Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The James Randi Garbage Disposal

Expand Messages
  • raptor_omicron
    The James Randi Garbage Disposal will shred Randi s commentaries as they are published. Here s the latest: *** www.randi.org/jr/040403.html March 4, 2003.
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 7, 2003
      The James Randi Garbage Disposal will shred Randi's commentaries as
      they are published. Here's the latest:

      ***

      www.randi.org/jr/040403.html

      March 4, 2003. "Homeopathy Fails in the UK Again, This Month's God,
      Lying About Polygraphs, Clustering Water = Good, or Bad?, Øjvind
      Kyrøs' Show, A Conversion to Homeopathy, Swindling: It's in the DNA,
      More Fish Stories, and How Does Kevlar Work?"

      Randi first comments on an experiment being done to determine the
      effectiveness of homeopathy:

      "I'd rather see it done by an independent group, not by a school who
      just must have positive results, or would have to resort to alibis
      and denial of the conclusions."

      Yes, and I'd like to see the million dollar challenge run by a group
      for whom negative results are not the only satisfactory conclusion.

      Next Randi talks about the fact that he doesn't believe in polygraph
      lie detector tests. Jeez, what sound science doesn't he disbelieve?
      He thinks chiropractors, lie detectors, and those scientists with
      the martian meteorites are all scam artists out to get our money.

      And people say I'm paranoid.

      Interesting that other pseudoskeptics embraced polygraph technology
      when they learned that Tim Cooper (the MJ-12 documents guy) had
      failed a lie detector test. *cough*doublestandard*cough*

      Randi later goes into a tedious tirade about the kind of people he
      considers to be con artists.

      Then there's some letter about a talking fish, which serves to
      continue Randi's pattern of only debunking the craziest sounding of
      claims, while staying well away from anything that could put up even
      a reasonable argument of legitimacy.

      And he concludes by flaunting his million dollar scam yet again:

      "And the JREF will pay off, a million bucks, as soon as that
      evidence is produced….!"

      Hell, if he ever actually gives anyone a CHANCE to produce any
      evidence, I'LL pay a million bucks.

      And one of these days I'm gonna let him know that an ellipsis
      consists of only three periods, rather than the four he always uses.

      ***

      I'll post some of my earlier work later, if anyone's interested.
    • Clyde Wary
      I have to agree that polygraph tests are worthless, though. Well, they re sort of worthless. The info I have is that they work very well for detecting lies,
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 9, 2003
        I have to agree that polygraph tests are worthless, though. Well,
        they're sort of worthless. The info I have is that they work very
        well for detecting lies, BUT have a ~50% false positive rate...they're
        wonderful things if you want to stack the deck in your favor!
      • Ruby Honey
        I m interested! Good post.~ ruby--- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, raptor_omicron
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 11, 2003
          I'm interested! Good post.

          ~ ruby


          --- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "raptor_omicron" <raptor_omicron=
          @y...> wrote:
          > The James Randi Garbage Disposal will shred Randi's commentaries as
          > they are published. Here's the latest:
          >
          > ***
          >
          > www.randi.org/jr/040403.html
          >
          > March 4, 2003. "Homeopathy Fails in the UK Again, This Month's God,
          > Lying About Polygraphs, Clustering Water = Good, or Bad?, Øjvind
          > Kyrøs' Show, A Conversion to Homeopathy, Swindling: It's in the DNA,
          > More Fish Stories, and How Does Kevlar Work?"
          >
          > Randi first comments on an experiment being done to determine the
          > effectiveness of homeopathy:
          >
          > "I'd rather see it done by an independent group, not by a school who
          > just must have positive results, or would have to resort to alibis
          > and denial of the conclusions."
          >
          > Yes, and I'd like to see the million dollar challenge run by a group
          > for whom negative results are not the only satisfactory conclusion.
          >
          > Next Randi talks about the fact that he doesn't believe in polygraph
          > lie detector tests. Jeez, what sound science doesn't he disbelieve?
          > He thinks chiropractors, lie detectors, and those scientists with
          > the martian meteorites are all scam artists out to get our money.
          >
          > And people say I'm paranoid.
          >
          > Interesting that other pseudoskeptics embraced polygraph technology
          > when they learned that Tim Cooper (the MJ-12 documents guy) had
          > failed a lie detector test. *cough*doublestandard*cough*
          >
          > Randi later goes into a tedious tirade about the kind of people he
          > considers to be con artists.
          >
          > Then there's some letter about a talking fish, which serves to
          > continue Randi's pattern of only debunking the craziest sounding of
          > claims, while staying well away from anything that could put up even
          > a reasonable argument of legitimacy.
          >
          > And he concludes by flaunting his million dollar scam yet again:
          >
          > "And the JREF will pay off, a million bucks, as soon as that
          > evidence is produced….!"
          >
          > Hell, if he ever actually gives anyone a CHANCE to produce any
          > evidence, I'LL pay a million bucks.
          >
          > And one of these days I'm gonna let him know that an ellipsis
          > consists of only three periods, rather than the four he always uses.
          >
          > ***
          >
          > I'll post some of my earlier work later, if anyone's interested.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.