User talk:Lundse/StarHeart

From Supernatural project talk

 * I am getting a bit concerned about what the goal of this project is, reporting these beliefs or rehearsing them.... And what is the point of this section? It sounds suspiciously like you are trying to prove that some paranormal phenomenon are "real"; I would like to ask the participants about their view on the paranormal and how they plan to report on it. Lundse 16:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lundse - I am skeptic, I have heard of no peer-reviewed nor reproducable experiments on paranormal phenomenon. On the contrary, there is still over 1,000,000$ up for anyone who can show any psychic, occult or otherwordly effects - no takers. I believe articles on the paranormal should be neutral, telling accurately what adherents believe and why - and why mainstream science (ie. applied common sense) does not buy into the phenomenon. Attempts to prove such phenomena should be reported, along with any methodological problems with these proofs.

That's a lie. The "Amazing Randi" is a fraud. If you bother to listen to him or read him closely, you'll learn that Randi has NO intention of allowing ANY objective third party to monitor any "research" that Randi pretends to conduct to validate anyone's claim regarding the paranormal. (I doubt that Randi even has $100K in the bank for any reason.) You're NOT a sceptic, you're a debunker. As the Amazing Randi, you have no intention of permitting honest inquiry. Leave us alone and get a life. StarHeart 22:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know you do not want to face up to the fact about Randi, but until you actually check out the legal documents and try checking the ways in which one can actually ascertain that the money is there, please don't call anyone a liar. There are ways to check whether Randi is lying, and noone has ever shown such evidence (they have just, like you, called him a liar). And he does not conduct research nor has he ever claimed to do so - his errand is another. I am all for honest enquiry, but I may not agree with you on what that enquiry shows or how it should be conducted. Please stop resorting to name-calling like "get a life". I will watch this project, and I would still like to know how you (and others) want to report on the paranormal. Lundse 13:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I moved my "wish to see discussion into a section on itself, see above. Lundse 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If you bothered to actually study the issue, you would know that it's NOT about Randi having the $$ or not, it's about the fact that Randi has NO intention of having ANY 3rd party to monitor ANY experiment regarding the paranormal. He wants to COMPLETELY control and monitor ANY experiment. What science credentials does Randi have? StarHeart 05:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Not "send"
Please read my post before responding, I specifically said his errand is not doing science, so his science credentials do not matter. If you read the rules governing Randi experiments you would know that both he AND the claimant of psychic powers have to agree on the rules, it would be fair to say they both have complete control as they could veto each other. Try reading a few examples and see how unfair the testing methods really are (stuff like having to choose the right bucket when dowsing for gold, as opposed to one next to it - things like that). Oh, and I am sorry if the subject is not whether Randi has the bucks or not - but why did you bring it up, then? Lundse 08:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)