On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:50:48 -0000, TOH100 <toh100@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On 13 Nov, 05:09, Michael Gray <mikeg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:34:44 -0000, TOH100 <toh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On 12 Nov, 07:57, Michael Gray <mikeg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 04:34:41 -0000, TOH100 <toh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 12 Nov, 04:00, Michael Gray <mikeg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:03:14 -0800, TOH100
<toh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> :
>>
>> >> >> >Randi is a fraud.
>>
>> >> >> That is an actionable libel.
>>
>> >> >An empty threat.
>>
>> >> >An article about this has been up onSollog'ssite since the year
2000
>> >> >and there has been no action.
>>
>> >> >I have also seen the proof myself so my opinion stands.
>>
>> >> >> >He refused quake predictorSollog'sapplication for the million
dollar
>> >> >> >challenge back in 2000.
>>
>> >> >> What proof do you have of this assertion?
>>
>> >> >The article below fromSollog'swebsite has more about this.
>>
>> >> >http://www.247news.net/2000/20001011-randi.shtml
>>
>> >> This is no more than juvenile bleating.
>> >> Where is the proof?
>> >> I asked for proof.
>> >> You have not supplied it.
>>
>> >> >If it is wrong in any way then I'm sure Randi would have sued by
now
>> >> >since his minions are eager to make such threats.
>>
>> >> >The fact he hasn't sued speaks volumes.
>>
>> >> >The proof is a notarized application form sent to Randi. I have
seen
>> >> >it. Randi has it, so why don't you ask him to send you a copy?
>>
>> >> You have seen it, you say?
>> >> How is that proof that it was sent?
>> >> Did you see it at the JREF office?
>> >> How are you so damn sure that it was sent?
>> >> Did you think to make a copy
>>
>> >> Be a man, and admit that you have no proof.
>>
>> >Randi would not accept the notarized form that was put up onSollog's
>> >site for 5 years for all to see. You can go back to timestamped usenet
>> >posts to confirm that the application form was posted onSollog'ssite
>> >since 2000. That is your proof that the application to Randi was made.
>>
>> So why can't you show it to me?
>>
>> >In addition to the forms,SollogPUBLICALLY CHALLENGED Randi back in
>> >2000.
>>
>> >Randi refused the public challenge that was FOR NO MONEY, NOT EVEN FOR
>> >1 CENT.
>>
>> Changing the rules of the challenge makes the application invalid.
>>
>> >The public challenge was forSollogto predict a quake over 6.5 within
>> >3 days and 250 miles.Sollogalso had to accurately predict a
>> >hurricane.
>>
>> >Randi refused to acknowledge that is a demonstration of paranormal
>> >abilities. Current science is not able to predict earthquakes or
>>
>> Solloghas never got around to submitting a formal application, that
>> followed the very simple rules.
>>
>> You are still expressing actionable libels.
>
>All you can do is make legal threats in a vain attempt to shut me up.
How very infantile of you.
And revealing.
Revealing that you do not in fact posses the evidence that I
requested.
>How pathetic.
>
>Even more pathetic are the excuses you make for Randi not accepting a
>public challenge.
>
>Sollog publically challenged Randi back in 2000.
>
>Randi refused the public challenge that was FOR NO MONEY, NOT EVEN FOR
>1 CENT.
You aren't listening, are you?
>The public challenge was for Sollog to predict a quake over 6.5 within
>3 days and 250 miles.
>
>Randi refused to acknowledge that is a demonstration of paranormal
>abilities. Current science is not able to predict earthquakes
>anywhere near to that accuracy. To predict such a quake is a 10,000 to
>1 probability!
>
>Sollog also had to accurately predict a hurricane.
>
>Here is the public challenge for all to see :
>
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.skeptic/msg/005d459ded5fb1e9
A public challenge is not what I requested.
IAnyone can issue a puiblic challenge.
Now, are you going to supply the evidence that I asked for, or
continue to prevaricate?
The chouce is yours.
Each time that you avoid providiing the details, the more you appear
to be a mentally unstable kook.
You do realise that, don't you?
|
