Page 2 of 3 pages
From: DanKettler
Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 13:30:54 GMT
sci.skeptic left out per alt.paranormal FAQ:
http://www.psicounsel.com/altparfaq.html
misc.health.alternative placed because this concerns evidence regarding
HOMEOPATHY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pertinent docmented facts are at, and linked from...
http://www.marius.net/challenge.html
There is
a search engine to locate
text,
using keywords, at the site.
digger wrote:
> "BruceMaCafferty" <brucie@onlinepartners.com> wrote:
> <SNIP the loony re-editorializing, leave in the facts>
> Oops!
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?
**********************************************
From: John Benneth ...
To: James Randi
<snip>
Date: Aug. 6, 1999 ...
RE: DIRECTLY RELEVANT: Getting on with it
James wrote:
"My chemist
(PhD in analytical chemistry) can
do the preparation any weekend in November. The
work will all be done at Mount Saint Mary's
College. Will Benneth be ready by then?
Randi
BENNETH: Well how do you like that? After seven
months of
bickering he finally agrees to a test at Mt.
St. Mary's College on some weekend in
November. But what college is he talking
about?
Here we have a picture of some scientists sitting
around a desk at the college you propose.
Is this NIST?
http://www.msmcollege.com/science_dep.htm
Or is this it?
http://www.msmary.edu/science/
Maybe this is it?
http://www.msmc.edu/webdex/science/science/home.htm
What are you trying to pull now, Mr. Zwinge? [Randi]
<snip>
You won't even sign your own challenge. You won't even
give us the name of the person at Goldman Sachs whose
supposed to confirm that you even have a prize.
That's not too much to ask for people who are risking
reputation and expense to meet the demands of your
challenge.
<snip>
...superior
medical treatment is being
withheld ...because its been denounced
by the likes of you and your ever decreasing
gang.
<snip>
...perhaps
on that weekend in November? Sound fair
enough? That should speed things up, don't
you think? If you like, we could schedule
next February, or March.
So
let's start with your mystery scientist. Let me
speak to him on the phone, and he and I can
collaborate on how he can see these things
for himself.
This
weekend.
Is that getting on with it?
John
Benneth
503-661-4842
**********************************************************
DK: So, the PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF) are saying that Benneth
refused to be tested, and that he was offered to be tested at some
College name (that Benneth could not figure which one
it was) and here
they quote Benneth saying -- okay, let's do it.
The fanatics quote Benneth saying he wants to "get on with it," and
also
say he didn't. They are such idiots!
This College name keeps coming up in USENET posts, but the fanatics
ignore the fact that Syd Baumel discussed with Benneth, whether Benneth
refused, or Randi refused to test him. That
discussion is recorded in a
link from the above referenced site: /challenge.html
Baumel was left
with the challenge to show what specific offer was made
that Benneth
supposedly refused. Baumel was silent, and the discussion ended.
***********************************************************
From: "Syd Baumel" <sgb@escape.ca>
To: "James Randi" <JamesRandi@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: [theproving] Why won't he sign?
Date: 13 Aug 1999 19:48:39 GMT
<snip>
I'm not sure how you
can blame Benneth
for ignoring anything
if you keep sending
all of his e-mail
back to him "marked unread"...
<snip>
>From JamesRandi@compuserve.com Thu, 5 Aug 1999 18:05:03 -0400
>From: James <JamesRandi@compuserve.com>
>To: "Syd Baumel" <sgb@escape.ca>
>Subject: [theproving] Re: JREF's $1M Challenge:
negotiation of J.Benneth's homeopathic
dilution protocol
>Date: 5 Aug 1999 22:05:03 GMT
>The biochemist is Michael Epstein, at michael.epstein@nist.gov
<snip>
*******************************************************
DK: Use the INTERNAL search engine at www.marius.net
and find "Epstein."
*******************************************************
From: DanKettler
Subject: Re: Homeopathy $1 MIL "challange" <was> Re: The challenge is now refused
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 19:23:33 GMT
Happy Dog wrote:
DK: > > Then, there's the silence when one presents
DK: > > verifiable evidence that contradicts what
DK: > > they write. I presented verifiable evidence
DK: > > about something Happy Dog wrote, and no-one
DK: > > seems able to rebut it.
HD: > Except me. Kook.
DK: Well, you are at least writing something.
> > 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... <snip>
HD: > It's you who refuses to acknowledge the events
HD: > surrounding the collapse of Benneth's Challenge.
DK: I did. See the other posts.
HD: Again, sigh, explain to us the significance of this:
Alain (and John,
presumably) attempt
to draft a new
protocol to submit
to Randi, based
on the newly negotiated
terms...
Alain:
The week's time has
elapsed. I have to say that
my mission has been
a failure and that no new
protocol is ready
now.
DK: Didn't Randi say Epstein would be handling this,
the protocol, etc,
exclusively and apart from
Randi? Didn't
Benneth say he was willing
to discuss the protocol,
or type of test, within a few
days with Epstein?
This was in the text you provided,
and which I quoted
today. Obviously, if Epstein was
given all this authority
by Randi, and he is the
scientist here, not
Randi, shouldn't that most
rationally be worked
out with Epstein.
> >From JamesRandi@compuserve.com Mon, 13 Sep 1999 16:21:47 -0400
<snip>
Randi writes:
> As far as I'm concerned, the game is over. I
> stopped to think that Benneth is capable of
> completing the challenge. I left his lists
> and won't answer his further mails. Unless
> he comes with a protocol, maybe.
<snip>
Now, I asked this question, on USENET not too long ago. Randi
answered
me through a forwarded message in a USENET post. His answer was
negative, sarcastic, and evasive.
I asked, right then what was preventing Randi from allowing
Benneth to
enter the challenge? What was it, then that Randi
needed to have done
to allow Benneth to actually be tested in this so-called "challenge."
Now, I ask it again.
So, anyone wishing to look for the above mentioned posts, they can do
so
through GOOGLE keyword searches...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
The plain and simple fact is, that if Randi wanted, now, to test
Benneth, he would say in exactly what way Benneth had come short, and
what he needed to do now to be tested. What counts,
right now, is
what now is. So far as I can see, it's nothing.
There is no denying that Randi's followers usually tell him what is
written on USENET about, and to, him.
Message-ID: <3D221071.A2E46EE7@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM>
From: DanKettler
Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 20:43:35 GMT
The 1 Million Dollar "challenge" concerns alternative health -
HOMEOPATHY, Astrology, and psychic phenomena.
More on this so-called "challenge" here:
http://www.psicounsel.com/randicha.shtml
Happy Dog wrote:
> "BruceMaCafferty" <brucie@onlinepartners.com> wrote
> > > >>Well, that's your flim-flam side of the story,
all of it unsourced or referenced...
The http://www.marius.net/challenge.html
site, is
sourced and referenced.
HD: > > > > Uh, no. That's Syd Baumel's side
HD: > > > > of the story...
DK: Okay, let's look at what
Syd had to say, or
what he (more revealing)
didn't say, long
after the discussions
you quote.
DK: Let's look at this discussion you were
DK: involved with, with Benneth and Baumel.
DK: This was long after the discussions you
DK: placed in a recent posting.
http://www.psicounsel.com/randiuse02.html#nov2000
Syd: Randi even agreed (finally) to return
a signed
application to John when and
if a mutually
agreeable protocol could
be attached
to it.
Benneth: I asked for a schedule of the test: When
and where? But Randi demanded that the
method be identified, and when I finally
presented the yeast method, for
whatever reasons, communications ceased.
DK 7/2/02: If you look at the above web page, you
will see no rebuttal from Baumel contradicting
Benneth's statement, above.
DK 7/2/02: The discussion ceased of its own accord, when
there was nothing more to comment upon.
Benneth: If I'm wrong about this, then tell me when
and where the test was supposed to be, and
show me the notice to me of it.
DK 7/2/02: No reply to the above from Syd Baumel.
JB: I had already asked repeatedly for a time and
place
at which to demonstrate
it and had been refused.
HD: I think that this is a lie. Syd, can you comment?
JB: Of course he can comment, but he hasn't. Never
has Randi scheduled an open,
preliminary
examination of a serious
claim, for anything,
to my knowledge.
When I asked him [Randi] repeatedly, over
and over again for a test date, if he responded,
it would be with something else, often an
observation, but never a test date.
The closest he came was suggest a weekend in
November
at Mt. St. Mary's College. However, I found
five schools
by that name. I asked him to be more
specific and he refused.
If there was an offer of a specific time and
date,
please, indeed, show it to me. Better yet,
produce
the certified receipt of it.
What I have here is that he explicitly refused
to examine
my claim based on what he perceived to be
. . . how shall
we put it? My Personal limitations?
The first time he said
he had better fish to fry, namely BJ and JB.
That turned
out to be a ruse, and he went into hibernation
until Syd
and Alain flushed him out.
Then he dismissed it on the grounds that I
was too
crazy to deal with. Whether this is true or
not does
not alter the fact that never during almost
a year of
attempted negotiations was there ever a time
and place
named for a test, and I have copies of repeated
pleas to
him to name a time and place.
Yet I am continually accused by you and others
of
running away from a test. So please, indeed,
tell
us when and where this examination of my claim
took
place that I failed to appear to at.
From: DanKettler
Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2002 20:30:53 GMT
Happy Dog wrote:
> "Matt Kriebel" <mkriebNOSPAMDAMMIT@cruzio.com>
> > Syd's summary is one that Kettler has always run away
> > from (usually with desperate, pathetic attempts to point
> > at his website comentary as some kind of rebuttal)
Well, whether from Syd, or whomever, the "summary" is false.
I do not believe that answering the lies about Benneth requires that
I
repeat the same verifiable information each and every time
when much
of that information is at...
However, I have a little extra time on my hands at this point in time,
and have been going over all the false statements carefully, and
comparing them with verifiable facts.
The accusation that "Kettler has always run away" is false, since I
have, on a number of occasions, been willing to go into details that
the
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS have chosen to run from. The whole "St.
Mary's"
matter, as well as the debate between Baumel, Benneth, HD and others,
is
being avoided like the plague by PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS, even though
I've been posting information about those subjects during the past
2-3
days.
Also, pointing to MARIUS DOT NET
is not just to commentary. It's mainly
to records of verifiable communication between Randi, Benneth, and
others.
> > "Last summer, Randi offered a range of possible times at
> > Mount St. Mary's College in Maryland(?)...
I answered this just recently, on USENET. I pointed out that the
data
just supplied by HD, on USENET, shows that fact, and Benneth's reply.
> > but Benneth turned him down...
See, in my quotes of HD's quotes, just yesterday, I showed that Benneth
did not "turn him down." Benneth made offers to go to this college
once
he could be informed of which "St. Mary's" it is.
> > because he didn't
> > feel prepared and
> > the terms of the test were still far from settled.
He didn't turn him down.
> <snip> demonstrates... [Benneth's] final tactic.
> He began claiming that he had already
> won because, in his troubled mind, his
> claim had already been proved. As
> evidence, he offered some studies.
> And then demanded payment!
This accusation, about Benneth, has been made again and again by the
PSEUDO-SKEPTIC-FANATICS (PSF), and in no way can they substantiate
it.
Benneth simply stated, at one point, that since Randi refused to test
him, and since his claim had been proven by other methods, that he
had,
in fact, won. Well, that would be up to a court of law, of course.
In
no way did Benneth expect Randi to pay for that evidence
voluntarily.
JB: > And being that Randi has yet to set a date
JB: > for the determination of my claim and refuses
JB: > to communicate with me over the test...
Note, above, Benneth is saying BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE...
> I feel the only thing I have left to do is to
> bring up test after test that proves the
> validity of my claim.
...which is all he could do, in court to get his money, and in the
public view to give credence to HOMEOPATHY.
Message-ID: <3D239CE5.D52F45F5@no_spamKETTLERENTERPRISES.COM>
From: DanKettler
Newsgroups:
alt.paranormal
alt.magick
uk.media.tv.misc
uk.rec.psychic
uk.media
Subject: Re: The challenge is now down to humpty@dumpty.net
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:55:12 GMT
Matt Kriebel wrote:
> In article <EcJU8.1382$Iw5.523@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "Bruce Burhans" <bburhan1@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Science' investigates reality under the
> > auspices of a number of assumptions about
> > the *nature* of reality that have to be
> > taken on faith.
> Such as?
Such as:
Steve Hagan cites Astronomer John Barrow's writing:
"the practice
of science...rests upon
a number
of presuppositions about the
nature
of reality."
That is from the web site I referenced below.
> > There is no way
> > to prove them using the methods of 'science' itself.
> Actually, there often is.
Let's see. To prove something, one must look to a methodology that is
independent of the discipline being examined. When one person
examines
another, they get a less biased view than when one examines themself.
That is why psychiatrists have psychiatrists.
"All science, and thus all skepticism, is
based on unproven assumptions and intuitions.
Science is not some absolute. It is merely a
point of view, no more "true" or "correct"
than any other."
> > You accept these root assumptions as fact,
because
> > you are a religious fanatic.
> No, he's a realist.
Scientism is a blind religion, and its followers, on USENET, have shown
themselves to be sick-minded fanatics. They take pride in killing
the
public reputations of honest citizens, with lies. To these cultists,
the end justifies the means.
> > No fanatic can, by definition, be aware that he/she IS
> > a fanatic.
Exactly!
> Irony Meters a pingin'!
No, the nut meter is going way off scale.
> > They ALL think that they are just the only people with
> > a handle on the REAL TRUTH.
There is no basic fundamental difference between the mindset of a
Fanatical Christian "truth" seeker, and that a fanatical person who
follows scientism. Each thinks their "truth" is so obvious, and
so
fundamental to the fabric of reality, that everyone should see it like
they do.
> No, scientists seek the truth, and they discard whiney litle claimants
> to truth who cannot provide one scintilla of proof.
I respect scientists, but you, Randi, and the whole lot of you fanatics
are about as far from science, as night is from day.
What science is, and is not, is shown in this collection of articles...
http://www.psicounsel.com/sciart.html
> --
> Matt Kriebel *
Oooops!
> mkrieb@cruzio.com *
> *****************************************
> Now 90%
closer to 80% of the world's kooks!
From: DanKettler
Subject: Re: The challenge is now refused
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 01:30:19 GMT
Happy Dog wrote:
> "BruceMaCafferty" <brucie@onlinepartners.com> wrote in message
HD: ...it is abundantly clear that JB vanised from the
HD: bargaining table after Jean Alain Mairet formally
HD: asked Randi for one week for him and JB to finalize
HD: their protocol.
If you look at the material I've supplied during the past few days on
USENET, you will see that there was
a discussion about this which you
were involved in, Happy Dog. In that discussion, John Benneth
said the
yeast test, which he had in the past described, was the one he had
annonced he was willing to go through with. He said that to Baumel.
Then you said that Benneth must be lying, and Baumel was silent.
Then
Benneth went on to give the details, which are all documented EVEN
IN
THE CORRESPONDENCE YOU RECENTLY POSTED, that show
he'd agreed to the yeast test.
For my recent post that quotes you, Happy Dog, and others, access USENET
GOOGLE archives at...
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search
Here's what Benneth wrote, to "finalize their protocol"
Now let's get down to business on what the
real protocol should be about. We should be
seeking out a qualified laboratory to prepare
the base solution for all samples. We want 50
samples drafted, we want all samples placed in
50 separate lead envelopes, 25 of which we want
turned over to the homeopathic pharmacist for
potentizing <snip>
The above is from the "Date: 4 Aug 1999 19:13:06 GMT" posting you
supplied.
Other material shows Randi discussing the yeast test about the time
that
this "finalized protocol" was written about.
BM: > > Here is Mr Benneth's protocol
http://www.marius.net/protocol.html
BM: > > I have not had sight of a rational reason why this protocol
was
BM: > > not accepted. Can you provide one?
HD: > Yes. The protocol wasn't accepted because Benneth
HD: > wanted to try another test instead.
DK: There is an internal search engine at the MARIUS DOT NET SITE:
DK: One can look up the word, "protocol," or anything else.
Click here for page 3