Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

  1. #41

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    [QUOTE=

    His attack on Randi is right out of the Old Quack's handbook of handling critics - make up lurid lies about them. Andy's mind is had been warped by scientology BS. He's been duped, as I once was, and I don't need to listen to any more of his nonsense.
    [/QUOTE]

    Yes, this goes beyond uncivil debate. Nolch smeared someone. Is there proof of Nolch's allegations?

  2. Thanks JustSheila says "thank you" for this post
  3. #42
    Sponsor Veda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    13,139

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanchi View Post
    Yes, this goes beyond uncivil debate. Nolch smeared someone. Is there proof of Nolch's allegations?
    Only to Scientologists, and notably in the pages of the Tone Scale tome, Science of Survival, which identifies those critical of Hubbard/Dianetics/Scientology as sex perverts.

    All things considered, being slandered is getting off easy, as a Scientologist might regard James Randi - who has consistently refused Scientology auditing - as a candidate for harsher treatment.


    From 'Science of Survival' by L. Ron Hubbard:



    The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale , neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes .

    The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line — a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred — or simply quarantining them from the society.

    A Venezuelan dictator [Juan Vincente Gomez] once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
    Visit the Ex Scientologist Message Board web site for selected content from ESMB and more: http://exscn.net/

  4. Thanks Little David, Tanchi says "thank you" for this post
  5. #43
    Operating teatime Jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Pacific.
    Posts
    5,510

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    Quote Originally Posted by JustSheila View Post
    Mimsey,

    I read the article you referenced, "The Myth of the Million Dollar Challenge." I don't have a bone in this disagreement.

    Either the author does not understand how scientific research and statistics work or he is intentionally misleading readers. His biggest argument is as follows: "In the ganzfeld telepathy test the meta-analytic hit rate with unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%."

    The author devotes half the article trying to explain how unfair it is not to count that 7% difference in a small sample as valid. He jumps to a conclusion that Randi is demanding a 99% accuracy rate. Percent, as you know, means "of a hundred." The author seems to think it means "of a thousand" and has no idea why Randi didn't accept 32% over 25%. He assumes it is because Randi expects 99% accuracy.

    "If that 32% hit rate is the "real" telepathy effect, then for us to have a 99% chance of getting a significant effect at p < 0.005, we would need to run 989 trials."

    Starting from the beginning, the author's assumption of Randi's reasons why he did not accept the 32% over the guess rate of 25% and his reasoning that it must mean he demands 99% psychic accuracy is wrong.

    I've explained this to you before, Mimsey, on other threads, and you still keep coming back to this same misleading article by someone who does not understand scientific research and statistics.

    There is a standard error rate of 5% that MUST be taken into account in all research statistics. That's 5% in either direction, positive or negative. So the difference here was actually only 2%. That 2% is not big enough to stand on its own with such a small sample, it could be due to an outlier. In layman's terms, an outlier is an error or an anomaly or even a cheat of some sort, that is so far outside the norm that it is discarded. An example of an outlier is if someone voted a write-in for their son for US President. The test needed a bigger sample, at which point the applicant gave up. But that's science.

    Whenever you read any statistics with a difference of 5-6% or so, you should disregard it as invalid, no matter what, because that is the unavoidable error rate, whether it's statistized surveys or anything else. The general population doesn't know this, so we're often presented with invalid data as if it is valid.

    The fact is, it's really hard to prove any cause-effect relationship scientifically, whether psychic or anything else.

    Wait wait wait ...

    5% error rate? There is a concept in statistics of the p-statistic. That means roughly that an overall result can be attributed to chance in 5% of cases.

    This means that one-in-20 experimental results are probably wrong. That is why science is big on repeating and replicating results. If a second experiment confirms the first, both at p<.05 then the chance of being wrong immediately plummets to one-in-20 SQUARED. That is one-in-400. And so on. This p<.05 is only calculated and confirmed (or not) after performing a properly designed experiment.

    Pseudo science doesn't like this, and tries to be validated on a MINIMUM number of trials. Like one Ganzfield read can be done EACH DAY!

    Just lol.


    Randi was saying by giving a p<0.005 limit that he would give the million even if there was a chance (One in two hundred) that they just fluked it.

    But the chance would be lower because they would have undergone some pre-testing to eliminate frivolous contenders.

    "Of course, if it's true that Mr. Hubbard was never injured during the war,
    then he never did heal himself using Dianetics principles,
    then Dianetics is based on a lie, and then Scientology is based on a lie." - Tommy Davis


  6. Thanks tesseract, AngeloV, Mimsey Borogrove says "thank you" for this post
    Likes strativarius liked this post
  7. #44
    Silver Meritorious Patron George Layton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,320

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    Quote Originally Posted by Veda View Post
    Only to Scientologists, and notably in the pages of the Tone Scale tome, Science of Survival, which identifies those critical of Hubbard/Dianetics/Scientology as sex perverts.

    All things considered, being slandered is getting off easy, as a Scientologist might regard James Randi - who has consistently refused Scientology auditing - as a candidate for harsher treatment.


    From 'Science of Survival' by L. Ron Hubbard:


    The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale , neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes .

    The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred or simply quarantining them from the society.

    A Venezuelan dictator [Juan Vincente Gomez] once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
    So who isn't overlooking the fact?
    Each time I spot hypocrisy, it turns around and points at me.

  8. #45
    Crusader Mimsey Borogrove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    92,955,887.6 miles from the sun
    Posts
    5,185

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    Senior HH, James Randi may be the bestest person and charming and a dashing conversationalist, but, being ethical is not one of his high points - here is a comment by Rupert Sheldrake:

    James Randi - a Conjurer Attempts to Debunk Research on Animals


    The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests.

    I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too.

    I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so."

    Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.
    http://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/j...rch-on-animals



    The following video was done by a Viennese science unit as a test to see if they could the same result as Sheldon and Pam Smart did.

    Research by Rupert Sheldrake and Pam Smart
    A film by the Science Unit of ORF, Vienna


  9. #46

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    Quote Originally Posted by Veda View Post
    Only to Scientologists, and notably in the pages of the Tone Scale tome, Science of Survival, which identifies those critical of Hubbard/Dianetics/Scientology as sex perverts.

    All things considered, being slandered is getting off easy, as a Scientologist might regard James Randi - who has consistently refused Scientology auditing - as a candidate for harsher treatment.


    From 'Science of Survival' by L. Ron Hubbard:



    The reasonable man quite ordinarily overlooks the fact that people from 2.0 down have no traffic with reason and cannot be reasoned with as one would reason with a 3.0. There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the tone scale , neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the tone scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes .

    The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow. Adders are safe bedmates compared to people on the lower bands of the tone scale. Not all the beauty nor the handsomeness nor artificial social value nor property can atone for the vicious damage such people do to sane men and women. The sudden and abrupt deletion of all individuals occupying the lower bands of the tone scale from the social order would result in an almost instant rise in the cultural tone and would interrupt the dwindling spiral into which any society may have entered. It is not necessary to produce a world of clears in order to have a reasonable and worthwhile social order; it is only necessary to delete those individuals who range from 2.0 down, either by processing them enough to get their tone level above the 2.0 line a task which, indeed, is not very great, since the amount of processing in many cases might be under fifty hours, although it might also in others be in excess of two hundred or simply quarantining them from the society.

    A Venezuelan dictator [Juan Vincente Gomez] once decided to stop leprosy. He saw that most lepers in his country were also beggars. By the simple expedient of collecting and destroying all the beggars in Venezuela an end was put to leprosy in that country.
    I find it very unsettling that according to Hubbard's policies, US govt laws do not apply to CoS members. Not that I would diagNOSE anyone, but that seems an eensyteensy bit NPD. The "you're either with me or against me", sigh!! that's BPD, and the irony of that? Is the way the church screams religious persecution.

    But did anyone verify if the debunked debunker is truly a pedophile? In Not-Scientology world?

  10. #47
    Madam ESMB Emma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,541

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    Andy Nolch LOL!

    I spoke to that guy for an hour on the phone recently. Mostly because he's from Melbourne & I wanted to hear what he knew about folks I used to know.

    I can't decide whether he is seriously stupid or brilliantly trolly. I'm tending towards the stupid.

  11. Thanks I told you I was trouble says "thank you" for this post
    Likes tesseract, AngeloV liked this post
  12. #48
    Crusader
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    6,978

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    Quote Originally Posted by Emma View Post
    Andy Nolch LOL!

    I spoke to that guy for an hour on the phone recently. Mostly because he's from Melbourne & I wanted to hear what he knew about folks I used to know.

    I can't decide whether he is seriously stupid or brilliantly trolly. I'm tending towards the stupid.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

    as we all were.

  13. #49
    Goldenrod SP ThetanExterior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,865

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    Quote Originally Posted by Tanchi View Post
    Yes, this goes beyond uncivil debate. Nolch smeared someone. Is there proof of Nolch's allegations?
    I haven't watched the video but if he's calling Randi a pedophile it's probably because Randi is gay:

    "In a March 21, 2010, blog entry, Randi came out as gay, a move he explained was inspired by seeing the 2008 biographical drama film Milk."

    Scientologists think it's normal to categorise gay people as pedophiles.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

  14. Thanks tesseract, Tanchi says "thank you" for this post
  15. #50
    Gold Meritorious Patron
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,730

    Default Re: Andy Nolch smears James Randi as a pedophile

    I'm not a fan of James Randi's, however there's a difference between saying his $1 million challenge isn't all it's cracked up to be (an effort I'd support) and calling him a paedophile.

    Randi has every right to defend himself against such slander, and I hope Nolch gets a cease and desist order soon. On the small chance that he does have some evidence to support his allegations, law enforcement is the place to go with that, not Youtube.
    "Life constantly changes. Some of the changes we like, some we hate, but it keeps changing."

    - Bo Lozoff

    "Dream more, learn more, care more and be more.

    - Dolly Parton

  16. Thanks Tanchi says "thank you" for this post
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Similar Threads

  1. Andy Nolch: The Indie Scientology Podcast
    By CommunicatorIC in forum Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scientology
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 25th April 2017, 04:16 AM
  2. RFR PODCAST: Jeff Hawkins, Steven Mango and Andy Nolch on Scientology
    By CommunicatorIC in forum Conferences, Speeches, Radio Shows, and Live Public Presentations
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17th February 2017, 08:54 AM
  3. I just learned Andy Nolch is free! (Mr Kink on Facebook)
    By Rmack in forum General Scientology Discussion
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 10th October 2016, 02:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •