070402

Usenet Debate Status

July 4, 2002

Page 1 of 3 pages

From: "BruceMaCafferty" <brucie@onlinepartners.com>

Newsgroups:
                        uk.rec.psychic
                        sci.skeptic
                        alt.paranormal

Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused

Message-ID: <ca3U8.3106$Y_.112404@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>

Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:24:05 +0100

"Xcott Craver" <caj@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
news:PM0003A25F945E5CCE@giantH.bellatlantic.net...

>        Another interesting example is Benneth the homeopath, who
>        claimed the ability to distinguish homeopathically charged water
>        from normal water. In this case he and JREF (and a 3rd party
>        representing Benneth) were *THIS* CLOSE ][ to a test, with the
>        protocol worked out and everything, and at the last second
>        Benneth wanted to change the terms, wanted to change everything.
>        It became very clear to everyone involved that he just didn't
>        want to take the test he helped design.

Well, that's your flim-flam side of the story, all of it unsourced or referenced,
whilst here is the other side of the story, referenced and sourced.

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

Message-ID: <3D20FEB8.8243750E@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM>

From: DanKettler

Newsgroups:
uk.rec.psychic
alt.paranormal

Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 01:15:33 GMT

sci.skeptic snipped per alt.paranormal FAQ:

http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html

Happy Dog wrote:

> "BruceMaCafferty" <brucie@onlinepartners.com>

> "Xcott Craver" <caj@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message:

>       ...Benneth the homeopath... claimed the ability to distinguish
         homeopathically charged water from normal
         water... at the last second Benneth wanted to change the
         terms... he just didn't want to take the test he helped design.

BM: Well, that's your flim-flam side of the story, all
BM: of it unsourced or referenced...

DK: The other side, the truth, is here...

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

Above is sourced, and referenced. In fact, many of the e-mails quoted were
sent to a large number of people evident at the site. One can verify this
e-mail from those it was sent to. Some very prominent people are on the list,
including a nobel laureate.

> HD: ...every other
> significant other defender of Benneth also gave up on him.

DK: That's meaningless. The verifiable facts are important, not people's
reactions to them.

DK: Later, a debate took place between Syd Baumel and Benneth. A copy of that
debate is linked from the above referenced site.

> >>Last summer, Randi offered a range of possible times at Mount St. Mary's
> >>College in Maryland(?), but Benneth turned him down because he didn't
> >>feel prepared and the terms of the test were still far from settled.

You are stating that the above is from Syd Baumel, I believe. Now, this was
debated, and that debate is linked from the above referenced site. The
reference from Randi was "St. Mary's" but no State was mentioned, (Benneth
stated there is one than one St. Mary's). Baumel never disputed that
statement. Soon after that statement, Baumel dropped off the discussion.
Benneth challenged Baumel to show any proposals from Randi, at all, which gave
a specific date, or locations. Benneth had repeatedly asked Randi for an
opportunity to be tested.

SB per HD: John told me he needed 90 days to prepare, assuming
Randi ever gave him a date (which Randi tried to do within
a few days)

DK: So, we have the *alleged* statement from Syd Baumel,
about the *alleged* statement of Randi, trying to "give
him a date within a few days."

DK: In a court of law, one level down would not be admissable. It
would heresay. To attempt to enter evidence two levels down
would be ludicrous.

DK: We have alleged statements of alleged statements. Where's
the e-mail? Who was this e-mail copied to? Can we verify
this from those the e-mail was copied to?

DK: If you look at ...

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

DK: ...you will see sourced and referenced data. Here, on
USENET, I see blowing of smoke, mirrors, tricks, and
not much more.

DK: But, then, that is what Randi is, is he not? He's a carnival trickster.

> :From: "Syd Baumel" <sgb@escape.ca>
> To: "John Benneth" <gian@cyberhighway.net>
> Subject: Re: my assesment of Randi's assesment
> Date: 1 Aug 1999 04:07:04 GMT

> > But until we get a time and a place, this is just all hot air
> > we're blowing at each other. And secondly, if anyone is going to take
> > his offer seriously, they have to see it in writing with his signature
> > on it.

DK: Excellent quote, above.

DK: Yes, "hot air."

DK: There was much irrelevant material in the post I'm replying to, here.

DK: There were a lot of words exchanged. Going over all
the irrelevancy is a waste of time.

DK: The bottom line, here, is this:

DK: Randi never permitted Benneth to be tested. His major
excuse was that Benneth was, allegedly, "insane."

DK: The other relevant and verifiable details are at, or linked
from, the above referenced site.

<snip>

From: DanKettler

Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 01:15:33 GMT

sci.skeptic snipped per alt.paranormal FAQ:

http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html

Happy Dog wrote:

> "BruceMaCafferty" <brucie@onlinepartners.com>

> "Xcott Craver" <caj@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message:

> ...Benneth the homeopath... claimed the ability to distinguish
    homeopathically charged water from normal
    water... at the last second Benneth wanted to change the
    terms... he just didn't want to take the test he helped design.

BM: Well, that's your flim-flam side of the story, all
BM: of it unsourced or referenced...

DK: The other side, the truth, is here...

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

> HD:   ...every other
> HD:   significant other
> HD:   defender of Benneth
> HD:   also gave up on him.

DK: That's meaningless. The verifiable facts are important, not
people's reactions to them.

DK: Later, a debate took place between Syd Baumel and
Benneth. A copy of that debate is linked from the
above referenced site.

SB per HD: John told me he needed 90 days to prepare, assuming Randi ever gave
him a date (which Randi tried to do within a few days)

DK: So, we have the *alleged* statement from Syd Baumel, about the *alleged*
statement of Randi, trying to "give him a date within a few days."

DK: In a court of law, one level down would not be admissable. It would
heresay. To attempt to enter evidence two levels down would be ludicrous.

DK: We have alleged statements of alleged statements. Where's the e-mail?
Who was this e-mail copied to? Can we verify this from those the e-mail was
copied to?

DK: If you look at ...

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

DK: ...you will see sourced and referenced data. Here,
on USENET, I see blowing of smoke, mirrors, tricks,
and not much more.

DK: But, then, that is what Randi is, is he not? He's a carnival trickster.

> :From: "Syd Baumel" <sgb@escape.ca>
> To: "John Benneth" <gian@cyberhighway.net>
> Subject: Re: my assesment of Randi's assesment
> Date: 1 Aug 1999 04:07:04 GMT

> > Okay, let's look at this realistically. We need 90 days out from today
> > to schedule an event of the type we're talking about, so even if Randi
> > does cave in and give us a schedule, a reasonable trial of our claim
> > isn't going to happen for another three months, and that puts us into
> > November.
> > But until we get a time and a place, this is just all hot air
> > we're blowing at each other. And secondly, if anyone is going to take
> > his offer seriously, they have to see it in writing with his signature
> > on it.

DK: Excellent quote, above.

DK: Yes, "hot air."

DK: There was much irrelevant material in the post I'm replying to, here.

DK: There were a lot of words exchanged. Going over all
DK: the irrelevancy is a waste of time.

DK: The bottom line, here, is this:

DK: Randi never permitted Benneth to be tested. His major
DK: excuse was that Benneth was, allegedly, "insane."

DK: The other relevant and verifiable details are at, or
DK: linked from, the above referenced site.

<snip>

From: DanKettler

Subject: Re: Homeopathy $1 MIL "challange" <was> Re: The challenge is now refused

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:06:34 GMT

"Wally Anglesea™" wrote:

> >Xcott Craver wrote:

> >> Happy Dog wrote:

> >> > "BruceMaCafferty" <brucie@onlinepartners.com>

> >> >> Well, that's your flim-flam side of the story, all of it unsourced
> >> >> or referenced...

> >DK: And, this is sourced and referenced...

> > http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

> >> >... but every
> >> > other significant
> >> > other defender of
> >> > Benneth also gave
> >> > up on him.

> >DK: That's not relevant. What people do as a
> >DK: reaction has no bearing on the verifiable facts.

> >XC:>        Right. It wasn't just Randi, but also friends of Benneth, who
> >XC:>        put in a lot of effort to arrange the test whilst Benneth
> >XC:>        himself derailed the process in loony ways.

> >Here we have the typical reply of the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC. There's the
> >vagueness of "loony ways," with no specifics as to what these ways
> >allegedly were.

WA: > So claiming Birds were falling out of the sky on fire over Sydney,
WA: > people were running from the beaches of Australia with "flash...

This was all discussed on USENET. GOOGLE has archives of past
posts. I'm not going over all this again, except to say that
"fire over Sydney" came long after Randi's refusal to test
Benneth.

See GOOGLE:

http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search

> >[I did] present... verifiable evidence that
> >contradicts what they write. I presented verifiable evidence about
> >something Happy Dog wrote, and no-one seems able to rebut it.

> >Instead of facing facts, or answering them, they go on writing the same
> >nonsense over and over.

<snip>

> >The /challenge.html page contains a number of links. What, exactly, is
> >in the "web link" you mention, above, that shows Benneth's "thought
> >processes"? Are you going to just leave it there, with that vagueness,
> >or are you going to give an example (with a quote) of what you are
> >supposed to be saying?

> ><snip irrelevancy about whether someone thought the money existed>

> >The question in this thread has been whether Benneth
> >tried to be tested, and if Randi refused to test him.
> >That has been the point in all these
> >discussions about Benneth and Randi. You are
> >drifting from that, and I
> >wonder if it's a bit much for you to handle.

WA: > Which part of Randi didn't refuse to test him,
WA: > Benneth refused to follow the rules, doesn't
WA: > get through that thick skull of yours?

DK: Which part of the two questions I've asked again and
again on USENET misses your delusional, and denial
infested, mind-set?

DK: 1. Of the many rules, which rule or rules are
you referring to?

No speculation, here, or empty rhetoric. Which
rule, or rules?

2. Where is the evidence of this "rule-breaking" ?

Now I will repeat, again, what I wrote above:

           "Instead of facing facts, or answering
            them, they go on writing the same
            nonsense over and over."

I wrote it again because you just gave a perfect example of it.

> --
> Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
>
> How to Cook an Alien:
> http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/Alien_recipes.html
> "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."

From: DanKettler

Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:40:17 GMT

sci.skeptic snipped per alt.paranormal FAQ:

http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html

Happy Dog wrote:

> ...As Syd can confirm...

Syd can give his opinion, but he cannot confirm. Syd, you, Benneth, and
others witnessed and participated in a debate about whether Randi
refused to test Benneth, or Benneth refused to be tested.

The text of that debate is linked from...

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

> Randi was ready to play right up to the end. It was
> Benneth who vanished after his supporters tried to
> get him to submit the final protocol and failed.
> erf

The matter of "protocol" can be investigated by going to the
www.marius.net site and working with the internal search engine.

From what I read, a protocol was submitted within the time frame that
Randi had specified. A really good copy is at the www.marius.net web
site. Other ideas were entertained from time to time, and Benneth was
quite flexible regarding a protocol.

If you read the material you supplied just recently on USENET, Happy
Dog, you will see that Benneth wanted to discuss this with someone named
"Epstein" who Randi had given some authority about this matter of how it
would be done -- the "protocol."

See " Epstein " using the internal search engine at www.marius.net

By the way, thank you for all the material you supplied in your recent
post which helps to show that you don't know what you're talking about.

A little reading comprehension ability would go a long way to helping
you not provide your enemies with ammunition.

From: DanKettler

Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused

Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:58:15 GMT

Happy Dog wrote:

> "DanKettler"

> > > "BruceMaCafferty" <brucie@onlinepartners.com> wrote:

> > You know, "digger," Happy Dog placed some interesting
> > quotes yesterday. I agree with you about some of
> > them. The post contained so much material, it's
> > ridiculous to comment on all of it.

> > Let's look at some of it, shall we?

HD: > No kook. Look at all of it or go away.

You are not being rational. The material you placed on USENET
was inordinately large. You expect me to go through it line
by line? Much of it was irrelevant. All we need to do here,
which I've done, is look at the pertinent facts. The main
question here is whether Benneth refused to be tested, or
Randi refused to test him. Any text that does not concern
that is really not that important. Opinions of Syd Baumel
about the facts are of no worth, former supporter of Benneth,
or not.

The facts are important. What did Benneth write to Randi.
What did Randi write to Benneth, and what did Benneth try
to do to be tested? How, exactly, did Randi refuse?

You, Benneth, Syd, myself and others, were either participants,
or witnessed a discussion that examined that very question.

That discussion is linked from...

http://www.marius.net/challenge.html

So, do you have anything of substance to write, Happy Dog?
Is what you write of substance verifiable?

Writing about Syd Baumel's opinion is not something of substance.

Writing allegations about Benneth supposedly refusing to submit a
protocol, with no verifiable evidence, is not something of substance.

HD: > Benneth was abandoned by his fellow homeopathy believers...

DK: I keep telling you that is of little relevance. If
       the whole world abandoned him, it would still be
       nearly worthless information.    Don't you understand
       logic? Are you unable to think rationally?

DK: Here, try this on for size:

http://www.psicounsel.com/logic.html

DK: It does not matter that much how many, or who, supports someone.

DK: Primarily, what matters are the facts that make his
case valid, or not.

DK: If someone tried your debate tactics in a courtroom,
       they would be laughed right out of court. A lawyer's
       career would go right down the tubes if he/she tried
       it too often.

<snip>

Click here for page 2