come to harm or he doesn't. If he doesn't believe it, then why is he making a living telling everybody about the dire harm? That is no longer a question of being mistaken or of being delusional. That is outright lying. He knows the truth and is advocating its opposite. But, if he does believe in the harm, then he is inciting people to bring harm to innocents.

This issue is abundantly clear, cleopatra, and does not rest on the issue of whether or not there is actual harm.

BTW, I began calling rogbot rogbot after he idiotically reponded to my post with links to pictures of birds and animals perched on power lines. His knee-jerk, bot-like reply? "Did these studies also take into account the fact that real estate that lies under power lines tends to be lower-cost, available to lower-income families?" They were pictures of birds, owls and squirrels perched on power lines. I invite you to go back and read that pivotal exchange to understand why I will forevermore refer to him as rogbot.

 

[Ed]

Is there something in the water lately? If a kid would die exposed to this stuff you know damn right well a gerbil would or a cat or a dog or a fish. So do the damn experiment and stop yanking the weiner.

Short of documented dead critters I dub this discussion BS.

 

[Ed]

So why not use an animal subject? Or a consenting adult?

Another million dollar winner folks, step right up.

ed: 7:33 AM
Geni: 7:34 AM

Clearly paranormal. Geni is attuned to my vibrations. This is as good a proof as Lufi, for example, accepts for a variety of things.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Re: Rogbot

Originally posted by BillHoyt [/i]


Hi Bill - I feel that you should go by the name of Crapping Idiot as you seem to spew out a lot of s--- and make up idiotic names which are meant to humiliate your target. There are other ways of getting your point across you know, other than the classic bullying stance you have taken.

I could recommend some good therapists to help you over your problems if you like.

FYI, Lil'Bill uses terms like 'credophile', oblivious as to what that makes him. lol!

 

[Lucianarchy]

It got appealed to me, and I have to confess, I don't see where anything other than foolish joking around has occured. Roger, I wouldn't take offense, and I wouldn't take the joking seriously. But then, maybe there's a cultural jab in there we Americans don't get. At any rate, cultural jabs aren't against the rules, although we would like civil discourse.
Roger, why don't you continue with your discussion and ignore the "chatter".

Roger, don't bother to play their 'game'. Linda told me to "chill out" when someone here called me a 'child molestor', presumably as part of their educational, rational, critical thought process.

 

[CFLarsen]

Roger, don't bother to play their 'game'. Linda told me to "chill out" when someone here called me a 'child molestor', presumably as part of their educational, rational, critical thought process.

Who called you a "child molestor"? Evidence, please?

 

[Lucianarchy]

Roger. Your site raises some important issues. Are you aware of Dr Puhariach(sp?)'s anti ELF work, particularly a 'watch', which I believe is on sale now.

Your challenge makes a serious point. Trouble is, you could actualy get some nut who would want to put a child at risk like that. Kudos to not using animals though.

 

[Ed]

Your challenge makes a serious point. Trouble is, you could actualy get some nut who would want to put a child at risk like that. Kudos to not using animals though.

What the hell does that mean?
So what does one use, a watermelon?

Do you believe in the power of prayer? If not, why not? Not very good at responding to direct questions, are you?

 

[Cleopatra]

BTW, I began calling rogbot rogbot after he idiotically reponded to my post with links to pictures of birds and animals perched on power lines. His knee-jerk, bot-like reply? "Did these studies also take into account the fact that real estate that lies under power lines tends to be lower-cost, available to lower-income families?" They were pictures of birds, owls and squirrels perched on power lines. I invite you to go back and read that pivotal exchange to understand why I will forevermore refer to him as rogbot.

I admit that Mr. Coghill's replies are equally offensive to a common person's( like me)intelligence. This is noted and I admit that it makes me tad angry because the more I read what Mr. Coghill posts the more I realize that he is a clever person and he cannot possibly believe those things. This touch of Atlantis that I discovered last night in his site made me wonder if he has a target group he wishes to appeal to.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Cleopatra: Do you have a soft spot for polite and eloquent males? (Fine with me, I'm one of them, if I want to ). Mr. Coghill is a woowoo by any definition. except that he might be a fraud, meaning that he knows he is cheating, but is doing it for money. If you can't see the signs, say so, and I'll list them for you.

Hans

 

[CFLarsen]

Cleopatra: Do you have a soft spot for polite and eloquent males? (Fine with me, I'm one of them, if I want to ). Mr. Coghill is a woowoo by any definition. except that he might be a fraud, meaning that he knows he is cheating, but is doing it for money. If you can't see the signs, say so, and I'll list them for you.

Hans

I like lists. Let's see it.