ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 26th April 2009, 03:35 PM   #81
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
In the same way O.J. Simpson was convicted in a Civil suit?
No. They are two different "cases".

Quote:
So you're telling me that Randi WAS convicted or found guilty ..right?
No. I am not.

Quote:
I was told that Randi claimed to be destitute and had no money at the time. Is that right?
Really? And I was told that you are a hominid masticator who dribbles on his Nergly berries. Is that right?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 03:42 PM   #82
kittynh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,634
oh Professor. I really do feel badly for you. OK, your point in all this? Here? Really if you want to discredit Randi you would do this in another skeptic forum, I could direct you over to Skeptical Community and their chat. But, you are, someone that get a cheap thrill out of this type of posting. You somehow think you are really "doing something" but in your heart you know it's for the cheap thrill. BUt what price is this cheap thrill to you? It's far more expensive in the long run than you think.

Seriously, a great place to get people do really listen and react and maybe if your point is to injure Randi is Skeptical COmmunity or one of the other skeptic sites.

Here, you are doing nothing but really hurting your own sense of self and seriously wasting your time. Ask yourself if you aren't better than this. How your treat yourself is a reflection of how you feel about yourself. Even though it is "just the internet" good productive work can be done. But you have to know where to do it.
kittynh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 03:47 PM   #83
Azrael 5
Philosopher
 
Azrael 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,886
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
*snip*I was told that Randi claimed to be destitute and had no money at the time. Is that right?
You are told an awful lot of things Professor,who is this amazing oracle who you know?
Does he wear a straitjacket like you know who?
__________________
"I achieve these results through a mixture of magic,misdirection,suggestion and showmanship"-Derren Brown
Azrael 5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 04:29 PM   #84
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by kerikiwi View Post
Decide whether that looks like 'police documentation'?

Are you familiar with the tui advertisements?
I doubt very much that the 'Tui's' feature in his part of the world.
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 05:44 PM   #85
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
So I see a lot of squirming going on here but no one except me is actually on topic.

I've read the article and I found it interesting. There are recordings that seemed to be used in a case against Randi that he lost.

The judge made some comments and the jury found Randi guilty. Is this correct so far? I'm just asking. Some of you say NO so I'm asking you to show me where this is wrong.

Then it says something about Randi avoiding paying the penalty. (that's why I related it to the OJ case, since he hasn't been paying either)

Just a few minutes ago I found what appears to be Another case against Randi by the same guy. Is that right or am I reading it wrong?
What happened that time?

Listen ... You guys are Skeptics ... You should actually look into the truth right? Or am I wrong?

The article says a lot of things and asks a lot of questions. I'm just asking the same ones.
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 05:53 PM   #86
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,392
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
Just a few minutes ago I found what appears to be Another case against Randi by the same guy. Is that right or am I reading it wrong?
What happened that time?
The problem here TP, is that you have proven to be less than honest on this forum so many times, that no-one will take your word for anything. So without providing evidence of subject, most of us have put you into Chicken Little status. So please provide a link to this "other article" so that we may judge for ourselves.

Norm
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 06:03 PM   #87
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,386
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
So I see a lot of squirming going on here but no one except me is actually on topic.

I've read the article and I found it interesting. There are recordings that seemed to be used in a case against Randi that he lost.

The judge made some comments and the jury found Randi guilty. Is this correct so far? I'm just asking. Some of you say NO so I'm asking you to show me where this is wrong.

Then it says something about Randi avoiding paying the penalty. (that's why I related it to the OJ case, since he hasn't been paying either)

Just a few minutes ago I found what appears to be Another case against Randi by the same guy. Is that right or am I reading it wrong?
What happened that time?

Listen ... You guys are Skeptics ... You should actually look into the truth right? Or am I wrong?

The article says a lot of things and asks a lot of questions. I'm just asking the same ones.
On the incredibly off chance that you actually don't know.
Randi paid nothing because the court awarded no damages. They found that Byrd was correct that Randi had made untrue public statements about him, (Randi publicly called him a convicted child molester, while Byrd was only convicted of a charge stemming from child pornography).

The court found that while Byrd was correct in his charge, there were no damages that necessitated Randi paying him any money.
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 06:10 PM   #88
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Amazing that I seem to be the only one to read the article, find the recordings and hard evidence, find Randi's conviction, see what the Judge and Jury had to say, while the rest of you had your heads in the sand.

And all you can do is call me names? Not much of a defense

This is a very interesting article and I'm asking the same questions.
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 06:12 PM   #89
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,386
I don't think I've ever heard the word "conviction" used to refer to a civil suit before.
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 06:13 PM   #90
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
No. They are two different "cases".



No. I am not.



Really? And I was told that you are a hominid masticator who dribbles on his Nergly berries. Is that right?
So some of you admit that Randi was found guilty while some of you say he wasn't.
What is the TRUTH?

Who among this group is telling the truth and who is being deceptive?
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 06:15 PM   #91
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I don't think I've ever heard the word "conviction" used to refer to a civil suit before.
http://www.corporate-background-chec...on-search.html

Well now you have
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 06:21 PM   #92
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,386
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
It doesn't jibe with the legal definition of the term

conviction
n. the result of a criminal trial in which the defendant has been found guilty of a crime.


But hey, we can all use words however we like.
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 06:26 PM   #93
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
So some of you admit that Randi was found guilty while some of you say he wasn't.
What is the TRUTH?

Who among this group is telling the truth and who is being deceptive?
So you have no answer to what I have heard about you -- that you are a hominid masticator who dribbles on his Nergly berries. Is that right?

At least Randi was prepared to defend himself when Mr Curley made a fool of himself:
From Wiki:
Quote:
Late in 1996 Randi launched a libel suit against a Toronto-area psychic named Earl Gordon Curley. Curley had made multiple objectionable comments about Randi on Usenet. Despite prodding Randi via Usenet to sue (Curley's comments had implied that if Randi did not sue then his allegations must be true), Curley seemed entirely surprised when Randi actually retained Toronto's largest law firm and initiated legal proceedings. The suit was eventually dropped in 1998 when Earl Curley died suddenly at the age of 51.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 06:43 PM   #94
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
I've read the article and I found it interesting. There are recordings that seemed to be used in a case against Randi that he lost.

The judge made some comments and the jury found Randi guilty. Is this correct so far? I'm just asking. Some of you say NO so I'm asking you to show me where this is wrong.
In May of 1988 Randi made a presentation for the New York Area Skeptics in Manhattan. After his lecture, during the question and answer period, a member of the audience confronted him with a tape recording, which allegedly had Randi speaking in explicit sexual terms with young men (the recording was not played during the public meeting). Randi accused physicist Eldon Byrd, a friend of Uri Geller, of distributing the tape and went on to claim that Byrd was a convicted child molester and that he was in prison. He made the same assertion in an interview with Twilight Zone Magazine. This was untrue-Byrd was actually convicted of a charge stemming from child pornography-and in a jury trial, Randi was found guilty of defaming Byrd.

As Cavemonster pointed out, there were no damages that necessitated Randi paying Byrd any monies in penalties.

Since the existence of the tape was the catalyst for Randi's misrepresentation of Byrd's conviction, the tape was played in court. The content of the recording had nothing to do with the charge of Randi defaming Byrd.

Randi has explained, several times, that the recording was made, 21+ years ago, with the knowledge of his telephone company, to track an obscene phone caller, that the recording was turned over to his local police department, and that a conviction was handed down as a result to the young man who made the obscene call. Neither the police nor the prosecutor saw fit to charge Randi with a crime, so it's reasonably safe to assume that the recording does not contain anything that points to Randi doing other than attempting to spur on an obscene phone caller with the intention of gathering evidence.

I mean, seriously, Prof, what part of that do you find so hard to understand?

Originally Posted by The Professor
Then it says something about Randi avoiding paying the penalty. (that's why I related it to the OJ case, since he hasn't been paying either)
Yeah. In case you missed it, Simpson has been sitting in prison for several months now, so, unless the court is taking the dollar a day he earns for making license plates, it would be kind of hard for him to pay anything towards the civil judgment. Also, in case you missed it, just about everything Simpson earned prior to his current conviction was attached by the civil court, minus his NFL pension.

Originally Posted by The Professor
Just a few minutes ago I found what appears to be Another case against Randi by the same guy. Is that right or am I reading it wrong?
What happened that time?
Dunno. Do you want to actually cite a source, or just stick to "I read it somewheres"?

Originally Posted by The Professor
Amazing that I seem to be the only one to read the article, find the recordings and hard evidence...
You found one blog article. You did not find the recording. And it's pretty obvious that you understand "hard evidence" about as little as you understand "burden of proof".
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Last edited by desertgal; 26th April 2009 at 07:22 PM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 07:43 PM   #95
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 23,103
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
User CP... Edit Ignore List... Add a Member to Your List... "limbo"... [Okay]
Click on user name...click on ignore.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 07:44 PM   #96
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
So are you claiming that Randi didn't make the recordings .... Seems you were pretty quick on the Allegedly

So Randi DID make the recordings with an underage boy ... Correct?
Or are you claiming it wasn't Randi.


Secondly ... Why is there no evidence from the phone company?
Why no evidence from the police department?
No pay stubs? No written agreements? No evidence of employment by either one?

Randi doesn't need to track anyones number ... it is given to him...correct?

And you are claiming that Randi never paid ONE RED CENT? Really ... he lost the case and paid NOTHING?

And what was the name of the young man that you claim was convicted?

Where are his arrest records?

Where is the proof of this?

I see why there are so many unanswered questions.

The article points to many of these.

Last edited by The Professor; 26th April 2009 at 07:48 PM.
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2009, 08:18 PM   #97
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
So are you claiming that Randi didn't make the recordings .... Seems you were pretty quick on the Allegedly
I didn't say Randi didn't make the recording. The claim is that Randi allegedly spoke in sexually explicit terms. I have no idea if he spoke that way or not - and neither do you. Since he was attempting to spur on an obscene phone caller, it might well have been the young man who spoke in a sexually explicit way.

Quote:
So Randi DID make the recordings with an underage boy ... Correct?
The recording allegedly contained the voice of a young man. I don't know what his age was.

Quote:
Secondly ... Why is there no evidence from the phone company?
Why would there be? As Randi explained, he made the tape with the advice of the phone company on the legalities of recording phone calls, and then turned the tape over to the police. Exactly what evidence do you expect the phone company to produce?

Quote:
Why no evidence from the police department?
No pay stubs? No written agreements? No evidence of employment by either one?
What ARE you talking about? Pay stubs...evidence of employment...written agreement?

To explain clearly: Randi received obscene phone calls. He asked the phone company about the legalities of tape recording the caller. The phone company answered him. He made the recording according to their guidelines. He then turned it over the police. The police gave it to the prosecutor. The prosecutor brought charges against the caller, and a conviction was handed down. Case closed. Whoever said that Randi was in the employ of the police department?

Point of fact is that no charges were brought against Randi. Thus, there was no evidence on the tape that Randi attempted to sexually harass the young man. I don't know what things are like down there in your neck of the woods, Proffy, but most police departments tend to come down hard on elderly men who sexually harass youths. Since they didn't in this case, it pretty much indicates that James Randi didn't do anything wrong. I'm sure you hate that, but there it is.

Quote:
Randi doesn't need to track anyones number ... it is given to him...correct?
Do you think that obscene phone callers dial up their victims, and say "Howdy! I'm calling from 555-1212, and I'd like to spew some profanities at you tonight"?

Quote:
And you are claiming that Randi never paid ONE RED CENT? Really ... he lost the case and paid NOTHING?
The judge and jury determined that there were no damages. Take it up with them.

Quote:
And what was the name of the young man that you claim was convicted? Where are his arrest records?
Randi's lecture in Manhattan was 21 years ago, which means the case involving the obscene phone calls was even earlier-24? 25? years ago. IF the young man was a minor at the time of the phone calls, and if he was convicted in juvenile court, his name would not be a matter of public record, and his record would have been expunged when he came of age. (There are laws to protect the identities of minors, even when they do something wrong.) Contact the police and the prosecutor's office in New Jersey and ask them, since you are so curious. I don't know the young man's name, and I don't care. I'm certainly not privy to some stranger's arrest record, nor am I willing to dig up the identity of a young man who doesn't deserve to have his privacy invaded 20 something years later.

What possible difference does his name make? Are you planning to contact and cross examine him over what he said and what Randi said?

Quote:
I see why there are so many unanswered questions.
Only in your mind, Proffy.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Last edited by desertgal; 26th April 2009 at 09:17 PM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2009, 04:02 PM   #98
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
So you have no answer to what I have heard about you -- that you are a hominid masticator who dribbles on his Nergly berries. Is that right?

At least Randi was prepared to defend himself when Mr Curley made a fool of himself:
From Wiki:
Yup. As we heard at the time Curley either drank himself to death with booze or some other lethal compound
Now it looks as if this new twit wants to annoy Randi enough to be be prosecuted for his libel.
George 152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2009, 06:57 AM   #99
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Randi is given the kids phone number on the recording correct? That's how everyone hears it isn't it? So why would he need to keep him on the line? Randi calls him back doesn't he? So the kid gives Randi the number right .... or am I wrong? And it was the right one since Randi calls him back. Right? Isn't that part of the recording too? ...Or are these things that people are saying that have no basis in truth?

I'm just asking some questions here and you guys are giving answers but you've never heard the evidence ... right?

It's just a question and critical thinks might know the answer.

Last edited by The Professor; 28th April 2009 at 06:59 AM.
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2009, 07:45 AM   #100
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
I believe. . . seem . . . I would guess. . .I've heard . . . supposedly . . . .
Thanks for keeping it classy and factual.
NoZed Avenger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2009, 07:53 AM   #101
zooloo
Thinker
 
zooloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
Randi is given the kids phone number on the recording correct? That's how everyone hears it isn't it? So why would he need to keep him on the line? Randi calls him back doesn't he? So the kid gives Randi the number right .... or am I wrong? And it was the right one since Randi calls him back. Right? Isn't that part of the recording too? ...Or are these things that people are saying that have no basis in truth?

I'm just asking some questions here and you guys are giving answers but you've never heard the evidence ... right?

It's just a question and critical thinks might know the answer.
Do you have a link to this tape please.

I've tried Google but haven't come up with anything, perhaps I'm looking for the wrong thing... anyway if you'd take a few moments to post a link I'd certainly appreciate it.

Cheers in advance.
__________________
"This beautiful System is the only one possible, and the best that human wisdom can devise. May the System live for ever! Cursed be those who seek to destroy the System!"
zooloo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th April 2009, 08:47 AM   #102
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
I'm just asking some questions here and you guys are giving answers but you've never heard the evidence ... right?
We've already said we haven't heard the recording. Neither have you. But, see, unlike you, we aren't accusing Randi of being a pederast without any solid evidence to back it up.

Originally Posted by The Professor
Randi is given the kids phone number on the recording correct? That's how everyone hears it isn't it? So why would he need to keep him on the line? Randi calls him back doesn't he? So the kid gives Randi the number right .... or am I wrong? And it was the right one since Randi calls him back. Right? Isn't that part of the recording too?
What part of "We haven't heard the recording" do you not understand? And who is "everyone"? If you want to know the details of the investigation, contact the appropriate police department and/or prosecutor's office in New Jersey and ask them. Right now, you are just asking us to confirm hearsay evidence, which we can't do.

Originally Posted by The Professor
...Or are these things that people are saying that have no basis in truth?
Dunno. Do these "people" provide any proven evidence to back up their statements?
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2009, 09:14 AM   #103
TheDoLittle
Disco King Discombobulator
 
TheDoLittle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,842
Has anyone seen the "rebuttal"?

http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0409/randi.php

I'll give you a quick rundown: You have to wade through about 4 pages of rants from someone with obvious mental deficiencies to find out Randi does nothing but harass Gellar, the million doesn't exist, and Randi and his crew don't understand the basic tenets of "magnets".
__________________
David O. Little
-=The DoLittle 8-)=-
America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week. - Evan Esar / No one can earn a million dollars honestly. - William Jennings Bryan (1860 - 1925) / If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you. - Don Marquis
TheDoLittle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2009, 09:37 AM   #104
abr
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 187
i can do all what uri can do
abr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2009, 04:18 PM   #105
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,647
Originally Posted by abr View Post
i can do all what uri can do
What! Continually make a fool of yourself in public? You should be ashamed!
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2009, 04:27 AM   #106
eirik
Muse
 
eirik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 706
The Professor is still making a complete arse of himself, I see.

There is no evidence of any wrongdoing on Randi's part, except the mix up with child molestation and child pornography, which he lost a court case on. What part of that don't you understand? You still surprise with your ability to sink lower and lower, but this is a disgrace.

Do you understand that the judge in the case would have a duty to report a suspicion of child abuse to the police? That every citizen is obliged to report such suspicions? Why do you think this is not done?

Do you understand what libel is? Do you understand that you will lose the inevitable lawsuit? Do you understand that this will ruin you financially?
__________________
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein
eirik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2009, 04:33 AM   #107
eirik
Muse
 
eirik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 706
Edited by Lisa Simpson:  Edited to remove inappropriate remark.


Mod WarningPlease keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Posted By:Lisa Simpson
__________________
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein

Last edited by Lisa Simpson; 30th April 2009 at 06:54 PM.
eirik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2009, 07:10 PM   #108
eirik
Muse
 
eirik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 706
Darned.
__________________
"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein
eirik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2009, 05:24 AM   #109
asmodean
Turing Complete
 
asmodean's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
Randi is given the kids phone number on the recording correct? That's how everyone hears it isn't it? So why would he need to keep him on the line? Randi calls him back doesn't he? So the kid gives Randi the number right .... or am I wrong? And it was the right one since Randi calls him back. Right? Isn't that part of the recording too? ...Or are these things that people are saying that have no basis in truth?

I'm just asking some questions here and you guys are giving answers but you've never heard the evidence ... right?

It's just a question and critical thinks might know the answer.
Ah, just JAQing off. No need for evidence then. Or bother about BoP and similar thingies.
__________________
"C code. C code run. Run code, run ... Please?"

Most Christians treat the Bible like a software license. They don’t actually read it, they just scroll to the bottom and click, ” I agree.”
asmodean is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 09:26 AM   #110
Steve Knight
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 51
Hmmmm. Suggestions that Mr. Koneig hasn't heard the tape in question should be made with care. It's not too difficult to obtain a copy.
__________________
Steve Knight

www.zem.demon.co.uk - Uri Geller - a bibliography
Steve Knight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 10:52 AM   #111
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Steve Knight View Post
Hmmmm. Suggestions that Mr. Koneig hasn't heard the tape in question should be made with care. It's not too difficult to obtain a copy.
"Made with care"? It's not libelous. Proffy can deny that he hasn't heard it. He hasn't done so. Ergo...
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Last edited by desertgal; 2nd May 2009 at 11:02 AM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:57 PM   #112
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
A skeptic or critical thinker would listen to the evidence, weigh the evidence, and then make up his own mind.

I've been told that even the transcripts are available from the trial. I'm not certain, but I believe I've been told that the Jury had to listen with headphones since the Judge didn't want to play such things in public earshot. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Am I the only skeptic here?

All of you have never heard the evidence then? Or none of you?
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 06:07 PM   #113
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Originally Posted by zooloo View Post
Do you have a link to this tape please.

I've tried Google but haven't come up with anything, perhaps I'm looking for the wrong thing... anyway if you'd take a few moments to post a link I'd certainly appreciate it.

Cheers in advance.
Did you find it yet?
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 06:08 PM   #114
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
Originally Posted by Steve Knight View Post
Hmmmm. Suggestions that Mr. Koneig hasn't heard the tape in question should be made with care. It's not too difficult to obtain a copy.
The evidence from the case is available to the public I've been told.
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 06:54 PM   #115
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
A skeptic or critical thinker would listen to the evidence, weigh the evidence, and then make up his own mind.

I've been told that even the transcripts are available from the trial. I'm not certain, but I believe I've been told that the Jury had to listen with headphones since the Judge didn't want to play such things in public earshot. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Am I the only skeptic here?

All of you have never heard the evidence then? Or none of you?
Have you heard the evidence?
Have you weighed it?
Have you made up your mind?
What did you decide?

You have been told by whom that the transcripts are available?
What makes you believe that you have been told the jury listened with headphones, and why would that be important?
One would think that you either have been told or have not been told and that belief doesn't come into it.
You could indeed be wrong. Why would you doubt it?
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 07:05 PM   #116
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
I believe that links have been provided for all. Right?
I will check... but I believe the link explains it all.
Googleing is also helpful for those who truly seek the TRUTH

Last edited by The Professor; 3rd May 2009 at 07:06 PM.
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 07:20 PM   #117
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
Wrong.
Jeff Corey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 08:01 PM   #118
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,175
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
Googleing is also helpful for those who truly seek the TRUTH
It is, of course, also helpful to those who seek total tripe.


Was your post in response to mine immediately preceding it?
If so it is impressively, totally disconnected from anything and everything I asked you.
kerikiwi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 07:39 AM   #119
zooloo
Thinker
 
zooloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 247
Originally Posted by The Professor View Post
Did you find it yet?
Not found the recording

It would only take you a few moments to paste the link you have, so please do.
__________________
"This beautiful System is the only one possible, and the best that human wisdom can devise. May the System live for ever! Cursed be those who seek to destroy the System!"
zooloo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 04:05 PM   #120
The Professor
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 718
You are obviously not trying.

You must be kidding ... I've NEVER said I had a link, (Please show me where, or quit lying) although there have been many in the past I am told.
The Professor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.