Dell, you discredit yourself with your own comments.....Dell Winders said:
For Pete's sake, Art! Would you stop throwing this up over and over again? This is a line from a seminar that you have taken out of context and are using to try and prove something. No one but you believes that Randi would say this about himself, hoping that everyone would take him seriously for it.aarthrj3811 said:
This isn't the first time I've had to point this out to you, Art. This site, which you seem to hold in such high regard, is filled with articles trying to gain credence for pseudoscience and it extremely skewed in that direction, which also happens to be leaned heavily against Randi and, in fact, almost anyone who denies that such pseudosciences are real. If you really want to know how the quote was presented, then you can actually do some research and find the interview in which he said this. All you're doing know is repeating a quote taken out of context.aarthrj3811 said:
What facts about dowsing? There aren't any. Since both pro-dowsing and scientific publications/groups disagree about almost every facet of dowsing, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether dowsing actually works. Do you have facts about dowsing that no one is aware of?aarthrj3811 said:
And again, Art, you're posting links to articles from dowsing publications, not to be considered factual since I can find two reports showing dowsing not to work better than chance for each one you produce showing it does. Not to mention, how did you even read and understand the water dowsing article? It was filled with math and percentages...... Did you write to the author and ask him if he used "real" math? If not, then you're showing your bias by not questoning their finds like you do with reports that show dowsing doesn't work.aarthrj3811 said:
Gee af1733....I take you at your word. Wating for the 60 links that you will post....Art
Typical dowser answer. Try to respond to something I asked you, Dell. Here, I'll make it easier.Dell Winders said:
When you bother to address this, then we'll talk. But feel free to ignore it and let everyone see you for what you really are.af1733 said:
Why bother, Art? I could post links till my keyboard breaks, but as you've proven in the past, you ignore answers you are given, and you don't really understand them in the first place. I could stick 100 links here and you would never bother to go to the sites because, as I've shown, you are close-minded and biased and the sites wouldn't agree with your point of view.aarthrj3811 said:
If you have 100 links lets see them......I am sure there is someone who will read them...Art
Art, you don't get it, do you? You don't grasp math, you don't understand science, you can't wrap your brain around logic, and you seem to lack common sense sometimes. As I said, you won't read anything I post because you don't agree with it. You are close-minded and hypocritical for calling skeptics biased. At least we read and understand the references you like to post, and provide rebuttals for your "evidence."aarthrj3811 said:
?
What difference does it make, Art? You won't read it and wouldn't understand it anyway.aarthrj3811 said:af1733.....WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT
Typical dowser answer. Try to respond to something I asked you, Dell. Here, I'll make it easier.Dell Winders said:
When you bother to address this, then we'll talk. But feel free to ignore it and let everyone see you for what you really are.af1733 said:
Dell Winders said:
Wow, you can miss a point more badly then anyone I've ever talked to.....Dell Winders said:
