Michael Gray wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 15:30:21 -0000, TOH100 <toh100@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Nov, 06:53, Michael Gray <mikeg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 06:29:39 -0000, TOH100 <toh...@[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.
> >>
> >> >The excuses you are making for Randi not accepting a public
challenge
> >> >are pathetic.
> >>
> >> The excuses that you are making for rality are pathetic.
> >> A public challenge is not binding.
> >>
> >> Sollog has not (coherently) completed a challenge application.
> >>
> >> To deny this is to be a total and complete liar, yet you continue to
> >> do so.
> >>
> >> What is your real name?
> >> Or are you a coward?
> >
> >>>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 totally separate from the application for the
> >$1million dollar challenge, you imbecile.
>
> I know that.
> And has nothing whatsoever to do with a formal application, which is
> THE ONLY WAY to obtain entrnce to the challenge.
>
> >Sollog publically challenged Randi back in 2000.
> >
> >Here is the public challenge for all to see :
> >
> >http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.skeptic/msg/005d459ded5fb1e9
> >
> >Why did Randi refuse to accept a public challenge that was FOR NO
> >MONEY, NOT EVEN FOR 1 CENT?
>
> I have repeatedly told you that the reason is that a public challenge
> is not acceptable.
> It requires the applicant to fill out a simple form, and submit it to
> JREF.
>
> Yet you studiously avoid telling me about this essential process, and
> keep distracting me with claims about an irrellevant public challenge.
>
> >Be a man and answer the question honestly. Or are you a coward?
>
> I have repeatedly answered the question, clearly and succinctly.
> Are you deliberately not responding for some reason, or can you
> genuinely not see the distinction between a public challenge, and a
> formal chalenge application?
>
> I fear that you know exactly what I am talkiong about, but seek to
> prevaricate and distract in a vain attampt to cover up the reality,
> and to guard yourself against your clear libel.
>
> For the last time:
> Did Sollog present a completed & coherent formal application form,
> available from JREF?
>
> If you respond once again by refusing to answer this simple qurestion,
> and revert to your distractions of some public challenge, then I shall
> have to assume that you have been lying all along.
Mine is "Public Record", check last year look at the poems I wrote, and
tell Randi to send me a check.
Oh, no, you missed a couple.
Yeah right, like I said about 80%.
You want "Perfection"!
Even God is perfect in its imperfection.
You demand man be not even equal to, but Better than God, before you can
accept the truth.
|
