|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938407 - 10/05/13 11:25 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, and James Randi is a Hoaxster, because if they do test something and find that it is unusual, then they measured it and it forgos being supernatural, so even if someone does have a profound ability, he will never pay up. He's no better than the bull shitters he calls out.
Like I said, your ignorance has few limitations. The Million Dollar Challenge is a binding legal contract. The Claimant sets up a protocol that leaves no judgement whatsoever. One either can or cannot do what they claim. I know this is too simple for many to grok.
When I was here as Swami, only one person took my Swami $20,000 Challenge BASED SOLEY ON THE EXACT CLAIMS OF POSTERS (out of about 34), failed miserable and reneged on payment. That will not surprise any rationalists or materialists. And the excuses were never-ending.
Real stuff ACTUALLY HAPPENS. There is no need for backpedalling.
First, you cannot even define what it is you are trying to prove. And then you cannot come up with any sort of an unusual demonstration. All I read from you is a bunch of vague word salad.
--------------------
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (10/05/13 11:30 PM)
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Sure you did.
Randi won't pay up when he knows he is going to lose, he simply writes it off as something else and doesn't give the contestant a chance, just as you would in this case.
You guys are full of shit and on some materialistic crusade, closing your minds to reason.
Or send me $20k.
|
Cactilove
Controversial Mystic


Registered: 02/17/11
Posts: 4,826
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938430 - 10/05/13 11:32 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Chills that are induced aren't chills.
That's silly. Of course they are. Normal activation of the sympathetic nervous system requires specific types of stimuli trigger it. That is a fight or flight situation induces the activation of our sympathetic nervous systems. If a symptom of that is a chill or goosebump then they were induced through presentation of said stimuli.
Quote:
Now prove that you felt chills and that you made yourself feel chills.
I don't have the equipment to measure such things. That is my sympathetic nervous system at work. You were able to because you could show goosebumps. I have not reached that intensity of chills yet I guess. However just because you showed goosebumps, it doesn't mean you are moving chi through your body.Whatever the fuck it is.
-------------------- Orgone Conclusion...Bringing OTD to PS&P since 2007.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938446 - 10/05/13 11:36 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Once again you are having difficulty with plain words. Do you understand a legal contract? Yes or no? He cannot back out on a whim.
Besides, you are making an accusation with is merely a projection of your own bias. You cannot site a single valid case of Rand reneging. This alone displays your intellectual dishonesty. People with developed chi are very honest.
Nor have I backed out once. EVERY SINGLE CLAIMANT on PSP (except the one who failed to pay even one cent on the dollar)backed out because they knew on some level that they were full of shit. I suspect that is why you work so hard on making smokescreens.
Thousands of years and millions of chi practitioners and not a single valid demonstration is very telling, n'est-ce pas? You certainly won't be the one to change that.
--------------------
|
Cactilove
Controversial Mystic


Registered: 02/17/11
Posts: 4,826
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: Cactilove] 1
#18938459 - 10/05/13 11:39 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Another question, do you happen to be a fan of the hit cartoon show, Dragon Ball Z?
-------------------- Orgone Conclusion...Bringing OTD to PS&P since 2007.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: Cactilove]
#18938469 - 10/05/13 11:42 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
No.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Once again you are having difficulty with plain words. Do you understand a legal contract? Yes or no? He cannot back out on a whim.
Besides, you are making an accusation with is merely a projection of your own bias. You cannot site a single valid case of Rand reneging. This alone displays your intellectual dishonesty. People with developed chi are very honest.
Nor have I backed out once. EVERY SINGLE CLAIMANT on PSP (except the one who failed to pay even one cent on the dollar)backed out because they knew on some level that they were full of shit. I suspect that is why you work so hard on making smokescreens.
Thousands of years and millions of chi practitioners and not a single valid demonstration is very telling, n'est-ce pas? You certainly won't be the one to change that.
You wanted evidence you got it, you claimed that you would have paid for evidence, but now you won't, so what changed other than you got evidence?
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: Cactilove]
#18938472 - 10/05/13 11:44 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cactilove said:
Quote:
Chills that are induced aren't chills.
That's silly. Of course they are. Normal activation of the sympathetic nervous system requires specific types of stimuli trigger it. That is a fight or flight situation induces the activation of our sympathetic nervous systems. If a symptom of that is a chill or goosebump then they were induced through presentation of said stimuli.
Quote:
Now prove that you felt chills and that you made yourself feel chills.
I don't have the equipment to measure such things. That is my sympathetic nervous system at work. You were able to because you could show goosebumps. I have not reached that intensity of chills yet I guess. However just because you showed goosebumps, it doesn't mean you are moving chi through your body.Whatever the fuck it is.
Autonomous isn't induced bro, that is a big difference that you are missing.
Inducing it takes willpowers, autonomous just happens subconsciously. If your doing it consciously it is something else and deserves another definition, because it isn't autonomous.

|
Withinity
Untitled


Registered: 04/11/10
Posts: 1,357
Loc: CΓ΄te dβIvoire
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: Cactilove]
#18938476 - 10/05/13 11:46 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Once again you are having difficulty with plain words. Do you understand a legal contract? Yes or no? He cannot back out on a whim.
Besides, you are making an accusation with is merely a projection of your own bias. You cannot site a single valid case of Rand reneging. This alone displays your intellectual dishonesty. People with developed chi are very honest.
Nor have I backed out once. EVERY SINGLE CLAIMANT on PSP (except the one who failed to pay even one cent on the dollar)backed out because they knew on some level that they were full of shit. I suspect that is why you work so hard on making smokescreens.
Thousands of years and millions of chi practitioners and not a single valid demonstration is very telling, n'est-ce pas? You certainly won't be the one to change that.
Nah that's not it at ALL, it is simply the contestant on the Randi show are the bull shitters being made fools of, he won't touch anything legitimate like Wim Hof, who can provide evidence.
Big fucking deal, make fun of the bull shitters to deny all claims, sorry it doesn't work that way in reality.
Remember the black swan analogy and the fallacy of distribution?
Sure, laugh at the bull shitters and think that is any sort of ultimate truth or leads to an ultimate truth, which is completely unrealistic and delusional not to mentioned biased and obviously a materialistic fallacy.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938493 - 10/05/13 11:54 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Note to audience: In an honest debate, people actually answer each others questions pertaining to their statements. Tekkie dodged most all of my pertinent inquiries.
Quote:
you claimed that you would have paid for evidence, but now you won't, so what changed other than you got evidence?
WTF are you babbling on about now? More delusions or just a major reading disorder? Very sad.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938497 - 10/05/13 11:55 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
he won't touch anything legitimate like Wim Hof, who can provide evidence.
Keep digging a hole. Please show where Hof filed for The Challenge. You cannot because lying is your natural state.
--------------------
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938503 - 10/05/13 11:58 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
|
Cactilove
Controversial Mystic


Registered: 02/17/11
Posts: 4,826
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938504 - 10/05/13 11:58 PM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Autonomous isn't induced bro, that is a big difference that you are missing.
Not by you directly no, but by a flight or flight situation it is. Do we have a different definition of induced?
I hope we can agree that if a person puts themselves in the path of a charging ravenous lion that the situation of being in front of a terrifying man eating machine with the distinct possibility of being it's next meal, would be a main factor involved with inducing the activation of your sympathetic nervous system.
-------------------- Orgone Conclusion...Bringing OTD to PS&P since 2007.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
he won't touch anything legitimate like Wim Hof, who can provide evidence.
Keep digging a hole. Please show where Hof filed for The Challenge. You cannot because lying is your natural state.
He doesn't need to file for anything, he already provided evidence of it. I don't have access to Randi's records, do you? It's obvious that he wouldn't give anyone with legitimate abilities a chance or he would be broke already, that is the power of deductive reasoning.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: Cactilove]
#18938516 - 10/06/13 12:02 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cactilove said:
Quote:
Autonomous isn't induced bro, that is a big difference that you are missing.
Not by you directly no, but by a flight or flight situation it is. Do we have a different definition of induced?
I hope we can agree that if a person puts themselves in the path of a charging ravenous lion that the situation of being in front of a terrifying man eating machine with the distinct possibility of being it's next meal, would be a main factor involved with inducing the activation of your sympathetic nervous system.
Well, if you read what I wrote you can probably figure out what I'm talking about through the context given. (Willpower) Without external influence.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938518 - 10/06/13 12:03 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I love how all these trollers feel the need to pop in with only their dark sarcasm and no arguments.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,432
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938523 - 10/06/13 12:07 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
One more time, do you understand the definition of a contract? Appears that common words are beyond your ken.
So you now admit having zero evidence for Randi reneging and nothing about Hof filing for a claim. I think everyone can all agree that this is called lying and is indicative of very poor character.
--------------------
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: The Best Objective Evidence of Chi. [Re: teknix]
#18938524 - 10/06/13 12:08 AM (10 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I, and others know better than to waste time with Randi, because he is just an attention seeking materialists with an agenda, and not really looking for truth, but looking for bull shitters to mock and further his agenda.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: One more time, do you understand the definition of a contract? Appears that common words are beyond your ken.
So you now admit having zero evidence for Randi reneging and nothing about Hof filing for a claim. I think everyone can all agree that this is called lying and is indicative of very poor character.
Yes, I understand it, but you have to be offered the contract first, so he only offers it to bull shitters. Big deal.
What evidence is there that Randi tried to contact Hof and offered him a contract? I mean he went out of his way to offer it to others . . . Do you see the slanted bias?
Shouldn't he be on it, isn't that what he does for a living?
|
|