Yahoo! Groups : AAR_Skeptics Messages : 177-191 of 626

>He got sued by Randi? Oh yeah! The story is long, sordid and amusing. The short version goes like this. For years, Earl claimed he had "won" Randi's challange. He hadn't, of course. He hadn't complied with a single provision of the Challange, but then, small details like that will never stop a genuine Kook. After a while, he changed his tune and stated that he would accept the Challange. Of course, he would only accept on HIS terms. Hell, he invented most of the dodges and confabulations Kettler, Edmo and others use today. Randi, after a short period of patience, gave Curley a very loud Bronx Cheer. This infuriated Curley beyond belief. A little digression- many years ago, Randi cooperated with the police in a possible child sex case, and tapes were made of his phone conversations. These tapes came out during an trial over Randi's slander of another idiot, and have been quitely circulating for a number of years. There is nothing on the tapes that could be construed as incriminating, but minor details like would never stop Earl. He cited these tapes when he commenced a campaign on Usenet accusing Randi of being a gay pedophlile, sometimes using some incredibly brutal language. Parallel to that, he continously taunted Randi, challanging him to come to Canada, so the Canadian cops could arrest him for all sorts of vague sex- related charges- charges that Curley made up. Earl's best threats were telling Randi that he was too chicken to come up and face Earl in person. This went on for for several months, and Randi finally decided he had enough. He publicly announced that he was going to Toronto to file a defamation suit against Curley! Randi went so far as to email Earl with his exact timetable, hotel, and the times and dates he (Randi) would be available to meet with Curley, newspaper reporters, cops, and any other accusers personally. In probably the amusing episode of all, Curley refused to meet Randi, stating on the Usenet that Randi's "agents" had been threatening him with bodily harm. Earl actually went into hiding- telling a vastly amused audience in the groups all about his cowardise! Randi did start the lawsuit, and for a little over a year, Curley confidently bragged how he was going to destroy Randi (and the Randi conspiracy)once and for all. When he was in his cups (frequently!), he would even repeat all the pedophilia accusations. Unfortunately, Curley drank himself to death before the case could come to trial. They don't make Kooks like they used to! Bruce

For those of you that do not read UFO Updates, here is a very interesting and informative article from the NY Times. ---------- The New York Times - Science Tuesday, April 30, 2002 Odds Are Stacked When Science Tries To Debate Pseudoscience By LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS I vividly remember the first time I was hijacked on the radio. I had agreed to participate in a debate for a Florida radio program that specialized in alien visits and UFO sightings. My better judgment suggested that I should be wary. But I thought if I kept my focus purely on the physics challenges involved in space travel, I might be able to persuade some listeners to be skeptical of the claims that aliens were regularly visiting, abducting and experimenting with our fellow earthlings. I should have known better. After 45 minutes defending myself against the claim that I was close-minded, when I argued that science did in fact impose constraints on what is possible, and politely responding to demands that I must first scrupulously review all the specific claims of alien sightings before I could possibly have the temerity to make general statements about plausibility or implausibility, I felt that any uninformed listeners who might have been waiting to be swayed probably found themselves merely confused at the end of the show. In a debate that confronts the results of science with pseudoscience, from alien abductions and crop circles on one hand to the health benefits of weak magnetic fields or young earth creationism on the other, the odds are stacked against science. Part of the problem is uniquely American. We in the United States are constantly regaled by stories about the limitless possibilities open to those with know-how and a spirit of enterprise. Combine that with a public that perceives the limits of science as targets that are constantly being overcome, and the suggestion that anything is absolutely impossible seems like an affront. Indeed, modern technology has made the seemingly impossible almost ordinary. How often have I heard the cry from an audience, "Yeah, but 300 years ago people would have said it would be impossible to fly!" Although true, the problem with that assertion is that 300 years ago people did not know enough about the laws of physics to make the assertion, so the claim would have been improper. Had they made a simpler claim like, "Three hundred years from now, if you drop this cannonball off the Tower of Pisa, it will fall down," they would have been right. Although it is probably true that there is far more that we do not know about nature than that we do know, we do know something! We know that balls, when dropped, fall down. We do know that the earth is round and not flat. We do know how electromagnetism works, and we do know that the earth is billions of years old, not thousands. We may not know how spacecraft of the future will be propelled, whether matter-antimatter drives will be built or even if time travel is possible. But we do know, absolutely, how much on- board fuel will be needed to speed up a substantial spacecraft to near the speed of light an enormous amount, probably enough to power all of human civilization at the present time for perhaps a decade. That means that aliens who want to come here from a distant star will probably have to have some better reason than merely performing secret kinky experiments on the patients of a Harvard psychiatrist. As difficult as debating ultimate limits of the possible may be, there is another debate that is even harder to win. But it is a debate that may be even more important. It is a debate on the "fairness" of science. The reason for the difficulty is simple. Science is not fair. All ideas are not treated equally. Only those that have satisfied the test of experiment or can be tested by experiment have any currency. Beautiful ideas, elegant ideas and even sacrosanct notions are not immune from termination by the chilling knife edge of experimental data. In Ohio, a debate is raging over whether to teach "intelligent design" alongside evolution in high school biology classes. Intelligent design is based on the belief that life is too complicated to explain by natural causes alone and that some intelligence, ultimately some divine intelligence, must have created the original life forms on earth or guided their development. Proponents of that idea suggest that including it in the curriculum is simply a question of fairness. If a significant number of people do not believe that evolution provides an adequate explanation of the origin of species, they argue, then it is only fair to present both sides of the argument in a high school science class. But at least half of Americans polled in a recent survey by the National Science Foundation did not know that Earth orbits the Sun, and that it takes a year to do so. Does this mean we should teach that Earth is the center of the universe? Of course not. It merely means that we are not doing a very good job informing the public about physics. Science is not a democratic process. It does not proceed by majority rule and it does not accept notions that have already been disproven by experiment. Intelligent design makes assertions that cannot be tested by experiment. Those assertions that can be tested, say about blood clotting or the claimed irreducible complexity of various components of cells, seem to have thus far failed those tests. So intelligent design does not belong in a science class. End of story. Nevertheless, recently the Ohio State School Board felt it necessary to run a hearing on evolution vs. intelligent design in a debate format, with two proponents of evolution to face off against two advocates of intelligent design in Columbus. One might think that I would know better than to agree to participate in such a debate. But I did, because I felt the education of schoolchildren in Ohio was so important. Nevertheless, I tried to learn from my earlier mistakes. Merely having a debate inevitably suggests that each side has some credibility. As a result, opponents of the scientific method like creationists try very hard to appear in debates with scientists. Merely being on the same stage represents a victory! I made sure that I emphasized this intrinsic inequity in my opening remarks in Columbus, and it colored much of the subsequent discussion, as well as the later reporting of the event. I do not know whether it was sufficient to let listeners focus on whether there was really anything worth debating in the first place. But it at least allowed for that possibility. In the meantime, for those scientists who find themselves thrust in such public debates, I have found at least one useful tool. When debating U.F.O. experts, ask them whether they believe in "Young Earth Creationism." When debating young earth creationists, ask them whether they believe in alien U.F.O.'s. When they say no, ask why. Their answers will inevitably shed light on the weakness of their own positions. Of course, as has once happened to me, you might find yourself debating a U.F.O.-believing creationist. But you can't win them all. My hope is that you can win at least some of the time.

>He got sued by Randi?

Oh yeah!

The story is long, sordid and amusing.

The short version goes like this. For years, Earl claimed he
had "won" Randi's challange. He hadn't, of course. He hadn't
complied with a single provision of the Challange, but then,
small details like that will never stop a genuine Kook.

After a while, he changed his tune and stated that he would
accept the Challange. Of course, he would only accept on HIS
terms. Hell, he invented most of the dodges and confabulations
Kettler, Edmo and others use today.

Randi, after a short period of patience, gave Curley a very loud
Bronx Cheer. This infuriated Curley beyond belief.

A little digression- many years ago, Randi cooperated with the
police in a possible child sex case, and tapes were made of his
phone conversations. These tapes came out during an trial over
Randi's slander of another idiot, and have been quitely
circulating for a number of years.

There is nothing on the tapes that could be construed as
incriminating, but minor details like would never stop Earl. He
cited these tapes when he commenced a campaign on Usenet
accusing Randi of being a gay pedophlile, sometimes using some
incredibly brutal language. Parallel to that, he continously
taunted Randi, challanging him to come to Canada, so the
Canadian cops could arrest him for all sorts of vague sex-
related charges- charges that Curley made up. Earl's best
threats were telling Randi that he was too chicken to come up
and face Earl in person.

This went on for for several months, and Randi finally decided
he had enough. He publicly announced that he was going to
Toronto to file a defamation suit against Curley! Randi went so
far as to email Earl with his exact timetable, hotel, and the
times and dates he (Randi) would be available to meet with
Curley, newspaper reporters, cops, and any other accusers
personally.

In probably the amusing episode of all, Curley refused to meet
Randi, stating on the Usenet that Randi's "agents" had been
threatening him with bodily harm. Earl actually went into
hiding- telling a vastly amused audience in the groups all
about his cowardise!

Randi did start the lawsuit, and for a little over a year,
Curley confidently bragged how he was going to destroy Randi
(and the Randi conspiracy)once and for all. When he was in his
cups (frequently!), he would even repeat all the pedophilia
accusations.

Unfortunately, Curley drank himself to death before the case
could come to trial.

They don't make Kooks like they used to!

Bruce

>From: "Carl Wilson" <carl@k...> > > And to think I missed all this! Damn, I wish I had dicovered the UFO >newsgroups earlier! No kidding! I only discovered them about a year ago, myself. Darn, we missed a lot! _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

Anyone know what "YKIABWAY" means? Janitor Rob uses it a lot, and I must confess I've no idea what it means. But, I'll not ask him : ) I think next time he says it, I'll respond with: hyebapaiswiagp? (have you ever been anal probed and if so, was it a gang probing?) hehe. The guy is a loon! Jay _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jof 3r" <gangprobeddad@h...> To: <AAR_Skeptics@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: [AAR_Skeptics] question > Anyone know what "YKIABWAY" means? Janitor Rob uses it a lot, and I must > confess I've no idea what it means. But, I'll not ask him : ) > I think next time he says it, I'll respond with: > hyebapaiswiagp? (have you ever been anal probed and if so, was it a gang > probing?) hehe. > The guy is a loon! > Jay I've got no idea what that might mean. Coming from a prime-time kook like him, it could mean just about anything!

Jof 3r wrote: > > Anyone know what "YKIABWAY" means? Janitor Rob uses it a lot, and I must > confess I've no idea what it means. But, I'll not ask him : ) > I think next time he says it, I'll respond with: > hyebapaiswiagp? (have you ever been anal probed and if so, was it a gang > probing?) hehe. > The guy is a loon! > Jay Yeah, I noticed him using it too. I suspect it is a misspelling of the acronym for Pee Wee Herman's favorite saying, "I Know You Are But What Am I?" Looks like the mop jockey can't even get that right. it should be IKYABWAI. -- Michael Davis

>From: Michael Davis <mdavis19@i...> >Jof 3r wrote: > > > > Anyone know what "YKIABWAY" means? Janitor Rob uses it a lot, and I >must > > confess I've no idea what it means. But, I'll not ask him : ) > > I think next time he says it, I'll respond with: > > hyebapaiswiagp? (have you ever been anal probed and if so, was it a gang > > probing?) hehe. > > The guy is a loon! > > Jay > >Yeah, I noticed him using it too. I suspect it is a >misspelling of the acronym for Pee Wee Herman's favorite >saying, "I Know You Are But What Am I?" Looks like the mop >jockey can't even get that right. it should be IKYABWAI. Ah, OK. Makes sense to me. Thanks, Mike. Jay >-- >Michael Davis _________________________________________________________________ Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Jof 3r wrote: > >From: "Carl Wilson" <carl@k...> > > > > And to think I missed all this! Damn, I wish I had dicovered the UFO > >newsgroups earlier! > > No kidding! I only discovered them about a year ago, myself. Darn, we > missed a lot! And people wonder why i have stuck around for so long... Just Thought I Should Mention It

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Bruce Hutchinson wrote: snip > But at least half of Americans polled in a recent survey by the > National Science Foundation did not know that Earth orbits the > Sun, and that it takes a year to do so. snip What is funny about this example is that everyone knows about it but most do not know that it is used as an example of how not to ask a question. While taking a class on social research the proffessor asked us all the question in class. (There was only 12 of us IIRC) not one of got it correctly. We all knew what the answer was in the discussion (I hope anyways :-)but the structure of the question confused us. Just Thought I Should Mention It

I got an e-mail bomb from a number of anonymous remalers. Did anyone else get bombed? Luckily, hotmail has a really good filter system these days. You can block *@d... now. So, i did- saves you the trouble of having to report all the mails to abuse@w... the person used about 5 different remailers. I blocked all of them. The person also sent a lot of attachments, but hotmail deleted the attachments. Don't know why...perhaps they were infected or too large? Anyway, just curious if anyone else was bombed. Jay _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

http://www.pitt.edu/~rmwst11/ found his homepage (above). Has links, recordings of him "jamming" and an alleged pic or 5 of him. http://www.pitt.edu/~rmwst11/pics.html http://www.pitt.edu/~rw995/sarunme.jpg <--- : ) Take a peek if you get bored. J _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

Jof 3r wrote: > http://www.pitt.edu/~rmwst11/ > > found his homepage (above). Has links, recordings of him "jamming" > and an > alleged pic or 5 of him. > http://www.pitt.edu/~rmwst11/pics.html > http://www.pitt.edu/~rw995/sarunme.jpg <--- : ) > > Take a peek if you get bored. J BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Whadda goofball! He looks almost exactly as I pictured him, except even goofier. I also see that his oh so important job in the computer lab consists mainly of keeping the printers fed with paper and filing the printouts. Hehehehehe. He made it sound like he ran the place. -- Michael Davis