...again, at the James Randi Educational Foundation

TheQuixote

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
3,296
Likes
16
Points
69
#2
Hi Lucianarchy

I've read most of the posts in the link, you posted along the lines of an "attack planned for Feb 14th 2004",

just to clarify here, do you think your prediction was of this?:

Gunmen go on rampage in Iraq town
At least 20 people have been killed in an attack on a security compound and government building in the flashpoint town of Falluja, west of Baghdad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3488149.stm

or possibly this?:

US soldier killed in Afghan blast
A US soldier serving in southern Afghanistan has been killed and at least nine wounded in what is believed to be a landmine explosion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3488113.stm

there have been a number of 'western targets' hit today, perhaps that is why you were unable to be specific on your prediction?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#3
I was reading the responses to this posting Luci - you should definately be glad that you are no longer a member of this forum -how rude can you get? Do they not have kindly mods like ours to stop the more personal insults? Guess not. Saying that, there were one or two small voices in the maelstrom of nastiness who were willing to give you a chance.

Phew.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#4
lordshiva said:
I was reading the responses to this posting Luci - you should definately be glad that you are no longer a member of this forum -how rude can you get? Do they not have kindly mods like ours to stop the more personal insults? Guess not.

Phew.
Guess right. I had previously taken it up with one of their mods when I had been called a 'child molestor' (and, I might add, for no rational reason what so ever! ) by one of their members. The mod (a woman) told me to "chill out".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#5
Quixote said:
Hi Lucianarchy
there have been a number of 'western targets' hit today, perhaps that is why you were unable to be specific on your prediction?
like I said in the thread, it was a perception which came through during a meditation session back in November. I couldn't be specific, it was just an overpowering perception of an attack on 14th Feb 2004 and I wanted to record it after my earier perception about the Ladybrook terrorist attack which happened some months previously.
 

Alexius4

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
1,498
Likes
7
Points
69
#6
*Emerges from the Randi Board*

None of them have girlfriends ;)

I mean, really...

Will watch thenews today, but as has already been noted, blood-shed is a daily occurance at the moment, which takes the force out of the prediction. Doesn't invalidate it, but makes validation tough.

That said, I hope you're wrong on this one.
 

mejane

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,377
Likes
26
Points
69
#7
Luci, just one question - why did you spend so much time and energy with those tw*ts at the Randi board? We're much nicer (a bit silly at times, but the sort of personal abuse you had there would not be tolerated here).

Anyway, thinking about predictions are stuff... it seems to me that for the date to have such a strong effect on you then the event is likely to be more "serious" (wrong word, I know) than yet another suicide bombing. Hopefully no nuclear bombs will go off today, but even if nothing obvious happens then it could still be a date that only becomes significant in hindsight. The assignation of a single person perhaps?

Jane.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#8
Alexius said:
Will watch thenews today, but as has already been noted, blood-shed is a daily occurance at the moment, which takes the force out of the prediction. Doesn't invalidate it, but makes validation tough.

That said, I hope you're wrong on this one.
Unfortunately, there was an attack. About 70 casualties, at least 27 of which are dead. Falluja, Iraq. The target, the US backed police HQ was certainly a 'western target'. I know there have been a few attacks over the last few days, at least 100 dead.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#9
mejane said:
Luci, just one question - why did you spend so much time and energy with those tw*ts at the Randi board? We're much nicer (a bit silly at times, but the sort of personal abuse you had there would not be tolerated here).

Jane.
I know, I know.. I am amazed at the level of positive spirit in evidence around here. Thing is, I still am a sceptic. I experience what appears to be 'psi' / rv / telepathy etc. Those things happen. Fact. They really do. I just want to question everything, my own experience, the experience of others. I don't yet fully know what is behind the manifestation of these actions. Being sceptical doesn't mean to 'deny the existence of', it means to be opne minded and questioning. Once you fully 'believe' you stop growing / developing in this reality. I found the JREFers often the best people to bounce questions off. Indeed, as a barometer of how likely something is to actually exist, is to present it to a pseudo-skeptic. The more they deny and the more vociferous they get in their denial. The more likely it often is that there actually is strong evidence to support its existence!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#10
Prediction made 30th November, 2003, so yes, there is a strong likeliehood that 'anyone' could have said an attack would take place some time in February, and if it hadn't been the 14th but the 15th, a few days' allowance could be granted.

BUT
You specifically said the 14th February, 2004. Certainly, there's an amount of playing the odds going on, rather like if I were to state here and now that a serious terrorist attack will take place in Berlin on 20th November, 2004, resulting in 70 deaths and 100 casualties. (if that happens, I'm seriously going to freak out, and I really really really hope it doesn't, anywhere, ever)

Still, I don't think it's fair to suggest that it's only guesswork. I'm not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I'm amused by the poster who predicted that :

1. Someone important will be married.
2. Someone famous will die.
3. A significant sports result will occur.
4. Someone, known to a forum member, will have their washing machine break down.


Well, let's examine that, shall we? As far as I'm aware, no-one important got married yesterday, and no-one famous died. The Manchester Derby, or Scotland -v- Wales rugby, while no doubt important to some, can hardly be termed significant. As for point 4, well we have no surefire way of knowing, have we? Which rather disproves the point the poster was trying to make about playing odds and anyone getting a successful prediction. Arrogant prick.

Some people wouldn't be polite unless you specified time, date, longitude, latitude, exact number of casualties, deaths, manner of deaths, manner of attack, and of course the names of absolutely everyone harmed and/or killed. And their dates of birth.

From what I've read on that board, they're just a bunch of mindless fools trying to sound intelligent. Give them an infinite amount of time and a typewriter and they might come up with an original point. But don't hold your breath.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#11
Lucianarchy said:
I just want to question everything, my own experience, the experience of others. I don't yet fully know what is behind the manifestation of these actions. Being sceptical doesn't mean to 'deny the existence of', it means to be opne minded and questioning. Once you fully 'believe' you stop growing / developing in this reality.
Ah, I find it easier to distinguish between Skeptics and Sceptics ;) Sceptics are Forteans, questioning everything including so-called established facts. Applying Occam's Razor, while accepting that just because something can be done one way, doesn't mean it's always done that way. Skeptics, on the other hand, are like Mr. Randi and dismiss absolutely everything that does not fit their world view. They are virtually indistinguishable from Flat Earthers or Creationists in dismissing anything they do not want to believe. It never seems to be a question of questioning, just blindly dismissing.

And the worst possible crime of calling a fool anyone who disagrees with their blinkered world view.
 

Alexius4

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
1,498
Likes
7
Points
69
#12
At the end of the day, you are shown what you are shown - there was indeed a major attack at Falluja - but doubters will point out the frequency of attacks in that area. But you are right, this one was rather a nasty affair.

As always, respect and support.

:)
 

Alexius4

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
1,498
Likes
7
Points
69
#13
Thing about those boys and girls is that they don't seem to know how to apply Occam's Razor. It is an investigative tool, not an instrument of destruction - nothing in logic is. Rhetoric, on the other hand, has it's fair share of demolition manoevers; part of the problem is these kiddies have confused rhetoric with dialectic.

I blame the demise of Grammar schools. ;)

In anycase, we owe Occam's Razor to a Franciscan - which surely hints something.

If these 'philosophers' ever want a real one to one, I'm their Huckleberry....doubt it'll ever happen though.

Alexius - Doc Holliday of Post Modern discussion (but the cool, Val Kilmer one)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#14
Helen said:
Ah, I find it easier to distinguish between Skeptics and Sceptics ;) Sceptics are Forteans, questioning everything including so-called established facts. Applying Occam's Razor, while accepting that just because something can be done one way, doesn't mean it's always done that way. Skeptics, on the other hand, are like Mr. Randi and dismiss absolutely everything that does not fit their world view. They are virtually indistinguishable from Flat Earthers or Creationists in dismissing anything they do not want to believe. It never seems to be a question of questioning, just blindly dismissing.

And the worst possible crime of calling a fool anyone who disagrees with their blinkered world view.
I call these type of skeptics* - 'True Unbelievers'. ;)



*( actually, 'Pseudo-Skeptic': see M.Truzzi )
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#15
Alexius - Doc Holliday of Post Modern discussion (but the cool, Val Kilmer one

Oh no, you can't be. Otherwise, I'll never be able to have a serious conversation with you without becoming a blushing, giggling school girl! :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#17
It kind of all makes me want to say a big thank you to our Mods for never saying 'chill out' and for not permitting the kind of mud slinging that is so prevalent on the more geeky, agenda driven boards that I've come across on the 'world wide' web.

Thanks Mods!

I feel a group hug coming on.

:grouphug:
 

Tezcatlipoca72

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
61
Likes
0
Points
37
#18
Well, it was a pretty vague prediction, and there are attacks almost everyday, so I can kind of see where the Randi-ites were coming from on this one. (Still, they didn't have to be such assholes about it.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#19
Hi, Lucianarchy,

It seems that you do not have the courage to admit your defeat on JREF where you made your "prediction", so you tout victory here. However, there are a few things you need to realize about the Falluja attack:

  • It does not appear to have been planned since November.
  • It did not hit a "Western" target.
  • There were not "hundreds +" casualties.
  • It wasn't a "particularly awful" attack.
  • You could not say anything about where on the planet it was.

Sorry, Lucianarchy - you did not predict this event (either).

Your "ladybrook" "prediction" was not a prediction. There were serious issues about the time of posting, and you did - after all - just post a word. Nothing about what, when, where, how, or even that it was a terrorist attack. There was no terrorist attack - it was foiled, and it did not take place at Ladybrook.

You did not predict a terrorist attack.
You did not predict the Falluja attack.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
10,925
Likes
3,069
Points
234
#20
lordshiva said:
It kind of all makes me want to say a big thank you to our Mods for never saying 'chill out' and for not permitting the kind of mud slinging that is so prevalent on the more geeky, agenda driven boards that I've come across on the 'world wide' web.

Thanks Mods!

I feel a group hug coming on.

:grouphug:
You were saying..?

Hello, SkepticReport. First off, as we have discussed earlier in the original thread, any discussions, rivalries, points of contention or flame wars that may have erupted on other sites are not our concern. What is our concern, however, is the conduct of members on this board, especially with regard to respecting the opinions of others - I'd advise you to read the original thread in it's entirety before re-animating a discusson from elsewhere.

Stu Neville
Moderator
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#21
Ahab must have his whale...

SkepticReport, please consider any future replies carefully. Skeptics do not have a terribly good reputation on this forum, and if all you had to go on were the Ladybrook and time-stamped prediction threads, who would blame them? I fear you are only going to confirm everyone's prejudices. Where exactly does it get anyone?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#22
stu neville said:
First off, as we have discussed earlier in the original thread, any discussions, rivalries, points of contention or flame wars that may have erupted on other sites are not our concern.
That is fine with me. I simply assumed that, since posters here on this board can do it, why not me?

Can you tell me why this is not pointed out to other posters? I don't see posters being chastized for e.g. flaming people on other sites, JREF in particular.

stu neville said:
What is our concern, however, is the conduct of members on this board, especially with regard to respecting the opinions of others - I'd advise you to read the original thread in it's entirety before re-animating a discusson from elsewhere.
Thanks for the link. I was not looking to re-animate a discussion, but merely to set the facts straight.

JamesM said:
SkepticReport, please consider any future replies carefully. Skeptics do not have a terribly good reputation on this forum, and if all you had to go on were the Ladybrook and time-stamped prediction threads, who would blame them? I fear you are only going to confirm everyone's prejudices. Where exactly does it get anyone?
If people here are not aware of the facts, then they should be made aware of them. What good can possibly come from ignorance?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#23
SkepticReport said:
If people here are not aware of the facts, then they should be made aware of them. What good can possibly come from ignorance?
I've no argument with that. But it's not what one says, so much as how one says it.

I'm going to make a prediction of my own: your stay here will be brief and not terribly amicable. You can then go back to JREF with another example of how "woo woo believers silence critics" or some such, and the rest of this board will have another example of aggressive skeptical behaviour. Not exactly a meeting of minds, is it? I like this place, I like the JREF board. I'll just be a little disappointed, that's all. But I have no desire to tell you what to do, and no expectation that it would be acted on, anyway.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#24
JamesM said:
I've no argument with that. But it's not what one says, so much as how one says it.
Reality is more often than not very blunt, direct and sometimes even hurts. That should not stop us from seeking it, even aggressively.

JamesM said:
I'm going to make a prediction of my own: your stay here will be brief and not terribly amicable.
Are you applying for the million bucks? :)

JamesM said:
You can then go back to JREF with another example of how "woo woo believers silence critics" or some such, and the rest of this board will have another example of aggressive skeptical behaviour. Not exactly a meeting of minds, is it?
A meeting of minds require that both are openminded, and ready to draw the conclusions based on the facts. Wishful thinking only leads us back to the dark ages of superstition.

JamesM said:
I like this place, I like the JREF board. I'll just be a little disappointed, that's all. But I have no desire to tell you what to do, and no expectation that it would be acted on, anyway.
Well, thank you for your advice. :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#25
SkepticReport said:
Reality is more often than not very blunt, direct and sometimes even hurts. That should not stop us from seeking it, even aggressively.
I, for one, shall be waiting with baited breath to find out what this might mean.


:p
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#26
SkepticReport said:
Reality is more often than not very blunt, direct and sometimes even hurts. That should not stop us from seeking it, even aggressively.
Just as long as it abides by house rules.

Are you applying for the million bucks?

Hey, let's see how well I do. I certainly hope to be proven wrong.

Well, thank you for your advice.

You're welcome. Just bear it in mind, eh? Now I'm retreating a safe distance from this thread. I hope any discussions you have here are productive.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#27
The way that people respond to others on the JREF forum is downright rude and often strays into the realm of the personal.

Sorry to drag this up once again, Stu - but having seen the general disrespect and one up manship that seems to characterise inter-member posts (made that one up?) on this forum, there is no need for it and I don't like it. That's why I don't post to this forum and visit only as a non-paid up member - perhaps if others feel the same way about the FTMB, they can follow my lead.

Once again, just an opinion. I certainly don't intend to offend anyone - especially not the editor of what appears to be such an interesting and well presented web site like SkepticReport.com. Any website which stands against backward thinking education in schools must be a good thing.

Of course there is always the old adage - 'all publicity is good publicity' and I am sure that the number of hits that the JREF web site has received will have increased slightly as a result of this exchange. I hope that Mr. Randi appreciates this.

A word of advice, however - don't bandy the word "facts" about too freely. That way madness lies!

:rolleyes:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#28
Or reality - could be a lost cause 'seeking reality aggressively'.

Is that the anglo-saxon white middle class western democratic reality, or that proffered by postmodernists, or the reality as enforced by believers, or skeptics, or sceptics, or the reality as percieved by the 'average' person on the street, or simply the one which come to us through 'proven' scientific method?

Personally, I prefer my own 'reality' - at least then I know that it is mine!
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,822
Likes
1
Points
67
#29
SkepticReport said:
That is fine with me. I simply assumed that, since posters here on this board can do it, why not me?

Can you tell me why this is not pointed out to other posters? I don't see posters being chastized for e.g. flaming people on other sites, JREF in particular.
Other sites are outside the jurisdiction of the FTmb Moderators. Our concern is solely with the behaviour of the members of the forum within its confines. Vis-a-vis members flaming other members. If our members wish to criticise the members of other forums we have no remit to prevent them.

Ibid
Thanks for the link. I was not looking to re-animate a discussion, but merely to set the facts straight.
I look forward to you doing so.

As a point of note (and I don't know what level of evidence referencing is required on the fora you're familiar with) it is advised that when making a declaritive statement (such as someone is mistaken) you back up your points with sufficient evidence to qualify them. Ergo provide links back to the source of your information or at least name your source so that other members can join the debate.

However, if a statement is clarified as being an opinion ("I believe that...", "I think...", "IMHO", &etc...) then we will accept it without evidence; although many members may take it upon themselves to hunt out supporting and contradicting evidence. It's only polite to cherish someone's beliefs.

Ibid
If people here are not aware of the facts, then they should be made aware of them. What good can possibly come from ignorance?
As I stated above, the members who are interested in the facts are quite capable of following whatever links you are able to provide and form their own conclusions.

Niles Calder
Moderator
 

Bilderberger

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
597
Likes
3
Points
49
#30
As a user of the FT forum and not a user of the JREF forum - perhaps it is OK if I question the validity of the "premonition."?

I am basing my comments on the links provided to the JREF forum.

Some of their users may be a little abrupt in their posting - but I don't think that should exclude us from questioning the validity of the prediction.

Most of the objections on that Forum were fair, reasonable and perfectly thought out - in fact - many took the form of questions - which were not responded to.

Personally, I believe the "premonition" to be very weak - and the result a failure.

I presume there is no issue in me making that comment? And, if there is, I would be most disappointed by the FTMB. Making this forum a more "welcoming" place than the JREF forum should not blind us to the issues. I genuinely feel that SkepticReport has said nothing wrong and cannot understand what the fuss is about.
 
Top