• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Again, At The James Randi Educational Foundation

Alexius,

Sweep your hat all you like. Try to get rid of me, too. Could I persuade you to address the evidence instead?

Emperor,

Surely, you jest? There are massive holes in the experimental setup, e.g. how can we know that PMs were not exchanged between people?

Can you guarantee that this did not happen? If you can, how? If you cannot, then the experiments are useless.

I'm a bit surprised that nobody seemed to notice the glaring contradiction by Lucianarchy: How can he be tested, if the impressions don't come when wanted?

Dark Detective,

Lucianarchy has no problems with it, and he/she insists that we find out. Can he/she be allowed to answer?

Lucianarchy,

I am going directly to the source, so we can know the answer. I have - several times - stated that I am willing to be shown wrong.

This seems very important to you. Only you can determine it.

If you state that you are female, I will retract my claim.
 
SkepticReport said:
Dark Detective,

Lucianarchy has no problems with it, and he/she insists that we find out. Can he/she be allowed to answer?
Click to expand...
If that's the case, by all means. But please bear this in mind in future.

For reference, MB Guidelines.
 
SkepticReport said:
If you state that you are female, I will retract my claim.
Click to expand...

Please stick to the facts. You have set that standard for youself. Please have the courtesy to uphold it.

You made a claim. Provide evidence or retract it.

Last chance.

Please.
 
SkepticReport said:
Emperor,

Surely, you jest? There are massive holes in the experimental setup, e.g. how can we know that PMs were not exchanged between people?

Can you guarantee that this did not happen? If you can, how? If you cannot, then the experiments are useless.
Click to expand...

As I said I am happy with the setup - I didn't say you (or anyone else) would be. In the end I'm not setting out to come up with major results or provide definite proof of anything - ultimately I could be wasting my time but it is mine to waste.

Without everyone being physically present we have to make the best of things and I trust those involved to stick to the guidelines (and results so far would suggest no one is sharing the pictures ;) ) - if you have any ideas for improvements to things then let us know its why we've thrown the debate open so everyone can throw their ideas in.

Emps
 
:) That's more like it. Now we can talk.

Evidently you didn't take the time to read the complete set of threads (which is understandable and forgivable). Fron the very start, we have not claimed scientific vigour. We have simply elected to explore the issue within the rather restricted environment at hand - for fun.

Of course, we could all be passing notes to one another - there is no way to discount it. The possibility was noted at the very start. I myself have not done so - I believe my fellow participants have also behaved with integrity. Make of that what you will.

As for addressing the evidence - oh I have. I have posted my opinion that the 'Faluja' prediction can neither be validated nor invalidated. It is there on the board.

As for the informal test we are running here, well, we will see what we see. I don't think we will prove a thing, but then that is not our remit - rather, we are dabbling for the joy of it.

I like your softened tone - it becomes you. Much more handsome.
 
Skeptic,
Unequivocal apology... one day I may learn to type. It passed my spell checker... sorry again.
 
Alexius,

Nothing else than scientific "vigour" will do. Anything else is a waste of time. Sorry.

Emperor,

Your low standards allow for you to be fooled. And why would you even try an experiment, if it would not show anything?

I am most willing to discuss experimental designs - perhaps in another thread?

Dark Detective,

No problems.

Lucianarchy,

I have explained now several times that I am willing to be shown wrong. I made a claim, but I will gladly retract it if shown wrong.

I throw my hands in the air, Lucianarchy. Let's get this issue settled, once and for all.

Now, are you male or female? You seem most anxious to have this cleared up, yet you refuse to give the authoritative answer, which you - and I hope you agree - are the only one who can.
 
How has this thread dragged on for so long without the central tenet being discussed properly?

Indeed, the only person who has consistently discussed the purpose of this thread is the one under attack. There is, certainly, an interesting thread here.........

Did Lucianarcy predict successfully a terrorist attack on 14 February 2004? - as the poster claims.

The answer - a simple "no"

The adherence of SkepticReports' posts to the MB guidelines matters not a jot to this issue. He/she may not be as polite as some other posters - but it doesn't make his/her opinion less valid.

I am really rather perplexed at the defensive nature shown by this board.

Are those who are currently attacking SkepticReport also suggesting that Lucianarchy's "prediction" is valid? That is the point. If you are - could you also explain the difference between such a vague (and ultimately failed) prediction and the kind of astrology promulgated by the likes of Russell Grant?

That, my friends, is surely worthy of discussion ;)
 
SkepticReport said:
Emperor,

Your low standards allow for you to be fooled. And why would you even try an experiment, if it would not show anything?
Click to expand...

It would depend on what my expectations are - I clearly am not going to be fooled if I know that the best we have come up with is open to cheating and things are based largely on trust. Clearly if we were going to make a big deal of this then I'd require a much higher level of proof but I doubt it is possible in a virtual environment but we always have UnCon if we needed to run some more concrete experiments in the real world. At the moment it ranks (at least for me) as a harmless diversion and I don't require cast iron levels of proof for such things. If these results were intriguing then I would certainly consider something more water tight but...........

SkepticReport said:
I am most willing to discuss experimental designs - perhaps in another thread?
Click to expand...

Yep in the experimental procedures thread - link is posted above (pos. a couple of times).

Emps
 
SkepticReport said:
Alexius,

Nothing else than scientific "vigour" will do. Anything else is a waste of time. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Tough titty, skepticreport.
ibid.
Emperor,

Your low standards allow for you to be fooled. And why would you even try an experiment, if it would not show anything?

I am most willing to discuss experimental designs - perhaps in another thread?
Click to expand...
The reason why the Abrasive Randi, his assumptions, methods and acolytes, get up people's noses. The assumption at the heart of Randi's method is that everybody who claims paranormal powers, or evidence of extraordinary phenomena is either deluded, or deceiving and fraudulent.
ibid
Lucianarchy,
Now, are you male or female? You seem most anxious to have this cleared up, yet you refuse to give the authoritative answer, which you - and I hope you agree - are the only one who can.
Click to expand...
None of your business, Skepticreport.
 
All of which leads me to the observation that we used to believe in witches, and burn them at the stake. Now, we just burn the people who still believe in witches.;)
 
I've received a PM stating that Lucianarchy does not wish to reveal that information, therefore in accordance with the guidelines we have to respect those wishes.
 
Bilderberger said:
Indeed, the only person who has consistently discussed the purpose of this thread is the one under attack. There is, certainly, an interesting thread here.........

Did Lucianarcy predict successfully a terrorist attack on 14 February 2004? - as the poster claims.

The answer - a simple "no"
Click to expand...
That is not the answer. Much debate, little light. Not discussed here, before SkepticReport arrived, not really discussed after.

SkepticR. now seems more concerned with problems of gender. Why?
 
Bilderberger said:
How has this thread dragged on for so long without the central tenet being discussed properly?

Indeed, the only person who has consistently discussed the purpose of this thread is the one under attack. There is, certainly, an interesting thread here.........

Did Lucianarcy predict successfully a terrorist attack on 14 February 2004? - as the poster claims.

The answer - a simple "no"
Click to expand...

LOL - it is rarely a "simple no" surely ;)

Lucianarchy said this over there last year:

OK.

I feel something like an attack is being planned for 14th February 2004. Don't know where.

I hope I'm wrong. If not, I hope that this message may alert vigilance around that time.

Peace.
Click to expand...

and if thats we are discussing then in one respect they were right in that there was an attack on that day but is difficult to assess as there were attacks on most days around that date too and the attack on that day wasn't any more destructive (or however you want to measure it) that any other recent ones.

Its not really a Barnham Statement but it isn't in the light of circumstances enough to be definitive proof - as I said the predicitions (more specifically the first) were intriguing (and potentially worthy of further investigation) but I'm not prepared to read anything further into it than that.

Bilderberger said:
Are those who are currently attacking SkepticReport also suggesting that Lucianarchy's "prediction" is valid? That is the point. If you are - could you also explain the difference between such a vague (and ultimately failed) prediction and the kind of astrology promulgated by the likes of Russell Grant?

That, my friends, is surely worthy of discussion ;)
Click to expand...

And if Russel Grant wanted to come on these boards and be tested then I'd be happy to give it a go ;)

Emps
 
Bilder - swinging into Scepticreport for his manner does not constitute a judgement on Luci ability or anythingelse for that matter.

I've already made my opinion on the prediction at question - vide postings passim.

As for lack of discussion - again, postings passim. The debate was due to start once results of the recently completed round were in. All, once again, clearly stated.

Allow me to reiterate Emps' point - nothing scientific about this - no pretentions whatsoever. We are doing it for the joy of it, because it gives us pleasure - and pleasure is it's own reward, is it not?

Due respect to SR, but his sally here seems to have been more an attack against Luci than an attempt to illumine. Assuming that has finished, the issues can be debated in a pleasent, collegiate fashion.
 
Dark Detective said:
I've received a PM stating that Lucianarchy does not wish to reveal that information, therefore in accordance with the guidelines we have to respect those wishes.
Click to expand...

In which case, I cannot reveal why I think Lucianarchy is male.
 
And why oh why does it matter?

Serious, direct question - what conceivable import can it have?
 
It doesn't make any difference.

Can we just get on with some reasoned discussion please? Before this all boils down to character assassination ;)
 
Actually, I can answer that - you believe it will hurt Lucian.

Facade has dropped - the scientistic posture was a pose. All just an effort to cast what you consider a cruel barb.

Contemptable.
 
Something I'd like to see.. a list of the presumed 'facts' of the matter. For this I need re fences for posting times with sever logs and UPS presented in a form which could not be tampered with... also some form of declaration of server time discrepancy with UTC, again in a secured, tamper proof format. No squirming Whit 'I've already posted' or 'The burden of proof lies with LA'


Secondly, I would be interested to see Skeptic's own guidelines for the performance of this form of experiment. They should be water tight, implementable and repeatable. No biggy.


Finally, the continuous pressing of LA's gender is somewhat irksome now... please drop it, since its just distasteful...
BTW is it me or is this degenerating into the heady days of 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named'?
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
Finally, the continuous pressing of LA's gender is somewhat irksome now... please drop it, since its just distasteful...
BTW is it me or is this degenerating into the heady days of 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named'?
Click to expand...
Agreed - any further pursuit of Lucianarchy's gender by anyone will result in a warning.

And yes, Hugo, it does seem to be...
 
Jerry, I'm the one who traditionally says things like that ;)

Having a day off.

Hugo, I fancy we'll never know. It all means something to a little circle somewhere who are having a titter.
 
stu neville said:
Agreed - any further pursuit of Lucianarchy's gender by anyone will result in a warning.
Click to expand...

I'm conflicted here.

How can Lucianarchy demand that I show my evidence of his/her gender, when he/she will not have his/her gender revealed?

In effect, I have been asked by Lucianarchy to do something that violates the rules of this forum, due to a demand from Lucianarchy.

Catch-22.

I can understand that Lucianarchy has asked for his/her gender not to be revealed. I will - naturally - have to demand that Lucianarchy inform me of this him/herself. It's not that I have any reason to doubt the mods, but I must insist on direct evidence.

I'm sure the mods will understand this.

Ergo, I must insist that Lucianarchy ask me directly that he/she will not have his/her gender revealed. Otherwise, I fail to see how I can be required to stop asking what it is.

Evidence, always. Right?

If, on the other hand, I am asked to believe the word of the mods, then I fail to see how Lucianarchy can demand evidence re. his/her gender from me.
 
SkepticReport said:
I'm conflicted here.

How can Lucianarchy demand that I show my evidence of his/her gender, when he/she will not have his/her gender revealed?
Click to expand...
Only in response to your requests for Luci to prove theirs. It's not relevant, and as we have stated against the guidelines.
ibid
I can understand that Lucianarchy has asked for his/her gender not to be revealed. I will - naturally - have to demand that Lucianarchy inform me of this him/herself. It's not that I have any reason to doubt the mods, but I must insist on direct evidence.

I'm sure the mods will understand this.
Click to expand...
No, we don't. And as you have persisted in demanding personal information from another poster, I am now issuing you with a warning. Back off.

ibid
Ergo, I must insist that Lucianarchy ask me directly that he/she will not have his/her gender revealed. Otherwise, I fail to see how I can be required to stop asking what it is.
Click to expand...
I can: I have asked you to stop doing it, and have now warned you about it. Any more and I will ban you. I am sure Luci will drop their demand to know your gender, once you stop pestering them.
 
Originally posted by stu neville
Only in response to your requests for Luci to prove theirs. It's not relevant, and as we have stated against the guidelines.
Click to expand...


So, I cannot show evidence of his/her gender, and Lucianarchy is not allowed to demand it? Fine with me.

Originally posted by stu neville
No, we don't. And as you have persisted in demanding personal information from another poster, I am now issuing you with a warning. Back off.
Click to expand...


Gothca. I will not ask Lucianarchy whether he/she is male or female. I cannot be asked to provide my evidence by Lucianarchy, either.

Right?

Originally posted by stu neville
I can: I have asked you to stop doing it, and have now warned you about it. Any more and I will ban you. I am sure Luci will drop their demand to know your gender, once you stop pestering them.
Click to expand...


Although I fail to see how I can "pester" Lucianarchy for his/her gender, when he/she demands that I show my evidence hereof, I will - of course - need to hear this from Lucianarchy directly.

Right?
 
SkepticReport said:
Gothca. I will not ask Lucianarchy whether he/she is male or female. I cannot be asked to provide my evidence by Lucianarchy, either. Right?...Although I fail to see how I can "pester" Lucianarchy for his/her gender, when he/she demands that I show my evidence hereof, I will - of course - need to hear this from Lucianarchy directly.

Right?
Click to expand...
No, not right. Leave Lucianarchy alone. By all means discuss the topic in hand - that's what we're here for. But making unrelated demands on other posters is not acceptable. Stick to questions about RV, and Lucianarchy's experiences of it. Any more personal questions directed at Lucianarchy will result in your banning.

Right?
 
stu neville,

Let me get this crystal clear, so we can wrap this up.

  • I cannot ask Lucianarchy about his/her gender.
  • Lucianarchy can ask me for evidence about his/her gender, thereby revealing his/her gender.

Is this correct?

If it is, then we have this situation:

If I answer the first, then I get banned.
If I answer the second, then I also answer the first, which means I get banned.

Ergo, Lucianarchy should not be allowed to demand evidence about his/her gender. To show it would violate his/her own wishes.

Right?
 
I think I probably speak for everyone when I say that I'm tired of having this discussion now. I've made myself absolutely clear already, and have no intention whatsoever of pandering to your obsessive line of questioning any further (anyway it's pointless trying - I'm supposed to have gone offline several minutes ago).

Now, back off, and accept what you've been told. Any more, and you will be banned. This is your last warning.

I'll be back later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top