nothing to prove - drclark

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - James Randi - arminia 12:05:46 08/14/04 (277)

Testing the tests -- a professional statistician's view (long) - Bayside Bomber 20:51:57 08/16/04 (5)

beta? anyone? - Timbo in Oz 01:13:00 08/19/04 (0)

Re: a professional statistician's view (long) - The point you missed - wunhuanglo 03:57:54 08/17/04 (3)

Re: a professional statistician's view (long) - The point you missed - Bayside Bomber 06:19:17 08/17/04 (2)

Perhaps I can clarify further... - wunhuanglo 16:09:08 08/17/04 (1)

Well, maybe not... - wunhuanglo 16:10:40 08/17/04 (0)

Maybe a question to James Randi: How do you measure enjoyment?! - serus 09:53:33 08/16/04 (0)

A modest proposal for testing.... - rp1@surfnetusa.com 00:15:05 08/16/04 (0)

How many of you would stake your entire career on say ...a clinical Pepsi/Coke taste test?(nt) - Steve Cortez 20:52:43 08/15/04 (5)

Re: How many of you would stake your entire career on say ...a clinical Pepsi/Coke taste test?(nt) - AlphaGeek 22:23:03 08/16/04 (0)

If my career was reviewing pop beverages - I better pass that basic test! - Caymus 21:43:36 08/15/04 (3)

Re: If my career was reviewing pop beverages - I better pass that basic test! - kurt s 11:04:44 08/16/04 (0)

Let's hear it from the winos! - B. King 07:02:48 08/16/04 (0)

Re: If my career was reviewing pop beverages - I better pass that basic test! - Dave Kingsland 07:00:26 08/16/04 (1)

You guys are missing the point here... - rp1@surfnetusa.com 17:40:50 08/15/04 (20)

Actually... - drclark 08:07:36 08/16/04 (0)

Re: You guys are missing the point here... - Jon Risch 18:56:38 08/15/04 (18)

On AA forums, you and every reviewer and/or editor have rejected......... - Rick W 09:16:11 08/16/04 (6)

Re: On AA forums, you and every reviewer and/or editor have rejected......... - Jon Risch 10:35:02 08/17/04 (2)

well, Jon... - s_sullivan 10:24:25 08/18/04 (1)

Re: well, Jon... - Jon Risch 18:48:32 08/18/04 (0)

Opinions are too polarized to have a reasonable debate of your suggestions - Dave Kingsland 12:08:05 08/16/04 (2)

Re: On AA forums, you and every reviewer and/or editor have rejected......... - s_sullivan 10:27:05 08/18/04 (0)

How can you go this far afield? - wunhuanglo 17:25:40 08/16/04 (0)

Again, the point - rp1@surfnetusa.com 20:10:52 08/15/04 (8)

2 test arrangements have been posted in this thread... - David Aiken 23:03:47 08/15/04 (7)

I see you know very little about James Randi. - Hepcat 06:19:50 08/16/04 (1)

A classic Narcissist. - Al Sekela 19:45:31 08/16/04 (0)

I would agree then, - rp1@surfnetusa.com 00:06:50 08/16/04 (4)

So you give no credence... - jeff mai 01:23:14 08/16/04 (3)

No, read the post again.... - rp1@surfnetusa.com 01:36:39 08/16/04 (2)

What am I missing? - jeff mai 02:37:39 08/16/04 (1)

As I understand one of the protocols.... - rp1@surfnetusa.com 13:06:53 08/16/04 (0)

Re: You guys are missing the point here... - Magnetar 19:05:50 08/15/04 (1)

Re: You guys are missing the point here... - Markw* 06:07:50 08/16/04 (0)

We seem to be forgetting - arminia 13:14:47 08/15/04 (3)

Re: We seem to be forgetting - Brian Cheney 13:34:31 08/15/04 (2)

So go grab the $1million! - wunhuanglo 13:39:35 08/15/04 (1)

Re: So go grab the $1million! - Brian Cheney 14:00:09 08/15/04 (0)

James Randi, John Stossel, Penn & Teller... - Hepcat 11:59:03 08/15/04 (0)

Finally, some steps up to expose greedy audio con-artists! - Caymus 10:54:51 08/15/04 (1)

I agree. it's like defending your religion(nt. - Magnetar 15:55:24 08/15/04 (0)

ABX is the problem - Jon Risch 10:25:09 08/15/04 (56)

So don't use the box! You're a smart guy - How would you prove it? - Magnetar 15:07:35 08/15/04 (0)

Re: ABX is the problem - Brian Cheney 14:07:53 08/15/04 (29)

You're right about being confused - Richard BassNut Greene 10:05:19 08/16/04 (10)

Re: You're right about being confused - Brian Cheney 10:37:30 08/16/04 (9)

You've skipped a step on the assumption ladder ... or maybe fell completely off the ladder - Richard BassNut Greene 11:16:20 08/16/04 (8)

Re: You've skipped a step on the assumption ladder ... or maybe fell completely off the ladder - AlphaGeek 22:45:11 08/16/04 (1)

Re: You've skipped a step on the assumption ladder ... or maybe fell completely off the ladder - Dave Kingsland 05:57:06 08/17/04 (0)

Re: You've skipped a step on the assumption ladder ... or maybe fell completely off the ladder - Dave Kingsland 17:19:40 08/16/04 (0)

Re: You've skipped a step on the assumption ladder ... or maybe fell completely off the ladder - Brian Cheney 11:25:28 08/16/04 (4)

SBT rules ! - Richard BassNut Greene 12:48:57 08/16/04 (3)

Re: SBT rules ! - mauimusicman 03:58:27 08/17/04 (0)

Re: SBT rules ! - Brian Cheney 17:14:08 08/16/04 (0)

Re: SBT rules ! - David Aiken 16:47:36 08/16/04 (0)

Re: ABX is the problem - Jon Risch 18:22:47 08/15/04 (15)

Testing the Risch ( this does not compute ... as usual) - Richard BassNut Greene 10:20:02 08/16/04 (5)

RE: ( this does not compute ... as usual) - Jon Risch 22:22:38 08/16/04 (4)

Reply after reading your post ( not easy since you blather on and on to dismiss other's listening experiences ) - Richard BassNut Greene 14:14:59 08/20/04 (1)

Still.... - Jon Risch 20:37:38 08/20/04 (0)

Replying without reading your post - Richard BassNut Greene 09:47:07 08/19/04 (1)

Classic Richard - Jon Risch 21:17:00 08/19/04 (0)

How did you test ???? - Magnetar 19:09:51 08/15/04 (8)

Re: How did you test ???? - Dave Kingsland 20:40:17 08/15/04 (2)

Standardized testing and controls - AlphaGeek 23:16:29 08/16/04 (1)

Importance of references in hardware reviews - Dave Kingsland 11:20:27 08/17/04 (0)

Testing the test - Jon Risch 20:32:55 08/15/04 (4)

So -- How would you prove they work? - Magnetar 22:39:27 08/16/04 (3)

Re: So -- How would you prove they work? - Jon Risch 10:12:12 08/17/04 (2)

One Million Dollars - Magnetar 11:00:57 08/17/04 (1)

Yeah, right. - Jon Risch 20:38:50 08/20/04 (0)

Thank you for making two VERY important points - Dave Kingsland 16:39:52 08/15/04 (1)

Re: Thank you for making two VERY important points - Brian Cheney 17:26:32 08/15/04 (0)

Re: ABX is the problem - wunhuanglo 13:22:50 08/15/04 (7)

Re: ABX is the problem - Jon Risch 19:41:45 08/15/04 (5)

Please explain why it is that... - wunhuanglo 20:03:33 08/15/04 (4)

Drug trials aren't really blind and are definitely not A-B - Dave Kingsland 06:38:11 08/16/04 (0)

Re: Please explain why it is that... - Jon Risch 20:56:20 08/15/04 (2)

Sorry but the results don't back up your assertions. - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 16:04:35 08/16/04 (0)

I think it's you and the others who... - wunhuanglo 04:27:29 08/16/04 (0)

That was not necessary - Metralla 17:26:30 08/15/04 (0)

Re: ABX is the problem - sam9 11:14:33 08/15/04 (4)

Re: ABX is the problem - Jon Risch 18:18:59 08/15/04 (3)

The usual Golden Ear boasts -- not necessary to audition two components before declaring which one is better - Richard BassNut Greene 14:21:50 08/20/04 (0)

Re: ABX is the problem - AlphaGeek 23:31:18 08/16/04 (0)

Re: ABX is the problem - RGA 18:45:08 08/15/04 (0)

ok, your problem seems to be that the box is too noisy.... - Puma 10:43:17 08/15/04 (11)

Nope - Jon Risch 18:54:46 08/15/04 (1)

All very true -- sorry I'm late! nt - clarkjohnsen 07:21:24 08/16/04 (0)

Re: ok, your problem seems to be that the box is too noisy.... - RGA 11:29:16 08/15/04 (8)

a test??? - Puma 12:21:44 08/15/04 (7)

Re: a test??? - Jon Risch 18:32:16 08/15/04 (1)

Right again! How do you do it? nt - clarkjohnsen 07:28:06 08/16/04 (0)

Pepsi challenge - Dave Kingsland 13:50:39 08/15/04 (3)

Re: Pepsi challenge - RGA 14:04:10 08/15/04 (2)

Many people conducting blind tests have a "Belief" at the outset that it's snake-oil - Dave Kingsland 07:48:01 08/16/04 (1)

Re: Many people conducting blind tests have a "Belief" at the outset that it's snake-oil - RGA 10:10:33 08/16/04 (0)

Re: a test??? - RGA 13:29:22 08/15/04 (0)

Re: James Randi - arminia 09:23:37 08/15/04 (8)

Re: James Randi - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:07:19 08/15/04 (7)

Re: James Randi - jeff mai 15:26:11 08/15/04 (5)

I have to agree with you there.... - rp1@surfnetusa.com 16:29:29 08/15/04 (0)

Re: James Randi - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:46:14 08/15/04 (3)

OK - jeff mai 19:35:15 08/15/04 (2)

Re: OK - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:08:14 08/16/04 (1)

If you are not desiring change... - jeff mai 23:54:40 08/16/04 (0)

EXACTLY! And Thank You! (nt) - wunhuanglo 13:23:59 08/15/04 (0)

ok....ad hominem attacks on the prize and the organization aside.... - Puma 08:23:02 08/15/04 (2)

Re: ok....ad hominem attacks on the prize and the organization aside.... - James Randi 14:29:48 08/16/04 (0)

Puma, you are setting yourself up for crucifixion. - Duilawyer 09:07:16 08/15/04 (0)

Randi's trap - john purys 04:58:27 08/15/04 (6)

Here is the letter he sent to the Reviewers - Magnetar 05:11:00 08/15/04 (5)

Re: Here is the letter he sent to the Reviewers - Rob Doorack 06:42:03 08/16/04 (0)

I know I couldn't do it - Dave Pogue 14:02:28 08/15/04 (0)

One issue would be , "Need the stones show only an effect, - Duilawyer 09:13:13 08/15/04 (2)

Re: One issue would be , "Need the stones show only an effect, - James Randi 14:47:02 08/16/04 (1)

Re: One issue would be , "Need the stones show only an effect, - Magnetar 09:18:47 08/15/04 (0)

Re: James Randi - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 02:39:51 08/15/04 (28)

Your claim - Norm Strong 13:26:08 08/15/04 (3)

Re: Your claim - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 14:10:08 08/15/04 (2)

Put this in perspective - Dave Kingsland 17:23:22 08/15/04 (1)

Re: Put this in perspective - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:27:54 08/16/04 (0)

Re: James Randi - sam9 10:31:37 08/15/04 (4)

Re: James Randi - James Randi 14:41:20 08/16/04 (0)

Re: James Randi - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 12:41:40 08/15/04 (2)

Re: James Randi - sam9 17:33:51 08/15/04 (1)

Re: James Randi - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:39:30 08/16/04 (0)

Apparently you haven't read the terms of the Randi challenge - wunhuanglo 07:44:13 08/15/04 (18)

Re: Apparently you haven't read the terms of the Randi challenge - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 09:01:27 08/15/04 (10)

Re: Apparently you haven't read the terms of the Randi challenge - sam9 10:33:23 08/15/04 (2)

Re: Apparently you haven't read the terms of the Randi challenge - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 12:29:38 08/15/04 (1)

Re: Apparently you haven't read the terms of the Randi challenge - sam9 17:35:49 08/15/04 (0)

Why would a reviewer be dishonest??(nt) - Magnetar 09:06:39 08/15/04 (6)

Same reason a President would be dishonest, or a Prime Minister; alterior motives. [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:49:32 08/15/04 (5)

There's no such word as "alterior" [nt] - Rob Doorack 13:03:14 08/16/04 (1)

Yes there is.... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 13:22:22 08/16/04 (0)

I think it's more just plain old fashion delusions than lies (nt) - Magnetar 16:03:01 08/15/04 (2)

I changed my mind - they are lying - Magnetar 19:53:33 08/17/04 (1)

Re: I changed my mind - they are lying - Rob Doorack 16:57:41 08/18/04 (0)

Yes..., and then theres a 2nd step, which will likely be at a neutral site, thus negating the initial results! - Steve Cortez 08:15:35 08/15/04 (6)

Re: Yes..., and then theres a 2nd step, which will likely be at a neutral site, thus negating the initial results! - James Randi 14:13:22 08/16/04 (1)

"I can see no other possibilities." Really? - Dave Kingsland 16:31:11 08/16/04 (0)

Re: Yes..., and then theres a 2nd step, which will likely be at a neutral site, thus negating the initial results! - sam9 10:34:46 08/15/04 (2)

Re: That has been demonstrated to be a factor - wunhuanglo 14:07:51 08/15/04 (1)

Re: That has been demonstrated to be a factor - Jmes Randi 14:21:46 08/16/04 (0)

Not too much of a problem there... - wunhuanglo 08:22:25 08/15/04 (0)

it's crap like this.... - Corbu 19:06:07 08/14/04 (0)

Stereophile reviewers use Shakti Stones.. - agattu 18:35:28 08/14/04 (13)

Re: Stereophile reviewers use Shakti Stones.. - Kal Rubinson 09:17:02 08/18/04 (0)

Their job is to create..... - pburant 08:07:36 08/16/04 (2)

Re: Their job is to create..... - James Randi 14:56:21 08/16/04 (1)

Context is important.... - pburant 17:27:04 08/16/04 (0)

Re: Stereophile reviewers use Shakti Stones.. - sam9 10:27:02 08/15/04 (0)

Have any of them won the Million Bucks? LOL - Magnetar 04:45:13 08/15/04 (0)

So if I put peanut butter on all the products I reviewed... - B. King 20:56:42 08/14/04 (1)

It depends where on the product you put the peanut butter[nt] - agattu 21:04:09 08/14/04 (0)

Stereophile reviewers use Shakti Stones..LOL - Pat D 19:33:27 08/14/04 (4)

BFD... - jeff mai 02:03:25 08/15/04 (2)

THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! - wunhuanglo 07:47:01 08/15/04 (1)

Re: THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT! - jeff mai 15:10:04 08/15/04 (0)

Re: Stereophile reviewers use Shakti Stones..LOL - agattu 20:59:16 08/14/04 (0)

Don't nobody mess wi' the Great Randi ! (nt) - sam9 16:30:05 08/14/04 (0)

Not surprising there's no response to Randi's offer. - B. King 15:59:24 08/14/04 (39)

Fascinating that "no" one had passed the prerequisite... - DeKay 22:00:17 08/14/04 (5)

Re: Fascinating that "no" one had passed the prerequisite... - James Randi 15:03:48 08/16/04 (1)

Why would I need any money (you make no sense, whoever you are)? NT - DeKay 17:03:38 08/16/04 (0)

Do we know if anyone has tried? nt - B. King 22:13:09 08/14/04 (2)

Re: Do we know if anyone has tried? nt - James Randi 15:07:14 08/16/04 (0)

Yes, DOZENS! - wunhuanglo 07:48:33 08/15/04 (0)

Re: Not surprising there's no response to Randi's offer. - Sean 21:33:17 08/14/04 (1)

Sorry, no. - B. King 21:56:06 08/14/04 (0)

actually, you are wrong... - drclark 16:24:36 08/14/04 (30)

Re: actually, you are wrong... - James Randi 15:13:13 08/16/04 (0)

DON'T BE SENSIBLE! nt - clarkjohnsen 07:36:41 08/16/04 (0)

A classic strawman argument ... - porky_pig_jr 17:31:59 08/14/04 (1)

you are right... - drclark 17:41:04 08/14/04 (0)

If I was offered the Million I'd be setting a date. LOL - Magnetar 17:02:28 08/14/04 (2)

Apparently you are offered the chance. Go to it and tell us the results. NT - kurt s 18:40:10 08/16/04 (1)

Nah, I doubt they work . (nt) - Magnetar 21:54:51 08/16/04 (0)

Re: No, actually, YOU are wrong... - wunhuanglo 16:29:56 08/14/04 (22)

nothing to prove - drclark 17:01:51 08/14/04 (21)

Re: nothing to prove - James Randi 15:48:09 08/16/04 (0)

More money equals more headaches !?!?!?!? - wunhuanglo 17:10:48 08/14/04 (8)

Namecalling only shows you know you're losing. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:38:28 08/16/04 (4)

Actually, I thought it an entirely appropriate rejoinder - wunhuanglo 04:01:56 08/17/04 (3)

See psgary below for confirmation of your reaction. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:01:55 08/17/04 (2)

Re: I assume you mean confirmation of YOUR reaction. nt - wunhuanglo 16:13:57 08/17/04 (1)

Yours was the knee-jerk. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:39:22 08/18/04 (0)

How original - psgary 08:34:42 08/15/04 (0)

And you are my brand new target. - bwkendall 23:33:33 08/14/04 (1)

Re: And you are my brand new target. - wunhuanglo 07:50:54 08/15/04 (0)

Re: nothing to prove - Magnetar 17:05:40 08/14/04 (10)

an attempt at humor that obviously misfired... - drclark 17:31:03 08/14/04 (9)

Re: an attempt at humor that obviously misfired... - James Randi 15:55:52 08/16/04 (1)

And why wouldn't he? - Rod M 19:12:21 08/16/04 (0)

Here is your apllication! - Magnetar 17:47:32 08/14/04 (6)

Re: Here is your application! - Rob Doorack 19:50:04 08/16/04 (2)

Re: Here is your application! - Magnetar 21:56:15 08/16/04 (1)

Re: Here is your application! - Rob Doorack 06:25:18 08/17/04 (0)

Re: Here is your apllication! - J. S. Bach 18:20:47 08/14/04 (2)

LOL! NFS! - bwkendall 23:35:23 08/14/04 (1)

Re: LOL! NFS! - Magnetar 04:33:41 08/15/04 (0)

If he was serious, he would put $1,000,000 cash - bwkendall 15:01:02 08/14/04 (16)

Re: If he was serious, he would put $1,000,000 cash - James Randi 16:06:27 08/16/04 (0)

Re: If he was serious, he would put $1,000,000 cash - wunhuanglo 16:26:19 08/14/04 (14)

When logic and reason fail you, resort to personal attacks. - bwkendall 16:32:54 08/14/04 (13)

Re: When logic and reason fail you, resort to personal attacks. - James Randi 16:11:22 08/16/04 (0)

Re: personal attacks. - wunhuanglo 16:43:10 08/14/04 (11)

Change your moniker designation. - bwkendall 23:32:31 08/14/04 (0)

Re: personal attacks. - robert young 21:06:06 08/14/04 (9)

Re: personal attacks. - James Randi 16:20:26 08/16/04 (1)

Re: personal attacks. - robert young 17:26:00 08/16/04 (0)

You're really confusing me - wunhuanglo 07:57:31 08/15/04 (6)

here you go - robert young 15:17:11 08/15/04 (0)

Re: You're really confusing me - robert young 08:55:36 08/15/04 (4)

Re: You're really confusing me - James Randi 16:22:23 08/16/04 (0)

Re: You're STILL confusing me - wunhuanglo 09:26:30 08/15/04 (2)

not likely. - robert young 15:14:23 08/15/04 (1)

Re: not likely. - James Randi 16:25:03 08/16/04 (0)

what are we supposed to respond to... - drclark 13:30:40 08/14/04 (55)

Re: what are we supposed to respond to... - James Randi 16:28:40 08/16/04 (1)

question??? - mikel 21:49:40 08/17/04 (0)

His point is it's an easy $1,000,000 if you can hear a difference - eargasm666@yahoo.com 13:52:45 08/14/04 (6)

Of course Randi's $1,000,000 is predicated... - jeff mai 02:26:15 08/15/04 (5)

Wrong again.... - wunhuanglo 08:25:18 08/15/04 (4)

wunhuanglo proves my point... - jeff mai 14:49:28 08/15/04 (0)

Do you think . . . - psgary 08:40:39 08/15/04 (2)

Itâ€™s totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand what I think (nt) - wunhuanglo 09:18:27 08/15/04 (1)

Basically, this thread only consists of . . . - psgary 10:38:30 08/15/04 (0)

Re: what are we supposed to respond to... - arminia 13:51:41 08/14/04 (45)

right... - drclark 14:57:33 08/14/04 (44)

"You need to be more tolerant of differences in perceptions, values, opinions, and beliefs." - psgary 09:03:51 08/15/04 (0)

Re: Let's try this one on for size... - wunhuanglo 17:34:58 08/14/04 (20)

Re: Let's try this one on for size... - jeff mai 02:07:18 08/15/04 (3)

No, not at all... - wunhuanglo 08:00:47 08/15/04 (2)

". . . substantiate his expertise in a meaningful way"? - psgary 08:54:39 08/15/04 (1)

Re: ". . . substantiate his expertise in a meaningful way"? - wunhuanglo 09:22:21 08/15/04 (0)

Why don't we pretend you are off drugs. - bwkendall 23:36:17 08/14/04 (0)

STUPID comparison - hifitommy 21:08:41 08/14/04 (4)

It was an analogy.... - wunhuanglo 08:04:17 08/15/04 (3)

It was a BAD analogy.... - hifitommy 09:54:27 08/15/04 (2)

Re: It was a BAD analogy....Was it? - wunhuanglo 13:37:05 08/15/04 (1)

it IS - hifitommy 18:22:12 08/15/04 (0)

I think that your analogy is a bit.... - drclark 17:53:10 08/14/04 (9)

So you're essentially admitting... - wunhuanglo 17:57:54 08/14/04 (8)

All opinions . . . - psgary 09:07:52 08/15/04 (0)

no, I am saying - drclark 18:16:38 08/14/04 (6)

Honestly, truthfully, no fooling around.. - wunhuanglo 18:26:23 08/14/04 (5)

Honesty? Out of your mouth? - bwkendall 23:37:24 08/14/04 (0)

Re: Honestly, truthfully, no fooling around.. - robert young 21:14:42 08/14/04 (2)

As I said above... - wunhuanglo 08:10:45 08/15/04 (1)

Re: As I said above... - robert young 09:19:54 08/15/04 (0)

Honestly, truthfully, no fooling around.. - drclark 18:33:52 08/14/04 (0)

LOL - you have been 'exposed.' - Magnetar 17:10:22 08/14/04 (21)

I am missing something here... - drclark 17:34:53 08/14/04 (20)

You have been exposed - Magnetar 17:45:52 08/14/04 (19)

riiiiiiight.... - drclark 18:09:55 08/14/04 (18)

Re: riiiiiiight.... - Magnetar 18:15:46 08/14/04 (17)

Re: riiiiiiight.... - robert young 21:28:05 08/14/04 (9)

Again, and again, and again.... - wunhuanglo 08:15:21 08/15/04 (0)

Re: riiiiiiight.... - Magnetar 21:52:57 08/14/04 (7)

Re: riiiiiiight.... - robert young 07:32:55 08/15/04 (6)

The test IS based partially on how you want it set up - rp1@surfnetusa.com 16:23:05 08/15/04 (0)

Re: riiiiiiight.... - Magnetar 08:57:22 08/15/04 (0)

And again... - wunhuanglo 08:18:13 08/15/04 (3)

Re: And again... - robert young 09:24:48 08/15/04 (2)

Re: And again... - wunhuanglo 09:28:48 08/15/04 (1)

you're struggling... - robert young 16:11:04 08/15/04 (0)

I see you point... - drclark 18:24:45 08/14/04 (6)

As far as I can remember, - rp1@surfnetusa.com 16:26:00 08/15/04 (0)

Mr Clark - How long will it take you to save one million - Magnetar 21:57:36 08/14/04 (2)

Re: Mr Clark - How long will it take you to save one million - robert young 16:17:02 08/15/04 (1)

Re: Mr Clark - How long will it take you to save one million - Magnetar 16:33:23 08/15/04 (0)

sorry for the mispellings... - drclark 19:05:16 08/14/04 (1)

Re: sorry for the mispellings... - Magnetar 09:02:41 08/15/04 (0)

Re: James Randi - Pat D 13:18:02 08/14/04 (0)

Follow Ups

nothing to prove - drclark 17:01:51 08/14/04 (21)

Re: nothing to prove - James Randi 15:48:09 08/16/04 (0)

More money equals more headaches !?!?!?!? - wunhuanglo 17:10:48 08/14/04 (8)

Namecalling only shows you know you're losing. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:38:28 08/16/04 (4)

Actually, I thought it an entirely appropriate rejoinder - wunhuanglo 04:01:56 08/17/04 (3)

See psgary below for confirmation of your reaction. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:01:55 08/17/04 (2)

Re: I assume you mean confirmation of YOUR reaction. nt - wunhuanglo 16:13:57 08/17/04 (1)

Yours was the knee-jerk. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:39:22 08/18/04 (0)

How original - psgary 08:34:42 08/15/04 (0)

And you are my brand new target. - bwkendall 23:33:33 08/14/04 (1)

Re: And you are my brand new target. - wunhuanglo 07:50:54 08/15/04 (0)

Re: nothing to prove - Magnetar 17:05:40 08/14/04 (10)

an attempt at humor that obviously misfired... - drclark 17:31:03 08/14/04 (9)

Re: an attempt at humor that obviously misfired... - James Randi 15:55:52 08/16/04 (1)

And why wouldn't he? - Rod M 19:12:21 08/16/04 (0)

Here is your apllication! - Magnetar 17:47:32 08/14/04 (6)

Re: Here is your application! - Rob Doorack 19:50:04 08/16/04 (2)

Re: Here is your application! - Magnetar 21:56:15 08/16/04 (1)

Re: Here is your application! - Rob Doorack 06:25:18 08/17/04 (0)

Re: Here is your apllication! - J. S. Bach 18:20:47 08/14/04 (2)

LOL! NFS! - bwkendall 23:35:23 08/14/04 (1)

Re: LOL! NFS! - Magnetar 04:33:41 08/15/04 (0)