XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: none.of@your.biz   
      
   CAndersen (Kimba) wrote:   
   > Ken Shaw  wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >>Actually that would be fraud if he claimed to have a million dollars for   
   >>proof of a paranormal power and then set up his test to keep from   
   >>awarding the money. Since he includes the use of disinterested third   
   >>parties to do the testing I must conclude you have no idea what you are   
   >>talking about.   
   >   
   >   
   > And I am quite bored by this blind faith in The Amazing Randi. I refer you   
   > to 10dag0kdddbgc02@corp.supernews.com   
   > That's a Usenet message ID. If your newsreader can't find it for you,   
   > Google Groups can.   
   >   
      
   Sounds like rationalization to me. I have read the rules and can find no   
   fault with them. I invite the rest of T.O. who are familiar with hovinds   
   bogus challenge to examine this challenge and let me know if they find a   
   serious flaw with the rules.   
      
   >   
   >>In both this and the previous posts you both selectively edited my   
   >>statements and in the previous post you went so far as to rearrange   
   >>paragraphs.   
   >   
   >   
   > It's called brevity. Excuse me. I quote merely to refer the reader to the   
   > point I am responding to. Your original message still remains available   
   > for anyone interested enough to read it. You still didn't say that I   
   > altered your meaning.   
   >   
      
   The heavy and unmarked editing you use in response to posts that you   
   seem to want to ignore parts of is inappropriate. Snipping several   
   paragraphs that you are not responding to is ok what you do is not.   
      
   >   
   >>Then it should be trivial for you to get the spirits to perform any one   
   >>of a number of simple tests to prove your ability to get information   
   >>about things you cannot sense directly.   
   >   
   >   
   > That's a common POV, that we should be able to get them to jump through   
   > hoops on command. I find it just as arrogant as the rest of your comments.   
   >   
      
   You seem to be mistaking skepticism for arrogance. I still say that if   
   spirits are communicating with you, you should be able to establish this   
   scientifically.   
      
   >   
   >>I read things into your statements motives which are the only rational   
   >>reason for your behavior. A person who makes the claims you do but won't   
   >>attempt to prove what is happening to him but instead posts to usenet   
   >>and makes vague self important statements will tend to cause rational   
   >>skeptical people to see you as a fraud.   
   >   
   >   
   > And, I take it you don't see the self-importance in your own words? You   
   > demonstrate perfectly the kinds of obstacles that people who have these   
   > experiences have to face. I'm merely waiting for the slightest hint of   
   > open-mindedness in your position. Without that, there's no point in taking   
   > any of your words seriously.   
   >   
      
   What obstacles? All I've said is that you need to provide something more   
   than your claims to convince me of your experiences/abilities. Do you   
   believe everything someone tells you?   
      
   Ken   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)