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

Again, At The James Randi Educational Foundation

Now, now...let's respect one another's sense of style. ;)
 
stu neville said:
Luce, and Hugo - enough now. Any more and you will both be banned.

Luce - I guaranteed you safety from the kind of treatment you received on the JREF forum - that does not give you carte blanche to be disrespectful to the opinions of others on here. They are discussing your results, not your worth as an individual - don't take it so personally.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand.

With respect, I think you'll find that Alexius and Hugo felt the need to make comments about about an issue which had already been dealt with by your good self. I believe the only disrespectful thing I have done here is inviting Frank and Hugo to, well, you know.. Is that really so bad? They both seem quite capable of dishing it out when it suits them. I only expect to be treated with equality here.
 
Emperor said:
I suppose that summary says something about the nature of people's interpration of things - all of the judges scored LA's session2 as a miss and he sees it as something different. Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken, Emps.

Session 2: "They are flowers (though not sunflowers), they do have a dark center, and they're round. I believe "radiant" and "intricate" fit too. I'll give this one a 2."

Besides, the results are self evident, regardless of the subjectivity of the judges.

You'll note that my perceptions are short and sweet. No long descriptions or 'fishing expeditions'. The percentage of the data I provide being significant is very high in comparison to a long report which contains a large number of descriptions.
 
Wembley said:
"I think you'll find that my postings are devoid of faux ingenuousness..."

And I think that as a statement, this one ranks with "Pretentious - moi?" :)
Click to expand...

:) I'm flattered you noticed... The jibe was about the heady days of Chopper, and his methods of stirring up the silt...
 
FieldREG Anomalies in Group Situations

R. D. Nelson, G. J. Bradish, Y. H. Dobyns, B. J. Dunne, and R. G. Jahn, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, School of Engineering/Applied Science, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544

The following brief description of the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Remote Perception program has been prepared at the invitation of the Editor1, in order to augment this special report section of the Journal with information about another substantial database of experiments relevant to those of SRI and SAIC. Given Utts' attention to the importance of replication (Section 3.4), and Hyman's challenge of interlaboratory consistency (Point #3 of his Introduction and Point #2 of his "Suggestions for Future Research"), we submit that the PEAR program has obtained the largest extant body of experimental data that meets their criteria for interlaboratory replication. In point of fact, both the PEAR remote perception program, and the prior studies of Dunne and Bisaha on which it was originally based, were undertaken as formal replications of the SRI experiments of Puthoff and Targ.
 
" Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud."

- extract from: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR P SYCHIC FUNCTIONING. Professor Jessica Utts, Division of Statistics,
University of California, Davis.

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html
 
Lucianarchy said:
I think you are mistaken, Emps.

Session 2: "They are flowers (though not sunflowers), they do have a dark center, and they're round. I believe "radiant" and "intricate" fit too. I'll give this one a 2."

Besides, the results are self evident, regardless of the subjectivity of the judges.
Click to expand...

Sorry I was mistaken - it was Session 1 (the one I'd highlighted in the quote of your post). The perils of posting just before going to bed I'm afraid :(

The aren't self-evident I'm afraid - people's interpretations can be subjective which is why we have a number of judges to try and average it all out.

Emps
 
Emperor said:
Sorry I was mistaken - it was Session 1 (the one I'd highlighted in the quote of your post). The perils of posting just before going to bed I'm afraid :(

The aren't self-evident I'm afraid - people's interpretations can be subjective which is why we have a number of judges to try and average it all out.

Emps
Click to expand...

Again, you are mistaken.

"Lucianarchy appeared to describe the background of the image; chimneys and buildings which was of slight significance"

"slight" significance is subjective. It was part of the picture, a significant part of the picture.

With respect, they are completely self evident, to anyone. They can read and look at the image and make up their own mind whether or not it is significant.
 
Lucianarchy said:
With respect, they are completely self evident, to anyone. They can read and look at the image and make up their own mind whether or not it is significant.
Click to expand...

They are grey smudges in the background of a very large and clear image which you completely missed and selectively quoting from part of one of the judges scorings to support your case is one of the things I was getting at earlier.

Clearly people are welcome to look at your impressionsand compare them with the actual image and make up their own minds.

Emps
 
Hugo Cornwall said:
Alas, LA has become more and more a character from a Thurber Fable as time has progressed, and the King is wearing less and less despite protestations.

The problem is that we have someone being a belligerent and provocative arse, rather than debating the pro of their position, and since they are the core of their position, backing it up with something sufficiently tangible to convince a sympathetic (Fortean) observer. Unfortunately, we no have ample evidence of a person when confronted with a counter position retires to the corner of vitriol and acrimony. The FT MB needs another one of these like I need another asshole.... IMO
Click to expand...

IMO, you are another asshole. :)

(lest anyone should complain: I have only responded to Hugo's diatribe in this manner because I demand to be treated with equality, if not respect. I will, of course, remove this response, should Hugo have the honour within him to remove that section from his original post.)
 
Emperor said:
They are grey smudges in the background of a very large and clear image which you completely missed and selectively quoting from part of one of the judges scorings to support your case is one of the things I was getting at earlier.

Clearly people are welcome to look at your impressionsand compare them with the actual image and make up their own minds.

Emps
Click to expand...

With respect, "smudges" is a subjective term for what actually was there. What was there was what I described.

I'm only being selective in order to repond to your points.

No one knows how this really works, emps, but you can't expect someone to mention everything or even the most striking, no one's claimed to be able to do that. No, the event is small, recordable, repeatable and measurable.
 
stu neville said:
Now, the line is drawn. No more sniping - back to the actual thread.
Click to expand...
It seems that some of you still don't get it.

Now, before I start treating you all like children I'd strongly urge you all to calm down, stop being so bloody argumentative, and respect each others opinions. We wouldn't want the thread locked, would we?
 
Lucianarchy said:
IMO, you are another asshole. :)

(lest anyone should complain: I have only responded to Hugo's diatribe in this manner because I demand to be treated with equality, if not respect. I will, of course, remove this response, should Hugo have the honour within him to remove that section from his original post.)
Click to expand...

*Sweeping bow*

I take it in the spirit it was meant... my thanks :)

Now, we've all vented our spleen, can we now declare Jihad at an end and move on?
 
schnor said:
It seems that some of you still don't get it.

Now, before I start treating you all like children I'd strongly urge you all to calm down, stop being so bloody argumentative, and respect each others opinions. We wouldn't want the thread locked, would we?
Click to expand...

Who the hell do you think you are?

I know you're a mod, but that doesn't give you the right to go insulting an entire thread membership en masse. Particularly since no one seems to be complaining, and this thread generates about 3000 hits each week, so people evidently want to view it. Locking it would be simply stupid.

Get real. This is a real topic.
 
Lucianarchy said:
Who the hell do you think you are?

I know you're a mod, but that doesn't give you the right to go insulting an entire thread membership en masse. Particularly since no one seems to be complaining, and this thread generates about 3000 hits each week, so people evidently want to view it. Locking it would be simply stupid.

Get real. This is a real topic.
Click to expand...

:no-no:

I'm complaining. I vote for a closure to this rudeness.
 
Who do you think you are, Lucianarchy? How many more edits can you fit in within the next few minutes? I think you're one short, which if you're wise will be checking the little "delete" box in the corner.
There have been repeated attempts to ask people to be reasonable on here, this is the last one. :)
 
I now understand why people are peed off over at JREF.

Is it some sort of death wish, LA?
 
Locking the /thread/ would seem to penalise the many for the.... foibles... of the few.....

I've largely bitten my tongue recently.... if persons of good will would join me and post only on topic then we might wtiness the sound of one hand clapping :D


Kath
 
why don't you all just put him/her on ignore? Everyone else can then carry on discussing an interesting subject :)
 
Dark Detective said:
Who do you think you are, Lucianarchy? How many more edits can you fit in within the next few minutes? I think you're one short, which if you're wise will be checking the little "delete" box in the corner.
There have been repeated attempts to ask people to be reasonable on here, this is the last one. :)
Click to expand...

So, as moderators, you're allowed to insult members, but member's can't respond likewise. OK, I get it.

That's an incredibly abusive way to go about running a forum open to the general public.

As moderators, if you find something unacceptable all you need to do is delete what you want removed, there's no need to go wading in creating more bad feeling, you just need to excercise a little self control.
 
Indeed, DD is right - time to step back from the brink before it is too late.

No sense in any of this. Time to give the mods a break and ease off.

Getting banned solves nothing.
 
Lucianarchy said:
So, as moderators, you're allowed to insult members, but member's can't respond likewise. OK, I get it.

That's an incredibly abusive way to go about running a forum open to the general public.

As moderators, if you find something unacceptable all you need to do is delete what you want removed, there's no need to go wading in creating more bad feeling, you just need to excercise a little self control.
Click to expand...
Congratulations and welcome to stasis. I did ask nicely, as did many others on our behalf.
Now, if anyone else would like to join him/her, feel free to troll or post your vitriol below.
 
Dark Detective said:
Congratulations and welcome to stasis. I did ask nicely, as did many others on our behalf.
Now, if anyone else would like to join him/her, feel free to troll or post your vitriol below.
Click to expand...

No - well done, I feel a bit easier about things now.

Thanks DD.

:)
 
Luci is now out of stasis - I have put them on a final warning: any more personally directed jibes and they will be excluded permanently.

By the same token, any attempt to provoke them to do so by other members will not be looked upon favourably by any member of the mod team.

Now, play on.
 
String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal

Brian D. Josephson
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10



ABSTRACT

A model consistent with string theory is proposed for so-called paranormal phenomena such as extra-sensory perception (ESP). Our mathematical skills are assumed to derive from a special ‘mental vacuum state’, whose origin is explained on the basis of anthropic and biological arguments, taking into account the need for the informational processes associated with such a state to be of a life-supporting character. ESP is then explained in terms of shared ‘thought bubbles’ generated by the participants out of the mental vacuum state. The paper concludes with a critique of arguments sometimes made claiming to ‘rule out’ the possible existence of paranormal phenomena.
 
LA: Its an interesting field of research you are investigating:

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/PM.html

and there are clearly other research that are looking into this quantuum/telepathy kind of field. However, I think this thread has probably gone OT far too often and it might be better to start a new thread in Parapsychology on "The Physics of Telepathy", or some such, so we can discuss things properly.

Emps
 
Good idea, Empy.

But not until after the Pomey / Arsenal qtr finals! :)
 
(Can we no longer edit posts? )

Play up Pompey!

OK, Let's do a little exp here.

All those with psychic powers - focus on Portsmouth at Fratton Park, imagine them playing their best and beating Arsenal. It's not hard to do! :)
 
>"slight" significance is subjective. It was part of the picture, a significant part of the picture.<

Erm, do we have a consistency problem here?

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top