The One - Australian TV

[AndyD]

The poll at Yahoo 7 is interesting. I swear that when I looked on Tuesday night it was leaning the beliver way. But now it is around 60 40 to the sceptic side.

Holy cow! You're right!!! I checked this poll a good few times after the show started and watched it drift from about 55:45 in favour of believers to (I think) almost 70:30 in favour of believers.

Richard, you are a god (in the skeptical sense of course), that's the only sensible explanation unless it got Pharyngulated (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/08/need_a_poll_fix.php).

(Thanks to Podblack (http://podblack.com/?p=821) for the heads up)

[Sparhawk]

The poll allows you to vote multiple times, so could be easy to set up a bot to do it.
This is not a suggest just an observation I made yesterday.

[AndyD]

I don't think any skeptics would launch a bot or vote multiple times. I just think there's a lot more skeptics than there are believers. Anyway, can't talk now, I'm waiting for an important phone call from a nice, church-going man in Nigeria who says he has some money for me.

[Senex]

You can hear an interview with me about the show here:

http://www.ghostradiox.com/theone_insiderscoop.asp

I do give clues about some of the behind-the-scenes goings on.

I listened to this and you were gifted at handling Lia Ramses who was a woo and was probing for you to be impolite or to misspeak in any way. You were brilliant. You realized that you were on a woo show and you held your ground yet were respectful. The woman interviewing you could only say she believed in people who stated on a website they had double blind (and triple blinded, whatever that means) studies who proved woo and you just said lots of people say that but each needs to be researched.

I listened to part of the Stacy Demarco interview and she made statements (as well as the host making statements) that seemed to ask to be tested. They casually speak about the paranormal as being a natural part of life, something that they developed and can now teach others. They speak of it as something that they, and others, can do in everyday life. Stacy states she can teach paranormal ability to others through books, in person or through the web. She steals money from others by offering unsound advice. Could you challenge Stacy Demarco to perform anything under a controlled condition.

During Stacy's interview with Lia they mocked you and Randi and all skeptics. Randi doesn't know how to measure something? Accupuncture has been clinically proven to work? I listened to Stacy's interview and it was hostile to what the JREF stands for. It was hard for me to hear a fairly pretty woman who wrote a book called 'A Witch in the Bedroom" and have no interest in reading it because I have no respect for what she has to say because it offends me. Rhythm of coffee? A change in the air toward a connection to earth's energy?

Can you at least write an essay that is a rebuttal to what she believes in? She is a woo who makes money on selling wooish things. Aren't we against stating unsound information as fact?

[AndyD]

Despite the station being pro-woo, I think the interview was very fair. Sure Ramses made some pretty dumb statements and laughed off Richard's simple logic, but all-in-all, she gave Richard a good hearing and I think a few listeners would pause to reconsider their own "doubts" about what a skeptic is.

I've discussed the interview, put Randi in a toon and raised a question about Stargate here. (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/08/psychic-intelligence.html)

[friendofandymilman]

I wasn't aware (until Stacey Demarco just informed me on the ghost radio interview), that the Australian Medical Association had endorsed acupuncture as an effective therapy. Apparently, according to Demarco it works, they just don't know how AND this is also true for homeopathy. Oh Stacey! And you call yourself a "scientific witch"! The only evidence for acupuncture having any effect is in some types of pain, but the effect is no greater than placebo. Don't even get me started on homeopathy, please.

But then again, I guess I am drawing my information from the elusive "sceptics book of poo poo" that Stacey keeps referring to. Anyone up for helping me write one? Excuse no. 1 from the book. You are too stupid to interpret scientific data, so please keep your witchy gob shut.

[BillyJoe]

Richard,

Congratulations on that interview.

I think it should be listened to by all sceptics who work in the media as a model of how to conduct themselves. Especially in an interview on the paranormal by an interviewer who is a believer.
You handled yourself perfectly throughout the entire 26 minutes.
Not a cross or angry word, just calm reasonable and rational explanations about all the topics raised and a calm acknowledgement that we don't and can't know everything and should remain open minded unless the evidence says otherwise.
I don't think I've ever seen any sceptic handle themselves any way near as well as you did in that interview. It seems to me that's certainly the way to go if you are going to have any influence in reducing the natural gullibility of believers - and not only believers for that matter!
I have read Athon's post on page 6 and I cannot agree more with what he has to say about your approach.

Congratulations again.

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

I wasn't aware that the Australian Medical Association had endorsed acupuncture as an effective therapy.


This doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of complementary medicine:
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-6L74GC

Or in more detail:
http://www.ama.com.au/web.nsf/doc/WEEN-6L74NK/$file/healths_gd_ps_compl_medicine.doc

The text is liberally laced with the reassuring phrase "evidence based"
For example:
The AMA considers it essential that scientific research is carried out in such a way as to permit complementary medicines and therapies to be assessed on an evidence basis.


Unfortunately nothing specific about acupuncture.
However, here is a disturbing quote:

Acupuncture appears the most popular, with at least 15% of Australian GPs practising this treatment.
Such a consultation attracts a Medicare rebate.

[AndyD]

The AMA statement might not say anything specific about acupuncture but it does point to the Cochrane Collaboration and they do have a number of reviews of the treatment for a variety of conditions and, in general, the results are un-amazing.

Lots of "no evidence of efficacy - more trials needed" but I haven't seen anything that says "it works but we don't know why."

The only way we'll get Medicare to spend our money more wisely is to get a prime minister who bases decisions on evidence...

Richard Saunders for PM! :)

[friendofandymilman]

AndyD,

The quote "it works but we don't know why" came from the gob of Stacey. I was being facetious when I said "I wasn't aware..." Actually I was very cranky to hear this nonsense. It simply is not true, and to follow up with the homeopathy thing, well you can imagine my ire.

Thank you for doing a search on this. I have read much literature re: the efficacy of acupuncture, including the new Simon Singh as well as many other scientific papers and I know the very small effects are nothing more than placebo at best. I also had a discussion recently with a woman responsible for the $4m USyd and UWS (Sydney Universities) are getting from China to set up a CAM research facility in New South Wales. This is a double edged sword in my opinion, since if the funding is coming from CAM sympathisers, it does muddy the water. Or, well let's see.

It does my head in that such a huge amount of money is being spent on something for which there has been no evidence to date, despite extensive research. But China have $250m which they want to distribute amongst research facilities worldwide to try to get some credibility placed on this woo.

As for Medicare, well consider they also pay for chiro.

[wombatwal]

The AMA statement might not say anything specific about acupuncture but it does point to the Cochrane Collaboration and they do have a number of reviews of the treatment for a variety of conditions and, in general, the results are un-amazing.

Lots of "no evidence of efficacy - more trials needed" but I haven't seen anything that says "it works but we don't know why."

The only way we'll get Medicare to spend our money more wisely is to get a prime minister who bases decisions on evidence...

Richard Saunders for PM! :)

Unfortunately I don't think our current Prime Minister bases much on evidence, although I don't have much evidence of that. :o
I was hoping he would be much better than the last, we will have to wait and see.

[BillyJoe]

The AMA statement might not say anything specific about acupuncture but it does point to the Cochrane Collaboration and they do have a number of reviews of the treatment for a variety of conditions and, in general, the results are un-amazing.

Lots of "no evidence of efficacy - more trials needed" but I haven't seen anything that says "it works but we don't know why."


Maybe they should offer some specific guidance to the medical profession along the lines of:
"At this time there is no evidence that acupuncture works for any condition for which it is presently being used and no mechanism by which it could work"

The only way we'll get Medicare to spend our money more wisely is to get a prime minister who bases decisions on evidence...


Our PM hails from Queensland and believes in god.
Enough said. :D

Richard Saunders for PM! :)


:)

[BillyJoe]

AndyD,

The quote "it works but we don't know why" came from the gob of Stacey. I was being facetious when I said "I wasn't aware..." Actually I was very cranky to hear this nonsense. It simply is not true, and to follow up with the homeopathy thing, well you can imagine my ire.


The facetiousness went clear over my head, sorry.

Thank you for doing a search on this.


Don't mention it.

regards,
AndyD :D

[BillyJoe]

Unfortunately I don't think our current Prime Minister bases much on evidence, although I don't have much evidence of that. :o
I was hoping he would be much better than the last, we will have to wait and see.


I'm sorry to hear that your impression of our Mr. Rudd is the same as mine.
As Keating says, he has no "narrative".

[AndyD]

The quote "it works but we don't know why" came from the gob of Stacey. I was being facetious when I said "I wasn't aware..."

Yes, I got that. I was simply confirming that, despite Demarco's claim, the AMA defer to Cochrane and Cochrane don't appear to say, anywhere, that acupuncture definitely works at all, never mind that we don't know how.

Thank you for doing a search on this.

I'd say "don't mention it" but BillyJoe already said it :boggled:

Actually, that's the first time I'd visited the Cochrane site. I started at this page (http://news.cochrane.org/view/item/review_one.jsp?j=1294)which has a search field. Many of the results have easy to read summaries of findings. Perfect for the non-science mind, like mine. In future I'll use it as part of any search for info on medications rather than relying on the wikipedia battleground

[nettiemoore]

Unless acupuncture was listed in the last 10 months it has nothing to do with Kevin Rudd and in any event in our political system the decision is not left up to any individual PM or Minister. They may ratify the decision but they act on advice of the relevant statutory body. Quite rightly, I don't want them pushing their own hobby horses (even ones I agree with). Recall the controversy over Tony Abbott bringing his Catholic views into various issues of sexual health when Health Min.

Also, acupuncture is only covered under Medicare if done by someone who is also a real doctor, ie a GP.

See, under "What's Not Covered" down the bottom:
http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/public/claims/what-cover.jsp

Personally I am more irked by the private health companies who hand out subsidies for all manner of bollocks without even those restrictions. And if you object to subsidising them with your own coverage, it's really difficult to find a package without any woo.

[Wildy]

You can hear an interview with me about the show here:

http://www.ghostradiox.com/theone_insiderscoop.asp

I do give clues about some of the behind-the-scenes goings on.

Did the interviewer sound as much of a bogan over the phone?

[Legend]

BAHAHAHAHAH! So true. What a bogan.

HAHA!

Alex.

[AndyD]

I'm sure we're all incredibly erudite on the skeptical side.

[Legend]

I love that word.

[AndyD]

Richard - any truth to the second series rumour?

There's a "haunted" gaol in Albany, WA. If you can get them to do a shoot there I could pop down and say "Hi". :)

[Legend]

Me too! Haha!

It'd be too hard though. Travelling the furthest they possibly could while still managing to stay in this country. Albany's jail isn't renowned across Australia either.

It'd still be great.

[Richard]

Richard - any truth to the second series rumour?

I have not heard.... we will all have to wait and see.

[Wildy]

I have not heard.... we will all have to wait and see.

Encourage them to do something on the Beaumont Children, or maybe the Adelaide Oval case. In the case of the former it's nearly been a year since I last heard something so they'll have perfect timing.

There already have been "psychics" on the Beaumont case so you have something of a control.

[Legend]

I want a sceptic or cold reader to go on so bad. But as I heard Richard say somewhere, the public can't know.

Perhaps they can say that at least one of the 'psychics' are a trained cold reader/sceptic. I think that the editors might make it difficult for him to be accurate though...

Your suggestions are good too Wildy. The Beaumont Children case would be good.

Alex.

[AndyD]

The dilemma is that the previous contestants were all (as I understand it) members of the association. Simon Turnbull is president of that association and adviser (if not creator) on the show.

So, how could you put a non-member in there and not have it known which one doesn't claim to be psychic?

I guess, since the shows were pre-recorded, it may be possible to keep it secret from the live audience but by the time it hits TV, the secret would probably escape. Maybe there's ways around this. Plus, Stacey Demarco would know which one was the skeptic so there would need to be an arrangement whereby the skeptic couldn't be voted off - which would hardly seem fair.

Having said all that, was anyone under the impression Channel Seven was remotely interested in debunking psychic powers?

I'd be happy enough if they just edited it more fairly, so the end product resembles a cut-down version of reality, and showed the audition failures. Since they've apparently chosen not to do that, I can only assume there was an agreement to cast the contestants in a positive light.

[Legend]

The whole, why would Channel Seven want to 'debunk' it was something I was thinking too. However, you can't tell me that it would be bad for ratings, people would want to watch that, believer or sceptic.

Plus, the "editting more farily" idea, when compared to secretly telling the audience that one of the contestants is a trained cold reader or something, really doesn't work for ratings. I wouldn't even want to watch them continually fail...no one would.

And there's no need to tell the judges who the sceptic is anyway. Just, when they're voted off, tell the audience. Or do the whole, film different endings, like they did for the final episode. Where they'd say that each contestant was the sceptic and film the correct one to keep it secret from the live audience.

It's an idea that can work, for ratings, and technically. It's just about thinking it all through. My suggestions then were off the top of my head, so there are obviously better options out there. Especially for someone who works in the business.

[AndyD]

And there's no need to tell the judges who the sceptic is anyway.

They would know. Firstly, Demarco (assuming she'd be a judge again) would know if she's ever heard of this person before. If not, she'd naturally assume a ring-in. It seems previous contestants were aware of each other. Mitchell does magazine and radio, Jason (believe it or not) was Psychic of the Year 2007 (?), Charmaine and Ezio are friends, She and Rayleen both have websites. Not sure about Amanda because she was supposedly a non-professional but she clearly has a history. All are members of the Association.

Besides the judge, the public know if they've ever heard of a psychic before so it would be hard to claim you're showing "the best" yet not have anyone who's known publicly. Take a look at the earliest comments on The One website. Many are from people expressing support for their own favourite psychic - someone they knew before the show aired.

Add to this the likelihood that there's probably very few Australian skeptics who are doing enough cold reading to compete at this level (although the demonstrations were pitiful so I could be wrong here) and they'd likely be known as skeptics.

Anyway, all the psychics would KNOW - they're psychic! :)

As for the entertainment value of debunking, I have to disagree. On any other "reality" show, we'd see contestants being humiliated for "our enjoyment". Whether you or I agree with the practice doesn't change the fact that, ordinarily, Channel Seven thinks humiliating contestants is good for ratings. Yet we didn't see humiliation of the psychics (other than there own failure).

I can't explain it, maybe Richard could, but Channel Seven seem to have a vested interest in protecting the reputations of people who claim to be psychics.

[Jonquill]

If a skeptic went on that show and did well it would only prove to the faithful that everybody has psychic powers - they just don't realise it yet.

[friendofandymilman]

Andy D,

Do you know the work of Lynne Kelly? She is an expert cold reader/sceptic, who could easily be a contestant.

From her website: lynnekelly.com.au

Tauromancy - my personal divination system for performing psychic readings. I am often told "There is no way you could have known that! You must be psychic!"

Cold reading can be used to exploit those unfamiliar with its principles. It can also be used to develop warm, honest and rewarding exchanges in a very short time. Knowing about cold reading is the best protection against being exploited - emotionally and financially.

She would be perfect, but you are right that all the psychics from series one are members of the association and known personally to the community. There would be no chance of a ring-in infiltrating.

Fortunately, Richard did get the term "cold reading" in twice on the last episode, and I personally asked audience members when I was at the tapings, if they were familiar with the concept. Some said they were, but insisted that "their psychic was real". The unsinkable duck I'm afraid.

[Richard]

Andy D,

Do you know the work of Lynne Kelly? She is an expert cold reader/sceptic, who could easily be a contestant.

From her website: lynnekelly.com.au



She would however Lynne Kelly suffers from something little known to some "psychics" out there. It's call ethics. Lynne will never knowingly fool people like that. She is up front right from the start and tells her audience she is not real.

If some so-called "psychics" want to lie their heads off, that's up to them. Let us skeptics keep telling the truth.

[Legend]

I guess, what I was trying to say is that any type of series that went through the methods of how psychics and similar do their magical demonstrations would attract great imterest in my opinion.

Not any type of humiliation, although this would work if it wasn't overboard, such as there was a fimled session with a psychic whose subject was told to continually agree to everything the psychic said (just a meagre example).

I had a dream last night that Channel Ten had a TV show that went on at 7:30 on Wednesday, so it was the day after "The One" that debunked psychic methods. I like it!

Anyways,
Alex.

[BillyJoe]

There is a video somewhere of 7 people who had written readings done for them and who claimed the readings were from 50 to 95% correct. When they exchanged readings at the end they realised they'd all recieved exactly the same reading. The "psychic" had prepared them 2 weeks before even setting eyes on them.

:)

[friendofandymilman]

I just put myself through the pain of listening to part of the Ezio Deangelis interview on ghostradio.com. He goes on and on about the look on Richard's face in ep 2 after he had completed a fairly unspectacular psychometry reading. I was intrigued, so I went to the clip and I have to say, Richard looks pained and uncomfortable to me. Like he's just remembered he left the iron on. Or his lunch is repeating on him.

I am not allowed to post urls yet, so to see the clip, go to YouTube and search for ParanorRUs channel. It's episode 2, part 2 of 5.

The "face" appears at ~ 5 min, 55 secs.

I assume, from their reaction, that this was interpreted as a affirmation of a great read. I am baffled.

If anyone cares to view the clip and can explain to me why the woo-proponents are so excited by Richard's pained expression, I would love to hear from you.

[Drs_Res]

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5P5PLnOEBY

[AndyD]

Perhaps Richard knew the sitter was the friend of a skeptic? William Brougham (the sitter's skeptical friend) reveals more about that reading here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uriFmxeS59g)

[Richard]

Perhaps Richard knew the sitter was the friend of a skeptic? William Brougham (the sitter's skeptical friend) reveals more about that reading here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uriFmxeS59g)

Richard was concentrating on the reading, that's it and that's all. At no stage whatsoever did I think "oh.. that must be paranormal."

[AndyD]

Richard was concentrating on the reading, that's it and that's all. At no stage whatsoever did I think "oh.. that must be paranormal."

What???!!! Not even when Jason spread his arms and perceived an eighty year old woman had hip issues and knitted?

What about when she said "no" to both? That surely wasn't "normal" :)

[Brendy]

I'm not from australia but I've read this whole thread.

So who won?

Did they actually give one of these people money after the horrible job they all did?

[AndyD]

Charmaine Wilson won. No money involved - just the title of "Australia's most gifted psychic." Oh, and she's now embarking on a national tour.

Her demonstrations were no better than anyone else's but toward the end it seemed the editing was a little friendlier for her. The show was essentially an advertisement for the Australian Psychics Association.

[Chris H]

Charmaine Wilson won. No money involved - just the title of "Australia's most gifted psychic." Oh, and she's now embarking on a national tour.

Well, she's certainly playing all the "classy" venues. I haven't seen Melbourne Arts Centre on her tour schedule, but have no doubt that it will be added any day now.

Chris

[Chris H]

I have only met Lynne Kelly once, and she was an absolute delight. She has written a wonderful book called 'The Skeptics Guide To The Paranormal' which I believe is available from Amazon. Still not allowed to post links, so you'll have to search for it yourselves. Sorry!

Chris

[arthwollipot]

Get yourself over to the Humour and Community forums and post in some more threads then!! Right now! Go on! What are you waiting for?

[Chris H]

Is that serious advice, or were you making a joke? :boggled:

I didn't want to be one of those guys who posted for the sake of posting to get through to the restricted features of the forum. Sorry if it came off that way.

Cheers,

Chris

[Chris H]

Hey! That was my fifteenth post.

So, since you're here anyway, why don't you all visit my website at www... ;)

Chris

[arthwollipot]

Is that serious advice, or were you making a joke? :boggled:Of course it's serious. I do most of my posting in Community and Humour. There's even an Australians Only thread. Get yourself over there and get posting! :D

[Prometheus]

Is that serious advice, or were you making a joke? :boggled:

I didn't want to be one of those guys who posted for the sake of posting to get through to the restricted features of the forum. Sorry if it came off that way.

Cheers,

Chris

Yeah, those guys are wimps. I post for the sake of posting just 'cause I like the sound of my own typing. That, and I'm trying to catch up to arthwollipot's post-count. Anyway, welcome!

ETA: Oops. Sorry for the off-topic banter. I got mixed up and thought I was in the Welcome thread when I posted this.:o

[Perihelion Xanateris]

Thank you. I might let others make comments, others skeptics who were in the audience. We have finished the final show now, just back home from it. I can tell you that I stayed friendly but did not let my guard down. Skeptics in the media do not get a good run, but I hope with this show many, many people will hear me and the points I make. I won't change the mind of the believers, no one can do that, but I know I will reach those on the fence as it were.

Correction: Impossible/unreasonable skeptics don't get a good run, for obvious reasons.

Part of me wants to believe you've experienced at least some small paradigm shift, but reading this thread has crushed any such hope. You're as bad as Randi.

I'm willing to admit that the show wasn't done well, but accusing the producers of slanting things in the psychics' favour is going a bit far. They did, after all, show some of the misses - the first test in particular showed only two of the contestants successfully completing the task in the allotted time, the rest failed, two others failed miserably.

How I would have done the first test: there would be the requisite control group, made up of army and/or civilian rescue personnel with sniffer dogs and GPS transponders. The second group would be skeptics, armed with only a map of the area. Then there would be the psychics, each acting individually, and actually having the camera on their person rather than having a cameraman nearby (eg a helmet cam).

The second test (paranormal freestyle): Get the skeptics up there to do some cold reading and see how they compare.

I agree that the whole Peter Falconio thing was unforgivably tacky and whoever came up with it deserves to be soundly bitchslapped. BUT - don't forget that there are psychics out there who do find missing people, who do solve crimes and are valued police resources in their community. It's just the flakes and charlatans who overshadow the good ones and make the whole thing look fake.

What bugs me, Richard, is that in the end you, like Randi, ignored the hits and focussed exclusively on the misses. Never mind that Shé D'Montford aced the first test (that woman absolutely blew me away),
and successfully identified a man with a specific medical problem in an audience full of complete strangers. Never mind that, let's all just ignore the evidence - however scant it may be - and dismiss it all as tricks and woo. :mad:

No wonder Stacey Demarco started yelling; the poor woman must have been at the end of her rope with you.

[Robert Oz]

...accusing the producers of slanting things in the psychics' favour is going a bit far.


How is it unreasonable to accuse the producers of biased editing if we have confirmed that the psychics were given five and ten minutes to read the audience and only one minute made it to screen? How is it that multiple members of the audience were read in the final episode, but only a small segment of one reading was put to air? How is it that twenty medical readings were conducted, but seven were completely cut from the final edit?

She D'Montford found the boy in three minutes, but was kicked off the show very early for her poor performances in the other tests. Isn't it reasonable to assume she made a lucky guess with the boy?

How I would have done the first test: there would be the requisite control group, made up of army and/or civilian rescue personnel with sniffer dogs and GPS transponders. The second group would be skeptics, armed with only a map of the area. Then there would be the psychics, each acting individually, and actually having the camera on their person rather than having a cameraman nearby (eg a helmet cam).

This is very good protocol! I would love to see this test. I think the control group of skeptics would perform similarly to the psychics (two out of seven isn't unreasonable). Also, do you honestly think sniffer dogs would have trouble finding a boy in fifteen minutes in an area that only took six or seven minutes to cross on foot?

The second test (paranormal freestyle): Get the skeptics up there to do some cold reading and see how they compare.

There are many good cold readers who do not claim to be psychic and yet get a 90 - 99% accuracy in their televised readings (according to the sitters). If you can get a copy, read Ian Rowland's 'The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading', in it he describes televised appearances where he got this sort of accuracy, but admits that there is nothing psychic to it.

Also, you can't just take anyone and say, 'Okay, cold read and let's see how good you are." I am horrible at playing tennis, but I recognise tennis when it is being played. I can't play the piano, but I recognise when a piano is being played. I can't make the Statue of Liberty disappear, but I recognise the David Copperfield illusion as an illusion. Similarly, I recognise cold reading, but haven't the experience or practice to pull it off as well as someone who has been doing it for years.

BUT - don't forget that there are psychics out there who do find missing people, who do solve crimes and are valued police resources in their community.


Please provide evidence of a psychic successfully finding a missing person (other than the psychic saying so). Where has a police department announced the successful closing of a case based on a psychic's help?

Robert.

[AndyD]

I'm willing to admit that the show wasn't done well, but accusing the producers of slanting things in the psychics' favour is going a bit far.

The most glaring example of bias, and one which doesn't require any insider knowledge (ie, you didn't have to be there) was Ezio's speed reading in episode three.

He had five minutes to read an audience member. He chose a woman and started reading. He got no hits in the first minute shown. Then he switched to the woman beside her. This woman announced that most of the previous guesses applied to her. Ezio read this woman for one minute (we see the timer count down to zero). He rattled off a bunch of the previous guesses again, scoring hit after hit - but they weren't hits at all because she'd basically told him they already applied to her.

That, however, is not the bias. The bias comes from the missing three minutes where he continued to read the first woman without scoring a single hit.

So, the reality was:

4 minutes NO HITS
1 minute SOME HITS (many not true hits due to priming)

What the TV audience saw was:

1 minute NO HITS
1 minute SOME HITS (many not true hits due to priming)

So, we saw a 50/50 Miss/Hit rate. The reality was 80/20 Miss/Hit. We also saw the second woman exclaiming her delight at Ezio's precision. I don't know if the first woman was interviewed, but if she was, we didn't get to see her comment on the overwhelming lack of relevance his guesses had to her life.

If that isn't "slanting things in the psychics favour" then I look forward to finding out what it is. And before you use the argument that his reading was accurate but his choice of audience member wasn't (ie, he was channelling for the second woman the whole time before he realised - AKA the "Charmaine Wilson Defence") can I add that a lot of what he said also applied to my wife!

But, even without this evidence, we can see that every contestant was declared to be psychic before the show even aired and that one of them, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, was declared Australia's most gifted psychic. So much for impartiality.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

Please provide evidence of a psychic successfully finding a missing person (other than the psychic saying so). Where has a police department announced the successful closing of a case based on a psychic's help?

Robert.

My evidence takes the form of a fascinating lady by the name of Allison DuBois, upon whose exploits the TV show 'Medium' is based. And I don't care what crap you've read, she is in fact genuine.

EDITED TO ADD: This quote from the Wikipedia entry on Allison DuBois:

Dr. Gary Schwartz, a tenured professor, Harvard Ph.D., and Director of The VERITAS Research Project at the University of Arizona's Human Energy Systems Lab, says that DuBois has psychic abilities, arguing in the March 6, 2005 TV Guide, "Anyone who's looked closely at the evidence can't help but come to the conclusion that there is something very real going on here." At their first meeting, Schwartz says DuBois accurately described a friend of Schwartz's who had just died. Impressed, Schwartz conducted a series of experiments, including one in which DuBois stated she contacted the late husband of a woman in England, knowing only the woman's name. The woman, after reading a transcript of the session, affirmed that 80% of what DuBois said was accurate. Schwartz published his research in a book titled The Truth About Medium.

[Robert Oz]

My evidence takes the form of a fascinating lady by the name of Allison DuBois, upon whose exploits the TV show 'Medium' is based. And I don't care what crap you've read, she is in fact genuine.


Also from wikipedia:

Her powers as a medium were tested by Gary Schwartz of University of Arizona, giving rise to much controversy...

Ray Hyman questions the scientific integrity of Schwartz's approach to such psychic phenomena, in papers written for the organization...

DuBois, when doing her first reading of Schwartz, told him that his deceased friend was telling her, "I don't walk alone," which Schwartz understood to be a reference to his friend's confinement to a wheelchair, which DuBois could not have known about. [James] Randi says that Schwartz leapt to an unsupportable conclusion, since the notion of "not walking alone" can mean any number of things, and "certainly does not describe being in a wheelchair." Randi also asserts that experiments that allegedly yield positive results of psychic powers, such as the ones done with DuBois, are not conducted using proper scientific controls.


And in terms of helping police:

DuBois says she uses this ability to connect deceased loved ones to the living, and also to help law enforcement agencies solve crimes, such as the Texas Rangers and the Glendale, Arizona police department, and that she used these abilities as a jury consultant. These law enforcement agencies have since denied any such cooperation happened...

Former FBI profiler, behavioral science expert and MSNBC analyst Clint Van Zandt challenges DuBois's statements about helping law enforcement and putting people on death row, arguing, "If psychics were truly successful and if their results were not simply the consequence of trickery (at worse [sic]) or good interviewing skills (at best), then why don't law enforcement agencies have psychic detective squads, a real X-Files Unit, or other ways to integrate these paranormal investigative capabilities?"

There is also a five part expose on Allison Dubois available on the web. Google "The Dubious Claims of Allison Dubois".

But, as you said, you are not interested in the negative "crap" about Allison, so I doubt you'll read it.

Nevertheless, Allison is the only one saying she helped police. The police deny it. A conspiracy, perhaps?

Robert.

[friendofandymilman]

Well, she's certainly playing all the "classy" venues. I haven't seen Melbourne Arts Centre on her tour schedule, but have no doubt that it will be added any day now.

Chris

She's doing my local RSL, at 40 bucks a ticket with special guest Stacy Demarco. The funny thing is, the poster spells her name incorrectly. Ezio is also appearing but at the bargain price of 35 bucks. I will likely go see Charmaine, for research purposes and blog it. Watch this space.

[Legend]

Parahella-idiot or whatever you are...you better shut up.

I'm freaking fuming.

Don't turn up here and think you know everything and start accusing Richard. You want to talk facts? Huh? I can tell you right now that you my friend are extremely one eyed and need to get your facts straight before you decide to look through your one-lens binocular.

People like you disgust me. Look at both sides, think about it logically and most of all, don't you dare start coming onto this thread and saying anything negative about Randi or Richard.

I also noticed that you have completely ignored the logical and correct information that AndyD has given to you. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You are hypocritical, moronic, pathetic, mentally weak and completely lop sided. I hope that you continue believing and waste all of your money on the false and hollow rubbish involved with psychic readings.

Alex.

[BillyJoe]

Correction: Impossible/unreasonable skeptics don't get a good run, for obvious reasons.

And your opinion about the very reasonabe Richard Saunders is?

Part of me wants to believe you've experienced at least some small paradigm shift, but reading this thread has crushed any such hope. You're as bad as Randi.

Let me get this straight, Richard was right there on the set watching every single bit of the action and all you saw was an edited made-for-television version, and you think you can tell him something?

I'm willing to admit that the show wasn't done well...

It was just a bit of fun.
... and it even failed at that

but accusing the producers of slanting things in the psychics' favour is going a bit far.

Let me get this straight, Richard was right there on the set watching every single bit of the action and all you saw was an edited made-for-television version, and you think you can tell him something?

What bugs me, Richard, is that in the end you, like Randi, ignored the hits and focussed exclusively on the misses.

You have that completely ass over tit.
It's: "remembering the hits and forgetting the misses".
They showed all the hits and left most of the misses on the cutting room floor. Even then they struggled.

No wonder Stacey Demarco started yelling; the poor woman must have been at the end of her rope with you.

The really ignorant often have that problem with the wise and knowledgable. They can't even see they are wrong when it's staring them in the face. If you were impressed with this show, you'd probably be impressed with Alison Dubois and Gary Schwarz.

Oh wait.....

[BillyJoe]

My evidence takes the form of a fascinating lady by the name of Allison DuBois, upon whose exploits the TV show 'Medium' is based. And I don't care what crap you've read, she is in fact genuine.


Alison Bubois and Gary Schwartz??? :D

Don't force me to post my favourite laughing horse pics. Like this one:

http://www.pcuk.org/output/branches/312/images/funny-animals-01-laughing-horse%5B1%5D.jpg

They've been so thoroughly debunked it's not worth it anymore.

[BillyJoe]

Sorry, I struggle to be as reasonable as Richard Saunders when I meet unreasonble people like PX

[EHocking]

Sorry, I struggle to be as reasonable as Richard Saunders when I meet unreasonble people like PXI was thinking, and I don't usually post this, troll. Or someone who know little about scientific research.

What makes me think this?
The Wiki quote.

Dr. Gary Schwartz, ..... says that DuBois has psychic abilities, arguing in the March 6, 2005 TV Guide,..

[AndyD]

Alex, down boy. Perihelion Xanateris isn't doing anywhere near well enough to warrant fuse blowing and all that will happen is you'll get a visit from a mod.

Now, back to the slanting:

the first test in particular showed only two of the contestants successfully completing the task in the allotted time

They showed only two successful contestants because only two succeeded. How do you propose they could have slanted this result in either direction? I guess if they were pro-psychic they could act all amazed about the successes and even pretty amazed by the near misses and point out the difficult conditions to explain away the other misses. Oh, hang on, that's exactly what they did. They even got the skeptic to say "well done".

How I would have done the first test: there would be the requisite control group, made up of army and/or civilian rescue personnel with sniffer dogs and GPS transponders. The second group would be skeptics, armed with only a map of the area. Then there would be the psychics, each acting individually, and actually having the camera on their person rather than having a cameraman nearby (eg a helmet cam).

But they didn't. They imposed no useful controls. It was a small area with two distinct tracks. The boy was in a blue sleeping bag on a tarpaulin in a fairly open area of bushland not far from the start line. Ask yourself why they didn't do anything to assure us the results were genuinely psychic - beyond doubt?

You may have been amazed but your own criteria above shows that you can accept the possibility that luck or hinting played a big part here. We do have a couple of checks and balances though - the container test, the Ned Kelly test and the psychometric reading - and Shé (Shay) failed all three, as did Jason.

So, given three misses and one (possibly lucky) hit, do you remain amazed? If so, are you amazed by everything that isn't a painful struggle against failure or do you think coincidence, luck and learning can play a part in normal day to day life but not in things done by people who claim to be psychic? I've said before that I live on a block over 21,000 square metres in area and I regularly find tennis balls in the middle of nowhere - without even trying. Am I psychic or is it just not that remarkable to find things by accident occasionally?

The second test (paranormal freestyle): Get the skeptics up there to do some cold reading and see how they compare.

Again, they didn't. But in most cases it simply wasn't necessary because, as it turned out, the actual readings were awful if you assess them with an open mind and a Skeptico Psychic Bingo Card (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007/11/john-edward-jam.html)! They are only convincing if you ignore the misses, the generics and the "bleeding obvious" (like guessing a seventy-something's mother was dead). Even so, why do you think Channel Seven imposed no controls - remember that Simon Turnbull, president of the Australian Psychics Association was a consultant to the show (and one website identifies him as "the creator (http://www.ghostradiox.com/people_simon_turnbull.asp)" of the show).

I agree that the whole Peter Falconio thing was unforgivably tacky and whoever came up with it deserves to be soundly bitchslapped.

Well, now you've either crossed to the skeptic side - or you don't want the Falconio murder solved. Which is it? If these people are as good as they claim, then why did they fail so miserably to find anything but the outback in the outback? Could it be they aren't what they claim to be? Do you even hold open the possibility that they aren't psychic?

Never mind that Shé D'Montford aced the first test (that woman absolutely blew me away), and successfully identified a man with a specific medical problem in an audience full of complete strangers.

Firstly, we can't know they were complete strangers. The show advertised for audience members. There were skeptics in the audience that Richard knew. The skeptics were apparently outnumbered by believers. We can't assume the psychics knew no one, in fact, we could rightly be surprised if they didn't invite some of their customers and friends along. Having said that, if she cheated then she's worse as a cheat than she is as a psychic. She failed, repeatedly.

However, I assume you refer to when Shé whispered to the man (and announced it to everyone watching because she apparently doesn't know that microphones pick up sound?!?!) that he had prostate issues? Let's revisit it shall we (quote taken from a transcript on Bad Psychics TV):

Shé: Okay well you've got prostate issues actually.

Sitter: Uh, no.

The sitter's first response to the comment was an unequivocal "no". He clarified this by saying he "WAS" told he "COULD HAVE" prostate cancer but a biopsy had cleared him. He admitted an "enlarged prostate" but said there was "nothing wrong".

Okay, so you're going to call it a hit because she only said "prostate issues" and an enlarged prostate is obviously not a normal prostate so clearly, it is an issue for this man and I'm just being pedantic and trying to pretend she didn't get a hit when she did. So okay, she got a hit with a specific medical issue.

Or did she? Let's check the statistics from this website (http://www.emedicinehealth.com/enlarged_prostate/article_em.htm)...

"A man's prostate gland usually starts to enlarge after he reaches 40 years of age."
"Prostate enlargement may be the most common health problem in men older than 60 years of age."

The man was over sixty so it wasn't a "specific medical problem", as you suggest, it was quite literally a "generic medical problem". If this is a good hit, then I can sense the old man has grey hair, reduced mobility and an increasingly grumpy intolerance to some things - as do most of his friends. But really, I'm going to have to take that hit back. I can't seriously credit a point for guessing an old man is an old man. What would have been impressive is if she'd found an old man who DIDN'T have an enlarged prostate. But she didn't.

Never mind that, let's all just ignore the evidence

Well, you can continue to do that if you wish but don't ask us to join in your game.

No wonder Stacey Demarco started yelling; the poor woman must have been at the end of her rope with you.

Well, let's just look back at Shé's prostate comment and the judges' responses. We know the "condition" was absolutely normal for a man of the sitter's age. What did the judges say?

Richard: Yes very interesting, that's what we call the win win game. You see you said there's something with the prostate but a gentleman of this, of his noble age would.....

Stacey: (interrupting) Oh hang on.

Richard: ...would have a prostate problem.

Stacey: (speaking over Richard) My dad's over your age and he's alright. (Mumbles)

So Demarco says her old dad is alright but we know that he can be alright AND have an enlarged prostate - and he probably has. But Richard's comment was correct and educational and didn't lead to people believing nonsense. Which one gained the higher ground here? The only way Demarco should be "at the end of her rope" is if they make selling credulity a hanging offence.

Now, back to the question of whether the show was slanted or not. Here's what Simon Turnbull says on his MySpace (http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=195045921&blogID=416086527) page: (my bolding)

"The One' TV series was fantastic to make. All the psychics and crew were super aware about sending a positive message to the viewing public through the incredible energy they put into the show."

I would have hoped they'd work hard to send out an honest message.

[friendofandymilman]

AndyD,

Thank you for your insightful and well researched response to PX. I spent many hours in the studio audience as, (and I am not afraid to say), a sceptic friend of Richard and you are right, there were many believers - far more than sceptics. We were dotted about the place when we had a chance to take an entire day off work, as support for the lone voice of reason.

I found it fascinating from a research perspective to experience the workings of 7 different psychically gifted people, all with different specialities, and see them fail again and again, despite the lack of controls. In fact the word flabbergasted comes to mind when the excuses kept coming. By week 4 I was more than happy to bugger off overseas, not without regret of leaving him (R) to deal with the fallout.

You make some very salient points regarding editing and "slant" or bias with respect to the scientific method. There is only so much Richard can do with respect to setting protocols and controls for a show designed for entertainment and I agree, turned our not to be very much of the latter. It is a double edged sword when it comes to sceptics on shows such as this, and in my opinion, Richard did a service as a humanist sceptic, (see interview with Joe Nicoll on Point of Inquiry, 16/08/08).

I urge PX to listen to the interview Richard did with GhostRadio for further insight into the making and dealings of the show, as well as the interviews with all the alleged psychics. However, I wager PX would not be particularly interested in a counter-view, since it seems he/she has made up their mind.

I continue to find it interesting that the contestants happily and publicly bag Richard, when he has been most gracious, beyond what I consider the threshold for someone in his position (see; I buggered off overseas, above).

Alex, I sympathise with your post. Hang in there!

AndyD, for the benefit of PX (and assuming he has an open mind) can you please post the link to Ghostradio, as I have not been here long enough to post urls.

Cheers

[AndyD]

Thanks foam, (did you know that was your acronym?).

Here's a post to the interview thread at Bad Psychics (http://badpsychics.com/au/modules/news/article.php?storyid=230) since The One is no longer on the front page at Ghost Radio.

[Legend]

I'm 300% the same as what Billy Joe said. I don't know how Richard kept so cool on the show.

When you get posts like that, with bias like that, and views like that, I get so angry.

Alex.

[friendofandymilman]

Thanks foam, (did you know that was your acronym?).

Here's a post to the interview thread at Bad Psychics (http://badpsychics.com/au/modules/news/article.php?storyid=230) since The One is no longer on the front page at Ghost Radio.
Hi AndyD,

No I didn't - thanks for bringing that to my attention, - actually, I quite like it!

[AndyD]

Just to shed a little more light on what we might have missed due to heavy editing. Check out this viedo: The One, Episode Three, Ezio De Angelis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=594AVuou4V4)

Note that the negative responses must have continued for around two minutes more than shown even in this video.

[friendofandymilman]

Oh AndyD,

Which number excuse are you pulling from the sceptics book of poo-poo? And to have the bah-bah sound at the end? Well you are just rubbing salt into the wound. Brilliant.

I take it you have seen the Rove clip from the same reading? Gold! I was in the audience for said "psychic reading" and had a chat with both women afterwards.

After snarking at us for being the "skeptics" one was telling me that the heart has feelings and emotions and that is how you explain heartbreak. Suffice to say, (and I have a more than reasonable knowledge of anatomy and physiology) I put her straight in a humanistic, sceptic way. Funny though that Seven aired that read. If it was bad enough for Rove to take the piss, then you have to wonder.

[AndyD]

I'm new to formalised skepticism, or skeptical activism, so my copy of the book hasn't arrived. I'm not even sure if I'm supposed to order it or if the universe just takes care of it once I've proved I'm really being skeptical.

The funny thing about the Ezio read is that it was no worse than the other four. Most other reads had a little over one minute of air time (I broke the figures down in my article The One: Cheats DO prosper (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-cheats-do-prosper.html) )

And in every case we saw every hit so we can know again that, in every case, the misses far outnumbered the hits by at least 4:1 (some results were much worse since there were almost no genuine hits even in what we did get to see). The reason Ezio got the video treatment was because they showed enough material to splice together - and he "cheated" ;).

Next, I might take a "humorous" look at Amanda's obsession with teeth.

[Legend]

Looks like that PX bloke has given up?

[Perihelion Xanateris]

Parahella-idiot or whatever you are...you better shut up.

I'm freaking fuming.

Don't turn up here and think you know everything and start accusing Richard. You want to talk facts? Huh? I can tell you right now that you my friend are extremely one eyed and need to get your facts straight before you decide to look through your one-lens binocular.

People like you disgust me. Look at both sides, think about it logically and most of all, don't you dare start coming onto this thread and saying anything negative about Randi or Richard.

I also noticed that you have completely ignored the logical and correct information that AndyD has given to you. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You are hypocritical, moronic, pathetic, mentally weak and completely lop sided. I hope that you continue believing and waste all of your money on the false and hollow rubbish involved with psychic readings.

Alex.


Wipe your chin, you've got foam all over it.


I never, not once, made any indication that I know everything. I will say whatever I please about Randi and Saunders and too bad if you don't like it. I'm entitled to my views.

I've studied both sides of the debate for some time and to be honest, I've found that most of the skeptics here and elsewhere have sadly put themselves in the same league as global warming deniers and creationists: they want what they believe to be true, so they ignore any evidence to the contrary.

I disgust you? Hey, the feeling's mutual, pal.

Well, now you've either crossed to the skeptic side - or you don't want the Falconio murder solved. Which is it? If these people are as good as they claim, then why did they fail so miserably to find anything but the outback in the outback? Could it be they aren't what they claim to be? Do you even hold open the possibility that they aren't psychic?

I've been a skeptic from the beginning. The difference between me and the rest of you is I'm a hell of a lot more open-minded. In other news, yes it's actually possible to be a psychic AND a skeptic! You read it here first!

There are times, believe it or not, when I've questioned my own abilities. The reason I haven't succumbed to those doubts is because I've seen and experienced too much to explain it all away.

There is always the possiblity that some of the contestants are frauds. Channel Seven picked the contestants on the basis of public exposure volume, not their actual reliability.

[AndyD]

I've found that most of the skeptics here and elsewhere have sadly put themselves in the same league as global warming deniers and creationists: they want what they believe to be true, so they ignore any evidence to the contrary.

I have laid out a hell of a lot of evidence from The One. You've completely ignored all but one small piece quoted below, and you didn't even address that bit.


Originally Posted by AndyD
Well, now you've either crossed to the skeptic side - or you don't want the Falconio murder solved. Which is it? If these people are as good as they claim, then why did they fail so miserably to find anything but the outback in the outback? Could it be they aren't what they claim to be? Do you even hold open the possibility that they aren't psychic?

I've been a skeptic from the beginning. The difference between me and the rest of you is I'm a hell of a lot more open-minded. In other news, yes it's actually possible to be a psychic AND a skeptic! You read it here first!

No, I've read that elsewhere, before. And I agree with it and believe it would be incredibly weird to never be skeptical - of anything. A month ago I wrote the following in my own blog in reference to a site advising what to expect from a quality psychic reading. (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-is-psychic.html)

"The author advises us not to believe claims that we need expensive candles or incense to solve our problems or that incense or candles can restore a love life. These are exceptionally good things to take note of - though I'm unsure why the author is so closed-minded about the people who profess the usefulness of these things. I guess even psychics can be skeptical when they see people actively hurting their industry's image."

So not only have I heard it before - I wrote it before you did :)

There are times, believe it or not, when I've questioned my own abilities. The reason I haven't succumbed to those doubts is because I've seen and experienced too much to explain it all away.

Have you ever had someone else, someone who doesn't believe and is experienced in the psychology of belief, try to explain it for you or did you just try to rationalise it for yourself? (But this is drifting off topic so if you want to discuss it you should really start a new thread)

There is always the possiblity that some of the contestants are frauds. Channel Seven picked the contestants on the basis of public exposure volume, not their actual reliability.

Andrew Daddo said they auditioned "literally hundreds" of psychics and these were the best. Are you now saying the producers were dishonest in their presentation of the contestants? Welcome to the club.

Now, why did you think the person who arranged the Falconio test should have been "bitchslapped"? Are you skeptical of all remote viewing claims or just the contestants who took part? Did you express your concern anywhere prior to that segment being televised (it was widely reported up to a month beforehand) or were you only annoyed after they failed to find anything? Did a part of you hope they would succeed? Would you have supported it if Shé was part of it?

When you've dealt with that question, feel free to address every other point I raised regarding the high failure rate, the generic nature of the medical guess that amazed you and the exceptionally biased editing.

I'm happy to be shown where I've made errors since I am incredibly open-minded to the possibilities - more than you might guess. In fact, if you're psychic, you should be able to read between the lines and intuit my open-mindedness.

ETA: Oh dear, I just visited Shé's website and see that she's actually using the "prostate issue" reading as a promotion of her "medical intuitive" abilities.

[Legend]

I've wiped my chin covered with invisible foam. Now you wipe your blind eyes.

You've studied both sides of the argument have you? And I'm Jack Nicholson.

This is so sad PX. Seriously, you are one of those people who are at the point where they are so one-eyed, bias, hypocritical and ignorant that they actually believe that other people are.

You're a lost cause.

You posting here is pointless, and our voices of reason are drowned by your bigotry.

Alex.

ETA: and for God's sake do not call me 'pal'.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

I've wiped my chin covered with invisible foam. Now you wipe your blind eyes.

You've studied both sides of the argument have you? And I'm Jack Nicholson.

This is so sad PX. Seriously, you are one of those people who are at the point where they are so one-eyed, bias, hypocritical and ignorant that they actually believe that other people are.

You're a lost cause.

You posting here is pointless, and our voices of reason are drowned by your bigotry.

Alex.

ETA: and for God's sake do not call me 'pal'.

Whatever you say, pal. I'm not interested in talking to you if all you're going to do is flame me.

I have laid out a hell of a lot of evidence from The One. You've completely ignored all but one small piece quoted below, and you didn't even address that bit.

Most of which is presented with bias. It's hard to address issues that are being clouded by the insistence that no psychic is genuine.

Now, why did you think the person who arranged the Falconio test should have been "bitchslapped"? Are you skeptical of all remote viewing claims or just the contestants who took part? Did you express your concern anywhere prior to that segment being televised (it was widely reported up to a month beforehand) or were you only annoyed after they failed to find anything? Did a part of you hope they would succeed? Would you have supported it if Shé was part of it?

Hard to say. I just think that the whole thing was incredibly tacky and insensitive. Investigations should be handled by the police (with or without the help of psychics), not farted around with on reality TV. I sincerely hope Falconio's family wasn't watching.

Reading between the lines... *ahem* I would say that the main source of your gripes about Shé stem from the fact that psi can be frustratingly subtle. I've tried medical intuition before, and getting a fix on the problem - or even who has it - can be pretty tricky. I got the impression of a heart problem, and thought it was my grandfather. Turns out it was me. :blush:

I said before that I was willing to admit that the show was done badly, not only in regards to the editing, but just about every other aspect of the show. It doesn't matter how many potential contestants were involved - for all you know the bulk of them could have been flakes.

[BillyJoe]

Most of which is presented with bias. It's hard to address issues that are being clouded by the insistence that no psychic is genuine.


How are the following facts biased or clouded by "the insistence that no psychic is genuine"?

- When Shé said: "you've got prostate issues", the sitter answered: "no".
- The sitter's prostaste biopsy cleared him of prostate cancer.
- The sitter had an enlarged prostate but he was older than sixty and....
- Prostate enlargement is a common health problem in men older than sixty.

A hit would have sounded something like this:
You had a biopsy for prostate cancer but the biopsy was negative and you do not have prostate cancer.

Okay?
Hard to say. I just think that the whole thing was incredibly tacky and insensitive. Investigations should be handled by the police (with or without the help of psychics), not farted around with on reality TV. I sincerely hope Falconio's family wasn't watching.


Fixed it! ;)

Reading between the lines... *ahem* I would say that the main source of your gripes about Shé stem from the fact that psi can be frustratingly subtle.


So subtle, in fact, as to be indistinguishable from it not existing at all. ;)

I've tried medical intuition before, and getting a fix on the problem - or even who has it - can be pretty tricky. I got the impression of a heart problem, and thought it was my grandfather. Turns out it was me. :blush:


Or it could have been your father, or your uncle, or your grandmother, or your mother, or your aunt, or the next door neighbour, or the guy at work, or.....
Get the picture?

[Robert Oz]

I've tried medical intuition before, and getting a fix on the problem - or even who has it - can be pretty tricky. I got the impression of a heart problem, and thought it was my grandfather. Turns out it was me.


So, in other words you predicted your grandfather had a heart problem - which turned out to be a miss - and then moved the target after it came to light that you had a heart problem. I presume if it had turned out to be anyone else in your family - or even friends - you would have assigned the prediction to them.

How is this not cold reading?

Robert.

[BillyJoe]

Robert,

I think we cross-posted.

BillyJoe

[AndyD]

Quote:
I have laid out a hell of a lot of evidence from The One. You've completely ignored all but one small piece quoted below, and you didn't even address that bit.
Most of which is presented with bias. It's hard to address issues that are being clouded by the insistence that no psychic is genuine.

Then show my bias.

All I did was explain how 80% of the readings were cut and yet all the hits were shown. That is a simple reality regardless of my opinion on psi. Admittedly it makes it easier for me to post such a fact, since it supports a skeptical viewpoint, but your job is to counter with evidence of how psi was clearly on display, not just ignore the facts (and I mean evidence, not just "it was amazing how X did "such and such"). That isn't hard unless the evidence doesn't exist or is so "frustratingly subtle" as to be indistinguishable from simple guessing.

I could have easily said it's too difficult to refute your support of the show because your pro-psychic bias was clouding the issue - but I didn't. I ignored your possible bias and laid out contrary evidence. If you can't do the same then don't blame me. Frankly, I could find more pro-psychic evidence from the show than you've put forth so far but I don't because it is so far-outweighed by contrary evidence as to be pointless for me to pursue it. But you could offer it up for discussion.

As for your heart condition, which I hope is being dealt with (preferably by a real doctor but whatever works for you is fine for you), guessing wrong then finding you would have been right if you guessed differently isn't psychic, it's just guessing. We absolutely can all do that. That's how people win Lotto. They guess and guess and guess, sometimes for decades, then one day they might win. It doesn't make them psychic. It makes them a statistic.

If my phone rings and I guess it's "John" but it's actually "James", am I psychic because it was a "J name"? What if it was "George"?

Do you see the problem? Once you start fudging the data you blur the line to the point where it's impossible to determine if it's psychic or guessing. Once we accept the statistical equivalent of simple guessing as evidence of psychic abilities then we do all become psychic because we're all capable of guessing lots of things wrong a few things right, or nearly almost right or quite wrong but similar to something else that would have been right if we'd guessed that instead.

Anyway, again, your personal experience, while interesting, is off topic for this thread. I'd prefer you refute my evidence that The One was heavily biased and that no practical examples of psychic power were exhibited.

Do you, for example, acknowledge now that guessing a man over sixty has an enlarged prostate (and she actually only said "prostate issues") doesn't make you a psychic or a medical intuitive, it makes you a statistician?

[devnull]

Or it could have been your father, or your uncle, or your grandmother, or your mother, or your aunt, or the next door neighbour, or the guy at work, or.....
Get the picture?

PX - please read this. Then read it again. It really is insightful. Keep reading it til you get what he's saying.

[Legend]

Whatever you say, pal. I'm not interested in talking to you if all you're going to do is flame me.

Sorry Captain Sensitive. Now, I appreciate the fact that you probably struggle to find friends in the real world, but like I said before, don't call me pal.

If you don't want to speak to me, fine, but, "I'm entitled to my views" and "if you don't like it, too bad".:rolleyes:

And if you don't want to speak to me, how about you reply properly to some of the really good and surprisingly simple answers to the amazing abilities of the charlatans psychics, which others are making.

Most of which is presented with bias. It's hard to address issues that are being clouded by the insistence that no psychic is genuine.

What a pathetic excuse. This is ridiculous, it's like arguing with a champion dodgeballer. You should be a politician.

ETA: HAHAHA! I typed your strange name into Google, PX. You wouldn't happen to be a Star Trek fan...would you? Go forth and prosper!:D:D:D I bet you're real cool.

[AndyD]

I think I've asked before but now I'm frustrated and need an answer to the question of just how many "psychics" took part in the Falconio "game"?

Only three contestants were televised but various reports suggest up to seven (eight?) took part.

"But that had a chance to change recently when seven psychics set out to hunt for his remains
....
Accompanied by an eight-member crew, the psychics spent three days around Barrow Creek last week in an attempt to contact Falconio’s spirit."
{Tenant & District Times (http://tennantcreek.yourguide.com.au/news/local/news/general/psychic-hunt-for-falconio/808559.aspx)}

Other reports says five (or more) took part:

"About 15 production members and five psychics spent three days determined to connect with the 'spirit' of Peter Falconio.

Roadhouse employee Geoff Grant, 43, said they flew in and out of Barrow Creek by helicopter. "They were having seances out there," he said. "The lady I spoke to was a psychic. She said they were trying to contact him."
{TV Tonight (http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2008/07/psychics-pursue-falconio-mystery.html)}

"He says a production crew of 15, which included between five and eight psychics, stayed in Ti-Tree and flew in and out of Barrow Creek by helicopter for three days."
{ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/04/2294587.htm)}

"The crew included a group of five psychics determined to connect with the 'spirit' of Peter Falconio."
{Northern Territory News (http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2008/07/05/4579_ntnews.html)}

Does anyone know the answer? Was the segment filmed prior to all or some of the studio tapings?

If it turns out all seven, or even five, took part in the search then we have another example Seven not showing how bad the result really was. Perhaps more concerning is that the contestants were apparently talking to locals so some of what they "saw" in their "visions", like the dam, could just as easily have come from things they were told about the area.

[BillyJoe]

Send Richard a PM. He would probably know.

[friendofandymilman]

AndyD, I can confirm, with Richard's assurance, there were only three who took part in the Falconio disgrace. Ezio, Amanda and Charmaine.

[friendofandymilman]

And it was filmed in sequence, so near the end of the series.

[Legend]

Sorry Captain Sensitive. Now, I appreciate the fact that you probably struggle to find friends in the real world, but like I said before, don't call me pal.

If you don't want to speak to me, fine, but, "I'm entitled to my views" and "if you don't like it, too bad".:rolleyes:

And if you don't want to speak to me, how about you reply properly to some of the really good and surprisingly simple answers to the amazing abilities of the charlatans psychics, which others are making.



What a pathetic excuse. This is ridiculous, it's like arguing with a champion dodgeballer. You should be a politician.

ETA: HAHAHA! I typed your strange name into Google, PX. You wouldn't happen to be a Star Trek fan...would you? Go forth and prosper!:D:D:D I bet you're real cool.

Three things.

Should actually be "Live long and prosper" but you get the picture. I was too busy laughing.

Shouldn't be "Captain Sensitive" it should be, "Captain Kirk".

And also, I noticed, you're from the "Delta Quadrant"...

O

M

G

Alex.

[Perihelion Xanateris]

You're laughing at my choice of fandom? Pretty lame, pal.

I'll take that to mean you've run out of arguments and therefore no longer have anything valuable to contribute to this thread. In that case, would you kindly **** off?

[AndyD]

AndyD, I can confirm, with Richard's assurance, there were only three who took part in the Falconio disgrace. Ezio, Amanda and Charmaine.

Thanks foam. News reports appeared as early as July 4 and studio taping apparently concluded on July 6. So, I guess there was at least a week between taping episodes four and five during which time the "game" took place?

PX.

It's rather frustrating to try and engage you in intelligent discussion only to find that on your return here, you ignore several members who have directly addressed your comments and you focus, instead, on the insults from one forum member.

[Legend]

Thankyou for your reply, Spock.

Why should I contribute to this "discussion" when all you'd do is ignore everything and see it from your ridiculously bias perspective. SO bias to the extent that you think we're bias.

People like AndyD who have spent a long time gathering a proper argument based on literal and factual evidence are ignored and replied to by, "you're so bias I can't understand you." But I'm the lame one?

Don't say I've run out of arguments, you haven't said anything half decent so please do not at all be so hypocritical as to say that.

Mind you, I do understand where you're coming from (Delta Quadrant, obviously...). I haven't really said anything to you other than make fun of you. However, most of what I want to say, has been said.

When you make a point that an educated person over 6 years of age would make, and not a toothless Star Trek fan, I'd like to reply. I should probably stop "insulting" you and just stick to the points. But, like I've said, you don't stick to the points, so why should I?

I'll try...

This is an edit to say that I apologise for getting in the way of other people's valid points, such as AndyD. I hope that I can be a little more mature, but my frustration is overflowing.

Alex.

[nettiemoore]

The other couple of psychics in those newspaper reports AndyD might have been Simon Turnbull and the other (I think there was one other) "psychic consultants" and contestant wranglers who were always around.

[AndyD]

Ahh, excellent point nettiemoore. Thanks.

[friendofandymilman]

If you are in Australia, you can catch Richard on channel 9 next Sunday (August 31st) at 8.30 pm in his final role as a extra, before he shot to fame in The One.

Channel 9 is screening "Scorched", a telemovie about Sydney burning and Richard plays a fire chief and fighter. He has a reasonably big role, so keep your eyes peeled!

I have photos from the set to help you identify him, posted on his Facebook fan page. I (still) can't post urls, so google Richard Saunders Fans if you are not already a member. Scroll down to photos - they are the first 5.

[Legend]

I hate you Richard. Hahaha!

You're good at so many different things! It's awesome.

I'll be watching.

Alex.

[ttguy]

So I am editing up some You Tube vids on The One and was a bit intrigued by the Ned Kelly psychic body location bit in ep 3. I must say that I disagree with Richard that the spots choosen by the contestants were random.

My theory on this is that our contestants did research. They had at least one day where they knew what they were going to be asked to do. I did a half an hour of research on the internet and found a video of the Ned Kelly Pentridge Gaol dig on reuters. This video has a clear shot of the location of the dig. If I were a consestant I would have tried to find out whe location of the dig.

Check out my youtube vide on this titled "Not The One - Not So Very Psychic Ep3p3v2" on thettguy channel.

Screen shot from reuters vid published mar 9 2008

[Damien Evans]

Parahella-idiot or whatever you are...you better shut up.

I'm freaking fuming.

Don't turn up here and think you know everything and start accusing Richard. You want to talk facts? Huh? I can tell you right now that you my friend are extremely one eyed and need to get your facts straight before you decide to look through your one-lens binocular.

People like you disgust me. Look at both sides, think about it logically and most of all, don't you dare start coming onto this thread and saying anything negative about Randi or Richard.

I also noticed that you have completely ignored the logical and correct information that AndyD has given to you. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

You are hypocritical, moronic, pathetic, mentally weak and completely lop sided. I hope that you continue believing and waste all of your money on the false and hollow rubbish involved with psychic readings.

Alex.

Easy, Legend, that won't help anything.

[AndyD]

Well done TT. There was also an Australian news report identifying the location as "at the eastern end of F Division" which might explain the vaguely similar locations of three contestants and also the fact that no two got the same location - and none got the right location. Good "psychics" need to keep up with the news of the day, especially where notable deaths are involved, so it would be a pretty poor psychic who wasn't following that story when it broke.

In the end though, a circle of 20m radius covers and area of 1200sqm. The whole area was only 4500sqm so being with that circle isn't as amazing as it sounds when Demarco says "three people got within 20m of the target that is in FOUR AND A HALF THOUSAND SQUARE METRES".

As Podblack mentioned in her review of that episode, you'd really also need to see the area in question to get an idea of how much of it was "practical" to search.

Of course, this result was largely irrelevant when seen in context of the whole series. Shé and Jason, who astonished audiences with their "remote viewing" abilities in episode one, were absolutely, positively, nowhere near the mark in this contest. The three who astounded us in this exercise failed RV in episode one. Everyone failed every other RV test in the series. If I get one question in four correct on a maths test, it doesn't make me Einstein.

The link for TTGUY's video is here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH840lIjh6M).

[Damien Evans]

Legend, it may interest you to know that many people on this forum are fans of Star Trek, so making fun of it isn't likely to endear you to many people.

[Richard]

*...posting from President Phil Plait's house.... gotta love being a skeptic.....*

Oh, poor old Ned Kelly. I guess he was just mumbling when he told the contestants where his bone *might* be.

Again, remember that THE ONE was a show made for entertainment and at no stage was it meant to be a scientific examination of the claims of our contestants.

Being on THE ONE means that I can do more of this : http://tinyurl.com/5vkeeq

Being a Mystery Investigator, performing science for school students with new partner Dr. Rachael is worth more than gold.

[Legend]

That's a good few points Richard.

[Mark Felt]

Again, remember that THE ONE was a show made for entertainment and at no stage was it meant to be a scientific examination of the claims of our contestants.

It's a pity this wasn't better advertised.

[Legend]

That's another good point!

There's no doubt that the psychics on the show were actually made to be viewed by the audience as real. The show was no doubt one that promoted psychics but obviously wasn't a critical show or debate on their legitimacy.

[AndyD]

Sorry to disagree with Richard again but, imho, the show was more advertisement than entertainment. Which is not to say Richard's participation was wasted.

[friendofandymilman]

Sorry to disagree with Richard again but, imho, the show was more advertisement than entertainment. Which is not to say Richard's participation was wasted.

AndyD, I doubt Richard would disagree that the show was one big advertisement for the psychic industry in Australia.

Don't forget that Simon Turnbull the head of the Psychics Association, was heavily involved. Some websites even allege it was his concept, and indeed he has been heard to take credit for such (on radio). As for entertainment, well a dubious form at best.

It was a tough gig for Richard. Credit where credit is due.

[AndyD]

It was a tough gig for Richard. Credit where credit is due.

Absolutely. Also, despite continued questioning of the motive, format and editing, I'm glad the show aired and don't have a problem with it airing as it did (though a little more even-handedness would have been nice). If nothing else, it pushed me to actually join the general skeptical discussion and gave me something current and local to practice on.

I'm waiting for series TWO! (I've had to shift my blog focus to other areas that aren't half as much fun - like my Ray Comfort Cartoons (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/search/label/creationism))

I doubt the show will have convinced anyone who wasn't already a believer that the contestants were psychic. What it will do, without any doubt, is increase trade for the eight who took part (publicly) and probably have a small ripple-effect through the psychic industry.

[friendofandymilman]

There is no doubt it will increase business for the psychics. However, I run a sceptical meet-up group in Sydney with a friend and we have seen an exponential increase in membership since the show went to air. Albeit, I have been blatant in cruising the various forums and recruiting (or suggesting, to put it nicely), but nevertheless.

Further, I think you will find that Alex joined the JREF as a direct result of the show. In fact, he/she (sorry Legend, but you do have an androgynous name!) said as much a few pages back in a post for Richard. Alex, can you confirm this?

So despite the fact that the psychics benefitted ostensibly more than us, there has been an increase in awareness of scepticism as a movement in Australia. And that can not be a bad thing.

Cheers.

[Richard]

Well yes the show was also about a plug for the contestants....

Anyway, I just did an interview with SGU so stay tuned.

[Legend]

There is no doubt it will increase business for the psychics. However, I run a sceptical meet-up group in Sydney with a friend and we have seen an exponential increase in membership since the show went to air. Albeit, I have been blatant in cruising the various forums and recruiting (or suggesting, to put it nicely), but nevertheless.

Further, I think you will find that Alex joined the JREF as a direct result of the show. In fact, he/she (sorry Legend, but you do have an androgynous name!) said as much a few pages back in a post for Richard. Alex, can you confirm this?

So despite the fact that the psychics benefitted ostensibly more than us, there has been an increase in awareness of scepticism as a movement in Australia. And that can not be a bad thing.

Cheers.

Not really.

I was a sceptic long before the show and didn't joing because of it (althought that was certainly a reason to join).

I actually joined because the topic of 'psychics' along with the existence of God has interested me for a long time and I think way too much! So scepticism is really my niche.

Many of my uncles and aunties believe in them and go to all of the psychic and stage shows. :crowded: So I'm trying to convert some of them. I know what you're thinking but hey, it's worth a try!

Also, this is wierd, but I do prefer it when my first name is used rather than my username, so for that friendofandymilman I thank you :)!

I look forward to that interview, Richard.

And, I'm a 15 year old guy for future reference.:D:D:D

Alex.

[nettiemoore]

I'm currently watching the Crime Investigation Australia episode just screened on the Claremont murders. Gratifyingly, "psychics" are getting criticised in the strongest possible terms, by the victims' families, a journalist and the Steve Liebmann voice over. For the anguish they bring to families, and their time wasting with "useless, cryptic clues." The father of the first victim told a terrible story of one barging her way into their home and telling his wife their daughter "had her head bashed in with a rock."

A shot of horrifying reality after the Falconio farce, I hope it some people who need the dose are watching too.

[friendofandymilman]

Not really.

I was a sceptic long before the show and didn't joing because of it (althought that was certainly a reason to join).

I actually joined because the topic of 'psychics' along with the existence of God has interested me for a long time and I think way too much! So scepticism is really my niche.

Many of my uncles and aunties believe in them and go to all of the psychic and stage shows. :crowded: So I'm trying to convert some of them. I know what you're thinking but hey, it's worth a try!

Also, this is wierd, but I do prefer it when my first name is used rather than my username, so for that friendofandymilman I thank you :)!

I look forward to that interview, Richard.

And, I'm a 15 year old guy for future reference.:D:D:D

Alex.

Hey Alex,

You can call me foam! Good on you for getting involved. I understand your quandary with trying to educate believers. You probably never will.

Have you listened to the new Skeptoid from Brian Dunning? (Skeptoid #116: How to Be a Skeptic and Still Have Friends). It might be useful when having discussions with your relatives.

I didn't want to assume you were a boy or a girl. Unlike some people you will come across on this forum, I am not here to offend. Don't be discouraged by the muck throwers

Cheers

[Legend]

I shan't be discouraged.

[Wildy]

I'm currently watching the Crime Investigation Australia episode just screened on the Claremont murders. Gratifyingly, "psychics" are getting criticised in the strongest possible terms, by the victims' families, a journalist and the Steve Liebmann voice over. For the anguish they bring to families, and their time wasting with "useless, cryptic clues." The father of the first victim told a terrible story of one barging her way into their home and telling his wife their daughter "had her head bashed in with a rock."

A shot of horrifying reality after the Falconio farce, I hope it some people who need the dose are watching too.

I know that Crime Investigation Australia show how the families get annoyed at the psychics. I guess they are trying to be balanced.

But the people who proclaim themselves to be "psychics" are just jerks, plain and simple.

[AndyD]

Just to inform, I've started a new thread about Psychics and the Claremont Serial Killer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122210) based on a story in today's West Australian in response to the CSI program nettiemoore mentioned.

[AndyD]

I've just noticed someone calling themselves eziodeangelis has commented on the Ezio video here (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=594AVuou4V4)

If anyone who was at the taping of that show would like to comment on the vid, that would be appreciated.

[cheezfri]

Reading nettie's details on the "psychic" readings make me realize the psychics would absolutely hate me. I applied all those questions to myself and came up with a "no" almost every single time. A believer might say that's because if they were reading me they would come up with different questions. I doubt it. The psychics tended to ask the same questions of everyone.

I have a daughter with a "K" name, and a sister-in-law named Kim, who I barely know and couldn't be of much significance. That was about it. None of my friends or close family has passed. My grandparents aren't big or stern. No one with heart trouble, cancer, stomach problems. No "J" names, "W" names. No house renovations.

Oh I know! All those vibrations the psychics were getting were for the person next to me, right?

There was one question a psychic from nettie's transcript that couldn't possibly have a "no" answer, and I'm surprised it wasn't used more often. It was something about "you are stronger than you realize". You could answer no I guess, but that kind of proves the psychic's point that you don't realize it!

Another tidbit I found laughable was something like "you have a son named William." (no.) "go home and think about it." What's to think about? I think I would remember if I had a son named William!

cheezfri

[George152]

I know that Crime Investigation Australia show how the families get annoyed at the psychics. I guess they are trying to be balanced.

But the people who proclaim themselves to be "psychics" are just jerks, plain and simple.
Unfortunately we have Sensing Murder (known as Sensing BS) running on TV at the moment.
The police asked these scam merchants to see if they could shed light on a missing woman.
As you'd expect it was a big nothing with all the usual cold reading techniques and the uncritical falling over themselves.
Both of these 'psychics' are Australians......

[Legend]

NEW VIDEO!

Check this video out people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFgkrFW1lzo

Pretty much a basic deconstruction of "The One".

Alex.

[Legend]

Both of these 'psychics' are Australians......

Haha, would've never guessed you are from New Zealand. ;)

Alex
(who is from Australia)

[ttguy]

I've just noticed someone calling themselves eziodeangelis has commented on the Ezio video

If anyone who was at the taping of that show would like to comment on the vid, that would be appreciated.

The video has been taken down. Did you get a copy right violation take down notice?

I also can't follow the conversations in the comments. It says:

AndyDMBWA61: "Could you clarify? What did happen during the missing three minutes during which time no hits were scored? "

eziodeangelis: "This is untrue "

what is untrue?

[friendofandymilman]

If you are in Sydney and can stomach it, a few of us are going to Ezio's show at the Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL on October 15 at 8 pm. The purpose is to write a critique on the methods of cold reading.

Send me a message/PM if;
a) you wish to join us
b) can't believe I would put myself through that
c) want to tell me I'm a fool
d) all of the above, or
d) other (please elaborate).

[wombatwal]

I had a look at Ezio's website.
He is doing a number of shows in and around the greater Sydney area.
I noticed he is doing one on Friday 10th October at Ingleburn RSL. Well I live at Ingleburn so will probably go. It is interesting that he charges different prices at different venues. The cheapest is $20 at my local RSL, Canterbury Hurlstone is $30 and $25 at others. So I save $10 plus petrol if I go local.
His shows URL below.
http://www.eziodeangelis.com.au/calendar.php

[AndyD]

If you are in Sydney and can stomach it, a few of us are going to Ezio's show at the Canterbury Hurlstone Park RSL on October 15 at 8 pm. The purpose is to write a critique on the methods of cold reading.

Please reconsider.

[AndyD]

Recent events have made it clear that although the producers of The One invited differing opinions from viewers and even included a skeptic to question the validity of claims in the studio, the contestants (one, at least) have quite a different idea about skepticism and will resort to lawyers to impose their view by threatening defamation action against critics.

One practical response to this seems to be for Richard to threaten law suits against those woo sites that mention him in a derogatory vein based on the few seconds per week they got to see of him. I'll happily search the comments out.

[Richard]

One practical response to this seems to be for Richard to threaten law suits against those woo sites that mention him in a derogatory vein based on the few seconds per week they got to see of him. I'll happily search the comments out.

I like to think that I am better than that. I will not stoop to their level.

Peter Bowditch as another way, he always publishes letters he gets from people who threaten legal action.

[AndyD]

I like to think that I am better than that. I will not stoop to their level.

I know. But I'm in one of those moods at the moment. Plus, I think you'd have a case!

[AndyD]

TTGUY said:

Originally Posted by AndyD
I've just noticed someone calling themselves eziodeangelis has commented on the Ezio video

If anyone who was at the taping of that show would like to comment on the vid, that would be appreciated.
The video has been taken down. Did you get a copy right violation take down notice?

I also can't follow the conversations in the comments. It says:

AndyDMBWA61: "Could you clarify? What did happen during the missing three minutes during which time no hits were scored? "

eziodeangelis: "This is untrue "

what is untrue?

Sorry, ttguy, I missed this.

No copyright violation. I did add a copyright notice to the summary, after reading your notice (thanks) so maybe I was updating it or something when you checked in as it should still have been there. However, I deleted it last night after a defamation threat. I messaged you about it on Youtube so check your inbox if you know where it is (I didn't until last night)

If you're still confused, the Youtube comments read upwards so you have to swap them. The first comment "untrue" was about the video, the second was my response.

[friendofandymilman]

Recent events have made it clear that although the producers of The One invited differing opinions from viewers and even included a skeptic to question the validity of claims in the studio, the contestants (one, at least) have quite a different idea about skepticism and will resort to lawyers to impose their view by threatening defamation action against critics

I'm sorry to hear about this nonsense AndyD. Litigious psychics, sparks suspicion doesn't it. Congratulations on your work to date. I genuinely hope you may continue.

FOAM

[friendofandymilman]

Please reconsider.

And with respect to you, I will

[AndyD]

Err, thanks foam but I don't want to be influential here :blush: When I wrote "please reconsider" I was in a stinking mood and seriously wondering why we all do what we do?

There were two reasons I made that plea:
1: The thought of anyone actually adding to Ezio's income.
2: The thought of his response to critique causing others grief.

Note that I didn't say "don't go" :) By the letter of the law, it would seem such an instruction would be defamatory :jaw-dropp

It's a dilemma (I see someone else on JREF is facing the same dilemma regarding attending a John Edward show) - do you increase their income in the interests of research and accurate critique or is it better to keep the money in your own pocket but let them go unchallenged?

Can I ask where the critique was to be published? JREF? Blogs? Aus Skeptics?

[friendofandymilman]

I agree with you about the income, same old dilemma hey? Do we go and debunk them or stay well away. I really don't reckon my $35 bucks will make a big dent in his coffers since there will another 200 other stupid people there also.

To be honest with you, I don't think I could stand an hour of; "can I come to you my sweets? Has there been a problem with the pipes my lovely?, Am I sounding like a broken record of cold reading, and what's with that botoxed woman's face and boob job on Ghost Whisperer?" Ooh, sorry, got distracted.

As for publishing, most likely the mag, but there is also the skepticzone blog (http://skepticzone.wordpress.com/) and our brand spanking new fledgling blog The Skeptics book of Pooh-Pooh (http://scepticsbook.com/), inspired by Stacey herself.