Dreaming of Role Playing

[C***@gmail.com]

I had a long dream last night where I was shopping for role-playing
books. I was buying the white-wolf system of games and desperately
wanted to play. I'm not sure why I was buying white-wolf because they
have recently changed the game system and it is even worse than it was
before. I've never been actually able to play a white wolf game, and
it isn't only because I don't have friends who like role playing. In
my dream I imagined a realistic game system that paralleled what it's
like to actually be psychic, wiccan, or practicing ritual magic. And
you know I've put thought into creating my own game where there are no
real rules, but just a realistic foundation to base the adventure on.
It would be a really fun game to me, if there were expensive costumes
and props I could own, which would set me appart as someone who lived
in a gothic/cyberpunk setting. Then everyone who wanted to play could
also buy the costumes and just hang out. Then we could all just study
and practice magick, and deal with the fact that no one would accept us
as part of the American culture. Sure, maybe the spells wouldn't
always come true for people who were only there for the fun of it, but
sometimes if you really make an effort to pretend they are working they
have an effect. Kind of like how in other cultures when people dress
up as the gods and act out what the gods are doing in a play. That's a
ritual in itself.

[James]

Post by C***@gmail.com
I had a long dream last night where I was shopping for role-playing
books. I was buying the white-wolf system of games and desperately
wanted to play. I'm not sure why I was buying white-wolf because they
have recently changed the game system and it is even worse than it was
before. I've never been actually able to play a white wolf game, and
it isn't only because I don't have friends who like role playing. In
my dream I imagined a realistic game system that paralleled what it's
like to actually be psychic, wiccan, or practicing ritual magic. And
you know I've put thought into creating my own game where there are no
real rules, but just a realistic foundation to base the adventure on.

May be a wolf or the color white, or the white wolf itself was a key to
the dream?

Post by C***@gmail.com
It would be a really fun game to me, if there were expensive costumes
and props I could own, which would set me appart as someone who lived
in a gothic/cyberpunk setting. Then everyone who wanted to play could
also buy the costumes and just hang out. Then we could all just study
and practice magick, and deal with the fact that no one would accept us
as part of the American culture. Sure, maybe the spells wouldn't
always come true for people who were only there for the fun of it, but
sometimes if you really make an effort to pretend they are working they
have an effect. Kind of like how in other cultures when people dress
up as the gods and act out what the gods are doing in a play. That's a
ritual in itself.

That is true, once you are put into a label by others it tends to
helpyou out in some ways. Just don't go and be a Dallas Egbert (the
guy from Texas AMU, I believe; who spent his time in steam tunnels
acting out a fantasy world).

Best.

[C***@gmail.com]

Check out this site:
http://www.authenticwardrobe.com/Embroidered_Cloaks/embroidered_cloaks.html

Dressing up in clothes like these is billions of times more fun than
rolling dice and fighting gargoyles.

Post by James

Post by C***@gmail.com
I had a long dream last night where I was shopping for role-playing
books. I was buying the white-wolf system of games and desperately
wanted to play. I'm not sure why I was buying white-wolf because they
have recently changed the game system and it is even worse than it was
before. I've never been actually able to play a white wolf game, and
it isn't only because I don't have friends who like role playing. In
my dream I imagined a realistic game system that paralleled what it's
like to actually be psychic, wiccan, or practicing ritual magic. And
you know I've put thought into creating my own game where there are no
real rules, but just a realistic foundation to base the adventure on.

May be a wolf or the color white, or the white wolf itself was a key to
the dream?

Post by C***@gmail.com
It would be a really fun game to me, if there were expensive costumes
and props I could own, which would set me appart as someone who lived
in a gothic/cyberpunk setting. Then everyone who wanted to play could
also buy the costumes and just hang out. Then we could all just study
and practice magick, and deal with the fact that no one would accept us
as part of the American culture. Sure, maybe the spells wouldn't
always come true for people who were only there for the fun of it, but
sometimes if you really make an effort to pretend they are working they
have an effect. Kind of like how in other cultures when people dress
up as the gods and act out what the gods are doing in a play. That's a
ritual in itself.

That is true, once you are put into a label by others it tends to
helpyou out in some ways. Just don't go and be a Dallas Egbert (the
guy from Texas AMU, I believe; who spent his time in steam tunnels
acting out a fantasy world).
Best.

[104]

Post by C***@gmail.com
http://www.authenticwardrobe.com/Embroidered_Cloaks/embroidered_cloaks.html
Dressing up in clothes like these is billions of times more fun than
rolling dice and fighting gargoyles.

Nice cloaks! I have a good Christmas present idea now, thanks.

[The Mad Afro]

Post by James
That is true, once you are put into a label by others it tends to
helpyou out in some ways. Just don't go and be a Dallas Egbert (the
guy from Texas AMU, I believe; who spent his time in steam tunnels
acting out a fantasy world).

This again, eh?

That was Michigan State, not Aggieland, and Egbert went into the steam
tunnels to (unsuccessfully) commit suicide due to depression and
ostracism, not becuase of D&D. He did play the game, but never at
Michigan State, and D&D had nothing to do with his disappearance and
problems. The rest is media sensationalism and a really stupid movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dallas_Egbert_III

The More You Know...::shooting star::

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

[Eric P.]

Post by The Mad Afro

Post by James
That is true, once you are put into a label by others it tends to
helpyou out in some ways. Just don't go and be a Dallas Egbert (the
guy from Texas AMU, I believe; who spent his time in steam tunnels
acting out a fantasy world).

This again, eh?
That was Michigan State, not Aggieland, and Egbert went into the steam
tunnels to (unsuccessfully) commit suicide due to depression and
ostracism, not becuase of D&D. He did play the game, but never at
Michigan State, and D&D had nothing to do with his disappearance and
problems. The rest is media sensationalism and a really stupid movie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dallas_Egbert_III
--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

Wow, that sucks. It sucks to a significantly lesser degree that many
people are quick to point out, when such things happen, that the
person in question played this-or-that rpg. So what? At least the
person had THAT as a forum for social interaction. I'd never connect
that to any certain behavior. I'd go so far as to speculate that
psychologists would consider role-playing to be a healthy activity
for people, especially those who find other social settings
uncomfortable.

Just some thoughts.
Happy gaming and living,
Eric

[julian814]

Post by C***@gmail.com
I had a long dream last night where I was shopping for role-playing
books. I was buying the white-wolf system of games and desperately
wanted to play. I'm not sure why I was buying white-wolf because they
have recently changed the game system and it is even worse than it was
before. I've never been actually able to play a white wolf game, and
it isn't only because I don't have friends who like role playing. In
my dream I imagined a realistic game system that paralleled what it's
like to actually be psychic, wiccan, or practicing ritual magic. And
you know I've put thought into creating my own game where there are no
real rules, but just a realistic foundation to base the adventure on.
It would be a really fun game to me, if there were expensive costumes
and props I could own, which would set me appart as someone who lived
in a gothic/cyberpunk setting. Then everyone who wanted to play could
also buy the costumes and just hang out. Then we could all just study
and practice magick, and deal with the fact that no one would accept us
as part of the American culture. Sure, maybe the spells wouldn't
always come true for people who were only there for the fun of it, but
sometimes if you really make an effort to pretend they are working they
have an effect. Kind of like how in other cultures when people dress
up as the gods and act out what the gods are doing in a play. That's a
ritual in itself.

Steve Jackson Games put out "Authentic Thaumaturgy" by Issac Bonewits.
It's supposed to be an accurate game portrayal of how "real" magic
works. (For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)

There was also another game put out called Witchcraft that didn't sell
very well, so it's now available for free at (I think) Drivethru.com.
Don't know how authentic it is, but hey, it's a game about casting
spells in the modern world. I have a copy, but unfortunately no one to
play with. :-/

The only other game I can think of that *might* have a "realistic"
portrayal of magic is the long forgotten Fantasy Wargaming. It's
medieval based, but the writer did quite a bit of research to try and
make the system as "realistic" as possible.


Ralph Glatt

Member, Old Farts Club

[C***@gmail.com]

Post by julian814

Post by C***@gmail.com
I had a long dream last night where I was shopping for role-playing
books. I was buying the white-wolf system of games and desperately
wanted to play. I'm not sure why I was buying white-wolf because they
have recently changed the game system and it is even worse than it was
before. I've never been actually able to play a white wolf game, and
it isn't only because I don't have friends who like role playing. In
my dream I imagined a realistic game system that paralleled what it's
like to actually be psychic, wiccan, or practicing ritual magic. And
you know I've put thought into creating my own game where there are no
real rules, but just a realistic foundation to base the adventure on.
It would be a really fun game to me, if there were expensive costumes
and props I could own, which would set me appart as someone who lived
in a gothic/cyberpunk setting. Then everyone who wanted to play could
also buy the costumes and just hang out. Then we could all just study
and practice magick, and deal with the fact that no one would accept us
as part of the American culture. Sure, maybe the spells wouldn't
always come true for people who were only there for the fun of it, but
sometimes if you really make an effort to pretend they are working they
have an effect. Kind of like how in other cultures when people dress
up as the gods and act out what the gods are doing in a play. That's a
ritual in itself.

Steve Jackson Games put out "Authentic Thaumaturgy" by Issac Bonewits.
It's supposed to be an accurate game portrayal of how "real" magic
works. (For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)
There was also another game put out called Witchcraft that didn't sell
very well, so it's now available for free at (I think) Drivethru.com.
Don't know how authentic it is, but hey, it's a game about casting
spells in the modern world. I have a copy, but unfortunately no one to
play with. :-/
The only other game I can think of that *might* have a "realistic"
portrayal of magic is the long forgotten Fantasy Wargaming. It's
medieval based, but the writer did quite a bit of research to try and
make the system as "realistic" as possible.
Ralph Glatt
Member, Old Farts Club

It actually sounds like an interesting book considering from the
advertisements the guy is the only person to graduate with a degree in
magic from the university of california. But I don't really believe
people can cast fantasy style spells to begin with. Fireballs and all
that may happen every once and awhile as a part of nature. You know if
you put a candle in the microwave balls of plasma will slowly rocket up
out of the flame. And you never know, there may be a remote chance
that if the stars were all aligned, the star dust might solidify the
water in the ocean long enough for someone to walk over it. But fate
and magick are a little different. Still, if you could tell me a bit
about how the rules work I might order a copy.

[julian814]

Post by C***@gmail.com

Post by julian814
Steve Jackson Games put out "Authentic Thaumaturgy" by Issac Bonewits.
It's supposed to be an accurate game portrayal of how "real" magic
works. (For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)

It actually sounds like an interesting book considering from the
advertisements the guy is the only person to graduate with a degree in
magic from the university of california. But I don't really believe
people can cast fantasy style spells to begin with. Fireballs and all
that may happen every once and awhile as a part of nature. You know if
you put a candle in the microwave balls of plasma will slowly rocket up
out of the flame. And you never know, there may be a remote chance
that if the stars were all aligned, the star dust might solidify the
water in the ocean long enough for someone to walk over it. But fate
and magick are a little different. Still, if you could tell me a bit
about how the rules work I might order a copy.

That's my biggest problem - I can't find the copy I had. All I really
remember from it is that you had to gather up mana points to use to
cast spells.

As to whether or not magic is "real," all I can say is that in the past
I took a stab at casting spells, and they didn't work. Some people
claim they do, though.


Ralph Glatt

Member, Old Farts Club

[Ophidian]

Post by julian814
As to whether or not magic is "real," all I can say is that in the past
I took a stab at casting spells, and they didn't work. Some people
claim they do, though.

My experience:
I've never seen _spells_ work.
But I've seen _magic_ seem to work.

(And I don't feel like going into my currency/usury theory right now...)

[Eric P.]

Post by Ophidian

Post by julian814
As to whether or not magic is "real," all I can say is that in the past
I took a stab at casting spells, and they didn't work. Some people
claim they do, though.

I've never seen _spells_ work.
But I've seen _magic_ seem to work.
(And I don't feel like going into my currency/usury theory right now...)

It's a subtle thing, so one needs must adjust one's expectations
accordingle ;)

Given the notion that every though and every action projects
energy out to the universe, and given the notion that everything
that has life radiates a kind of "life energy," the energy those
thoughts and actions project will affect living beings to some
degree. A pebble dropped into a pool of water sends ripples
across the surface in a similar fashion. You can perform a
ritual with a certain, specific intent, and fully expect that the
effect you're going for will come to pass, within reason. I
suppose some would say that you shouldn't be too specific
in your intent, but I can't say for sure about that.

OK, I think I'm going too far out here, so I'll stop :)

Peace,
Eric

[104]

Post by julian814
(For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)

That's like saying someone with a Golden Dawn grade of 5=6 has actually
experienced the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Gaurdian Angel,
hilarious.

[b***@taylorandfrancis.com]

Post by 104

Post by julian814
(For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)

That's like saying someone with a Golden Dawn grade of 5=6 has actually
experienced the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Gaurdian Angel,
hilarious.

He did what a fair percentage of people who gain a degree do. He made a
living peddling bullshit, still does. Who would begrudge him; he
doesn't force anyone to buy into it. I read the book long ago. Dull,
unconvincing and innoffensive.

Will in New Haven

--

"Don't worry too much about being bluffed. D*gs DO bite."
_Poker for Cats_ by Feather

[Eric P.]

Post by b***@taylorandfrancis.com

Post by 104

Post by julian814
(For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)

That's like saying someone with a Golden Dawn grade of 5=6 has actually
experienced the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Gaurdian Angel,
hilarious.

He did what a fair percentage of people who gain a degree do. He made a
living peddling bullshit, still does. Who would begrudge him; he
doesn't force anyone to buy into it. I read the book long ago. Dull,
unconvincing and innoffensive.
Will in New Haven
--
"Don't worry too much about being bluffed. D*gs DO bite."
_Poker for Cats_ by Feather

There was a dream I had a few nights back, and I awoke from it
feeling very happy. I was trying to cross a room about the size
of a high school gym, with a young woman in tow, when all these
rogue/assasin types appeared. The room was dim, but I could
make out the figures approaching, and there were many. I had
the ability to produce a knife out of thin air, and hurl it at the
nearest foe. It was always a one-hit kill, and the knife reappeared
in my hand, but the rogues got back up and kept coming, and
the same knife wouldn't take a foe down more than once. I
then produced a sword that crackled with energy, almost like
a lightsabre, and found that decapitating the rogues would put
'em down permanently.

When there were only a few rogues left in the room, three evil
arcane spellcasters appeared in the center, and put their backs
together, then began to merge into one at the same time they
were preparing some nasty, devastating spell. I leaped toward
the three-in-one foe, and swung my blade downward at the
nearest neck as the three spines were fusing. I cut through
the first head, and it fell to the side. My blade went halfway
through the second head, and I could tell the creature was
perishing, when the image faded to white, and I awoke, feeling
triumphant :)

Not often I have an interesting dream that leaves me feeling
so happy. Maybe three or four times a year.

Just wanted to share, as it's kinda relevant.

Happy gaming and dreaming,
Eric

[Archangel]

Post by 104

Post by julian814
(For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)

That's like saying someone with a Golden Dawn grade of 5=6 has actually
experienced the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Gaurdian Angel,
hilarious.

Indeed it is. And naive...


A

[Eric P.]

[dream imagery snipped]

Post by julian814

Post by C***@gmail.com
And
you know I've put thought into creating my own game where there are no
real rules, but just a realistic foundation to base the adventure on.
It would be a really fun game to me, if there were expensive costumes
and props I could own, which would set me appart as someone who lived
in a gothic/cyberpunk setting. Then everyone who wanted to play could
also buy the costumes and just hang out. Then we could all just study
and practice magick, and deal with the fact that no one would accept us
as part of the American culture. Sure, maybe the spells wouldn't
always come true for people who were only there for the fun of it, but
sometimes if you really make an effort to pretend they are working they
have an effect. Kind of like how in other cultures when people dress
up as the gods and act out what the gods are doing in a play. That's a
ritual in itself.

Steve Jackson Games put out "Authentic Thaumaturgy" by Issac Bonewits.
It's supposed to be an accurate game portrayal of how "real" magic
works. (For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)

That is debatable. I would consider someone an expert if the person had
experiences from which to draw conclusions, rather than any formal study
and corresponding degrees.

I wonder if they make a distinction between magic and metaphysics. I'd
say, based on personal experience (oh, boy...here we go ;) ), that the
two are synonymous IRL.

Post by julian814
There was also another game put out called Witchcraft that didn't sell
very well, so it's now available for free at (I think) Drivethru.com.
Don't know how authentic it is, but hey, it's a game about casting
spells in the modern world. I have a copy, but unfortunately no one to
play with. :-/
The only other game I can think of that *might* have a "realistic"
portrayal of magic is the long forgotten Fantasy Wargaming. It's
medieval based, but the writer did quite a bit of research to try and
make the system as "realistic" as possible.

That came out as a hardback book, didn't it? If so, I think I have it
in a box somewhere. Glancing through it gave me an overall impression
of a "dark" feel.

Post by julian814
Ralph Glatt
Member, Old Farts Club

Eric P.

Spiritual adventurer

[Ophidian]

Post by julian814
Steve Jackson Games put out "Authentic Thaumaturgy" by Issac Bonewits.
It's supposed to be an accurate game portrayal of how "real" magic
works. (For those who don't know, Issac Bonewits has a degree in the
occult from a Californian college, so I'm pretty sure he knows what
he's talking about.)

My sarcasm detector just pinged.
Does it need recalibration?
I've seen quite a few "real mages" take apart Issac's version,
which makes sense, since there is no single "real world magic system".
At best there are "systems".

Post by julian814
There was also another game put out called Witchcraft that didn't sell
very well, so it's now available for free at (I think) Drivethru.com.
Don't know how authentic it is, but hey, it's a game about casting
spells in the modern world. I have a copy, but unfortunately no one to
play with. :-/

Yeah, I got an electronic version for free, but don't recall from where,
and haven't read or played it. ;(

Post by julian814
The only other game I can think of that *might* have a "realistic"
portrayal of magic is the long forgotten Fantasy Wargaming. It's
medieval based, but the writer did quite a bit of research to try and
make the system as "realistic" as possible.

Ars Magica deserves mention too.
Although its goal seems to be more to present the world as
Medieval people may have believed it existed.
So it does have an occassional outright fantasy element.

Mage deserves honorable mention too.
It basically takes current theories of magic from real life and
modern day set fiction and cranks them to eleven.

[C Lynn]

--
- Chris
http://www.geocities.com/manodogs/

Post by julian814
The only other game I can think of that *might* have a "realistic"
portrayal of magic is the long forgotten Fantasy Wargaming. It's
medieval based, but the writer did quite a bit of research to try and
make the system as "realistic" as possible.
Ralph Glatt

FW is actually an incredible system, but it really is *wargaming* as opposed
to *role-playing*, in that there is very little room to create a character
based upon your individual decisions; there is a stat and score for
everything and everything is diced. For example, if you want to lead your
party, there is a leadership value; there are scores for friendship and
loyalty and so on.

It is incredibly realistic and the magick system is very much based on how
Medieval peoples thought Magick worked (not necessarily on any Magick
system, such as Enochian or Sex Magick or anything like that). It is a very
realistic system but again, it is based on how people then *thought* Magick
worked.

- Chris
http://www.geocities.com/manodogs/RPG/

[C Lynn]

--
- Chris
http://www.geocities.com/manodogs/

In my dream I imagined a realistic game system that paralleled what it's
like to actually be psychic, wiccan, or practicing ritual magic. And
you know I've put thought into creating my own game where there are no
real rules, but just a realistic foundation to base the adventure on.
It would be a really fun game to me, if there were expensive costumes
and props I could own, which would set me appart as someone who lived
in a gothic/cyberpunk setting. Then everyone who wanted to play could
also buy the costumes and just hang out. Then we could all just study
and practice magick, and deal with the fact that no one would accept us
as part of the American culture. Sure, maybe the spells wouldn't
always come true for people who were only there for the fun of it, but
sometimes if you really make an effort to pretend they are working they
have an effect. Kind of like how in other cultures when people dress
up as the gods and act out what the gods are doing in a play. That's a
ritual in itself.

Yes, that *is* ritual magick, after a fashion. On the offhand chance that
you are being serious and not subversive, the absolute best RPG magic system
I've ever encountered (and one that could easily work in any system) is from
Mayfair's Chill and is in the Chill Companion book. It breaks everything
into separate components (time, effect, distance, etc.) and allows you to
value them from 1-10, resulting in "spells" which you create entirely on
your own (there are samples).

While my own system has a system for "psionics" based entirely on real-life
research (not pop theories or movie concepts) which works really well, a
magic system based on actual, IRL systems would be counter-productive to
almost any type of gaming I can think of. And the only reason for having
such a system would be to introduce the "players" to the Occult, which is
dangerous; if you're interested in practicing the Occult but too afraid to
do so, you don't need to be poking it with a stick. After all, if you were
to role-play a person going on a diet, your overall goal would be to get
that person into a dieting mindset, so as to make the actual dieting that
much easier to handle -- give one an idea of what they were in for.

Having said that, I seem to remember some game or resource that had an
Abra-Melin tablet in the sideline as an illustration, which I found terribly
inappropriate (I want to say it was a GURPS or SJG product, but I don't
recall) -- of course, the vast majority of readers would have no idea what
it was. A system which handled magic *more realistically* than a fireball
from the fingertips is one thing (Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu did this very
well -- I have no idea how well the d20 version handles it); a magic system
based on actual, real-life Magick (whichever system, or even an amalgam)
would be pretty boring:

GM: Okay, so what do you do today?
Player: Well, I'm going to read some more, think about what I read, work
myself into a heightened state of consciousness, and work on my painting.
GM: Roll.

Not to mention that the hobby doesn't need that sort of thing; we have
enough negative associations with the Occult as it is (see some of the
current threads, in fact).

http://www.geocities.com/manodogs

[Eric P.]

Post by C Lynn
--
- Chris
http://www.geocities.com/manodogs/

In my dream I imagined a realistic game system that paralleled what it's
like to actually be psychic, wiccan, or practicing ritual magic. And
you know I've put thought into creating my own game where there are no
real rules, but just a realistic foundation to base the adventure on.
It would be a really fun game to me, if there were expensive costumes
and props I could own, which would set me appart as someone who lived
in a gothic/cyberpunk setting. Then everyone who wanted to play could
also buy the costumes and just hang out. Then we could all just study
and practice magick, and deal with the fact that no one would accept us
as part of the American culture. Sure, maybe the spells wouldn't
always come true for people who were only there for the fun of it, but
sometimes if you really make an effort to pretend they are working they
have an effect. Kind of like how in other cultures when people dress
up as the gods and act out what the gods are doing in a play. That's a
ritual in itself.

Yes, that *is* ritual magick, after a fashion. On the offhand chance that
you are being serious and not subversive, the absolute best RPG magic system
I've ever encountered (and one that could easily work in any system) is from
Mayfair's Chill and is in the Chill Companion book. It breaks everything
into separate components (time, effect, distance, etc.) and allows you to
value them from 1-10, resulting in "spells" which you create entirely on
your own (there are samples).

I've seen similar procedures in other systems as well. I don't favor
making the players invent spells for their characters, because that
calls for too much collaboration and decision-making with the DM.
Just give me a standard spell list, and have the player pick from
that list for his/her character's spells.

Post by C Lynn
While my own system has a system for "psionics" based entirely on real-life
research (not pop theories or movie concepts) which works really well, a
magic system based on actual, IRL systems would be counter-productive to
almost any type of gaming I can think of. And the only reason for having
such a system would be to introduce the "players" to the Occult, which is
dangerous; if you're interested in practicing the Occult but too afraid to
do so, you don't need to be poking it with a stick. After all, if you were
to role-play a person going on a diet, your overall goal would be to get
that person into a dieting mindset, so as to make the actual dieting that
much easier to handle -- give one an idea of what they were in for.

Very cool undertaking! I've thought of doing the same (the psionics
thing, which I call "non-physical reality" or "metaphysics"). My mind
doesn't equate psychic phenomena with the Occult, but that's just
me. Perhaps the stigma associated with the term has colored my
thinking on the subject.

Another way of handling psionics would be to base it on The Force
from Star Wars. I'd like to see that implemented in d20 fantasy rules.

Post by C Lynn
Having said that, I seem to remember some game or resource that had an
Abra-Melin tablet in the sideline as an illustration, which I found terribly
inappropriate (I want to say it was a GURPS or SJG product, but I don't
recall) -- of course, the vast majority of readers would have no idea what
it was. A system which handled magic *more realistically* than a fireball
from the fingertips is one thing (Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu did this very
well -- I have no idea how well the d20 version handles it); a magic system
based on actual, real-life Magick (whichever system, or even an amalgam)

I have no knowledge of the tablet you mentioned.

There's a d20 Cthulhu game? Why am I not surprised? *L*

I think such a system would be boring or not depending on how it's
put together and how it works. Any set of game mech needs help
from the DM (storyteller) to come to life.

Post by C Lynn
GM: Okay, so what do you do today?
Player: Well, I'm going to read some more, think about what I read, work
myself into a heightened state of consciousness, and work on my painting.
GM: Roll.

Some play that way already *L*

Post by C Lynn
Not to mention that the hobby doesn't need that sort of thing; we have
enough negative associations with the Occult as it is (see some of the
current threads, in fact).

Agreed, as I've mentioned above.

Howzabout using the term "supernatural" instead of "Occult"? The O-word
has had too much negativity associated with it. Just a thought.

Happy gaming,
Eric

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Eric P.
There's a d20 Cthulhu game? Why am I not surprised? *L*

It was produced by Wizards of the Coast, and it's actually very good indeed.

[Tetsubo]

Post by Christopher Adams

Post by Eric P.
There's a d20 Cthulhu game? Why am I not surprised? *L*

It was produced by Wizards of the Coast, and it's actually very good indeed.

I've often wondered, how does the "feel" of Lovecraft translate into
the D20 system? Are the insanity rules any good? How do they handle HPs?
I just don't see the heroes in a Lovecraft story as using the HP type of
combat. It was usually a one hit sort of a take down...
--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
/_|_\

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Tetsubo
I've often wondered, how does the "feel" of Lovecraft translate into
the D20 system? Are the insanity rules any good? How do they handle HPs?
I just don't see the heroes in a Lovecraft story as using the HP type of
combat. It was usually a one hit sort of a take down...

The insanity rules are essentially the same - there's a percentile Sanity stat
in addition to the rest of your abilities.

It must be noted that it was designed by Monte Cook and John "Unknown Armies"
Tynes, and that both Bruce Cordell and Kenneth Hite are credited as additional
designers. I would describe d20 Call of Cthulhu as among the most interesting
and successful of the early modifications of the d20 System.

Hit points work the same as in D&D, except that the massive damage save
threshold is *10* rather than 50, and all characters have d6 hit dice. For
reference's sake, a generic handgun (more on firearms later) does 1d10 damage, a
rifle 2d10, a shotgun from 3d6 to 1d6 depending on the range, and a submachine
gun 1d10 per shot (but they're easier to make multiple attacks in a round with).
It's not all that unlikely that a gun battle will end bloodily in short order;
they all do x3 crit and an average rifle or shotgun blast (within 50 feet) is
enough to force a massive damage save.

The game has no classes - characters choose either the Defense Option, which
grants two good saving throws and poor BAB, or the Offense Option, which grants
a better BAB but only one good saving throw.

Characters get eight skill points per level, and choose twelve "core skills"
(effectively class skills). There are sixteen "profession templates" providing
choices of these core skills for character types like "Antiquarian", or
"Technician", or "Doctor/Nurse" as examples to use or customise as you see fit.
Each template actually picks out nine core skills and leaves three open, but you
can customise them anyway or do without a template altogether.

One thing I like about the game is the way it accounts for different eras you
might want to play in - for instance, the Starting Money and Income table
encompasses the periods 1901-1920, 1921-1940, and so on up to 1981-2000+.
There's also a handy option for granting characters a Defense Bonus to AC
(Offense Option characters get an extra Weapon Proficiency feat at 1st level to
make up for their Defense Bonus starting at +0) if you want a more pulpy feel to
the game.

There's a short but neat system of Psychic Feats, the more useful of which have
a Sanity cost in addition to temporary Wisdom damage.

When you consider how liberally Lovecraft's protagonists use firearms and
explosives when they have access to them, and *especially* when you consider the
way BRP Call of Cthulhu was actually played, I think it would be unfair to write
d20 Call of Cthulhu off for being too "actiony" or "D&Dish" despite its use of
many parts of the d20 combat system and its inclusion of lots and lots of
specific guns. There are simpler rules for firearms (describing the "generic"
handgun, rifle, shotgun, and submachine gun) if you don't want to be bothered by
the big fat table of specific makes; the actual section describing specific guns
is pretty useful for placing them in historical context. There's also a good
section on Firearms and the Law organised by time period - very handy!

There's a decent Sanity-based spellcasting system, and a fun section of Mythos
monsters.

In total, I think it's a pretty ace system for playing Call of Cthulhu and a
surprisingly solid, simple and useful system for playing any kind of modern
game.

[Eric P.]

Post by Tetsubo

Post by Christopher Adams

Post by Eric P.
There's a d20 Cthulhu game? Why am I not surprised? *L*

It was produced by Wizards of the Coast, and it's actually very good indeed.

I've often wondered, how does the "feel" of Lovecraft translate into
the D20 system? Are the insanity rules any good? How do they handle HPs?
I just don't see the heroes in a Lovecraft story as using the HP type of
combat. It was usually a one hit sort of a take down...

I don't find the genre to be compatible with frp, but that's largely
a matter of style. While I say I have no room for sanity rules in
my games, I adore psionics, and some others have no room for
that concept in their games.

Happy gaming,
Eric

[C Lynn]

Post by Tetsubo

Post by Christopher Adams

Post by Eric P.
There's a d20 Cthulhu game? Why am I not surprised? *L*

It was produced by Wizards of the Coast, and it's actually very good indeed.

I've often wondered, how does the "feel" of Lovecraft translate into
the D20 system? Are the insanity rules any good? How do they handle HPs? I
just don't see the heroes in a Lovecraft story as using the HP type of
combat. It was usually a one hit sort of a take down...
--
Tetsubo
http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/ --------------------------------------

CoC was originally based on a d20 system and uses HP, so I wasn't worried
about that. But the D20 System is so family-friendly that I assumed they'd
water everything down to make it more "gameable" and acceptable for kids.
Like you noted, while CoC *could* be played campaign-style, it usually ended
up being much shorter due to the inherent dangers, and I figured WotC would
whitewash all of that to get more people to play it and buy the book, which
would really go against the feel of the game, so I haven't checked it out.
But system-wise, the original one was close enough to D20 that I think it
would be okay.

[Christopher Adams]

Post by C Lynn
CoC was originally based on a d20 system and uses HP, so I wasn't worried
about that. But the D20 System is so family-friendly that I assumed
they'd water everything down to make it more "gameable" and acceptable
for kids. Like you noted, while CoC *could* be played campaign-style, it
usually ended up being much shorter due to the inherent dangers, and I
figured WotC would whitewash all of that to get more people to play it
and buy the book, which would really go against the feel of the game, so
I haven't checked it out.

I'm happy to inform you that you were seriously wrong. :)

[Stephenls]

Post by Christopher Adams
I'm happy to inform you that you were seriously wrong. :)

Yes.

Call of Cthulhu d20 has two of the best essays ever written on the
subject of running Call of Cthulhu as an RPG, in the form of Chapter 9
("The Cthulhu Mythos") and Chapter 10 ("The Gamemaster"). Really
insightful stuff, possibly better than any material published on those
subjects in actual Call of Cthulhu BRP books.

Which isn't surprising, as they're written by John Tynes, one of the
minds behind Delta Green.

I'll say it outright: Call of Cthulhu d20 is the best version of the
Call of Cthulhu RPG that's ever been published. And will likely remain
that way, if Chaosium continues its practice of releasing a new
"edition" every five years consisting of a new layout, sixteen old typos
fixed, and sixteen new typos inserted.

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Stephenls

Post by Christopher Adams
I'm happy to inform you that you were seriously wrong. :)

Yes.

Nice to have you back, Stephen. I've enjoyed your recent Snarky Stephen work at
RPG.Net, though.

Post by Stephenls
I'll say it outright: Call of Cthulhu d20 is the best version of the
Call of Cthulhu RPG that's ever been published. And will likely remain
that way, if Chaosium continues its practice of releasing a new
"edition" every five years consisting of a new layout, sixteen old typos
fixed, and sixteen new typos inserted.

It's a shame they work that way. :( Not that I know much about the BRP system,
but d20 Call of Cthulhu is *really* good.

[C Lynn]

--

Post by Eric P.

Post by C Lynn
- Chris
http://www.geocities.com/manodogs/
Yes, that *is* ritual magick, after a fashion. On the offhand chance that
you are being serious and not subversive, the absolute best RPG magic system
I've ever encountered (and one that could easily work in any system) is from
Mayfair's Chill and is in the Chill Companion book. It breaks everything
into separate components (time, effect, distance, etc.) and allows you to
value them from 1-10, resulting in "spells" which you create entirely on
your own (there are samples).

I've seen similar procedures in other systems as well. I don't favor
making the players invent spells for their characters, because that
calls for too much collaboration and decision-making with the DM.
Just give me a standard spell list, and have the player pick from
that list for his/her character's spells.

Yes, it's like a metasystem for designing your own spells. There are
samples and technically, you should design the spells beforehand, but
enterprising players and characters could feasibly design their own spells,
incantations, rituals -- whatever. But, as IRL, that would (should) be
rare, so you'd eventually end up with a "standardized" list of spells
(granted, you'd have to spend time developing it).

Post by Eric P.

Post by C Lynn
While my own system has a system for "psionics" based entirely on real-life
research (not pop theories or movie concepts) which works really well, a
magic system based on actual, IRL systems would be counter-productive to
almost any type of gaming I can think of. And the only reason for having
such a system would be to introduce the "players" to the Occult, which is
dangerous; if you're interested in practicing the Occult but too afraid to
do so, you don't need to be poking it with a stick. After all, if you were
to role-play a person going on a diet, your overall goal would be to get
that person into a dieting mindset, so as to make the actual dieting that
much easier to handle -- give one an idea of what they were in for.

Very cool undertaking! I've thought of doing the same (the psionics
thing, which I call "non-physical reality" or "metaphysics"). My mind
doesn't equate psychic phenomena with the Occult, but that's just
me. Perhaps the stigma associated with the term has colored my
thinking on the subject.
Another way of handling psionics would be to base it on The Force
from Star Wars. I'd like to see that implemented in d20 fantasy rules.

The thing about "psionics" is that there is no real way to test it, so if
you have subject A taking a test with playing cards in one room, and subject
B taking the same test in an adjacent room, neither or both may score low --
which is taken as "proof" that the subjects' clairvoyance is weak. But if
you have them come back the next day and take the same tests, then compare
the results from the day before, sometimes either or both subjects will
score 100% (which could be "proof" of their predicting the future).
Further, if you compare subject A's results with the cards subject B was
testing with, subject A could have 100% on subject B's test -- but does that
"prove" that subject B was telepathically "sending" his clairvoyant thoughts
to subject A, or that subject A was telepathically "reading" subject B's
clairvoyant thoughts? Etc., etc. There's just no good way to break
"psychic powers" down into the commonly accepted "fields" most games use.
But I *like* the comic-bookish gaminess of such things (like in Psi World
and Gamma World), so I enjoy them in other games.

Post by Eric P.

Post by C Lynn
Having said that, I seem to remember some game or resource that had an
Abra-Melin tablet in the sideline as an illustration, which I found terribly
inappropriate (I want to say it was a GURPS or SJG product, but I don't
recall) -- of course, the vast majority of readers would have no idea what
it was. A system which handled magic *more realistically* than a fireball
from the fingertips is one thing (Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu did this very
well -- I have no idea how well the d20 version handles it); a magic system
based on actual, real-life Magick (whichever system, or even an amalgam)

I have no knowledge of the tablet you mentioned.

Abra-Melin is a certain "system" of ritual magick involving palindromes on
lettered tablets which are supposed to have different properties when read
different ways. I'm not very familiar with it, but familiar enough to have
recognized one of the tablets in a gaming book several years back. And
while most people wouldn't know that, it's still inappropriate. Just like
if a game described all the ritualistic elements from an actual incantation,
but just statted-up the results and called it another name. To wit, if you
explained all the steps in how to assemble an Ikea table, but added "Roll
vs. INT" at the end, the reader would still know how to assemble the table;
the more appropriate way would be to delete the actual instructions and just
say, "Roll vs. INT to assemble the table."

Post by Eric P.
There's a d20 Cthulhu game? Why am I not surprised? *L*
I think such a system would be boring or not depending on how it's
put together and how it works. Any set of game mech needs help
from the DM (storyteller) to come to life.

I agree, but some systems really are better-suited for certain
genres/stories/whatever. For instance, Chaosium's Insanity system for CoC
is absolutely essential for that game, but would not work as well in others,
and would in fact bog some of them down so much as to be counter-productive.
Still, I agree that a good GM can make the best of a game, regardless of the
system. The original CoC was a "d20" system anyway, so as long as they
didn't sanitize it too much, the d20 version should be pretty good. Of
course, if they whitewashed it too much to make it palatable to the masses
(and more "gamable"), it would really kill it, and if you're going to have
to get the old books to "beef-up" the new release, you might as well play
the old one...

Post by Eric P.

Post by C Lynn
Not to mention that the hobby doesn't need that sort of thing; we have
enough negative associations with the Occult as it is (see some of the
current threads, in fact).

Agreed, as I've mentioned above.
Howzabout using the term "supernatural" instead of "Occult"? The O-word
has had too much negativity associated with it. Just a thought.
Happy gaming,
Eric

Yes, I used "Occult" because the original poster was specifically speaking
about just that and I wanted to make that exact point. If one were to
develop a RPG system based on IRL Occult practices, systems, rituals, so on,
it would (understandably) be seen as nothing more than a subversive way to
communicate Occult teachings to new "students" -- a way to induct new people
into the Occult -- and that would be very, very bad for the RPG community,
indeed.

http://www.geocities.com/manodogs

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by C Lynn
The thing about "psionics" is that there is no real way to test it, so if
you have subject A taking a test with playing cards in one room, and subject
B taking the same test in an adjacent room, neither or both may score low --
which is taken as "proof" that the subjects' clairvoyance is weak. But if
you have them come back the next day and take the same tests, then compare
the results from the day before, sometimes either or both subjects will
score 100% (which could be "proof" of their predicting the future).
Further, if you compare subject A's results with the cards subject B was
testing with, subject A could have 100% on subject B's test -- but does that
"prove" that subject B was telepathically "sending" his clairvoyant thoughts
to subject A, or that subject A was telepathically "reading" subject B's
clairvoyant thoughts? Etc., etc. There's just no good way to break
"psychic powers" down into the commonly accepted "fields" most games use.

Crap. Just pick your hypothesis beforehand and test it.

The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

Post by C Lynn
Abra-Melin is a certain "system" of ritual magick involving palindromes on
lettered tablets which are supposed to have different properties when read
different ways. I'm not very familiar with it, but familiar enough to have
recognized one of the tablets in a gaming book several years back. And
while most people wouldn't know that, it's still inappropriate. Just like
if a game described all the ritualistic elements from an actual incantation,
but just statted-up the results and called it another name.

Who cares? It's all made up anyway and none of it works.

If you think you can prove otherwise go to www.randi.org and make
yourself a millionaire. Put up or shut up.

Post by C Lynn
Yes, I used "Occult" because the original poster was specifically speaking
about just that and I wanted to make that exact point. If one were to
develop a RPG system based on IRL Occult practices, systems, rituals, so on,
it would (understandably) be seen as nothing more than a subversive way to
communicate Occult teachings to new "students" -- a way to induct new people
into the Occult -- and that would be very, very bad for the RPG community,
indeed.

Crap again I say. Nobody except the Jack Chick kind of lunatic fringe
US christians have cared about occult themes in roleplaying games since
the eighties. More importantly, you have to be soft in the head to take
occult claptrap seriously in the first place. Most people would just
use it as fun flavour text for a roleplaying game. The twits who would
take any of it seriously would be a tiny minority.

[Eric P.]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
The thing about "psionics" is that there is no real way to test it, so if
you have subject A taking a test with playing cards in one room, and subject
B taking the same test in an adjacent room, neither or both may score low --
which is taken as "proof" that the subjects' clairvoyance is weak. But if
you have them come back the next day and take the same tests, then compare
the results from the day before, sometimes either or both subjects will
score 100% (which could be "proof" of their predicting the future).
Further, if you compare subject A's results with the cards subject B was
testing with, subject A could have 100% on subject B's test -- but does that
"prove" that subject B was telepathically "sending" his clairvoyant thoughts
to subject A, or that subject A was telepathically "reading" subject B's
clairvoyant thoughts? Etc., etc. There's just no good way to break
"psychic powers" down into the commonly accepted "fields" most games use.

Crap. Just pick your hypothesis beforehand and test it.
The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

Post by C Lynn
Abra-Melin is a certain "system" of ritual magick involving palindromes on
lettered tablets which are supposed to have different properties when read
different ways. I'm not very familiar with it, but familiar enough to have
recognized one of the tablets in a gaming book several years back. And
while most people wouldn't know that, it's still inappropriate. Just like
if a game described all the ritualistic elements from an actual incantation,
but just statted-up the results and called it another name.

Who cares? It's all made up anyway and none of it works.
If you think you can prove otherwise go to www.randi.org and make
yourself a millionaire. Put up or shut up.

Post by C Lynn
Yes, I used "Occult" because the original poster was specifically speaking
about just that and I wanted to make that exact point. If one were to
develop a RPG system based on IRL Occult practices, systems, rituals, so on,
it would (understandably) be seen as nothing more than a subversive way to
communicate Occult teachings to new "students" -- a way to induct new people
into the Occult -- and that would be very, very bad for the RPG community,
indeed.

Crap again I say. Nobody except the Jack Chick kind of lunatic fringe
US christians have cared about occult themes in roleplaying games since
the eighties. More importantly, you have to be soft in the head to take
occult claptrap seriously in the first place. Most people would just
use it as fun flavour text for a roleplaying game. The twits who would
take any of it seriously would be a tiny minority.

Is that to say that you don't believe in anything to do with the
supernatural?

- E

[Kevin Lowe]

In article

Post by Eric P.

Post by Kevin Lowe
Crap again I say. Nobody except the Jack Chick kind of lunatic fringe
US christians have cared about occult themes in roleplaying games since
the eighties. More importantly, you have to be soft in the head to take
occult claptrap seriously in the first place. Most people would just
use it as fun flavour text for a roleplaying game. The twits who would
take any of it seriously would be a tiny minority.

Is that to say that you don't believe in anything to do with the
supernatural?

I'd be very interested if someone took the JREF million with an actual
demonstration of psychic powers, magick, crystal healing or what have
you. I don't rule out the possibility that it could happen. But I do
think it's incredibly unlikely.

I do know one thing for certain, however. If a person believes in
magick or any of that foofle, but won't try to win the million with it,
then that person is full of shit and that person knows that they are
full of shit.

[Eric P.]

Post by Kevin Lowe
In article

Post by Eric P.

Post by Kevin Lowe
Crap again I say. Nobody except the Jack Chick kind of lunatic fringe
US christians have cared about occult themes in roleplaying games since
the eighties. More importantly, you have to be soft in the head to take
occult claptrap seriously in the first place. Most people would just
use it as fun flavour text for a roleplaying game. The twits who would
take any of it seriously would be a tiny minority.

Is that to say that you don't believe in anything to do with the
supernatural?

I'd be very interested if someone took the JREF million with an actual
demonstration of psychic powers, magick, crystal healing or what have
you. I don't rule out the possibility that it could happen. But I do
think it's incredibly unlikely.
I do know one thing for certain, however. If a person believes in
magick or any of that foofle, but won't try to win the million with it,
then that person is full of shit and that person knows that they are
full of shit.

I suppose it's reasonable to expect that, if a person is capable of
manipulating energy, there aught to be a way to record and measure
it. I know that it's possible to do, but I don't know how it might
be measured.

Peace,
Eric

[Kevin Lowe]

In article

Post by Eric P.

Post by Kevin Lowe
I'd be very interested if someone took the JREF million with an actual
demonstration of psychic powers, magick, crystal healing or what have
you. I don't rule out the possibility that it could happen. But I do
think it's incredibly unlikely.
I do know one thing for certain, however. If a person believes in
magick or any of that foofle, but won't try to win the million with it,
then that person is full of shit and that person knows that they are
full of shit.

I suppose it's reasonable to expect that, if a person is capable of
manipulating energy, there aught to be a way to record and measure
it. I know that it's possible to do, but I don't know how it might
be measured.

Screw measuring "energy", just make the wanker in question do something.
Anything. *Anything* supernatural that can be distinguished from
wishful thinking and fraud can win the million.

Can someone else feel this "energy"? That will do. Can they feel
someone else's "energy", or feel this "energy" in an object? That would
do too. If there is one single solitary thing this "energy" can do or
allow you to feel which can be distinguished from wishful thinking or
fraud it's eligible.

Yet the million lies unclaimed, and most magick believers won't even try
for it. Coincidence? I think not. I think that they know what they
are shovelling, and know that it cannot be distinguished from fraud and
wishful thinking by any means.

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe
In article

Post by Kevin Lowe
I do know one thing for certain, however. If a person believes in
magick or any of that foofle, but won't try to win the million with it,
then that person is full of shit and that person knows that they are
full of shit.

Screw measuring "energy", just make the wanker in question do something.
Anything. *Anything* supernatural that can be distinguished from
wishful thinking and fraud can win the million.

How? If there is no unbiased way to *prove* this "energy," then all the
sceptics will insist the whole thing is a coincidence brought upon by
wishful thinking, or an anomaly that can be explained by *normal* science,
so it's not supernatural.

Post by Kevin Lowe
Can someone else feel this "energy"? That will do. Can they feel
someone else's "energy", or feel this "energy" in an object? That would
do too. If there is one single solitary thing this "energy" can do or
allow you to feel which can be distinguished from wishful thinking or
fraud it's eligible.

Right, that's credible. That's like if we're both in the same room and I
say I'm cold and you say you're not, so how can I be?

Post by Kevin Lowe
Yet the million lies unclaimed, and most magick believers won't even try
for it. Coincidence? I think not. I think that they know what they
are shovelling, and know that it cannot be distinguished from fraud and
wishful thinking by any means.

If it cannot be distinguished from fraud or wishful thinking, then how can
it be tested? It's a set-up, plain and simple, and everyone knows that.
The real problem is that Randi thinks he's so clever that no one's figured
it out yet.

Post by Kevin Lowe
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
In article
Screw measuring "energy", just make the wanker in question do something.
Anything. *Anything* supernatural that can be distinguished from
wishful thinking and fraud can win the million.

How? If there is no unbiased way to *prove* this "energy," then all the
sceptics will insist the whole thing is a coincidence brought upon by
wishful thinking, or an anomaly that can be explained by *normal* science,
so it's not supernatural.

Quite correctly, to my mind. If it's totally indistinguishable from
wishful thinking you'd be an idiot to call it supernatural.

Post by C Lynn
If it cannot be distinguished from fraud or wishful thinking, then how can
it be tested?

Exactly.

[Stephenls]

Post by Kevin Lowe
Quite correctly, to my mind. If it's totally indistinguishable from
wishful thinking you'd be an idiot to call it supernatural.

Oh, knock it off. I may be skeptical of the existence of real magic, but
I'm even more skeptical of the motives of folk who engage in long setups
that end in excuses passive-aggressively feel self-superior and call
entire groups of people idiots.

[Stephenls]

Post by Stephenls
Oh, knock it off. I may be skeptical of the existence of real magic, but
I'm even more skeptical of the motives of folk who engage in long setups
that end in excuses passive-aggressively feel self-superior and call
entire groups of people idiots.

"...excuses /to/ passive-aggressively feel self superior..."

TO. Tee oh.

Curse my typo-prone fingers!

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Stephenls

Post by Kevin Lowe
Quite correctly, to my mind. If it's totally indistinguishable from
wishful thinking you'd be an idiot to call it supernatural.

Oh, knock it off. I may be skeptical of the existence of real magic, but
I'm even more skeptical of the motives of folk who engage in long setups
that end in excuses passive-aggressively feel self-superior and call
entire groups of people idiots.

Who cares about my motives? Why attack my motives?

It's simply a fact that if you consider things supernatural that are
indistinguishable from wishful thinking, you're an idiot. It doesn't
matter who says it, because it would be true even if nobody said it at
all.

[Stephenls]

Post by Kevin Lowe
Who cares about my motives? Why attack my motives?

Because people's motives for making arguments are often far more
interesting than the arguments themselves.

"Academic discussion is 90% redefining the terms of discourse so as to
make disagreement with your position impossible and 10% thinly veiled
attacks against those who refuse to accept your redefinitions."

Post by Kevin Lowe
It's simply a fact that if you consider things supernatural that are
indistinguishable from wishful thinking, you're an idiot. It doesn't
matter who says it, because it would be true even if nobody said it at
all.

That's great if you wish to feel superior, but not useful if you wish to
interact in a positive manner with the 90% of genuinely decent humans
who occasionally fail to distinguish the supernatural from wishful thinking.

[Robin Low]

Random thoughts inspired by...

Post by Kevin Lowe
Screw measuring "energy", just make the wanker in question do something.
Anything. *Anything* supernatural that can be distinguished from
wishful thinking and fraud can win the million.

Okay, but what if magic only works on a wishful thinking level? What if
it's so subtle that it can only manifest in ways that appear
coincidental?

Here's an example. After a late shift, a girl is waiting at the bus
stop. She waits for ages, but the bus doesn't come. It's a Friday night
and there are a few drunks about, so she's nervous. She decides to walk
home, but phones her sister to let her know. Her sister is worried about
her, so she performs a little magic, activating a protection charm she's
been working on. A few minutes later it starts to pour with rain.

When the walking sister arrives homes, she's pretty wet, but she
describes how when the rain came down, suddenly everyone disappeared off
the streets, nobody left to see her or bother her.

Coincidence or magic? Well, we certainly can't prove it was magic, but
I'm not sure how you would prove it was coincidence either - you can
reasonably say it was, but you can't prove it.

Either way, the absence of proof has limited value. Only recently did
we develop the ability to prove that planets outside this solar systems
existed, but those planets existed regardless. I'm sure we can all think
of examples of things that existed, but couldn't be proved to exist
until we had the technology to detect and measure them. Or maybe they
only popped into existence when a scientist considered the possibility
and decided to look for them, but that's getting into the quantum
realms... and, er, magic.

Also, just to be a pain in the arse, how many of us believe in
statements provided by science when we can't actually understand the
proofs? Sure, a whole bunch of mathematicians might tell us that the
equations work out, but how do we know they're not lying to us? I'm told
that the majority of the universe is apparently missing, something to do
with this dark matter stuff - I don't know myself, but I have faith in
the scientists.

I'm not saying I believe in magic. I just think the possibility that it
exists makes for a more interesting universe than the certainty that it
doesn't.


Regards

Robin

[Justisaur]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
The thing about "psionics" is that there is no real way to test it, so if
you have subject A taking a test with playing cards in one room, and subject
B taking the same test in an adjacent room, neither or both may score low --
which is taken as "proof" that the subjects' clairvoyance is weak. But if
you have them come back the next day and take the same tests, then compare
the results from the day before, sometimes either or both subjects will
score 100% (which could be "proof" of their predicting the future).
Further, if you compare subject A's results with the cards subject B was
testing with, subject A could have 100% on subject B's test -- but does that
"prove" that subject B was telepathically "sending" his clairvoyant thoughts
to subject A, or that subject A was telepathically "reading" subject B's
clairvoyant thoughts? Etc., etc. There's just no good way to break
"psychic powers" down into the commonly accepted "fields" most games use.

Crap. Just pick your hypothesis beforehand and test it.
The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

- Justisaur.

[Rick Pikul]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Kevin Lowe
Crap. Just pick your hypothesis beforehand and test it.
The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.

If those conditions are met, Randi hands over a cheque for $10,000 and
starts the transfer of the $990,000 in bonds.


You can get the real information about the prize here:

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html


To date, all the ducking has been by applicants, (some for years), not by
JREF.

[Ophidian]

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Justisaur
I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.

Conditions set by?

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Justisaur
I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.

Conditions set by?

Mutual agreement.

[Ophidian]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Justisaur
I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.

Conditions set by?

Mutual agreement.

Which leaves Randi the option of not agreeing to a
"reasonable" condition as much as it does his challengers.
Ultimately, Randi has the money, he sets the rules.
Not that this proves him wrong, just that it makes it easy for him
to avoid ever being proven wrong.

[Rick Pikul]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul
The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.

Conditions set by?

Mutual agreement.

Which leaves Randi the option of not agreeing to a
"reasonable" condition as much as it does his challengers.

Except that he isn't the one ducking out on tests.

What kinds of conditions does Randi demand?

Double-blind testing where possible.

_Everything_ is recorded.

Measures are taken to stop any of the many stage magic tricks used to
simulate paranormal powers.

A 'hit' rate that is well beyond any reasonable amout of luck, (e.g.
getting a yes/no question right more than 20 times out of 25).

Post by Ophidian
Ultimately, Randi has the money, he sets the rules.
Not that this proves him wrong, just that it makes it easy for him
to avoid ever being proven wrong.

Well, to date, of the ~1000 people who have applied: None have even
passed the peliminary test.

[Ophidian]

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul
The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.

Conditions set by?

Mutual agreement.

Which leaves Randi the option of not agreeing to a
"reasonable" condition as much as it does his challengers.

Except that he isn't the one ducking out on tests.

Because he doesn't _need_ to.
He's holding the cards.
If a "psychic" arranges a "proof" Randy need only disagree with
the conditions to "win".

Post by Rick Pikul
Well, to date, of the ~1000 people who have applied: None have even
passed the peliminary test.

Of course not!

The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.
I need never concede that I should.
Randi need never accept a passable test if such a thing is possible.
It's entirely a sucker bet that proves nothing.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ophidian
Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.

No. Randi and you agree to some standard. You attempt to meet that
standard.

There's no personal judgment on his part when you actually participate.

He *WANTS* to find a real psychic. He, like me, would be overjoyed to
find one.

The "agree" is done BEFORE YOU DO ANY DEMONSTRATION AT ALL.

So this would be you agreeing to give someone 1,000 who performs task
X, with you and that someone agreeing to WHAT DEFINES DOING TASK X
before that someone does anything at all.

In the case of psychic abilities, what Randi does is

1) Ascertain what you claim to do -- which YOU control, mind you, so
it's entirely up to you what you claim to be able to do. So don't make
claims that you can't back up.

2) Determine appropriate ways to test this claim -- OBJECTIVELY. If
that requires outside judges or experts, he will find ones that you
can agree on. The methodology of testing your claim is also one that
is submitted to you for approval.

3) ONLY AFTER BOTH OF YOU have agreed to the methodology and judging
conditions do you demonstrate anything.

4) AT THAT POINT IT IS OUT OF RANDI'S HANDS. He has agreed to the
methods and the conditions that you must meet, and YOU have accepted
those conditions, and if you meet those conditions, HE MUST PAY OFF.

The conditions that Randi will set are ones designed TO EXCLUDE
TRICKERY and to DEMONSTRATE ABILITY. If you actually HAVE some
supernatural ability, then you've got a guaranteed payday.

People somehow think that Randi is against psychics. He's not. He's
against fakers -- deliberate OR self-deluded. I have the same
attitude: I would be ECSTATIC to find a real honest-to-god psionic,
wizard, etc. But I won't BELIEVE they exist unless they actually
demonstrate their abilities under controlled, verifiable, replicable
conditions because that's the best way to distinguish the real from
the delusion or the fake.

[Ophidian]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian
Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.

No. Randi and you agree to some standard. You attempt to meet that
standard.

OK, we're getting redundant now.
Randi needs only agree to standards that he knows will fail.

Post by Sea Wasp
He *WANTS* to find a real psychic. He, like me, would be overjoyed
to find one.

I don't believe him.

Post by Sea Wasp
So this would be you agreeing to give someone 1,000 who performs
task X, with you and that someone agreeing to WHAT DEFINES DOING TASK X
before that someone does anything at all.

I'll give $1000 to any person who can verifiably fly to the moon with
no mechanical assistance.

Post by Sea Wasp
2) Determine appropriate ways to test this claim -- OBJECTIVELY.

How is "appropriate" objective?

Post by Sea Wasp
4) AT THAT POINT IT IS OUT OF RANDI'S HANDS.

By that point he's already got you.

Post by Sea Wasp
People somehow think that Randi is against psychics. He's not. He's
against fakers -- deliberate OR self-deluded.

He seems to be against the possibility and enjoys revealing the fakes
as "evidence".

Post by Sea Wasp
I would be ECSTATIC to find a real honest-to-god psionic, wizard, etc.
But I won't BELIEVE they exist unless they actually demonstrate their
abilities under controlled, verifiable, replicable conditions because
that's the best way to distinguish the real from the delusion or the fake.

I won't believe Bill Clinton exists.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian
Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.

No. Randi and you agree to some standard. You attempt to meet that
standard.

OK, we're getting redundant now.
Randi needs only agree to standards that he knows will fail.

Nobody with a reasonable protocal has ever been knocked back.

This is just denial on your part. You desperately want it to be true
that the challenge is rigged. Sorry, but there's no evidence it is.
It's just that super powers don't exist.

Neither does God or Santa Claus. Sorry to be the one who broke it to
you.

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian
Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.

No. Randi and you agree to some standard. You attempt to meet that
standard.

OK, we're getting redundant now.
Randi needs only agree to standards that he knows will fail.

Nobody with a reasonable protocal has ever been knocked back.
This is just denial on your part. You desperately want it to be true
that the challenge is rigged. Sorry, but there's no evidence it is.
It's just that super powers don't exist.
Neither does God or Santa Claus. Sorry to be the one who broke it to
you.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

Ah yes, since you have no experience with any of those things, they cannot
possibly exist. Now I see why you don't believe in sex.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by C Lynn
Ah yes, since you have no experience with any of those things, they cannot
possibly exist.

Nice missing the entire point.

Randi doesn't care if YOU believe the powers exist. *I* don't care if
you do, either.

If YOU care whether OTHER PEOPLE do, that's where it becomes relevant.

I don't say that "psionic powers don't and cannot exist". I say "I
have never seen sufficient evidence to prove that they exist, and if
you assert that you have, that's nice, but I have no reason to believe
you unless you offer some REAL evidence."

If you don't care whether anyone believes you, that's fine, but then
Randi's challenge isn't directed at you. It's directed at people who
want OTHER people to believe them. Extraordinary claims (the existence
of powers for which there is no objective available evidence) demand
extraordinary evidence (REPEATABLE demonstration of the abilities
under CONTROLLED conditions). If you don't like it, fine, don't
participate. But it's not a trick, it's not a scam, it's a simple
scientific test being devised to perform one, and only one, function:
to demonstrate whether or not the claimed ability exists.

[Ophidian]

Post by Sea Wasp
If you don't care whether anyone believes you, that's fine, but then
Randi's challenge isn't directed at you.

Yet so many use it as evidence against those who believe
the "paranormal" is possible.
(Not claiming your one of them...
'Cause I don't feel like backtracking...)

Post by Sea Wasp
It's directed at people who
want OTHER people to believe them.

Possibly true for you and Randi.
I believe Randi also uses it as evidence against those who believe
that the "paranormal" is possible.
ANYONE who says "if it's possible, then why hasn't anyone beat
the challenge?" is doing that.

Post by Sea Wasp
Extraordinary claims (the existence
of powers for which there is no objective available evidence)

"objective"?

Post by Sea Wasp
demand
extraordinary evidence (REPEATABLE demonstration of the abilities under
CONTROLLED conditions).

That's ordinary evidence.
Unless you think gravity requires extraordinary evidence.

Post by Sea Wasp
But it's not a trick, it's not a scam,

MMMV.

Post by Sea Wasp
it's a simple scientific test
being devised to perform one, and only one, function: to demonstrate
whether or not the claimed ability exists.

Prove it.

[Eric P.]

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian
Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.

No. Randi and you agree to some standard. You attempt to meet that
standard.

OK, we're getting redundant now.
Randi needs only agree to standards that he knows will fail.

Nobody with a reasonable protocal has ever been knocked back.
This is just denial on your part. You desperately want it to be true
that the challenge is rigged. Sorry, but there's no evidence it is.
It's just that super powers don't exist.
Neither does God or Santa Claus. Sorry to be the one who broke it to
you.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

Ah yes, since you have no experience with any of those things, they cannot
possibly exist. Now I see why you don't believe in sex.

Dude is sick and sad, yeah? Disappointing...but only if one's
expectations are set too high.

"Neither does God" Indeed *LOL*

Peace,
Eric

[Ophidian]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian
OK, we're getting redundant now.
Randi needs only agree to standards that he knows will fail.

Nobody with a reasonable protocal has ever been knocked back.

Never claimed they have.
I don't need to.

Post by Kevin Lowe
This is just denial on your part.

Hardly.
It's called skepticism.

Post by Kevin Lowe
You desperately want it to be true
that the challenge is rigged.

It is rigged.

Post by Kevin Lowe
Sorry, but there's no evidence it is.

Denial doesn't change the facts.

Post by Kevin Lowe
It's just that super powers don't exist.

Of course they do.

Post by Kevin Lowe
Neither does God or Santa Claus.

Yes they do.

Post by Kevin Lowe
Sorry to be the one who broke it to
you.

Someone did that years ago.
They were also wrong.
Enjoy your closed mind.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian
Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.

No. Randi and you agree to some standard. You attempt to meet that
standard.

OK, we're getting redundant now.
Randi needs only agree to standards that he knows will fail.

No. He has agreed to many tests which would only fail IF THE PERSON
WAS FAKING OR SELF-DELUDED. Which is the point of having standards.

What standards, exactly, would you think he SHOULD agree to? Ones
that would allow you to fake stuff? The whole POINT of the test -- of
the money being offered -- is to PROVE the existence of the claimed
abilities.

Therefore, any standards set must (A) be agreed to by YOU (because
otherwise there can't be any test), (B) be CAPABLE OF EXCLUDING ALL
POSSIBLE DELUSION OR DELIBERATE FAKERY ON YOUR PART.

Category (B) is the ONLY one that Randi uses. He doesn't set up
conditions saying "Ha, and even if he HAS powers he'll never pass
this". He allows YOU, the claimant, to say WHAT YOU CAN DO. "I can
move paperclips without touching them". He then sets up test
conditions which exclude your being able to move the paperclips with
anything other than some unknown force.

How is this cheating? It's perfectly fair. You either can do what you
claim, or you cannot. If you can, then you pass, and by the standards
you BOTH agreed to, and he HAS to pay. And he would.

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp
He *WANTS* to find a real psychic. He, like me, would be overjoyed
to find one.

I don't believe him.

Or me?

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp
So this would be you agreeing to give someone 1,000 who performs
task X, with you and that someone agreeing to WHAT DEFINES DOING TASK
X before that someone does anything at all.

I'll give $1000 to any person who can verifiably fly to the moon with
no mechanical assistance.

And this means what? He says "I'll give a million dollars to someone
who can prove that they have paranormal abilities. THEY get to tell me
what they can do. *I* set conditions that make sure they can't cheat,
and we BOTH have to agree to them."

This is the *ONLY* fair way to do it. It's the only methodology which
would prove the existence of these abilities -- controlled, repeatable
demonstrations. Oh, if you had Superhero-level abilities you wouldn't
need it -- if you could, for instance, lift a battleship
telekinetically, there'd be no need for fancy setups to find out if
you could do it. But if your abilities are subtle or small enough,
they can be easily faked. And a former stage magician is one of the
best people to set up controlled conditions; he KNOWS how things can
be faked.

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp
2) Determine appropriate ways to test this claim -- OBJECTIVELY.

How is "appropriate" objective?

"Appropriate" in this context means "conditions which allow you to
demonstrate your claim WHILE EXCLUDING FAKERY AND SELF DELUSION".

Again, you ignore the fact that many people have taken his challenge,
and that he's SET the conditions -- and if you look at the conditions
he sets, they are determined BY THE PERSON WHO IS TAKING THE
CHALLENGE. They say "I can do X". He says, "very well, we will test
for X. X can be faked by doing Y and Z. Here are conditions which
exclude Y and Z, leaving only a paranormal solution."

Describe a way in which this is unfair. Also describe a way in which
I could test you for paranormal abilities which would NOT be done in
this fashion, yet would exclude all possible fakery or self delusion.

[Ophidian]

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian
Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.

No. Randi and you agree to some standard. You attempt to meet
that standard.

OK, we're getting redundant now.
Randi needs only agree to standards that he knows will fail.

No. He has agreed to many tests which would only fail IF THE PERSON
WAS FAKING OR SELF-DELUDED.

Which, hm, they were.

Post by Sea Wasp
What standards, exactly, would you think he SHOULD agree to?

Doesn't matter.
I'm not in the loop as one of the parties who must "agree".

Post by Sea Wasp
Ones
that would allow you to fake stuff? The whole POINT of the test -- of
the money being offered -- is to PROVE the existence of the claimed
abilities.

Sounds like wishful thinking.
Why would Randi want that proved?

Post by Sea Wasp
Therefore, any standards set must (A) be agreed to by YOU (because
otherwise there can't be any test), (B) be CAPABLE OF EXCLUDING ALL
POSSIBLE DELUSION OR DELIBERATE FAKERY ON YOUR PART.

And C) agreed to by Randi.

Post by Sea Wasp
Category (B) is the ONLY one that Randi uses. He doesn't set up
conditions saying "Ha, and even if he HAS powers he'll never pass this".

Prove it.
Although that's irrelevant too.

Post by Sea Wasp
How is this cheating?

Didn't say it was.

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp
He *WANTS* to find a real psychic. He, like me, would be
overjoyed to find one.

I don't believe him.

Or me?

You, I believe.
So far.

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp
So this would be you agreeing to give someone 1,000 who performs
task X, with you and that someone agreeing to WHAT DEFINES DOING TASK
X before that someone does anything at all.

I'll give $1000 to any person who can verifiably fly to the moon with
no mechanical assistance.

And this means what? He says "I'll give a million dollars to someone
who can prove that they have paranormal abilities. THEY get to tell me
what they can do. *I* set conditions that make sure they can't cheat,
and we BOTH have to agree to them."

Hey, if you can fly to the moon, and we agree on the conditions go
for it.

Post by Sea Wasp
This is the *ONLY* fair way to do it. It's the only methodology
which would prove the existence of these abilities -- controlled,
repeatable demonstrations.

False.
Non-repeatable phenomenon are an accepted part of science.

Post by Sea Wasp

Post by Ophidian

Post by Sea Wasp
2) Determine appropriate ways to test this claim -- OBJECTIVELY.

How is "appropriate" objective?

"Appropriate" in this context means "conditions which allow you to
demonstrate your claim WHILE EXCLUDING FAKERY AND SELF DELUSION".

"which we both agree to".

Post by Sea Wasp
Describe a way in which this is unfair. Also describe a way in which
I could test you for paranormal abilities which would NOT be done in
this fashion, yet would exclude all possible fakery or self delusion.

Even Randi's method does not do the latter.
I already said a better magician might be able to beat him.

[Christopher Adams]

Post by Sea Wasp
People somehow think that Randi is against psychics. He's not. He's
against fakers -- deliberate OR self-deluded.

James Randi - Raistlin Majere. Separated at birth?

[Rick Pikul]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian
Which leaves Randi the option of not agreeing to a
"reasonable" condition as much as it does his challengers.

Except that he isn't the one ducking out on tests.

Because he doesn't _need_ to.
He's holding the cards.
If a "psychic" arranges a "proof" Randy need only disagree with
the conditions to "win".

Too bad for you that that is not what he has been doing.

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul
Well, to date, of the ~1000 people who have applied: None have even
passed the peliminary test.

Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.
I need never concede that I should.
Randi need never accept a passable test if such a thing is possible.
It's entirely a sucker bet that proves nothing.

The problem with this claim is that he _HAS_ accepted tests that would be
passable if the claimant really had the ability claimed.


No matter how much you hide behind claims of ways he could make the prize
unwinnable: It don't mean shit if Randi doesn't use them.

[Ophidian]

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian
Because he doesn't _need_ to.
He's holding the cards.
If a "psychic" arranges a "proof" Randy need only disagree with
the conditions to "win".

Too bad for you that that is not what he has been doing.

Doesn't matter.
The relevant part is that he can.
Though in reality, he _has_.
Randi HAS disagreed with "psychics'" conditions before.
That why he still has the money.

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul
Well, to date, of the ~1000 people who have applied: None have even
passed the peliminary test.

Of course not!
The whole scam is similar to me saying I will give $1000 to the
next person who convinces me I should.
I need never concede that I should.
Randi need never accept a passable test if such a thing is possible.
It's entirely a sucker bet that proves nothing.

The problem with this claim is that he _HAS_ accepted tests that would be
passable if the claimant really had the ability claimed.

So?

Post by Rick Pikul
No matter how much you hide behind claims of ways he could make the prize
unwinnable: It don't mean shit if Randi doesn't use them.

It means precisely as much as the fact that no one has beaten him.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian
Conditions set by?

Mutual agreement.

Which leaves Randi the option of not agreeing to a
"reasonable" condition as much as it does his challengers.
Ultimately, Randi has the money, he sets the rules.
Not that this proves him wrong, just that it makes it easy for him
to avoid ever being proven wrong.

That is, indeed a possible "out" in theory for Randi. He could just
refuse all reasonable conditions offered, or refuse all reasonable
suggestions for judges, or all reasonable test protocols or whatever.

However, he *doesn't*. No reasonable protocol that excludes wishful
thinking and fraud has ever been knocked back, apart from claims that
involve potential harm to the claimant.

So if you want to go on living in denial you'll have to go back to the
drawing board.

[Ophidian]

Post by Kevin Lowe
That is, indeed a possible "out" in theory for Randi. He could just
refuse all reasonable conditions offered, or refuse all reasonable
suggestions for judges, or all reasonable test protocols or whatever.
However, he *doesn't*. No reasonable protocol that excludes wishful
thinking and fraud has ever been knocked back, apart from claims that
involve potential harm to the claimant.

Randi gets to define reasonable.

Post by Kevin Lowe
So if you want to go on living in denial you'll have to go back to the
drawing board.

If you want to be an actual skeptic you'll question your faith in
the man.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
That is, indeed a possible "out" in theory for Randi. He could just
refuse all reasonable conditions offered, or refuse all reasonable
suggestions for judges, or all reasonable test protocols or whatever.
However, he *doesn't*. No reasonable protocol that excludes wishful
thinking and fraud has ever been knocked back, apart from claims that
involve potential harm to the claimant.

Randi gets to define reasonable.

Do you have any evidence that Randi has ever knocked back a reasonable
proposal? If not, you're just talking rubbish.

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
So if you want to go on living in denial you'll have to go back to the
drawing board.

If you want to be an actual skeptic you'll question your faith in
the man.

Based on what evidence? Evidence is important, not Randi.

[Ophidian]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian
Randi gets to define reasonable.

Do you have any evidence that Randi has ever knocked back a reasonable
proposal?

Don't need it.

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Ophidian
If you want to be an actual skeptic you'll question your faith in
the man.

Based on what evidence?

The definition of skeptic.

[Justisaur]

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Justisaur

Post by Kevin Lowe
Crap. Just pick your hypothesis beforehand and test it.
The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.
If those conditions are met, Randi hands over a cheque for $10,000 and
starts the transfer of the $990,000 in bonds.

Uh huh. No conditions up front for what he's looking for, so there's
actually no offer of anything, therefore nothing he could be sued for.

Scientifically you can't prove anything, you can't even prove the
theory of gravity, you can only disprove theories if you can find
something that doesn't fit.

- Justisaur

[ManoDogs]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Justisaur

Post by Kevin Lowe
Crap. Just pick your hypothesis beforehand and test it.
The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.
If those conditions are met, Randi hands over a cheque for $10,000 and
starts the transfer of the $990,000 in bonds.

Uh huh. No conditions up front for what he's looking for, so there's
actually no offer of anything, therefore nothing he could be sued for.
Scientifically you can't prove anything, you can't even prove the
theory of gravity, you can only disprove theories if you can find
something that doesn't fit.
- Justisaur

Exactly -- all the better for him to wriggle out of the whole mess once
he's taken up on it. The Randi supporters always wonder why no one has
ever taken him up on this oh-so-generous "offer" and I submit that it
has far more to do with the fact that anyone with the intelligence it
takes to tie their own shoelaces only needs hear him speak for 30
seconds to realize that this is just a set-up -- the whole point is to
get some poor mark to agree to do something so they can switch
everything around, pull out the old "you can't prove a negative"
circular arguments and so on, and make the person look like a complete
fool. And that's why no one has taken Randi up on this, or any other
offer. He's a smug flat-earther who insists the earth *must* be flat
because we can all see the ground is, and anyone who thinks otherwise,
blahblahblah. James Randi probably believes OJ is innocent and Clinton
did not have sexual relations with that woman -- after all, no one can
*prove* it... and doesn't OJ have some kind of $1 million reward or
something for anyone who catches the *real* killer(s)?

Same thing these kinds of people do with pictures and videos of things
like "lake monsters" and "Bigfoot" and "UFOs" and so on -- it's always
one accusation after another:

1. Some outlandish "logical possibility" (like Tibetan highschool kids
who flew to Hollywood over the weekend and bought a monkey suit)
2. "The people who took the pictures won't come forward" (so they can
be publicly mocked and humiliated and hopefully give up their claims --
thereby *proving* they're fakes, right?)
3. When they *do* come forward, attempt to discredit them in any
manner possible ("How can you *say* this is not a bear -- do you have a
degree in Zoology or Biology?" "Um, I have seen bears in zoos and I
have also seen bears in encyclopedias and things like that, and the
picture clearly does not show a bear." "In *your* UNEDUCATED
opinion.")
4. Make half-assed attempts to "duplicate" the "evidence" and accept
even the slightest similarity as "obvious proof the [evidence in
question] was fabricated."
5. On and on, until we get to the BIG ones: "Why has a carcass never
been found; why has a hunter never shot one; how could they traverse
the great distance in time and space; why would they even want to come
here"... the last bastions of a closed mind in the throes of agony,
desperately clinging to their flat-earth "facts."

And all of this is *proof* of only one thing: these peoples' utter
arrogance and ignorance. After all, if *they* can't do it, nobody can
-- not just in the world, not just in the universe, but in all worlds,
all universes, ever, never, never.

I absolutely believe there is something to a "Sixth-sense" or similar,
because I have had some weird experiences I could not explain, but I
don't know that I could duplicate them because I wasn't *trying* to do
anything when they occurred -- and I don't mean like setting things on
fire with my mind, I'm talking about a weird feeling not to get on that
train or a dream that later came true (to some extent). But I'm
smarter than James Randi (not unlike my dog's water dish, not unlike my
dog's left nut) and I know there's no way to conclusively *prove* that
these things happened -- and so does Randi. That'll be his last-ditch
thing: if the person who proves him wrong can't tell him how they did
it, then it will be a coincidence and when people balk at that lame
excuse, it will suddenly become an "anomaly," THEN he will insist the
person do it again because until he does, how can Randi be wrong?
Finally, Randi will offer some pseudo-scientific *explanation* for HOW
whatever was done was done, thereby *proving* it is not "supernatural,"
but can be scientifically explained (escaping gases from Randi's mouth
which cause hallucinations and wishful thinking), so it isn't really
supernatural anyway, so they don't get the money -- or better yet,
since he's such a good sport, they DO get the money, but they don't
really deserve it.

Like both of us said, James Randi is not going to be wrong, even when
he is; no one's ever going to get that money, assuming the money
actually exists, and no matter how successful anyone who takes the
offer is, they're going to be made a fool of.

http://www.geocities.com/manodogs/

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by ManoDogs

Post by Justisaur
Uh huh. No conditions up front for what he's looking for, so there's
actually no offer of anything, therefore nothing he could be sued for.
Scientifically you can't prove anything, you can't even prove the
theory of gravity, you can only disprove theories if you can find
something that doesn't fit.
- Justisaur

Exactly -- all the better for him to wriggle out of the whole mess once
he's taken up on it. The Randi supporters always wonder why no one has
ever taken him up on this oh-so-generous "offer" and I submit that it
has far more to do with the fact that anyone with the intelligence it
takes to tie their own shoelaces only needs hear him speak for 30
seconds to realize that this is just a set-up -- the whole point is to
get some poor mark to agree to do something so they can switch
everything around, pull out the old "you can't prove a negative"
circular arguments and so on, and make the person look like a complete
fool.

One little problem. Lots of woos have gotten a perfectly fair test and
failed. Not because Randi pulled the rug out from under them with some
last minute monkey trick, but because (surprise, surprise) their powers
didn't work under conditions that prevented fraud and wishful thinking
from working.

The idea that Randi is going to renege on the challenge is, so far, pure
fantasy. If he ever did so I'd be the first to condemn him, but even if
he wanted to (and you'd have to be a mind reader to know that) he has
never needed to, and never seems likely to need to.

The level of foaming denial the challenge brings out in the woowoos is
amusing though.

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by ManoDogs

Post by Justisaur
Uh huh. No conditions up front for what he's looking for, so there's
actually no offer of anything, therefore nothing he could be sued for.
Scientifically you can't prove anything, you can't even prove the
theory of gravity, you can only disprove theories if you can find
something that doesn't fit.
- Justisaur

Exactly -- all the better for him to wriggle out of the whole mess once
he's taken up on it. The Randi supporters always wonder why no one has
ever taken him up on this oh-so-generous "offer" and I submit that it
has far more to do with the fact that anyone with the intelligence it
takes to tie their own shoelaces only needs hear him speak for 30
seconds to realize that this is just a set-up -- the whole point is to
get some poor mark to agree to do something so they can switch
everything around, pull out the old "you can't prove a negative"
circular arguments and so on, and make the person look like a complete
fool.

One little problem. Lots of woos have gotten a perfectly fair test and
failed. Not because Randi pulled the rug out from under them with some
last minute monkey trick, but because (surprise, surprise) their powers
didn't work under conditions that prevented fraud and wishful thinking
from working.

I thought no one had ever agreed to the challenge? Why would there be a
preliminary challenge other than for Randi to weed-out VIABLE candidates he
fears *might* have a chance of actually proving him wrong? Seems to me that
he would benefit much more from letting some of these "woowoos" get on up
there and embarrass themselves -- especially since, if they failed, he
wouldn't lose anything.

Post by Kevin Lowe
The idea that Randi is going to renege on the challenge is, so far, pure
fantasy. If he ever did so I'd be the first to condemn him, but even if
he wanted to (and you'd have to be a mind reader to know that) he has
never needed to, and never seems likely to need to.

Well consider me Kreskin and make out that big, fake check directly to me.
Want me to prove it again? I see... I see you flaming me again in a
desperate attempt to drown out my reason, which you cannot dispute, with
insults you hope will discredit me and make me be quiet.

Post by Kevin Lowe
The level of foaming denial the challenge brings out in the woowoos is
amusing though.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

Now, on the subject of denial, what in all the world would make this test
any different from the literally hundreds of other tests done by *reputable*
institutions and agencies over the years? I sincerely hope that neither
Randi nor any of his sycophants are ever the victim of any crime involving
eyewitnesses, because we know how those "woowoos" can't be trusted. Or
photographs or film, for that matter. The crime would have to occur in the
courthouse at a specific time -- twice! -- in order for there to be a
prosecution...

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
One little problem. Lots of woos have gotten a perfectly fair test and
failed. Not because Randi pulled the rug out from under them with some
last minute monkey trick, but because (surprise, surprise) their powers
didn't work under conditions that prevented fraud and wishful thinking
from working.

I thought no one had ever agreed to the challenge? Why would there be a
preliminary challenge other than for Randi to weed-out VIABLE candidates he
fears *might* have a chance of actually proving him wrong? Seems to me that
he would benefit much more from letting some of these "woowoos" get on up
there and embarrass themselves -- especially since, if they failed, he
wouldn't lose anything.

No, many people have agreed to take up the challenge and lost the
preliminary challenge because their powers did not work under controlled
conditions.

So far nobody with a reasonable protocol has either been knocked back
unfairly, or been able to demonstrate anything supernatural.

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
The idea that Randi is going to renege on the challenge is, so far, pure
fantasy. If he ever did so I'd be the first to condemn him, but even if
he wanted to (and you'd have to be a mind reader to know that) he has
never needed to, and never seems likely to need to.

Well consider me Kreskin and make out that big, fake check directly to me.
Want me to prove it again? I see... I see you flaming me again in a
desperate attempt to drown out my reason, which you cannot dispute, with
insults you hope will discredit me and make me be quiet.

I see a lot of words but no sense. Randi's never reneged on a challenge
application yet, and the idea that he will is just your stupid idea.

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
The level of foaming denial the challenge brings out in the woowoos is
amusing though.

Now, on the subject of denial, what in all the world would make this test
any different from the literally hundreds of other tests done by *reputable*
institutions and agencies over the years?

You get a million if you pass it. What's holding you up, other than the
knowledge that you can't and nobody you know of can either?

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
One little problem. Lots of woos have gotten a perfectly fair test and
failed. Not because Randi pulled the rug out from under them with some
last minute monkey trick, but because (surprise, surprise) their powers
didn't work under conditions that prevented fraud and wishful thinking
from working.

I thought no one had ever agreed to the challenge? Why would there be a
preliminary challenge other than for Randi to weed-out VIABLE candidates he
fears *might* have a chance of actually proving him wrong? Seems to me that
he would benefit much more from letting some of these "woowoos" get on up
there and embarrass themselves -- especially since, if they failed, he
wouldn't lose anything.

No, many people have agreed to take up the challenge and lost the
preliminary challenge because their powers did not work under controlled
conditions.
So far nobody with a reasonable protocol has either been knocked back
unfairly, or been able to demonstrate anything supernatural.

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
The idea that Randi is going to renege on the challenge is, so far, pure
fantasy. If he ever did so I'd be the first to condemn him, but even if
he wanted to (and you'd have to be a mind reader to know that) he has
never needed to, and never seems likely to need to.

Well consider me Kreskin and make out that big, fake check directly to me.
Want me to prove it again? I see... I see you flaming me again in a
desperate attempt to drown out my reason, which you cannot dispute, with
insults you hope will discredit me and make me be quiet.

I see a lot of words but no sense. Randi's never reneged on a challenge
application yet, and the idea that he will is just your stupid idea.

And I quoth, "I see you flaming me again..."

I think I'm gonna buy a boat.

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
Now, on the subject of denial, what in all the world would make this test
any different from the literally hundreds of other tests done by *reputable*
institutions and agencies over the years?

You get a million if you pass it. What's holding you up, other than the
knowledge that you can't and nobody you know of can either?
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

It's a set-up, plain and simple, and Randi's not even the first to do it.
Besides, like I said earlier, proving you have any sort of "paranormal"
powers would be about as smart as proving you could make a Doomsday Device
from a handful of grass and spit. You'd become a worldwide celebrity,
feared, possibly hunted, definitely chided, people like you would hunt the
guy down incessantly because -- like your idol, Randi -- you simply wouldn't
believe it until you'd seen it for yourself, TWICE! Science and government
would demand the cat be studied; churches would alternately demonize and
lionize the subject (as proof of Satan's powers, proof of God's powers,
proof that Jesus existed and miracles happen, etc.), you'd be the butt of
late-night talk show jokes, you'd become tabloid fodder -- talk show people
would have a field day with that! ("If he really CAN do these things, why
doesn't he come here and do it on our show?") on and on and on... You just
can't change some peoples' minds, regardless.

[Rick Pikul]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Justisaur

Post by Kevin Lowe
Crap. Just pick your hypothesis beforehand and test it.
The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

The conditions for success are determened _before_ the test is performed.
If those conditions are met, Randi hands over a cheque for $10,000 and
starts the transfer of the $990,000 in bonds.

Uh huh. No conditions up front for what he's looking for, so there's
actually no offer of anything, therefore nothing he could be sued for.

He's looking for _any_ paranormal power or ability.

He has ruled out a few things from consideration, some due to
untestability, and others due to the inherrent dangers of testing, (such
as the claims of the Breathairians, who would starve to death with a
failed test).

But he also has a list of things which qualify without question:

"The following things are paranormal by definition:

Dowsing. ESP. Precognition. Remote Viewing. Communicating with the Dead
and/or "Channeling". Violations of Newton's Laws of Motion (Perpetual
Motion Devices). Homeopathy. Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint
problems). Faith Healing. Psychic Surgery. Astrology. Therapeutic Touch
(aka "TT"). Qi Gong. Psychokinesis (aka "PK"). The Existence of Ghosts.
Precognition & Prophecy. Levitation. Physiognomy. Psychometry. Pyramid
Power. Reflexology. Applied Kinesiology (aka "AK"). Clairvoyance. The
Existence of Auras. Graphology. Numerology. Palmistry. Phrenology."
(From _The JREF Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge "FAQ"_)


As for the exact power in question, it is up to the applicant to define
just exactly what he can do. For example, a dowser would have to define
just what he can dowse for, (metal, gems, oil, standing water, moving
water...), and how deep he can detect it.


As for nothing to sue for, every applicant enteres into a binding
contract with Randi and the JREF.

Post by Justisaur
Scientifically you can't prove anything, you can't even prove the
theory of gravity, you can only disprove theories if you can find
something that doesn't fit.

You can, however, prove that you can find which of the filled-in holes
have a bottle of water at the bottom by walking over them carrying a stick
with a success rate of over 80%.


As I said, you should go look at the real information abou the Randi
Prize: http://www.randi.org/research/index.html



As for people doubting the money exists: The JREF's 990 file with the
IRS is open to the public, and it shows that the bonds are quite real and
in the hands of Goldman Sachs.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=650649443&yr=200412&rt=990&t9=A

Should be the 990 form for 2004, (the 2005 one isn't up yet).

[Ophidian]

Post by Rick Pikul
He has ruled out a few things from consideration, some due to
untestability, and others due to the inherrent dangers of testing, (such
as the claims of the Breathairians, who would starve to death with a
failed test).

Would a Darwin award make up for losing Randi's challenge?

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Kevin Lowe
The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

Read the Challenge agreement. If he agrees to the test and you pass, he
owes you a million, no take-backs allowed. If he reneged you could sue
and win easily, and the existence of the money has been repeatedly
verified.

The test is not judged by Randi, it is judged by a person the challenger
and the JREF mutually agree on beforehand. The conditions that will
make up a pass result or a fail result are all agreed to beforehand.

Funnily enough though, push has never come to shove because nobody has
ever been able to present a supernatural effect which is distinguishable
from wishful thinking or fraud. If someone did so and Randi reneged
then all good skeptics would be in favour of the claimant being paid and
Randi being slapped. That doesn't seem likely to happen though.

The little mongrels just keep recycling excuses like these rather than
step up.

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Justisaur
I've seen some shows with James Randi, and it's pretty obvious he
wouldn't accept anything anway, and has no intention of giving away
that prize. He's a blind sceptic, If demons poped out of ground and
destroyed civilization, he'd be claiming mass hypnosis.

Read the Challenge agreement. If he agrees to the test and you pass, he
owes you a million, no take-backs allowed.

Well, if there's no take-backs allowed...

Post by Kevin Lowe
Funnily enough though, push has never come to shove because nobody has
ever been able to present a supernatural effect which is distinguishable
from wishful thinking or fraud. If someone did so and Randi reneged
then all good skeptics would be in favour of the claimant being paid and
Randi being slapped. That doesn't seem likely to happen though.

Because it would never happen. All "good skeptics" would immediately start
formulating "logical explanations" (like the reflection of passing geese off
the convex microwaves bouncing off Venus in the midday sun, or escaping
gases caused by underwater earthquakes too minute to be measured by known
science) which "prove" there was nothing supernatural about it.

Post by Kevin Lowe
The little mongrels just keep recycling excuses like these rather than
step up.

Like convex microwaves and the reflection of the sun off geese dressed in
monkey suits, flying past Venus, through swamp gas, in the midday sun.

Post by Kevin Lowe
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

[Rick Pikul]

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
Read the Challenge agreement. If he agrees to the test and you pass, he
owes you a million, no take-backs allowed.

Well, if there's no take-backs allowed...

There aren't.

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
Funnily enough though, push has never come to shove because nobody has
ever been able to present a supernatural effect which is
distinguishable from wishful thinking or fraud. If someone did so and
Randi reneged then all good skeptics would be in favour of the claimant
being paid and Randi being slapped. That doesn't seem likely to happen
though.

Because it would never happen. All "good skeptics" would immediately
start formulating "logical explanations" (like the reflection of passing
geese off the convex microwaves bouncing off Venus in the midday sun, or
escaping gases caused by underwater earthquakes too minute to be
measured by known science) which "prove" there was nothing supernatural
about it.

That's not how the challenge works.

_Before_ any testing is done, the applicant and the JREF agree what would
be required for a successful test. A mind reader might have the target of
20 out of 25 cards correctly identified, (using the standard 'ESP deck').


_How_ you do what you do isn't at issue: Just that you can do it.

[Ophidian]

Post by Kevin Lowe
Read the Challenge agreement. If he agrees to the test

Weasel point #1.

Post by Kevin Lowe
and you pass, he
owes you a million, no take-backs allowed. If he reneged you could sue
and win easily, and the existence of the money has been repeatedly
verified.
The test is not judged by Randi, it is judged by a person the challenger
and the JREF mutually agree on beforehand.

Weasel point #2.

Post by Kevin Lowe
The conditions that will
make up a pass result or a fail result are all agreed to beforehand.

Weasel point #3.

Don't forget that Randi is a trained stage magician.
He's an expert at using wiggle room to demonstrate things.
He's an expert on stacked decks.
I think the only one who could beat him is a better magician with
a better lawyer.

[Rick Pikul]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
Read the Challenge agreement. If he agrees to the test

Weasel point #1.

He has agreed to many tests.

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
and you pass, he
owes you a million, no take-backs allowed. If he reneged you could sue
and win easily, and the existence of the money has been repeatedly
verified.
The test is not judged by Randi, it is judged by a person the challenger
and the JREF mutually agree on beforehand.

Weasel point #2.

Well, if you want to claim that your device improves the taste of wine,
James would certainly agree to the judges being wine tasters from Wine
Spectator magazine:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-06/061606patent.html#i13

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
The conditions that will
make up a pass result or a fail result are all agreed to beforehand.

Weasel point #3.

No weaseling at all: You need a clearly defined target for the test, and
the person claiming he can do something gets to help set that target,
(typically the target is set _below_ what the person claims he can do).


The problem with your claims of 'weasel points' is that Randi has already
demonstrated that they are false.

[Ophidian]

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
Read the Challenge agreement. If he agrees to the test

Weasel point #1.

He has agreed to many tests.

And rejected others.

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
The test is not judged by Randi, it is judged by a person the challenger
and the JREF mutually agree on beforehand.

Weasel point #2.

Well, if you want to claim that your device improves the taste of wine,
James would certainly agree to the judges being wine tasters from Wine

Would he allow editors from FATE as judges on Hermetic Magick?

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
The conditions that will
make up a pass result or a fail result are all agreed to beforehand.

Weasel point #3.

No weaseling at all: You need a clearly defined target for the test, and
the person claiming he can do something gets to help set that target,
(typically the target is set _below_ what the person claims he can do).

Of course it's a weasel point.
It's a point where he can rig the victory conditions.
He need only agree if he knows he can win.

Post by Rick Pikul
The problem with your claims of 'weasel points' is that Randi has already
demonstrated that they are false.

How?
Everyone of those three points is an opportunity for him to stack
the deck.
And you want us to trust a stage magician not to stack the deck?

[Rick Pikul]

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
Read the Challenge agreement. If he agrees to the test

Weasel point #1.

He has agreed to many tests.

And rejected others.

When the claimant refuses to agree to something that would actually be a
controled test.


The most common reason for no test is that the applicant simply drops out
and stops communicating.

Next is insisting on a protocol that would allow for cheating, either
intentional or inherent.

Also common is a claim that is not actually paranormal, (e.g. 'dowsing'
for power lines using metal rods), or which would match what is expected
to happen by chance in the test period.

Some are rejected for beligerence, and some for incoherence.

A few manage to fall flat on their face during the application, (mostly
precognatives).


For the past couple of years, all of the communication between JREF and
the claimants has been posted on the JREF forum.

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
The test is not judged by Randi, it is judged by a person the
challenger and the JREF mutually agree on beforehand.

Weasel point #2.

Well, if you want to claim that your device improves the taste of
wine, James would certainly agree to the judges being wine tasters

Would he allow editors from FATE as judges on Hermetic Magick?

Likely, provided that they could be properly isolated to maintain a
double blind test.

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Kevin Lowe
The conditions that will
make up a pass result or a fail result are all agreed to beforehand.

Weasel point #3.

No weaseling at all: You need a clearly defined target for the test,
and the person claiming he can do something gets to help set that
target, (typically the target is set _below_ what the person claims he
can do).

Of course it's a weasel point.
It's a point where he can rig the victory conditions. He need only agree
if he knows he can win.

Let's look at some of the success conditions that have been suggested,
(and in some cases actually used):

Telekenetic who can move a plumb bob? Move one, and only one, of ten
hung in a sealed box, the exact one randomly determined at the time of the
test.

Mind reader? Identify the object hidden under a box by the 'readee', the
readee is selected by the mind reader from any of the people running the
test.

Psychic Surgeon? Remove something shown to be present by standard
diagnostic techniques before, (such as an MRI), and gone after.

X-Ray eyes? Match a list of conditions, (plate in head, screws in leg,
removed appendix, etc), to a set of subjects. Get 6 of 8 right.

Douse for water? Identify which of 10 covered buckets contains water,
succeed in 8 out of 10 trials.

Human magnet? Have a 51kg fridge maintain unsupported contact with the
applicant's chest, (held vertical), for 5 seconds. That was _exactly_
what the applicant said he could do, JREF only required the single
condition that talcum powder be applied to him first in their acceptance
of the application..


Some of these are tests which have actually been used, all of them are
ones which JREF has either offered or accepted.

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul
The problem with your claims of 'weasel points' is that Randi has
already demonstrated that they are false.

How?

By doing _exactly_ what you are claiming he will not do.

Post by Ophidian
Everyone of those three points is an opportunity for him to stack the
deck.

Which he has _not_ used.

Post by Ophidian
And you want us to trust a stage magician not to stack the deck?

Yes, when he lets you take the deck and shuffle it as much as you want,
while he goes over to the other side of the room until after the hand is
played.

[Ophidian]

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian

Post by Rick Pikul
The problem with your claims of 'weasel points' is that Randi has
already demonstrated that they are false.

How?

By doing _exactly_ what you are claiming he will not do.

I never claimed he wouldn't.

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian
Everyone of those three points is an opportunity for him to stack the
deck.

Which he has _not_ used.

Irrelevant.

Post by Rick Pikul

Post by Ophidian
And you want us to trust a stage magician not to stack the deck?

Yes, when he lets you take the deck and shuffle it as much as you want,
while he goes over to the other side of the room until after the hand is
played.

You've never seen that trick?

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
The thing about "psionics" is that there is no real way to test it, so if
you have subject A taking a test with playing cards in one room, and subject
B taking the same test in an adjacent room, neither or both may score low --
which is taken as "proof" that the subjects' clairvoyance is weak. But if
you have them come back the next day and take the same tests, then compare
the results from the day before, sometimes either or both subjects will
score 100% (which could be "proof" of their predicting the future).
Further, if you compare subject A's results with the cards subject B was
testing with, subject A could have 100% on subject B's test -- but does that
"prove" that subject B was telepathically "sending" his clairvoyant thoughts
to subject A, or that subject A was telepathically "reading" subject B's
clairvoyant thoughts? Etc., etc. There's just no good way to break
"psychic powers" down into the commonly accepted "fields" most games use.

Crap. Just pick your hypothesis beforehand and test it.
The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing prize of one
million dollars for *any* demonstration of a supernatural ability under
conditions that eliminate fraud and wishful thinking as mechanisms. No
"real" psychic researcher will go near it with a ten foot pole, because
no "real" psychic researcher has any interesting, repeatable results to
show.

No real anyone would mess with James Randi; the guy's just full of hate and
has some weird, incessant need to be right. He's a chatroom troll come to
life. Even if someone set him on fire with their mind, he'd find a way to
wriggle out of paying them -- most likely some bizarre, convoluted
explanation of convex microwaves or a flock of radioactive geese flying past
Venus or some shit. That's the problem with people like him, even amongst
actual researchers: they just won't be swayed to believe what they don't
want to believe, regardless, and no amount of "proof" is enough for them.
"Bigfoot"/"abominable snowman"/etc. sightings have been around for thousands
of years, there are countless photos and videotapes, innumerable
sightings -- even the Smithsonian ran an article a few years back about some
DNA testing that "proved" the DNA from a supposed Yeti flesh sample matched
no known animal! -- but the vast majority of "real" scientists deny that
it's even worth looking into. They're just schoolyard nerds with bigger
pants and more excuses than ethics.

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
Abra-Melin is a certain "system" of ritual magick involving palindromes on
lettered tablets which are supposed to have different properties when read
different ways. I'm not very familiar with it, but familiar enough to have
recognized one of the tablets in a gaming book several years back. And
while most people wouldn't know that, it's still inappropriate. Just like
if a game described all the ritualistic elements from an actual incantation,
but just statted-up the results and called it another name.

Who cares? It's all made up anyway and none of it works.
If you think you can prove otherwise go to www.randi.org and make
yourself a millionaire. Put up or shut up.

Oh give it a rest. If you absolutely need to flame people just to be
noticed, get an AOL account. Besides, I never said I believe in psychic
powers or magick; the two are very closely-related to many fields of
interest, including RPGs and sci-fi, so I have read a lot about them over
the years and mined what I've read for ideas in RP gaming. That being said,
I think James Randi a perfect example of a loudmouthed fool and anyone who
goes on about him and his big Jerry's Kids check he totes around with him
like a spare rubber woman is never anything more than a blowhard. If James
Randi's got $1 million and really *doesn't* believe anything but what his
borderline-retarded mind can comprehend, why doesn't he spend that money on
research to disprove such? Oh that's right -- "you can't prove a
negative"... Pffft.

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
Yes, I used "Occult" because the original poster was specifically speaking
about just that and I wanted to make that exact point. If one were to
develop a RPG system based on IRL Occult practices, systems, rituals, so on,
it would (understandably) be seen as nothing more than a subversive way to
communicate Occult teachings to new "students" -- a way to induct new people
into the Occult -- and that would be very, very bad for the RPG community,
indeed.

Crap again I say. Nobody except the Jack Chick kind of lunatic fringe
US christians have cared about occult themes in roleplaying games since
the eighties. More importantly, you have to be soft in the head to take
occult claptrap seriously in the first place. Most people would just
use it as fun flavour text for a roleplaying game. The twits who would
take any of it seriously would be a tiny minority.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

In any event, the inclusion of such in a RPG is just playing with fire.
Heck, Juda Priest and Ozzy Osbourne were taken to court over suicidal themes
in their music! Regardless of what anyone believes or discounts, RPGs were
slapped with the Occult stigma and it stuck.

I didn't even know they *had* phones in Tasmania.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by C Lynn
No real anyone would mess with James Randi; the guy's just full of hate and
has some weird, incessant need to be right.

Poor baby, the nasty man hates you. I suggest you pay him back (and
prove him wrong) by taking his million dollars away.

Post by C Lynn
He's a chatroom troll come to
life. Even if someone set him on fire with their mind, he'd find a way to
wriggle out of paying them -- most likely some bizarre, convoluted
explanation of convex microwaves or a flock of radioactive geese flying past
Venus or some shit.

Read the challenge agreement, it's on his site. If he tried that you
could sue him and win, no problem at all. All you need to do is pass
the challenge with a supernatural ability that isn't self-delusion or
fakery.

Unfortunately, it does seem that all supernatural powers are
self-delusion or fakery. What a crying shame for you.

Post by C Lynn
That's the problem with people like him, even amongst
actual researchers: they just won't be swayed to believe what they don't
want to believe, regardless, and no amount of "proof" is enough for them.
"Bigfoot"/"abominable snowman"/etc. sightings have been around for thousands
of years, there are countless photos and videotapes, innumerable
sightings -- even the Smithsonian ran an article a few years back about some
DNA testing that "proved" the DNA from a supposed Yeti flesh sample matched
no known animal! -- but the vast majority of "real" scientists deny that
it's even worth looking into. They're just schoolyard nerds with bigger
pants and more excuses than ethics.

You should stop believing all the things you read on woo-woo web sites.
Countless photos and videotapes? No. Not even close. The Bigfoot
believers are jokes.

Post by C Lynn
If James
Randi's got $1 million and really *doesn't* believe anything but what his
borderline-retarded mind can comprehend, why doesn't he spend that money on
research to disprove such? Oh that's right -- "you can't prove a
negative"... Pffft.

It's much more fun and educational to demonstrate that every single
person who claims they have supernatural powers is a fraud, and knows
they are a fraud. That's cheap at the price of keeping a million in a
bank account.

[Eric P.]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
No real anyone would mess with James Randi; the guy's just full of hate and
has some weird, incessant need to be right.

Poor baby, the nasty man hates you. I suggest you pay him back (and
prove him wrong) by taking his million dollars away.

Post by C Lynn
He's a chatroom troll come to
life. Even if someone set him on fire with their mind, he'd find a way to
wriggle out of paying them -- most likely some bizarre, convoluted
explanation of convex microwaves or a flock of radioactive geese flying past
Venus or some shit.

Read the challenge agreement, it's on his site. If he tried that you
could sue him and win, no problem at all. All you need to do is pass
the challenge with a supernatural ability that isn't self-delusion or
fakery.
Unfortunately, it does seem that all supernatural powers are
self-delusion or fakery. What a crying shame for you.

Post by C Lynn
That's the problem with people like him, even amongst
actual researchers: they just won't be swayed to believe what they don't
want to believe, regardless, and no amount of "proof" is enough for them.
"Bigfoot"/"abominable snowman"/etc. sightings have been around for thousands
of years, there are countless photos and videotapes, innumerable
sightings -- even the Smithsonian ran an article a few years back about some
DNA testing that "proved" the DNA from a supposed Yeti flesh sample matched
no known animal! -- but the vast majority of "real" scientists deny that
it's even worth looking into. They're just schoolyard nerds with bigger
pants and more excuses than ethics.

You should stop believing all the things you read on woo-woo web sites.
Countless photos and videotapes? No. Not even close. The Bigfoot
believers are jokes.

Post by C Lynn
If James
Randi's got $1 million and really *doesn't* believe anything but what his
borderline-retarded mind can comprehend, why doesn't he spend that money on
research to disprove such? Oh that's right -- "you can't prove a
negative"... Pffft.

It's much more fun and educational to demonstrate that every single
person who claims they have supernatural powers is a fraud, and knows
they are a fraud. That's cheap at the price of keeping a million in a
bank account.

Maybe I should sign up...I know what I'm capable of, and others have
verified that they could perceive what I've done.

Metaphysically,
Eric

[Kevin Lowe]

In article

Post by Eric P.

Post by Kevin Lowe
It's much more fun and educational to demonstrate that every single
person who claims they have supernatural powers is a fraud, and knows
they are a fraud. That's cheap at the price of keeping a million in a
bank account.

Maybe I should sign up...I know what I'm capable of, and others have
verified that they could perceive what I've done.

To avoid embarassment, it's best to set up a test for yourself first
where you are suitably blinded, just to check if wishful thinking is
actually doing the work.

If you could do with help figuring out such a test for yourself, the
www.randi.org forums have lots of people who could be helpful in that
regard. There is the odd rude idiot there too, of course, but you get
those everywhere. Just ignore them.

Once you've proven to your own satisfaction you are actually doing
something supernatural, go win the million. Or not, if (as is far more
likely) it turns out that it was just wishful thinking.

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe
In article

Post by Eric P.

Post by Kevin Lowe
It's much more fun and educational to demonstrate that every single
person who claims they have supernatural powers is a fraud, and knows
they are a fraud. That's cheap at the price of keeping a million in a
bank account.

Maybe I should sign up...I know what I'm capable of, and others have
verified that they could perceive what I've done.

To avoid embarassment, it's best to set up a test for yourself first
where you are suitably blinded, just to check if wishful thinking is
actually doing the work.
If you could do with help figuring out such a test for yourself, the
www.randi.org forums have lots of people who could be helpful in that
regard. There is the odd rude idiot there too, of course, but you get
those everywhere. Just ignore them.
Once you've proven to your own satisfaction you are actually doing
something supernatural, go win the million. Or not, if (as is far more
likely) it turns out that it was just wishful thinking.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

But that's the point we're making: you keep saying "wishful thinking," and
what you really mean is "coincidence" or even the stronger "anomaly." And
no matter what you do, the "skeptic's" greatest old saw *aside* from "Prove
it!" is "You can't prove a negative," so there's no way to *prove* that it
is NOT wishful thinking/coincidence/anomaly -- and since the "burden of
proof" (the skeptics will say) is on the subject, because HE is the one
insisting that it is a controlled effect, it's a no-win situation for him.

Look man, this "bet" proves nothing except that James Randi is a douche --
no, not even that, because douches serve a valid purpose. If you want to
test something or prove something -- or even just research something -- you
go out and collect evidence for or against it, you don't pull what is really
the equivalent of a bar bet on a worldwide level. There is a mountain of
evidence available for almost all of the subjects another poster listed from
literally dozens of *reputable* sources (and, of course, at least hundreds
of irreputable ones which can safely be dismissed out-of-hand). Hell, the
CIA and various other governmental agencies from numerous countries have
done research into these subjects for literally (at least) decades now!
(Though as to which camp they fall -- reputable or otherwise -- is your
call.) "Positive thinking" techniques are taught *as a matter of course* to
those with terminal illnesses; the "power of prayer" made international
headlines just a few years back as having been proven to have a positive
effect; Tibetan monks (Yogis?) have been scientifically tested and shown to
be able to alter their heart rates and body temperatures through decidedly
"mental" techniques; maternal instinct; a cop's gut feeling; the list goes
on and on. ONE of these things might be an anomaly; TWO to even, say (to be
generous) maybe TWENTY, of these things might all be coincidence; but when
you get into it, there is a veritable mountain of evidence that suggests --
whether supernatural, or simply through some very natural means we've yet to
understand -- there are definitely forces or energies or some *things* in
this world that we cannot explain. And just because Randi is too obtuse to
admit this because HE has never experienced any of these things really makes
him a prime candidate for a conspiracy theorist -- not a "good" skeptic;
he's literally one of these people who is saying we never landed on the moon
and, if we did, "PROVE IT!" His premise here is, "Well, I've bought lots of
lottery tickets and I've never won anything, so *no* one has, and until I
SEE someone do it, everyone who says they have, or knows someone who has, is
just a liar." See? When you put this "bet" in the proper context, its
inherent douchebaggery is obvious.

I fully appreciate that you personally do not believe in the
paranormal/supernatural/Occult, whatever, but James Randi and this sort of
lop-sided "research" is not "good" skepticism; he's not saying there *might*
be something to it and I want to find out -- he's saying there's *nothing*
to it, anyone who thinks there is is a fool, and I double-dog-dare them to
give me the chance to mock them.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by C Lynn
But that's the point we're making: you keep saying "wishful thinking," and
what you really mean is "coincidence" or even the stronger "anomaly." And
no matter what you do, the "skeptic's" greatest old saw *aside* from "Prove
it!" is "You can't prove a negative," so there's no way to *prove* that it
is NOT wishful thinking/coincidence/anomaly -- and since the "burden of
proof" (the skeptics will say) is on the subject, because HE is the one
insisting that it is a controlled effect, it's a no-win situation for him.

Horseshit. The burden on the woowoos is to correctly guess twenty out
of twenty-five Zener cards, or find a hidden gold nugget under one of
ten cups four times in a row, or whatever else they agree they can do.

It doesn't matter for the purposes of the JREF challenge if you just
fluked it, you still get the money.

Yet the money remains unclaimed. I wonder why?

Post by C Lynn
Look man, this "bet" proves nothing except that James Randi is a douche --
no, not even that, because douches serve a valid purpose. If you want to
test something or prove something -- or even just research something -- you
go out and collect evidence for or against it, you don't pull what is really
the equivalent of a bar bet on a worldwide level.

It's not a research project, it's a challenge with a prize. Like the
NASA challenges, or the Nobel Prize. If you do the work to find
something supernatural, you claim the money.

The challenge is for all the loons, frauds and bullshit artists
currently running around claiming they have supernatural powers. If the
challenge pays off someone who did the work to research something new
that's great, but the main purpose is to make all the con artists and
idiots look like, well, con artists and idiots.

It's working good and proper on you, for example.

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
But that's the point we're making: you keep saying "wishful thinking," and
what you really mean is "coincidence" or even the stronger "anomaly."
And
no matter what you do, the "skeptic's" greatest old saw *aside* from "Prove
it!" is "You can't prove a negative," so there's no way to *prove* that it
is NOT wishful thinking/coincidence/anomaly -- and since the "burden of
proof" (the skeptics will say) is on the subject, because HE is the one
insisting that it is a controlled effect, it's a no-win situation for him.

Horseshit. The burden on the woowoos is to correctly guess twenty out
of twenty-five Zener cards, or find a hidden gold nugget under one of
ten cups four times in a row, or whatever else they agree they can do.
It doesn't matter for the purposes of the JREF challenge if you just
fluked it, you still get the money.
Yet the money remains unclaimed. I wonder why?

Post by C Lynn
Look man, this "bet" proves nothing except that James Randi is a douche --
no, not even that, because douches serve a valid purpose. If you want to
test something or prove something -- or even just research something -- you
go out and collect evidence for or against it, you don't pull what is really
the equivalent of a bar bet on a worldwide level.

It's not a research project, it's a challenge with a prize. Like the
NASA challenges, or the Nobel Prize. If you do the work to find
something supernatural, you claim the money.
The challenge is for all the loons, frauds and bullshit artists
currently running around claiming they have supernatural powers. If the
challenge pays off someone who did the work to research something new
that's great, but the main purpose is to make all the con artists and
idiots look like, well, con artists and idiots.
It's working good and proper on you, for example.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

Wow, can you make a point without an insult? Or, even, just make a frigging
point? You know what, I'm over it -- I had an AOL account years ago, so I
eat little trolls like you the way dingos eat babies.

Seriously, Tasmania, do they even *have* TV over there? Or is it just too
much work because of the treadmill you need to generate the electricity?
Half of the crap you people are saying has never been "proven" is all over
the TV. An "educational" organization that doesn't read books or watch
television, lead by a former STAGE MAGICIAN -- yeah, that sounds about
right -- about as right as the Doug Henning School of Culinary frigging
Arts. No matter how much evidence anyone *else* collects, it doesn't matter
because the JREF hasn't collected any -- oh, but that's not their *job*,
because they're not *into* research. Effing COPS use psychics to help solve
cases -- *WITH PROVEN RESULTS* -- but this moron says it ain't so, so what
would ACTUAL scientists and REAL-LIFE people with REAL JOBS know? What a
steaming pile of Lowe.

And he's so positive that no one can do it that he has a PRELIMINARY TEST!
You are completely incapable of logical thought (I doubt you could figure
out how to breathe, were it not built-in), so let me explain to you how
damned stupid that really is: if the subject cannot do whatever he claims he
can, then Randi loses nothing, so why the living HELL would the subject have
to perform in a "qualifying" round? That is so blatantly, effing stupid
that I'm just over it. You're not even a douche, man -- you're a douche BY
PROXY. You had to find an even bigger douche and crib his notes!

You have not responded to any of the valid points I have made, except with
"do it!" -- the intellectual equivalent of, "I know you are, but what am I?"
You're a child; this is a childish endeavor pursued by people with
child-like mentalities, and that's an insult to children. You will cling to
the vestiges of your ignorance in the face of all contrary proof, no matter
what ("Maybe this time I really WILL see the Great Pumpkin!"). And you
don't even play by your own rules, because I called Infinity first, so
nanny-nanny-boo-boo. Now let the big people talk about games.

Step away from the ColecoVision computer before Mommy catches you -- the
rest of the country wants their lights back on.

I no longer believe in Tasmania, regardless of how many maps it is on.

[Stephenls]

Post by C Lynn
Wow, can you make a point without an insult? Or, even, just make a frigging
point? You know what, I'm over it -- I had an AOL account years ago, so I
eat little trolls like you the way dingos eat babies.

You're going to want to stop right here. This is the point where both
sides of the argument turn to "I'm trolling you!" "No, I'm trolling you,
and you're just too stupid to realize it!" "Nuh-uh!" starts, and nobody
can pull that off without looking like a moron unless they're Terry Austin.

[julian814]

Post by Stephenls

Post by C Lynn
Wow, can you make a point without an insult? Or, even, just make a frigging
point? You know what, I'm over it -- I had an AOL account years ago, so I
eat little trolls like you the way dingos eat babies.

You're going to want to stop right here. This is the point where both
sides of the argument turn to "I'm trolling you!" "No, I'm trolling you,
and you're just too stupid to realize it!" "Nuh-uh!" starts, and nobody
can pull that off without looking like a moron unless they're Terry Austin.

Aw, leave them alone. I get a kick out of seeing them piss in each
other's Wheaties. You can't find entertainment like this on television,
y'know. ;-p


Ralph Glatt

Member, Old Farts Club

[Rick Pikul]

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
The challenge is for all the loons, frauds and bullshit artists
currently running around claiming they have supernatural powers. If the
challenge pays off someone who did the work to research something new
that's great, but the main purpose is to make all the con artists and
idiots look like, well, con artists and idiots.
It's working good and proper on you, for example.

Wow, can you make a point without an insult? Or, even, just make a frigging
point? You know what, I'm over it -- I had an AOL account years ago, so I
eat little trolls like you the way dingos eat babies.

Oh, wow: You had an _AOL_ account. That sure shows us.

Were you there early anough to be one of the idiots that were annoying
everyone at the start of the eternal September?

Post by C Lynn
Seriously, Tasmania, do they even *have* TV over there? Or is it just
too much work because of the treadmill you need to generate the
electricity? Half of the crap you people are saying has never been
"proven" is all over the TV. An "educational" organization that doesn't
read books or watch television, lead by a former STAGE MAGICIAN

Yes, a stage magician: That means he knows how all of the tricks to fake
'magical' powers are done.

It makes him able to point out things like: You can't use a standard
blindfold to test touch reading, because there are angles that you can see
out from under it.

Post by C Lynn
-- yeah, that sounds about
right -- about as right as the Doug Henning School of Culinary frigging
Arts. No matter how much evidence anyone *else* collects, it doesn't matter
because the JREF hasn't collected any -- oh, but that's not their *job*,
because they're not *into* research. Effing COPS use psychics to help solve
cases -- *WITH PROVEN RESULTS*

Name the cases.

Good luck, because the best that those psychics have done, (and they are
almost never brought in by the police), is to claim a success when they
say things like "the body is in a wooded area near water."

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
No real anyone would mess with James Randi; the guy's just full of hate and
has some weird, incessant need to be right.

Poor baby,

I know you are.

Post by Kevin Lowe
the nasty man hates you.

No, YOU!

Post by Kevin Lowe
I suggest you pay him back (and
prove him wrong) by taking his million dollars away.

No YOU!

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
He's a chatroom troll come to
life. Even if someone set him on fire with their mind, he'd find a way to
wriggle out of paying them -- most likely some bizarre, convoluted
explanation of convex microwaves or a flock of radioactive geese flying past
Venus or some shit.

Read the challenge agreement, it's on his site. If he tried that you
could sue him and win, no problem at all. All you need to do is pass
the challenge with a supernatural ability that isn't self-delusion or
fakery.
Unfortunately, it does seem that all supernatural powers are
self-delusion or fakery. What a crying shame for you.

Nuh-uh, for YOU! INFINITY!

Post by Kevin Lowe
You should stop believing all the things you read on woo-woo web sites.
Countless photos and videotapes? No. Not even close. The Bigfoot
believers are jokes.

There are more than 10 and probably fewer than 1000, but it's not like
there's ONE that shows a faint outline of *something* hiding in a bush.
Regardless, that right there *proves* why this $1 million will never be paid
and why no one will take him up on the offer: you do not say "there's no
conclusive evidence"; you do not say, "there is a lot of
anecdotal/circumstantial evidence, but nothing solid"; you do not say, "it's
possible, but highly unlikely"; you simply attack anyone or anything to do
with the subject as being a "joke." That's the perfect example of a
Randi-ism: regardless of all else, denigrate the challenger and attempt to
paint him as a fool; dismiss all evidence as being silly and meritless
without viewing it; in the face of incontrovertible evidence, manufacture
some pseudo-scientific "explanation" to *prove* there's nothing unusual
about it.

James Randi and all his followers need to learn the definition of "circular
argument"; it goes like this:

Double-Digit IQ: "I can't explain that, can you?"
James Randi-ite: "No, but I know it's not supernatural, because the
supernatural does not exist."
DDIQ: "Do you have any proof of that?"
JR: "You can't prove a negative."
DDIQ: "Well, I'd keep an open mind, because who knows what we'll discover in
the future?"
JR: "We won't discover anything supernatural because it doesn't exist."
DDIQ: "But how can you say that if you don't have any proof that it does not
exist?"
JR: "Look, YOU'RE the one who said it exists, so the burden of proof is on
you."
DDIQ: "NO, I said I could not explain it, so I don't know what it is, but
I'm not discounting the possibility that it is supernatural!"
JR: "You're stupid."

But I guess it would be different, in the case of "Bigfoots" if they were
the subject of something other than websites -- like maybe TV programs or
books or something -- the Internet is filled with a lot of bs, I mean check
out James Randi's site! The really funny thing is how most Randi-ites
blindly accept that other solar systems and black holes, etc., exist because
unmanned satellites have *photographed* them, but things like "Bigfoot"
simply cannot exist because the earth is flat and only a "joke" wouldn't
realize that. To wit: I won't believe in black holes until someone captures
one or brings in a carcass. See how silly it sounds when you apply that
kind of "logical" thinking unilaterally?

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
If James
Randi's got $1 million and really *doesn't* believe anything but what his
borderline-retarded mind can comprehend, why doesn't he spend that money on
research to disprove such? Oh that's right -- "you can't prove a
negative"... Pffft.

It's much more fun and educational to demonstrate that every single
person who claims they have supernatural powers is a fraud, and knows
they are a fraud. That's cheap at the price of keeping a million in a
bank account.

So you admit the whole thing is nothing more than a set-up to make
open-minded people look like fools? At last, we agree.

Post by Kevin Lowe
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
You should stop believing all the things you read on woo-woo web sites.
Countless photos and videotapes? No. Not even close. The Bigfoot
believers are jokes.

There are more than 10 and probably fewer than 1000, but it's not like
there's ONE that shows a faint outline of *something* hiding in a bush.

There's nothing that stands up to scrutiny, for a very good reason.
Bigfoot was a *hoax*, dumbarse, and the people who pulled the hoax owned
up to it.

Post by C Lynn
James Randi and all his followers need to learn the definition of "circular

So prove us all wrong with a demonstration of a supernatural ability
that isn't wishful thinking or fraud. Go on. Stop whinging about how
life is unfair and win the million, if you've got something.

[Sea Wasp]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
You should stop believing all the things you read on woo-woo web sites.
Countless photos and videotapes? No. Not even close. The Bigfoot
believers are jokes.

There are more than 10 and probably fewer than 1000, but it's not like
there's ONE that shows a faint outline of *something* hiding in a bush.

There's nothing that stands up to scrutiny, for a very good reason.
Bigfoot was a *hoax*, dumbarse, and the people who pulled the hoax owned
up to it.

1) "Owned up" in different ways, after decades, with contradictory
stories that don't necessarily jibe with the tape itself. This doesn't
of course mean that there was no hoax, but that we can't verify it.
(for my part, I remain unsure either way. As one point that bothers
me, they explained the "creature" as a "gorilla suit"; dunno if you've
seen the suits made in that era, but none of them looked anything like
that. To make what was seen there would have been a custom job, very
expensive; depending on what details you accept from the film, it
might have been physically impossible to fake. It certainly would have
been a tremendously expensive hoax to pull off, and to what end?)
Remember that if one is tired of the "wierd notoreity" one way to
divert it from the family is to confess to a hoax. Even if there was
no hoax, or if you have no idea if it was a hoax or not.

2) Even conceding that the one video is a hoax, "Bigfoot" as an
actual phenomenon cannot be. Unless you postulate a network of
hundreds of hoaxers over hundreds of years, separated by hundreds of
miles in a dozen states AND in multiple countries around the world,
since some of the stories go back before European settlement of this
continent, and the first European-descended reports are still well
over 100 years old. The NAME "Bigfoot" or "Abominable Snowman", etc..,
is a new phenomenon, but sightings of such creatures go back WAAAY
before anyone had time, energy, or inclination to do the hoaxing. You
can call it delusion, misinterpretation, or a lot of other things, but
you can't call it "A Hoax" because that implies the entire phenomenon
was born from the one event -- just like implying that all the lake
and sea monster reports were born from the one Nessie photographic
hoax, when reports of such things go back to the dawn of history.

[Shawn Roske]

Post by Sea Wasp
2) Even conceding that the one video is a hoax, "Bigfoot" as an
actual phenomenon cannot be. Unless you postulate a network of hundreds
of hoaxers over hundreds of years, separated by hundreds of miles in a
dozen states AND in multiple countries around the world, since some of
the stories go back before European settlement of this continent, and
the first European-descended reports are still well over 100 years old.
The NAME "Bigfoot" or "Abominable Snowman", etc.., is a new phenomenon,
but sightings of such creatures go back WAAAY before anyone had time,
energy, or inclination to do the hoaxing. You can call it delusion,
misinterpretation, or a lot of other things, but you can't call it "A
Hoax" because that implies the entire phenomenon was born from the one
event -- just like implying that all the lake and sea monster reports
were born from the one Nessie photographic hoax, when reports of such
things go back to the dawn of history.

See the theories of neurophenomenology and biogenetic structuralism in
anthropology:

Monophasic is the term used to describe the reduction of experience into
only two accepted states of consciousness: sleep state and waking
state-- where the waking state is considered the only valid source of
all experience. Polyphasic is the term used to describe the allowance
for more than the basic two, and allows for more than the waking state
to be a valid condition for "real" experience. The term "state" may be
inaccurate when considering consciousness, but it is more accurate when
considering something like the programming arising through the
enculturation processes inherent in civilizations or cultures.

Some say the "yeti" is a shamanic spirit that can only be interfaced
with on a shamanic level.

Some say that mystical experience and "psychic powers" or Siddhi may
only be experienced and perceived outside waking consciousness or deep
sleep.

I am convinced that human experience is potentially polyphasic. I am
further convinced that most humans function solely in the illusion that
is Western monophasic culture.

[C Lynn]

Post by Shawn Roske

Post by Sea Wasp
2) Even conceding that the one video is a hoax, "Bigfoot" as an
actual phenomenon cannot be. Unless you postulate a network of hundreds
of hoaxers over hundreds of years, separated by hundreds of miles in a
dozen states AND in multiple countries around the world, since some of
the stories go back before European settlement of this continent, and the
first European-descended reports are still well over 100 years old. The
NAME "Bigfoot" or "Abominable Snowman", etc.., is a new phenomenon, but
sightings of such creatures go back WAAAY before anyone had time, energy,
or inclination to do the hoaxing. You can call it delusion,
misinterpretation, or a lot of other things, but you can't call it "A
Hoax" because that implies the entire phenomenon was born from the one
event -- just like implying that all the lake and sea monster reports
were born from the one Nessie photographic hoax, when reports of such
things go back to the dawn of history.

See the theories of neurophenomenology and biogenetic structuralism in
Monophasic is the term used to describe the reduction of experience into
only two accepted states of consciousness: sleep state and waking state--
where the waking state is considered the only valid source of all
experience. Polyphasic is the term used to describe the allowance for
more than the basic two, and allows for more than the waking state to be a
valid condition for "real" experience. The term "state" may be inaccurate
when considering consciousness, but it is more accurate when considering
something like the programming arising through the enculturation processes
inherent in civilizations or cultures.
Some say the "yeti" is a shamanic spirit that can only be interfaced with
on a shamanic level.
Some say that mystical experience and "psychic powers" or Siddhi may only
be experienced and perceived outside waking consciousness or deep sleep.
I am convinced that human experience is potentially polyphasic. I am
further convinced that most humans function solely in the illusion that is
Western monophasic culture.

This is something some scientists have suggested to explain "alien
abductions," but in the specific case of ghosts, lake monsters, Bigfoots,
and so on, that would mean that somehow, these spiritual/polyphasic entities
(for lack) are capable of being photographed -- which means that there might
be something to the old fear that photographs can somehow "capture" peoples'
souls.

But while I think there is something to this theory, I think that things
that can be photographed have some sort of substantiality. And with things
like lake monsters and sasquatchi (?), there are physical clues as well
(tracks, smells, vocals/sounds, etc.). But I do agree there probably is
something to the theory you present.

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by Shawn Roske
See the theories of neurophenomenology and biogenetic structuralism in
Monophasic is the term used to describe the reduction of experience into
only two accepted states of consciousness: sleep state and waking
state-- where the waking state is considered the only valid source of
all experience. Polyphasic is the term used to describe the allowance
for more than the basic two, and allows for more than the waking state
to be a valid condition for "real" experience. The term "state" may be
inaccurate when considering consciousness, but it is more accurate when
considering something like the programming arising through the
enculturation processes inherent in civilizations or cultures.
Some say the "yeti" is a shamanic spirit that can only be interfaced
with on a shamanic level.
Some say that mystical experience and "psychic powers" or Siddhi may
only be experienced and perceived outside waking consciousness or deep
sleep.
I am convinced that human experience is potentially polyphasic. I am
further convinced that most humans function solely in the illusion that
is Western monophasic culture.

Fascinating. Find a demonstration of this revolutionary idea that is
distinguishable from wishful thinking or hallucination and you'll get a
million.

If you can't, what good is it again?

[Shawn Roske]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by Shawn Roske
I am convinced that human experience is potentially polyphasic. I am
further convinced that most humans function solely in the illusion that
is Western monophasic culture.

Fascinating. Find a demonstration of this revolutionary idea that is
distinguishable from wishful thinking or hallucination and you'll get a
million.

A wish is very different from a hallucination. To really wish for
something is a very interesting thing. It implies intent and a goal to
attain. It also engenders momentum, desire and drive. Wishes can get
things done. Wishes are not used very often in the daily grind of most
people. Wishes can happen outside the range of the basic waking state,
or even take a person into greater sophisticated consciousness.

What do you mean by hallucination? That word is very suspicious. If by
hallucination you mean functioning in a self-originating fantasy, or
taking action based upon fabricated belief, then possibly the bulk of
everyone's daily life and activities occur within a hallucination. So,
indeed you are presenting quite a challenge.

Generally hallucination is something that is mechanical and occurs in
dream and waking-sleep. How difficult is it to demonstrate something
outside this? The audience must be capable of perceiving things outside
their own hallucinations. Without this capability it is very difficult.

Post by Kevin Lowe
If you can't, what good is it again?

These ideas are important for my own personal evolution. They might be
important for everyone's growth too. There is no need to demonstrate
something that can be experienced by anyone who makes the attempt to
experience it on their own.

[C Lynn]

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
You should stop believing all the things you read on woo-woo web sites.
Countless photos and videotapes? No. Not even close. The Bigfoot
believers are jokes.

There are more than 10 and probably fewer than 1000, but it's not like
there's ONE that shows a faint outline of *something* hiding in a bush.

There's nothing that stands up to scrutiny, for a very good reason.
Bigfoot was a *hoax*, dumbarse, and the people who pulled the hoax owned
up to it.

There is *tons* of evidence, including *DNA research conducted by the
Smithsonian Institute*! Films and photographs have been examined by REAL
scientists, professional photographers, zoologists, biologists, NASA,
filmmakers, Kodak, Polaroid... I mean, come on! Just because a flat-earther
like James Randi refuses to admit that the earth is round and revolves
around the sun -- just because he talks louder than the actual experts --
does not make him credible! And Patterson and company did not admit to
Bigfoot being a hoax. But even that is a strawman, because people
counterfeit money... but that doesn't mean that real money doesn't exist.

Regardless, the point is not whether or not Bigfoot actually *does* exist;
the point is that there is enough circumstantial evidence to suggest to any
"good" skeptic or researcher that it is a subject worth looking into, not
merely dismissing. If it were as cut-and-dried as you make it, there would
be no controversy, and your only real "evidence" that there is not is that
people who think there is are "full of shit." That's called
"mud-slinging" -- you can't disprove the evidence, so you discredit the
witness -- whoever yells loudest wins.

Skepticism is saying, "That photograph looks fake -- let's send it to the
film company and see what they say and if they say it's authentic and hasn't
been tampered with, let's send it to a qualified researcher and get his
opinion"; it is not, "puh-LEEZE! That's obviously a fake because there is
no such thing and anyone who thinks there is is STUPID! You're an idiot for
even considering that picture is real! HOW CAN THE EARTH BE ROUND WHEN THE
GROUND IS FLAT!? SO STUPID!" No amount of proof will ever be enough to
someone who has already made up their mind on a particular subject, but that
doesn't necessarily make them *right* and it most certainly doesn't make
them a good skeptic.

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn
James Randi and all his followers need to learn the definition of "circular

So prove us all wrong with a demonstration of a supernatural ability
that isn't wishful thinking or fraud. Go on. Stop whinging about how
life is unfair and win the million, if you've got something.
--
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.

I believe someone can throw a basketball full-court and make a goal -- I've
even seen someone do it before -- but that doesn't mean that by saying that,
I think *I* could do it. Nor would I even want to try. Especially not to
"prove" anything to someone like James Randi. I don't believe fire burns
people, but I don't have the nerve to stick my own hand into fire just in
case... but I'll give you $10 if you will. Twice.

Or I've got a better one: why don't you PROVE that such a thing as
"coincidence" is real? That would pretty much solve the whole thing,
because if you can conclusively prove that such a thing as "coincidence"
occurs, no one could conclusively prove that anything "paranormal" was NOT
merely a "coincidence."

[Kevin Lowe]

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe

Post by C Lynn

Post by Kevin Lowe
You should stop believing all the things you read on woo-woo web sites.
Countless photos and videotapes? No. Not even close. The Bigfoot
believers are jokes.

There are more than 10 and probably fewer than 1000, but it's not like
there's ONE that shows a faint outline of *something* hiding in a bush.

There's nothing that stands up to scrutiny, for a very good reason.
Bigfoot was a *hoax*, dumbarse, and the people who pulled the hoax owned
up to it.

There is *tons* of evidence, including *DNA research conducted by the
Smithsonian Institute*!

Don't get your facts from web sites written by the deluded.

There's as much evidence and as good for Bigfoot as there is for
creationism.

You want to know the funny part? The Bigfoot woowoos know it too. If
birdwatchers hear that there might have been a sighting of a rare bird
in such and such a place, they descend on the place with cameras and
binoculars and scour the area thoroughly hoping to see it. When
Bigfooters hear that there might have been a Bigfoot sighting, they rush
to put it on their web page as PROOF! Then they do nothing.

They aren't interested in looking very hard for Bigfoot, because they
know it doesn't exist. They're interested in playing let's pretend and
demanding that other people look for Bigfoot.