| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Ok, Keith... | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Ok, Keith... |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 14, 2005 Views: 777 | Ok, Keith... I'm doing a grand recap of everything that has transpired between me and Keith since I started posting. Maybe this will alert him to the fact that I indeed have very excellent reading comprehension and can locate his logical faults. 1. >He's most likely referring to your flawed >science. 2. >>>>Tell you what Nick, why don't you explain >>>>what part of my science is flawed 3. >What part of your science is flawed? It's not >your method, or your goal. It's not the way you >do it. It's just "what" you are trying to prove. 4. >>>>What I have done is to show that the two >>>>most commonly used TK stunts can easily be >>>>done without TK. >>>>I then go on to say that because of these >>>>stunts many people wrongly believe that they >>>>have TK when in fact they don't. 5. >You asked me what part of your science is >flawed and I said that purposefully faking >examples does not scientifically do anything. I >have just shown what was wrong with >your "science." Ok, now that you've followed that this far, let's look a little closer. I've numbered the sections for reference. I make my bold statement in #1 and he responds by asking me to point it out to him in #2. Ok, so far so good. In #3 I say a lot. I say that the reason why his science is wrong has only to do with what he's trying to prove. In #4 he hits the nail right on the head and demonstrates his logic for all to see! Saying that because you made some videos, most people in the TK community are deluding themselves is poor logic. In #5, I explain this fact. >>>>I think practising TK must be very damaging >>>>to the brain judging by your comments and >>>>other TKers. >>>>Just run along now and go play with your psi >>>>wheel, I can't be bothered with you anymore. Ok, and this is his last post, at least in this thread. As you can see, this is an Ad Hominem attack, he is trying to attack my argument by attacking my credibility. He makes no effort to actually respond intelligently. Let's move on to another thread: 1. >You make these videos that are supposed to >disprove telekinesis, or at least the most >common ways to demonstrate telekinesis, but you >don't explain them. 2. >>>>They are only there to show that videos that >>>>claim to show objects moving by TK are >>>>worthless because anyone can easily make >>>>them. 3. >>>>It would be very silly of me to show, for >>>>example, the video of the mugs of hot water >>>>rotating the psi wheel if it didn't actually >>>>work, everyone would soon find out I was >>>>cheating! The videos are not there for >>>>proof, just as an illustration of how to do >>>>it. >>>>So just how dumb are you? 4. >I never said the videos were there for proof. I >never said you didn't tell anyone how to do the >wheel or straw. I never even said a word about >the stupid mug shot(haha). You're the one that >is miscomprehending me. 5. >>>>I didn't call you a moron, but as the saying >>>>goes, if the cap fits wear it. >>>>I've nothing more to say to you, you are >>>>just being daft. Ok, alrighty. In #1 I bring up an important point. He makes this Silly Stuff page to support his claim. And what is his claim? #2, that is his claim that he says he's making by those videos. In #3 he trys to steer the argument away from the real problem. He explains the mugs, but not any of the other videos. That is my point. In #4 I try to say just that, but in #5 he just dismisses me as being daft. I think that cap fits you better Keith, why don't you take it? Now to move on to the real thread, the one with 22 posts!!! 1. >What about me? Am I a fool too? You haven't yet >responded to my arguments against you logic. >What are you waiting for? 2. >>>>Nick, >>>>Already made my point under your >>>>thread "what a bunch of crap". >>>> >>>>As you have such a massive problem with >>>>comprehension ask an adult to explain it to >>>>you. 3. >So I propose to you. Either attack my argument, >or admit that you can't. Or you can continue to >make illogical Ad Hominem attacks on my >character... Let's get trough this one here. In #1 I point out the fact that he hasn't even tried to argue against my point. He replies by saying that he already made his point in the other threads. He also throws in an Ad Hominem attack for good measure. and finally, in #3, I make my proposal, which he hasn't answered in three days. Considering all his other timely replies, this is an eternity to wait for his next post. |
| Posted By: Endothermal Torahs Posted On: Feb 14, 2005 Views: 770 | RE: Ok, Keith... What an excellent post Nick, you've clearly shown up Keith's illogical nature as I have also been trying to do. I'll add this little ditty from my own experiences of Mr Mayes. From his website: "...to answer the question 'is there life after death', the answer would have to be no." And when you question his logic: "I honestly don't know why you bother, hell will freeze over before a fool like you will find fault with my logic." Hell being a mythical place that doesn't exist within Keiths understanding. Hmm, not quite sure how that one works Keith. You could explain but let me try for you and yes folks, I have a copy of the mighty book of Keith's responses when he has no real answer! And it says... ...you have poor/no comprehension and can't/don't read... (ad lib as required) ...you are a child/teenager/immature get an adult to read/explain/do something for you... Or finally, for the fans of sarcasm... ...oh how right you are are why don't you go and collect $1 Million from James Randi, well done! |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 14, 2005 Views: 767 | RE: Ok, Keith... Thank you Endothermal for your excellent backup. Cleary this thread shows the foolhardiness that is Keith Mayes. I have just recently stumbled upon the rest of his site, and how he debunks God, heaven, hell, basically everything he can. I myself could make an awesome website (it would look 10 times better also) that could debunk everything, including stuff like gravity, using the same 'Keith Mayes' form of logic. It would go something like this: 1. All right, so all you people think that you're special and that gravity is holding you down, eh? 2. Oh, right, you all are showing me your stupid videos of you, sitting on the floor. Haha, you guys are so dumb....whatch me fake a video of gravity. Now who's the moron!?! 3. He then goes about gluing a penny to a piece of cardboard and turns it upside down, recording it for all to see. 4. Keith Mayes (or me, if I were to make such an awesome site): "See, I can easily fake gravity videos, so that means that most of you are inadvertently faking your gravity videos, oh my! Stupid kids!" It's a little over the top, but this is clearly the same logic that is propagated throughout his website to all those people out there. Substitute gravity and the penny for whatever example you like. As long as there is a website where people are demonstrating things by videos, it can be debunked! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 15, 2005 Views: 744 | RE: Ok, Keith... Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee, Nick & ET. What a hilarious double act you two make. The pair of you think you are being so smart! Absolutely hilarious, simply unbelievably hilarious! The pair of you should go on the stage, at least that way you would get paid for making fools of yourself. In this respect see my reply under the thread Why Keiths science is flawed as it demonstrates just how daft the pair of you jokers are. As for you Nick.... Your argument using gravity is perplexing, really perplexing. I wouldnt matter what I showed on a video, the fact is we are held to the ground by gravity, so showing a faked video where something appears to defy gravity wouldnt make everyone think that gravity didnt exist! They would still be held to the ground, wouldnt they? So what point is it that you are so badly trying to make? My videos DUPLICATE the Tkers videos, it doesnt show them not doing TK!!!! Your gravity example is about as dumb and pointless as its possible to get. My point in making fake TK videos is simply to show that so called genuine TK videos can be easily faked, so therefore cant be used to prove TK exists. How hard is that for you to follow???? I do not make the claim that my Silly Stuff videos are proof that TK does not exist. Why are you getting so confused about it? What is your problem? If you want to have a discussion at least try and talk sense because trying to respond sensibly to your gibberish is just about impossible. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 15, 2005 Views: 738 | RE: Ok, Keith... >My videos DUPLICATE the Tkers videos, it >doesnt show them not doing TK!!!! Haha, yeah. That's exactly what I was trying to say. Thank you for repeating me and still making it seem original. >My point in making fake TK videos is simply to >show that so called genuine TK videos can be >easily faked, so therefore cant be used to >prove TK exists. How hard is that for you to >follow???? Oh yes, I know what you are now saying your point is, but that doesn't change what you originally said. You said that many TKers are inadvertently faking their TK. That was your point. Why are you changing now? Maybe cause you sensed a dead-end? >I do not make the claim that my Silly Stuff >videos are proof that TK does not exist. Why >are you getting so confused about it? What is >your problem? Here you go again putting words in my mouth! I never said you used those to prove that TK doesn't exist. That isn't my argument. My argument is that you say that many TKers are inadvertently faking their videos because of the sole fact that you can fake them. Good for you, but that does not prove that most of the videos online are inadvertently faked. My point has not changed, has your's? Let's take a look: You originally said that your videos support your contention that many TKers are misguided and the videos are actually done exactly how you do them, which would make them inadvertently faked. Now, however, you say that your point in the videos is just to show how easily they can be faked. Stick with one or the other, Keith. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 15, 2005 Views: 735 | RE: Ok, Keith... Here are my reasons for believing that TK does not exist: 1) The two main TK stunts are not TK. In response to your other thread where you say that you just made the videos for instructional purposes. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 15, 2005 Views: 730 | RE: Ok, Keith... Before posting on this thread, take a look at the new thread. I would kindof like all of this one debate to go in one thread. That seems logical to me... |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 712 | RE: Ok, Keith... Good idea. So why do you keep starting new threads on the same topic? Not logical is it? |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 710 | RE: Ok, Keith... I did not start the one two threads up, but you brought up this topic in that thread, so I posted there. So to answer your question of how many threads I'm going to start, that would have to be no more. In respect to how many threads I'm going to post in, that would be the number that you attack my credibility in. Simple. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 707 | RE: Ok, Keith... Simple. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 17, 2005 Views: 705 | RE: Ok, Keith... I'm glad that you agree, now let's see what other piece of mud you're going to sling next... |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 18, 2005 Views: 697 | RE: Ok, Keith... Sling mud? What is that all about? You claim my logic is flawed and I reply. By that reckoning you would have to say you are slinging mud. Never mind Nick, I don't want to confuse you even more. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 19, 2005 Views: 691 | RE: Ok, Keith... Quote from an earlier post by Keith on this thread.......... "In this respect see my reply under the thread Why Keiths science is flawed as it demonstrates just how daft the pair of you jokers are. As for you Nick.... Your argument using gravity is perplexing, really perplexing. " There's all the mud I was talking about. There is more in the other threads, but I'm not going to get it all, there's just too much of it. EDIT: I have added the first line, as shown in italics, and the quotation marks in the following paragraph, otherwise it was too confusing as it all looked as if it was all my own posting. Keith |