Interesting JE Hits....

I guess you posted before you got the connection. In addition, as Clancie points out, he has duped Sylvia Browne as well. He owes her an apology. I don't wonder why she has not backed down. When Randi comes to his senses and plays fair and square, perhaps they can hammer out a scientifically proper test. Until then Darat, I have to agree with you.................of course we may all be gone by then. I seem to recall something about hell freezing over.
 
Posted by Darat

I will reserve final judgment on the validity of the testing until after it has happened.
Click to expand...

I don't understand that position. All the details are already available. There are obvious flaws (noted above). Why wait?
And why would anyone bother taking a test that has flaws only to hear people say later, "Well, you passed. But it wasn't valid anyway."
 
Here we go:

At one point in the trial, his lawyer asked me about a statement he said I'd made, and he triumphantly announced that had a recording of it, too! It was:

"Good evening. My name is James Randi. I'm a liar, a cheat, a fake, and a charlatan. But I perform all this with a certain degree of panache, which may even evoke from you a spontaneous expression of delight and astonishment — in the form of applause. I trust this will be the case."

That was the beginning of my opening address to my magic audiences, recorded at one of my shows — obviously meant to be a gag, but Byrd (and Geller!) apparently have no sense of humor, and still flaunt this joke as evidence of my dishonesty. Hey, Robin Williams portrayed a killer in a recent film. That must mean he's a killer, right?
Source: Swift, October 18, 2002
Click to expand...

As usual, Steve quotes out of context. And always to support his own agenda.
 
Okay, here is my dictionary definition of the word in question:


Definition: [n] a flamboyant deceiver; one who attracts customers with tricks or jokes
 
Clancie said:


I don't understand that position. All the details are already available. There are obvious flaws (noted above). Why wait?
And why would anyone bother taking a test that has flaws only to hear people say later, "Well, you passed. But it wasn't valid anyway."
Click to expand...

Because something could change.

We may find that SB comes back and says "I will only take the test if you change x,y & Z", Randi may agree to some of your suggestions and put them forward to SB.

Until a test takes place we wont know the final details and as I say I will reserve final judgment until a test has been carried out.
 
CFLarsen said:
Here we go:



As usual, Steve quotes out of context. And always to support his own agenda.
Click to expand...

Thankyou.

I stand corrected, Randi has at sometime called himself a "charlaton", it may have been in the course of a show but he did say it which is all I asked anyone to provide proof for.
 
I just had a vision: we are all about 98 years old well, I am 106, and we are all here with our arthritis killing us still arguing about this....
 
A Famous Randi HOAX

"Project Alpha" was a hoax devised by Randi to test parapsychologists. He had two teenaged magicians, Steve Shaw and Mike Edwards, pose as psychics and arrange to be tested by the McDonnell Lab, which had just opened as a parapsychology lab in St. Louis. Shaw and Edwards were believed to be genuine psychics, and a presentation about them was given at the Parapsychological Association at which most parapsychologists present were NOT taken in. I believe Randi himself suggested controls to the McDonnell Lab, which were imposed and Shaw and Edwards ceased to produce results. The McDonnell Lab published nothing about them, but two other psi researchers, Berthold Schwarz and Walter Uphoff, did.

(The latter was quoted in a _National Enquirer_ story touting one of the "psychics.") Randi then revealed the hoax publicly, and awarded a "straight spoon" to McDonnell Lab director Peter Phillips for taking his advice. (This award was listed in Randi's 1982 "Uri" award press release, but not mentioned in the list of awards published by either _Omni_ or the _Skeptical Inquirer_, which led to the letter from Thalbourne in _SI_ cited below.)

A number of parapsychologists were annoyed by Alpha, and made the kinds of criticisms which may be found in the articles by Truzzi listed below.

Anonymous (1983a) Skeptical eye: Psychic Abscam. @I(Discover)
4(March):10,12.
Anonymous (1983b) Response to letter from Peter Phillips.
@I(Discover) 4(May):100.
Chalmers, J.H. (1983-84) Unnoticed irony of Alpha. @I(Skeptical
Inquirer) 8(Winter):187-188.
Cherfas, J. (1983) The Amazing Randi hoodwinks the spoonbenders. @I(New
Scientist) 97(3 February):287.
Collins, H. (1983) Magicians in the laboratory: A new role to
play. @I(New Scientist) 98(30 June):929-931.
Frazier, K., editor (1981) @I(Paranormal borderlands of science).
Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.
--- (1982) From Rand to the Pentagon: This year's Uri awards.
@I(Skeptical Inquirer) 7(1, Fall):11-12.
--- (1983a) Uri awards: A straight spoon joins three bent ones in
'83. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Fall):9-10.
--- (1983b) Correction. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Fall):96.
--- (1983-84) The editor responds. @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
8(Winter):188.
---, editor (1986) @I(Science confronts the paranormal).
Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.
Gardner, M. (1983) Lessons of a landmark PK hoax. @I(Skeptical
Inquirer) 7(4, Summer):16-19. In Frazier (1986), pp. 166-169.
--- (1983-84a) Magicians in the psi lab: Many misconceptions.
@I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Winter):111-116. In Frazier (1986),
pp. 170-175.
--- (1983-84b) Martin Gardner replies. @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
8(Winter):187.
Joyce, C. (1983) Now you see it, now you don't. @I(New
Scientist) 100(17 November):523-524.
McBurney, D.H. and Greenberg, J.K. (1980) Downfall of a would-be
psychic. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 5(1, Fall):61-62. In Frazier
(1981), pp. 148-149.
Phillips, P.R. (1983) Randi's hoax. @I(Discover) 4(May):100.
Pinch, T.J. (1983-84) Project Alpha: Preliminary only?
@I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Winter):186.
Pinch, T.J. and Collins, H.M. (1984) Private science and public
knowledge: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
the Claims of the Paranormal and its use of the literature.
@I(Social Studies of Science) 14:521-546.
Randi, J. (1981) Innocent "psychics". @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
5(3, Spring):78.
--- (1982a) Last word. @I(Omni) 4(May):154.
--- (1982b) Extrasensory deception: The strange story of the
professor and the psychic. @I(Games) 6(September):58-59.
--- (1983a) The Project Alpha experiment: Part 1. The first two
years. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 7(Summer):24-33. In Frazier
(1986), pp. 158-165.
--- (1983b) The Project Alpha experiment Part 2. Beyond the
laboratory. @I(Skeptical Inquirer) 8(Fall):36-45.
--- (1983c) Psience research. @I(New Scientist) 99(28 July):300.
--- (1983-84) James Randi replies. @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
8(Winter):186-187.
--- (1984-85) James Randi responds. @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
9(Winter):188.
Thalbourne, M.A. (1984-85) Phillips's "Straight Spoon".
@I(Skeptical Inquirer) 9(Winter):187-188.
Truzzi, M. (1983) Trickery in the name of science. @I(Omni) 5(May):117.
--- (1983-84) Project Alpha: Sabotage? @I(Skeptical Inquirer)
8(Winter):187.
--- (1987b) Reflections on "Project Alpha": Scientific experiment
or conjurer's illusion? @I(Zetetic Scholar)
12/13(August):73-98.



Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
 
Darat said:
I stand corrected, Randi has at sometime called himself a "charlaton", it may have been in the course of a show but he did say it which is all I asked anyone to provide proof for.
Click to expand...
Point is, Randi did not refer to himself as a charlatan-as-in-bad-deceit.

I understand perfectly why Steve doesn't want to talk about context. Just as he has backed down from his claims about the JREF Challenge money.

He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails. He tries. He fails.

One thing: He never learns.
 
Claus:

What's the point about talking about context when actions speak louder than words and I have provided accounts of those actions above. Since I was not there and only have his written words to go by I am not to be expected to infer from his tone of voice that he was joking.

The definition of charlatan which Darat is not interested in but which is extremely important fits Randi rather nicely and I am sure he would not disagree with it based on his actions and what else he has said about himself. In addition, the paragraph where he confesses to be a charlatan which you quoted were responded to long after after the fact in legal questionning.
When originally quoted, these remarks were not hastily subject to qualification by Randi. Randi then backtracked on them, saying "hey, I was only joking." Who's backtracking now?

I made no claims about the JREF money pot. I suggested that it woud be nice if Randi revealed the issuer of the securities or bonds in that account. I did this at the very first instance of this subject and I did so at the end. Nothing changed with that. Can you tell me why Randi doesn't want to reveal this?
 
Steve,

If you want to talk about Project Alpha, please open a new thread.

Don't try desperately to change the subject here.
 
SteveGrenard said:
What's the point about talking about context when actions speak louder than words and I have provided accounts of those actions above. Since I was not there and only have his written words to go by I am not to be expected to infer from his tone of voice that he was joking.
Click to expand...

The point of context?? Are you a dimwit, Steve? Context is everything. You can't just go around quoting people out of context and then think it is all OK.

It's nice of you to acknowledge that you were wrong, though.

SteveGrenard said:
The definition of charlatan which Darat is not interested in but which is extremely important fits Randi rather nicely and I am sure he would not disagree with it based on his actions and what else he has said about himself. In addition, the paragraph where he confesses to be a charlatan which you quoted were responded to long after after the fact in legal questionning. When originally quoted, these remarks were not hastily subject to qualification by Randi. Randi then backtracked on them, saying "hey, I was only joking." Who's backtracking now?
Click to expand...

No backtracking on Randi's part. He was addressing the audience of a magic show, Steve.

SteveGrenard said:
I made no claims about the JREF money pot. I suggested that it woud be nice if Randi revealed the issuer of the securities or bonds in that account. I did this at the very first instance of this subject and I did so at the end. Nothing changed with that.
Click to expand...

You used far stronger words than merely "nice", Steve. Who's backtracking now?

SteveGrenard said:
Can you tell me why Randi doesn't want to reveal this?
Click to expand...

Ask Randi. I am not a mind reader.
 
C: If you want to talk about Project Alpha, please open a new thread. Don't try desperately to change the subject here.

No, a new thread is not necessary. I don't want to talk about it....only point it out in the "context" of the definitions by which Randi describes himself. Did he consider the researchers at the Paraspychological Association magicians? Did the researchers at McDonnell agree to be fooled by him? I think not.
 
SteveGrenard said:
C: If you want to talk about Project Alpha, please open a new thread. Don't try desperately to change the subject here.

No, a new thread is not necessary. I don't want to talk about it....only point it out in the "context" of the definitions by which Randi describes himself. Did he consider the researchers at the Paraspychological Association magicians? Did the researchers at McDonnell agree to be fooled by him? I think not.
Click to expand...

Where does Randi refer to anyone regarding Project Alpha as "charlatans"? Nowhere? Then what is your point??
 
SteveGrenard said:
I guess you posted before you got the connection. In addition, as Clancie points out, he has duped Sylvia Browne as well. He owes her an apology. I don't wonder why she has not backed down. When Randi comes to his senses and plays fair and square, perhaps they can hammer out a scientifically proper test. Until then Darat, I have to agree with you.................of course we may all be gone by then. I seem to recall something about hell freezing over.
Click to expand...


I may have missed this, but why does Randi owe Sylvia an apology again?
 
Clancie---This is Iamme. Hi.

Here is the site you can go to that gives the transcript of what I was talking about regarding the November birthday. See for yourself how JE follows up his question, with confirmation AFTER the sitter acknowledges, first.

Go to: Tvtalkshows.com. Then go to the John Edward board. You will see a listing of the latest threads. About ten threads down is a thread started by poster "Kenny" entitled, "South Park was talking aboutthis JE board." I am using a friend of mines computer and my posts are logged under the name "Seeker" over there. But my username is Phelps. I usually try to identify myself as Phelps in the post, even though the name "Seeker" is the registered username.

Posters such as Instig8R, Gryphon, Neofight, RC34, Lurker...and many others are both regulars on this JE board and your JREF board. Come on over sometime. It can be a hoot.
 
Hi Phelps (RC caught it before I did! :) ). Good to see you posting here.


Here is the site you can go to that gives the transcript of what I was talking about regarding the November birthday. See for yourself how JE follows up his question, with confirmation AFTER the sitter acknowledges, first.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize who you were, Iamme, but I wanted to mention that the reading in that thread wasn't an actual JE transcript--just a very clever parody of one. Sorry, but--clever though it was--we can't use it as an example of a bad JE reading! :p

(And, say, btw, aren't the editing features here nice? :) ) Trevor could use this posting format, too--so easy to read--but he won't. I don't know why. :confused:


Posters such as Instig8R, Gryphon, Neofight, RC34, Lurker...and many others are both regulars on this JE board and your JREF board. Come on over sometime. It can be a hoot.
Click to expand...

Right you are! And also...Rain, Mel, mark tidwell, Cynical, dharlow, Mike D, RSLancastr....and of course, our old "friend", Cantata! are all here as well.)

As a matter of fact, I'm one of the regulars over at TVT myself! I am me...no, I mean, really One of them is me! or whatever. Any idea who? :D
 
SteveGrenard,

These were personal experiences, they were anecdotal and they represented an honest answer to a question posed as to why I became interested in this subject. This is what I said before, and this is what I am saying now. This eliminates the need for me to support my account, especially in this forum, and clearly I am claiming nothing other than this. Is this the game you jerks play? Ask a question and then when you get an honest answer turn that around and try and recruit for Randi's slaughterhouse?
Pretty sick bunch of whackos I would say.
Click to expand...
You've been picked up by the mothership and taken for a trip to the moon, and returned to Earth. You have the exact name and address of the person who arranged this for you. And you don't feel the need to contact this person again. Okay, if you say so...

In addition, as Clancie points out, he has duped Sylvia Browne as well.
Click to expand...
You're defending Sylvia Browne!!!!!!! Gasp .... can't breath .... staggering stupidity ...

Clancie/Steve - you *really* don't want to be seen to be supporting Sylvia in *any* way at all, do you? The morning after September 11 this woman advertised her $4000 per head "spiritual trip to the holy land" on her website as the follow-on text to her "what a tragedy" comments ? Who 24 hours later followed this up by announcing that the airliners were crashed by the terroriests using a secrect weapon known as "the X bomb"? She has the moral sensibilities of a crocodile, and the "psychic-skills" of a worm.
 
You just don't get it. This is not politics Loki. This is not about whether SB is a fraud or a fake. Its about what's right. Randi
duped her. This doesn't mean she's the real deal. This doesn't
make it alright for someone to pull a fast one over an applicant for the JREF Challenge. It taints the process.

If you're a cop and you hang around with bad guys long enough this is not jusification to be like them.
 
SteveGenard,

If you're a cop and you hang around with bad guys long enough this is not jusification to be like them.
Click to expand...
Exactly Steve - you're "hanging around" intellectually with Sylvia, and becoming "like her".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom