By Bruce Kettler
Page 3
This is a summary of the discussion between Syd Baumel, James Randi and others, both from USENET and private e-mail communication. I participated in both.
The USENET portion of this discussion began with my posting of John Benneth's statement from his web page.
The remarks are edited for brevity without notation for missing or changed words, either in John's ("JB") statement, or in the discussion.
I will note my present comments, here on this page, in RED -- those not appearing in the newsgroups.
As noted above, this text is edited for brevity. If you wish to read full text of these discussions, you may access DEJA.
First I posted the following in the newsgroups: alt.paranormal, sci.skeptic, misc.health.alternative, and alt.astrology
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,misc.health.alternative,alt.astrology
Subject: News: Randi challenge/J.Edward/new Benneth
debates
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:28:36 -0700
There is an alleged approximate 1 million dollar
award for proving Homeopathy, psychic phenomena,
or astrology as valid.
I say "alleged" because as time passes, it
becomes more doubtful to many people whether
it is a real challenge, with money that someone can
obtain with the required proofs.
John Benneth has attempted to meet this "challenge"
with proofs of Homeopathy in a manner specified
by James Randi. He's not been able to schedule
a test.
Why has he not been able to do so?
He's applied according the the JREF "rules."
Go to the following web page...
http://www.marius.net/challenge.html
Look at the reference on the page to...
November 6, 2000 "ANOTHER OPEN LETTER TO JAMES RANDI"
Check out the references and you will see "why" -- that
it
has not been because of his own actions, or inactions.
Debate continued as a result of the above "open letter,"
and a
number of people were witness to, and part of that discussion.
The main issue discussed was whether John Benneth was,
in fact,
given the opportunity to meet the "challenge."
Who was involved in the debate?
Syd Baumel
John Benneth
Happy Dog
and others...
Discussion concluded with the inability of anyone to
come up with solid data confirming that Benneth
avoided the challenge.
It also ended with a challenge for the noted psychic
John Edward to be tested by JREF/Randi.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Benneth writes (My, "DK," comment noted):
Critics such
as Randi are rigorous in their
assault on
the paranormal to the point of
viciousness.
Why do you destroy your credibilty,
integrity
and reputation, unless you fear the
exposure of
something greater?
***********************************************************
DK: The viciousness of a large number of fanatics, who
call
themselves "skeptics," is noted and proven with evidence:
http://www.psicounsel.com/takstock.html OFF THE NET
http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html ON THE NET
I do not consider skeptics to be vicious. It's the
fanatics who call themselves skeptics that
I refer
to here.
***********************************************************
JB continues:
o you really believe that your opinion, based on nothing
more than an a priori belief, backed by nothing more than
a dubious award, is enough to convince anyone now of your
position, when it's contradicted by numerous, published
scientific studies?We can know a person by the accusations they make of others.
Why has your condemnation preceded your investigation,
unless you have a tremendous fear of the phenomena in
question?I suspect a skeleton in the closet.
John Edward is notorious for his skill in communciating
with the dead by dint of a regular TV show.
**********************************************************************
DK: He is also noted as having been tested by Professor
Schwartz
[see link at referenced
web site]. The research results will appear
in the Jan. 2001 issue of [see
link at referenced web site] The Journal
of the American Society for Psychical Research.
**********************************************************************
JB continues:
JREF has conducted secret investigations of faith healers in the past
by infiltrating audiences. The reported debunking of the Rev. Peter
Popoff is an example.Schwartz has investigated [John Edward] applying for the Psychic
Challenge, but was stonewalled by Randi [JREF].I'd like to suggest a new protocol for the Psychic Challenge. I suggest
that we put John Edward to the test...
--
www | p-s-i-c-o-u-n-s-e-l | com
Then I answered responses to the above, with the following:
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,misc.health.alternative,alt.astrology,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Randi challenge/J.Edward/new Benneth
debates
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:32:33 -0700
Message-ID: <3A269D40.ECEEE371@psicounsel.com>
misc.legal readers see the below:
HC: "What do you mean no legal right?
Who
the hell do you think Benneth is? God?..."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HC = Heather Chase
<snip>
HC: ...Benneth isn't being seriously considered, mostly
because he won't bother himself to adhere to the rules.
DK: Again and again you, and others, write this propaganda about> > DK: Each time someone asks "what rules," no answers
Benneth not adhering to rules. The JREF written challenge
at http://www.randi.org has a lot of rules, and never have
you, or anyone, told of what rule you are referring to.
DK: The rules are at http://www.randi.org Which rules?
> HC: Fine, ask JREF.
DK: Why ask JREF? You stated rules
were not
followed.
JREF never told Benneth or I which
rules. JREF
will not. You tell us. It's your
claim, so back it
up.
DK note on these web pages: No backing up was forthcoming to the above.
HC: > What do you mean no legal right? Who the hell
do you think Benneth is?
HC: > God? ...
DK: JREF made a public declaration. They wrote that
they will pay
1 million plus dollars
to anyone who complies with certain
written rules, and
who are able to provide certain proofs.
The rules are at
http://www.randi.org
Negotiations regarding this "challenge" continued withHC: > JREF has no legal obligation to jump right up to accomodate his
multiple witnesses who kept copies of the wording of
the discussions.Time was spent during these negotiations. Time is worth
money. Progress was made toward the fulfillment of
certain tests. Multiple prominent participants
were involved in these discussions.A verifiable promise was made by Randi, that if certain
criteria are met during a test, 1 million plus dollars
will be awarded. For details of this see...Then, the offering party, after considerable discussion,
broke off the progress, and refused to allow testing,
for no real reason. Multiple witnesses can attest
to this fact.So, the promise for an opportunity to gain 1 million
dollars was breached by Randi.Tell us, again, there is supposedly no viable legal recourse.
Tell us, again, that I am supposedly saying Benneth
is trying to be "god" when I say this can be a legal
matter.<snip>
DK: Benneth has waited for a scheduled test for 2 years.
<snip>
HC: > ...Benneth is so far in ethical debt, he may not
HC: > understand this deficit spending of public **opinion.
DK: You are again writing of nothing-in-particular
about a
DK: person -- just more vague ad-hominem.
DK: What is it that Benneth has done that is supposedly un "ethical"?
DK: No reply from H. Chase was forthcoming, to the above question.
DK: The **"opinion" referred
to above is mostly that of PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS.
What is a PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATIC (PSF)? Click
here.
DK: Such "opinion," in my opinion, is worthless.
DK: Reliance upon
the ad-hominem illogic can consist of a telling of truth.
Even if one points to repeated references to a person being a liar,
if that is the main focus of the argument, it's an "argument against
the man." If, however, specific statements (which are part of the
argument)
are proven to be lies, that is not ad-hominem. Also, if reference
to a persons's
lack of character is included in a statement, but not relied upon as the
argument of
evidence, that is not ad-hominem. It's just comment. See references
to
ad-hominem and other logical fallacies here.
DK: For the most
part, the arguments of Benneth are about proven facts, and verifiable
scientific research. His character, or lack thereof, is therefore
of no relevance.
> > H. Chase: Randi has made it clear that
his disinterest...
> >
is what begets the hesitation.
> >
> > DK:
The above does not answer the issue of the challenge,
> >
or the rules. If a "challenge" is publicly offered, and
> >
a person responds, complying with all the rules of
> >
the written challenge, Randi has no legal or moral
> >
right to hesitate out of "disinterest."
> > DK:
This matter of why there has been no testing was
> >
debated thoroughly. See URL reference above for
> >
copies of the debates.
HC: > Oh, I did. Did you?
DK: Let me repeat, the debates, the _latest_ debates are here:
http://www.marius.net/challenge.html
click at the November 6 reference.
DK: The wording, and facts, are VERIFIABLE by
prominent witnesses
and participants.
HC: > If this is a medical issue, then why would he need Randi to prove it?
DK: The Randi "psychic" challenge includes HOMEOPATHY.
HC: > Why don't the many alleged studies performed by
the alleged
HC: > scientists validate it?
DK: They do, but you didn't know that, did you?
DK: http://www.marius.net see search engine for the site
> > H. Chase: Benneth hasn't even the benefit of
...some sort of
> >
education in human physiology...
<snip>
> HC: What are Benneth's qualifications? Has he ANY credentials at all in medicine?
DK: This is not relevant. RANDI/JREF offered him
the opportunity
to be tested, and
other VERY WELL RESPECTED SCIENTISTS
...were involved
in negotiating the test procedures. That's all that
matters, here.
> HC: Where's the peer review?
DK: Irrelevant. Randi offered BENNETH the opportunity to be tested.
DK: See "red herring" on this page about logical arguments.
> > DK: Toward
the beginning of the discussions referenced
> >
...Brian Josephson was asked by why he would not,
> >
himself, enter the "challenge" to obtain 1 million plus dollars.
> >
> > DK: I placed
my opinion that after witnessing the
> >
futility of Benneth's attempts, and not wanting
> >
to waste nearly the same time and energy expended
> >
by Benneth, that would probably be the reason.
> >
> > DK: Professor
Josephson agreed with me, and added that
> >
even if he were to win that money, money is not
> >
everything. I can see that he has many worthwhile
> >
tasks to accomplish in this life.
<snip>
> > H. Chase: I'm quite certain that Randi... understand
[s]
> >
the scientific method and its importance for
> >
the future of our society.
> >
> > DK: Neither
you or Randi understand science...
HC:
...what is it about peer-review and/or the scientific
method that bothers you so?
DK:
Nothing about peer-review and scientific method is
objectionable to me.
I've written, many times, to you about what science is,
and what you
think science is. They are not the same.
Dogma is not science.
One does not come up with conclusions, from the start,
with scientific
method. That is the route that those like you follow.
One does not
dismiss scientific evidence before examining it.
That is the route
that those like you take.
One does not write, on USENET, about what Benneth allegedly
is
stating, and how anti-science he allegedly is, while
ignoring
the fact that he's been pro-science from the beginning.
That's not a scientific approach.
A scientist examines the claims of others. You dismiss
them
without any examination whatsoever. That is PART
OF
what I mean when I say that you ... do not know science.
...See other DEJA
writing to find out what other reasons I
say you don't know science.
Science is OPEN, and HONEST inquiry. I see no OPEN,
and HONEST inquiry from PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS
(PSF)
like you...
> > H. Chase: Your transparent attempt to...
[categorize] Randi
> >
and ...anyone else who disagrees with Benneth
> >
[as vicious] only serves to further disrepute
> >
your allegations of nobility.
> >
> > DK:
Randi is vicious. See MARIUS
DOT NET. Verify
> >
the statements with others who were part of the
> >
list of reciptients of the mail. Check out Randi's
> >
other writing. See the above sites for proof
> >
of the viciousness of a large number of the
> >
fanatics both on, and off, the net.
HC: > You have ZERO qualification to judge anyone else's
vitriol, you incompetent
HC: > little snake...
Randi lashes out at people, unprovoked. You have
done the same,
and as evidence shows in this post, you do so without
any knowledge
of what you are writing about, whatsoever.
You write like a fool.
DEJA -- past posts -- http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml
show what a fool you are.
HC: > You are famous for your brash, irreparably stupid tirades...
DK: I do such attacking
with truth as a defense, against lies, and
I prove what I write.
You are the stupid one. This is what is so pathetic
about you,
Heather. You write about how people are "smarter"
than me. You
try, so hard, to prove your smartness, and other people's
supposed
stupidity.
In that very attempt, you appear quite stupid. See,
when you
don't know about something, don't write about it.
Either
investigate it first, or stay quiet. When you write
like
you know it all, and you're wrong, you look like a fool.
If you don't know something, ask about it.
> > H. Chase: Why does [Benneth] continue
to fuel the polarization
> >
between his claims and science?
> >
> > DK:
The only "polarization" is between science and bigotry.
>
> > DK:
However, you wouldn't know the difference,
> >
since you're a bigot.
<snip>
DK: You are a bigot, and DEJA records of your posts show that.
A bigot thinks that what others
believe CANNOT be true. In their "arguments"
they write against the persons,
not the issues of whether what they believe is true
or not. They write as
if others are inferior because of their beliefs. There's
no
science in that, no open scientific inquiry about whether
it might be true.
There is only DOGMA.
> > H. Chase: Why does he lean on questionable
characters like
> >
you, for support?
> >
> > DK:
And, why do you resort to character assassination, and
> >
ad-hominem attacks, like the above? Would it not be
> >
rational for you to use logic properly, or the knowledge
> >
of the situation and real science that you seriously lack.
HC: > So, you're saying that you aren't a questionable character, then?
I see no evidence of it. I see accusations of it
all over USENET,
from FANATICS like you...
http://www.psicounsel.com/discsens.html#accuse
DK: And, if I was
a "questionable character" that would still be irrelevant, and an ad-hominem
attack.
See this reference, and above references about
"ad-hominem."
DK: John Benneth has support from many prominent people. He does not rely upon ("lean on" me) my help.
> Regards,
>
> H. Chase
> ------
> Mandatory Website
> http://www.geocities.com/chase_therapist/
>
> "Do you think a rational person, a sensible person,
would find it helpful,
> or in any way enjoyable, to discuss these things with
a nutcase like
> you?" - Bruce D. Kettler [aka Dan Kettler] responding
to me.
--
www | p-s-i-c-o-u-n-s-e-l | com
From: Dan Kettler <dan@psicounsel.com>
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,sci.skeptic,misc.health.alternative,alt.astrology
Subject: Re: Randi challenge/J.Edward/new Benneth
debates
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:10:46 -0700
Message-ID: <3A258CF6.CDD48D69@psicounsel.com>
I note a number of responses to my post...
"Randi challenge/J.Edward/new Benneth debates"
---------------------
<snip>
"Happy Dog" <happydog@sympatico.ca>
HD: Two of his biggest supporters
are staunchly pro
Homeopathy but even they abandoned him when it
became clear that he would never take the challenge.
DK: The debate, at the above
referenced site, contains that allegation
from you.
You lost the debate. Read it.
HD: ...he's switching tactics
and doing everything
except properly applying for the challenge...
DK: He applied properly a long time ago. This fact
is according to
your own experience of the correspondence from the beginning.
-------------------
hatunen@bolt.sonic.net (David Hatunen)
I think you are in serious need of looking
at the Randi challenge; none of what you say
above makes sense in the context of the wording
of the actual challenge.
DK: Of course,
no-one knows, specifically, what
you are referring to.
DK: The RANDI CHALLENGE is written at http://www.randi.org
DK: My exposure of it is at...
http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml
---------------------
Kevin Burnett <kjb@fbi.catnip.org>
Kettler doesn't care what the actual text
of the challenge is. He is more interested
in smearing Randi than anything else.
I have simply expressed my doubt that the "challenge"
is authentic.
I have cited documented evidence that points in that
direction.
There has been no "smear" of Randi from me.
---------------------
"sl" <nozedavenger@yahoo.com>
Anyway, about your assertion from October 29, 2000:
"We paranormalists do not go to sci.skeptic . . . ."
Would you say that you paranormalists (specifically you)
do indeed post on sci.skeptic?
DK: I didn't say we did not ever post. I wrote,
as I recall,
that we do
not post like fanatics. You are obviously
quoting out
of context, and trolling.
---------------------------
DK: He's applied according the the JREF "rules."
Lou Minatti: No he didn't, Bruce. [aka Dan Kettler]
DK: Propaganda of the year. As usual, no reference to what rules.
---------------------------
"Cujo" <cujo@usenet-performance-art.org>
DK: He's applied according the the JREF "rules."
CUJO: No, he hasn't.
DK: Again, propaganda instructions for the year, nothing specific.
---------------------------
ellis@no.spam ()
DK: He's applied according the the JREF "rules."
ELLIS: You claim he has.
DK: Again, the propaganda of the year.
---------------------------
"gblack" <gblack@ihug.co.nz>
GB: All that he has done is bleat
about how there is no challenge.
DK: Untrue, and references to
verifiable
statements prove it.
GB: When the conditions are pointed
out he
changes the subject. He had his chance.
A lot of people here went out of their
way to help him.
DK: He met all the "conditions."
That's quoted,
and the statements are verifiable.
DK: Conditions are, actually, written communication.
No test date
was set, nor was a location given,
so the only
"conditions" to be met were a
form filled
out that Randi did not deny receiving,
and the communication
that came afterward, which
is all verifiable
by a number of prominent witnesses.
THIS IS THE LAST PAGE