|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
That would seem to me to be actionable, then, if it was being used to sell a product. If it was merely a cartoon, however, it could be considered permissible parody.
|
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
Ian, thanks for the response. I take factual accuracy seriously, so if I say something wrong I will admit it and apologize. Also, I'm not an expert on Geller, but have read a fair bit about him as a matter of curiosity. Here's the thing, though. I'm not yet persuaded that what I wrote was in error. Yes, the legal cause of action involved defamation-type claims like libel. But the point is that -- if what I have seen is right, and I welcome correction -- the underlying statements that were alleged to have been libelous in at least one of his lawsuits were claims precisely about the reality of Geller's powers, including statements by Randi, the CSICOP, etc., that Geller had "tricked" scientists, that Geller had performed using natural means of the sort that had been widely known since Randi "was a kid," etc. (I also had the impression that Geller at least threatened litigation against others based on similar statements, but I can't remember the details of what I have read on that score.) If my understanding along these lines is factually wrong, then by all means let me know. But if the only point is that Geller's lawsuit over disputing the reality of his claims was packaged as a libel action then I honestly can't see what's wrong with what I said. I think it was obvious from what I wrote that I was discussing the substance of the lawsuit, not identifying the particular tort that was listed in the pleadings. I just assumed that everyone knew that the legal claim was one for libel. And I don't think there's any way that my message could reasonably be read as a reference to some different lawsuit involving the description of Geller as a social disease. With respect, that's really a red herring.
Best, CT Quote:
On Jan 22, 2015, Ian Rowland wrote: |
|||||||||
Joe Atmore Elite user Joe Atmore 419 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 22, 2015, CThomas wrote: You ask to be set right if you are "factually wrong", but you don't reference anything factual in your commentary. In fact you clearly state that you "...can't remember the details". Many of us actually know the facts and details and we are not relying on innuendo and we do not support your claims.
Best Thoughts,
Joe Atmore International Artists Consultant Uri Geller's Phenomenon TV Series; PEA Bob Haines Memorial Award; Dunninger Show Recreation; Author of Dunninger Knows and Dunninger's Brain Busters JosephAtmore.com |
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
Joe, I was clear what facts I was asking about. I even quoted language that I understood to form the basis of one of Geller's defamation cases, and invited correction. Again, the factual question is whether the substance of at least one of Geller's libel actions was as I characterized it. My reference to uncertainty was in a parenthetical about a different matter of fact, as to which I also would be happy to receive confirmation or correction. But with respect, I don't think a reasonable reading of my previous message would leave any doubt about the facts I was asking about.
|
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
By the way, things like taking my words "can't remember the details" from a parenthetical and saying that they applied to my whole message does not inspire a lot of confidence in favor of your authority claims on this issue.
|
|||||||||
Ian Rowland Special user London 889 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 22, 2015, CThomas wrote: Me too! I am open to correction on anything I wrote before. I do happen to know a lot about both Geller and Randi. I've followed the careers of both men since the 70s. I know them both personally, as friends, and I've also worked with both of them professionally. I'm just stating what I know, or at least _think_ I know, to be the facts! If someone comes along with some cite or document showing I'm wrong, I'll happily admit my error. But I'm pretty sure about this. Uri is shrewd enough to know that he can't sue someone for suggesting he's not actually psychic.
www.ianrowland.com . Working Magic.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
It should be noted that claiming someone is not psychic is NOT the same thing as accusing him of "tricking" scientists. As I recall, Geller was never formally tested for his metal bending skills and those were not considered in evaluating his abilities. There was no evidence whatsoever that he used trickery in the actual psi tests that he submitted to.
Hence the claim that he "tricked" scientists could be seen as libelous since it clearly implies fraud- and none was shown in the actual tests. The mere fact that Randi and others were able to duplicate Geller's results (which weren't that significant, really) by trickery is not at all proof that Geller also used trickery. |
|||||||||
Joe Atmore Elite user Joe Atmore 419 Posts |
Bottom line is that everyone is still spelling his name correctly as we approach page 6. And CT you're right. I can't possibly speak with any authority
Best Thoughts,
Joe Atmore International Artists Consultant Uri Geller's Phenomenon TV Series; PEA Bob Haines Memorial Award; Dunninger Show Recreation; Author of Dunninger Knows and Dunninger's Brain Busters JosephAtmore.com |
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
Bob, if Geller achieved positive results in these tests, is there some plausible third possibility other than either (a) having genuine powers or (b) trickery? Not necessarily disagreeing with you here, but what exactly would that be?
|
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 22, 2015, Ian Rowland wrote: Thanks, Ian. I'm still not sure whether your understanding of the facts differs from mine or not. I think what happened in at least one of these lawsuits was that Geller asserted libel claims based on the language I quoted up above. I certainly defer to your expertise on the question of whether that is right or not. |
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 22, 2015, Joe Atmore wrote: My point was not that you "can't" speak with authority on this subject. My point was that committing obvious errors of the sort I showed in your message called into question whether you have, in fact, done so here. |
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
By the way, Ian, near the beginning of this discussion, I called Geller a "jack-ass." I take your point that name-calling is wrong and juvenile, and I withdraw that and apologize for it.
Quote:
On Jan 22, 2015, Ian Rowland wrote: |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Quote:
On Jan 22, 2015, CThomas wrote: Of course. Luck and/or confirmation bias on the part of the experimenters. |
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
I don't view luck as a particularly plausible explanation. You're right that methodological errors by the experimenters are a possibility that would need to be considered.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
Keep in mind that judging remote viewing and drawing duplication tests can be very subjective. There is little difference between a result of "inconclusive" and "a possible hit."
|
|||||||||
CThomas Loyal user 272 Posts |
Fair enough.
|
|||||||||
Martin Pulman Inner circle London 3399 Posts |
I think Randi's book 'Film Flam' offers a pretty reasonable theory explaining Geller's success in the SRI tests.
|
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
I disagree. Randi wasn't present at the tests and assumes a lot.
The following article pretty well summarises the major problems with Randi's so-called "reasonable theory." http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/E......ndi.html Here is a brief excerpt from the much longer article which, I suggest, should be read in full: Quote: Randi's take on this series of experiments is withering. He skewers Targ and Puthoff as "bunglers." He reports that their experiments were conducted in a chaotic atmosphere conducive to cheating. He says that a hole in the wall of Geller's isolation room enabled him to spy on the scientists during their ESP experiments. He says that Targ and Puthoff falsified the results of the tests by omitting failed experiments that would have lowered Geller's averages to the level of chance. Further, he says that the scoring of Geller's performances was mishandled, generating higher scores than Geller deserved. |
|||||||||
Martin Pulman Inner circle London 3399 Posts |
Geller was caught cheating on British TV. He will always be a massive hero of mine but I think we can say with a degree of confidence that someone using a g**** p*** to do a drawing dupe in a restaurant is likely to have used similar techniques in the past.
Either the physical laws of the universe are suspended when Uri Geller performs, or he is using conjuring tricks. I know which explanation I think is more reasonable. Still a brilliant performer, though. |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts |
That's all completely beside the point. And that point is that Geller was accused of "tricking scientists." There is no documented evidence to support the allegation that he cheated at SRI (the tests that were being referred to) and Randi's explanation is far from even being remotely reasonable or even credible.
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Uri Geller reveals the secrets of spoon bending (47 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.07 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |