The One - Australian TV

[Richard]

This is a clipping from the Sydney Morning Herald. Please note that I cannot comment on the show myself.

BTW.. it's Australian TV, not Australain!

[wombatwal]

Richard, how will you eliminate them.
The worst cold reader.
The worst guesser.
The one who is the most logical.
The most sceptical.
Or do you have a "Psychic criteria."

[grayman]

Richard, how will you eliminate them.


"Soprano" style would be nice.

[-Fran-]

They will lose a child for them to find? :confused:

[Giraffe107]

And it's being hosted by a Daddo- the horror, the horror!

[Hokulele]

Why limit it to seven? Eliminate all of them! :D

[Showmeproof]

Why limit it to seven? Eliminate all of them! :D

Why stop at seven? lol. Keep brining them on so they make fools out of themselves.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Word

[arthwollipot]

What's the definition of a "gifted" psychic?

[Whiplash]

Lots of charisma?

[rjh01]

I get the picture. They test one psychic each week. He fails so he is eliminated. The show runs for 6 weeks. That would leave 1 person left untested who is then declared the winner.

Any serious attempt to test any psychic will result in the psychic been shown to have no ability. That has what the MDC has shown. Have the produces allowed for that?

Seriously
What happens if one psychic says he has no experience finding lost children? But he can do other tests? Are they allowed to have a bye?

What experience have you had in exposing psychics? I mean some of their tricks can be hard to spot.

[Richard]

I get the picture. They test one psychic each week. He fails so he is eliminated. The show runs for 6 weeks. That would leave 1 person left untested who is then declared the winner.


Sort of like that. I cannot go into details. The show will be screened in about 3 weeks or so.

[Giraffe107]

Working for Channel 7 are you?

[Whiplash]

It would make more logical sense (if you can refer to logical sense in regards to psychics) to test them all every week, and eliminate based on the one who performs the "worst" of them all in that given week. If it's as setup as rhj01 describes, that would be a complete farce and travesty.

[skeptic of oz]

Yeah I was going to say how terrible it is for such a show to be on but it's great that a skeptic will be on.
Let's hope that he will be given equal time and a fair hearing. Although if history is any indicator he won't.
Many Oz members of this forum may remember a 1980 " debate" between Don lane and James Randi which they still somehows show highlights of.
Lane talked over Randi the whole time (interview? it was no such thing!)and then told Randi that he could "piss off!" and went to an ad break.
Does any on this forum remember that?
As it turned out Randi was proved right in regards to Geller et al (as usual)and it came to light that one of the paranormal "practictioners" that Lane was defending was actually a close friend of his...:mad:

[skeptic of oz]

I forgot to mention it before but this is sort of related...
Last week in the Daily Telegraph in the Careers Section there was a profile (they profile people who have made it in various careers) of a woman who was an Astrologer and Tarot Reader!
A major daily newspaper actually had this in their careers section.
How do things get this low?:eye-poppi

[Damien Evans]

Yeah I was going to say how terrible it is for such a show to be on but it's great that a skeptic will be on.
Let's hope that he will be given equal time and a fair hearing. Although if history is any indicator he won't.
Many Oz members of this forum may remember a 1980 " debate" between Don lane and James Randi which they still somehows show highlights of.
Lane talked over Randi the whole time (interview? it was no such thing!)and then told Randi that he could "piss off!" and went to an ad break.
Does any on this forum remember that?
As it turned out Randi was proved right in regards to Geller et al (as usual)and it came to light that one of the paranormal "practictioners" that Lane was defending was actually a close friend of his...:mad:

Well, I don't remember it, since I wasn't alive then, but I've seen the clip, yes.

Certainly not Don Lanes finest hour.

[arthwollipot]

Well, I don't remember it, since I wasn't alive then, but I've seen the clip, yes.

Certainly not Don Lanes finest hour.Did he have any fine hours?

[deverett]

Don't expect too much from this.

A good friend of mine who is a magician (definitely not a psychic, nor claiming to be) was sent application materials from the producers and asked to join.

Dave Everett

[deverett]

I should also point out that this show ran in the UK a few years back.

Another friend of mine was the sceptic, he is a professional magician. He was frustrated every week. He felt he was a token sceptic to give the show some credibility.

Dave Everett

[skeptic of oz]

Deverett that's exactly what's worrying me.
Michael Shermer was often the "token skeptic"for these sorts of things and this is starting to sound depressingly familiar:(

Why is there always just a "token"skeptic.
Of course. Reason and freethought aren't as good for ratings...

[Richard]

News of the show...

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+One:+The+Search+for+Australia%27s+ Most+Gifted+Psychic%22&num=20&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1B2DVFA_enAU230AU231&filter=0&aq=t

[ail]

Richard
"...Head of Program Development Brad Lyons echoes Daddo's thoughts saying he's been amazed by the psychics' form in the program to date. 'I'm far from a believer, but I do admit there were several outcomes in the first show that shocked me,...' - By WIN Television Jun 12, 2008

I understand you cannot comment on the show but you may be able to help me with two questions.

1. Do you agree that Brad Lyons is "far from a believer" ?
2. Would you recommend that my children watch this show ?

[lionking]

Jeez, I thought this stuff was restricted to Foxtel. Give it your best shot Richard, but I am certain it will be edited to make the psychics look good. Sadly, I will now have to watch.

[Richard]

Richard
"...Head of Program Development Brad Lyons echoes Daddo's thoughts saying he's been amazed by the psychics' form in the program to date. 'I'm far from a believer, but I do admit there were several outcomes in the first show that shocked me,...' - By WIN Television Jun 12, 2008

I understand you cannot comment on the show but you may be able to help me with two questions.

1. Do you agree that Brad Lyons is "far from a believer" ?
2. Would you recommend that my children watch this show ?

1. I have not meet Brad so I can not answer that.
2. Yes. I think we all can learn from the show in one way or another.

[Magenta]

Just wondering if this is connected to the show mentioned in the OP or if it's a different load of drivel:

A worker at the Ti-Tree Roadhouse, 200 kilometres north of Alice Springs, says a reality TV show was in the area this week trying to find the remains of murdered British backpacker Peter Falconio.

Mr Falconio disappeared from near Barrow Creek in July 2001.

Ti-Tree Roadhouse yardsman Geoff Grant says the 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)

[PBTree]

So Richard, is this your way of drumming up business for the show?

Why don't you just tell Ch7 to stick their show where the sun doesn't shine and advertise the fact that you have. Saying that any self-respecting skeptic would be a fool to take on this obviously 'slanted towards psychic ' TV competition?

:)

[Richard]

So Richard, is this your way of drumming up business for the show?

Why don't you just tell Ch7 to stick their show where the sun doesn't shine and advertise the fact that you have. Saying that any self-respecting skeptic would be a fool to take on this obviously 'slanted towards psychic ' TV competition?

:)

Hmmm... so when Randi goes on 'slanted towards psychic' shows to put his case..... oh never mind.

[ail]

Hmmm... so when Randi goes on 'slanted towards psychic' shows to put his case..... oh never mind.


Richard

By this are you suggesting that this show is/will be slanted towards psychics ?

[EHocking]

Hmmm... so when Randi goes on 'slanted towards psychic' shows to put his case..... oh never mind.well, I hope they dump it to the internet, 'cos I'm not in Oz any more. Good luck with this Richard, you're going to need it if this is the sort of thing you're having to deal with from your co-judge.

"Even though Richard comes across with the scientific stuff, my job is to translate how these people get the messages and what they do, this is their process. For example ? this person is using psychometry that's just as scientific."

My bolding :covereyes

[Richard]

Richard

By this are you suggesting that this show is/will be slanted towards psychics ?

Very good question. I have not seen the edit of the show but during the production I have been putting the case for science and reason.

[rjh01]

When will it be shown on TV?

[PBTree]

Hmmm... so when Randi goes on 'slanted towards psychic' shows to put his case..... oh never mind.

No, when Randi goes on shows, they know they are going to get someone who will show them how these thieving, no conscience frauds do it. He shows the audience that it is something anyone can do. ie "Watch me do this Uri Geller trick".

Is that what you are doing on the show? Are you sitting there saying; "here's how the last competitor did that".

If you can't say that you are actually debunking the people on the show and showing the watchers how they do (or did) it, then I still think you are drumming up business.

I won't be watching because if I saw you sitting there as the resident skeptic, saying "I don't know how they did that" (because you don't know the trick), I would have to throw the coffee table at the tv. That will just make them look all the more believable.

[Magenta]

OK, to answer my own question (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3830921&postcount=26), it is the same show. More info in today's news:

REALITY TV has sunk to a new low, with psychics this week scouring the desert in a competition to find the remains of murdered British backpacker Peter Falconio.

A team from coming Channel 7 show The One stayed for two nights at the Ti-Tree Roadhouse, 200km north of Alice Springs, leaving on Wednesday.

Source (http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23970915-5016681,00.html)

[rjh01]

I am sure glad I am not associated with that show.

[wombatwal]

Richard
Would it be possible for you to make a comment on your take on how the show turned out after seeing it on Tuesday night.
I just hope it is not a whitewash on you.

[Richard]

Richard
Would it be possible for you to make a comment on your take on how the show turned out after seeing it on Tuesday night.
I just hope it is not a whitewash on you.

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.

[ail]

I won't be watching because if I saw you sitting there as the resident skeptic, saying "I don't know how they did that" (because you don't know the trick), I would have to throw the coffee table at the tv. That will just make them look all the more believable.

Well better get that coffee table ready because in the TV show promo the only quote from Richard is "well I don't know exactly how she did it..."

[brodski]

I used my magic quantum crystal energy powers to alter the thread title, do I get to win? Or at least not be eliminated by Richard and his Pigasus air force...

[Richard]

Well better get that coffee table ready because in the TV show promo the only quote from Richard is "well I don't know exactly how she did it..."

the ... says a lot. Fear not.. on the last show I make it clear.

[Miss Cranky Pants]

Any chance we can see the show here in the US? Richard ... I am hoping that the truth doesn't get edited out! I very much hope that good things come to you from this show.

[Richard]

Any chance we can see the show here in the US? Richard ... I am hoping that the truth doesn't get edited out! I very much hope that good things come to you from this show.

The spirits must be mad at me as my digital recorder blew up. I'm sure someone in Australia will record the show and it will end up on a torrent or whatever. I'll know if I have done my job right if I get heckled in the streets by the wo wo crowd.

[nettiemoore]

I think there's a fair discussion to be had about skeptics appearing on shows like this because we all know the trend is very much to screw us over. But they are going to make this show anyway and better they get an experienced skeptic like Richard than some Channel Seven celebrity to be the token. He knows what he's seeing and can break it down in a few sentences. Just getting the words "cold reading" out there in the public at prime time is valuable. When you google it the top results are all solid skeptical links.

We all know the true believers can rarely be swayed and yeah the "psychics" are going to see a swelling of the bank balance as a result, even after failure. That's going to happen anyway. Talking to other people in the audience, many people are intrigued by the concept and perhaps had had "experiences" of their own but were still able to see the validity of the cold reading explanations once you laid it out for them. We need to have someone up there providing that opportunity, however curtailed by the demands of crappy TV. I think Richard is very brave to put himself in the firing line -- from the mystery-mongers and the skeptics.

I was at the studio for the taping of three episodes, including the finale yesterday, and can say Richard has absolutely nailed the "psychics" in his comments. A bit of "I don't know how she did it but I'm not convinced" in the first episode goes a long way to diffuse the constant "closed minded" criticism (which I loathe, skeptic=open minded by definition, you fools.), and makes the PWNage later more effective. The host and whole production was setting up the "close minded" fallacy as a trap, walking straight into it does nothing for our message in the long term. So, don't sweat the promo grab.

What they choose to show via editing is out of our control but I would personally rather 10% of something than 100% of nothing.

Anyway, if you are going to watch I recommend getting Skeptico's Cold Reading Bingo cards and play along at home. :) I'm not allowed to post the link 'cause I haven't made 15 posts but anyway, google it!

[PBTree]

The spirits must be mad at me as my digital recorder blew up. I'm sure someone in Australia will record the show and it will end up on a torrent or whatever. I'll know if I have done my job right if I get heckled in the streets by the wo wo crowd.



Can you now research how these people did things you didn't understand and come out in public with the answers? ie This forum, or the daily newspapers/other tv stations.

Or did you sign a "I won't say a word after the show" contract?

[nettiemoore]

Can you now research how these people did things you didn't understand and come out in public with the answers?

Richard can speak for himself but .... They didn't do anything he doesn't understand and moreover that is not what he is quoted as saying in the promo, which I presume is all you have seen. The exact quote is: "I'm not exactly sure how she did it." Which is a perfectly accurate thing to say if it relates to the "challenge" I am thinking of, which was not a cold reading type one.

[Richard]

Can you now research how these people did things you didn't understand and come out in public with the answers? ie This forum, or the daily newspapers/other tv stations.

Or did you sign a "I won't say a word after the show" contract?

Yes., good points. I am free to put my case and I did so on the show. What I won't do is blab about what happened on the the show before it goes out as that would be spoilers. Hell, there are lots of people who just want to see what happens each week.

[ail]

The online voting poll to the question

Are you a believer or a skeptic?

Has Believer at 36% and skeptic at 64% with 1172 respondants

And this is before the show has aired !



http://au.tv.yahoo.com/b/the-one/

[rjh01]

37 to 63% with 1202 votes. Looks like a few believers voted.

You are allowed to vote often.

[Richard]

You might like to see what the other judge - Stacey Demarco has to say so far on her blog.

http://themodernwitch.blogspot.com/2008/07/wowbig-reaction-and-it-hasnt-even.html

[Wolfman]

Personally, I applaud Richard's efforts here.

Not every skeptical appearance has to be about unequivocally debunking psychics or other purveyors of woo. Randi's various shows and demonstrations are a good example...yes, he debunked a number of people quite soundly, but the very nature of his shows meant that A) a lot of woos would simply refuse to appear on his show, and B) the audience that he attracts will tend to be an audience that is already more skeptical.

Richard is working in a different medium. He won't be (I presume) actually debunking these people and showing them up as frauds. But he'll be raising legitimate questions, raising obvious problems, etc. He'll have the chance to appear with people who would never dare to appear with James Randi. And he'll be reaching an audience many of whom would never watch James Randi.

If by his presence on this show, he's able to simply get some small portion of the viewers questioning the abilities of the performers, or looking at the performances more critically, he'll have accomplished something important.

Even more importantly, perhaps, he'll be gaining significantly higher celebrity status; he'll be a recognized face, a recognized name. He'll have many more opportunities to do other appearances at which he'll be able to present his own opinions and beliefs more clearly than might be allowed on this particular TV show. He'll become a defacto spokesman for skepticism, and have the opportunity to reach far, far more people than he does at present.

In the process of doing this, he's also going to be subjecting himself to all sorts of criticism and abuse. Both from the woo community who will condemn him for being closed-minded, and from those in the skeptical community who will berate him for "not doing enough".

Come on, people. The man's already done more to promote skepticism than the majority of members here; and this TV show is going to give him the opportunity to do much more (if not on the TV show itself, then in the many new opportunities he'll get afterwards).

I say kudos to Richard for doing this. I wish that there were more skeptics actually getting involved (and particularly trying to reach out somewhat to the woo communities), rather than sitting on their posteriors and ruminating online with other people who already pretty much believe the same things they do.

Its people like Richard who are going to help the skeptical movement grow and develop.

[ail]

Richard,

How did it come about that you were involved in the show?

[Richard]

Richard,

How did it come about that you were involved in the show?

I was asked by the producers after they saw a clip of me on another show. They were after someone who could perform on TV but also knew the topic. They also didn't want someone who would just sit there and say 'it's all BS'.

And I didn't want them to use a fake 'skeptic', a personality or academic who thinks they know how things work. It was hard, very hard. It tested ME more than the contestants I think. I am also alone on the show, the only voice of reason.

[PBTree]

Good points Wolfman and I hope you are right. :)

[Richard]

Now it starts...

5LCXDEvOdF0

[nettiemoore]

Homework for Andrew Daddo:

-- definition of "skeptic"
-- concept of "subjective validation"

Don't come out of your room until you're finished!

[flim flam]

i have the pleasure of watching "the one" as im typing this. im torn between cheering for richard and kicking the tv screen. cold reading..check!, retrofitting..check!. lots of " you must be open minded.." but only if you're a sceptic, if you're a true bleever you arent being asked to be open to the possibility that its all made up crap. im actually astounded at how rubbish they all are. your average magician could do a far more convincing job. mind you, the "Dr of reiki" looks like steven seagal crossed with a hippy librarian. they are soooooooo bad. im sensing a man/women/dog. you are an old man in your 60's, hmmm must be a heart condition! bingo!. you have a prostate "issue". turns out the old fella doesnt but apparently thats a hit too. lots of asking questions. ooh, this is too funny - "im sensing you have plumbing isses" plumbing issues!!. "is someone having a birthday? she's showing me a cake" bleaugh!!. and surely if they're the best psychics they already know who's going to win?. anyway, i can already tell that i'll be watching the whole series in horrified fascination. kudos to you richard for giving it a go. the look on your face for much of the show is definately worth it. how hard was it not to just sit there rolling your eyes and shouting?. i reckon it's probably the most skeptical it's possible to be on woo friendly commercial television.

[hughie522]

Well, suffice to say I'm convinced.

I've abandoned all rational thought and converted to woo. No, not really. The first episode of Australia's Most Gifted Psychic aired tonight and, well...

...it's a solid hour of entertainment for those without a skeptical bone in their bodies. For everyone else, it's Psychic Detectives all over again.

If you wanted to write a book on psychic cliches, this would be it. They even did some silly cold reading nonesense with unrestricted feedback. And Richard Saunders was a complete tool of the program. Any credibility he may have had has now been blown completely out of the water.

This is something for the woo woo crowd, and nothing more. There was no attempt to disprove or rationalise anything. It's all, "Well, he was certainly close!" and, "He knew things he couldn't have known!"

Ooh, wow, it's amazing, a miracle, sign me up for a thousand crystals and some applied kinesiology.

Dark days, my friends. Very dark days.

[lionking]

Despite asking my family to let me know when "The One" is being shown (not being a Channel 7 watcher) I only get to see the tail end. My family tells me that Andrew Daddo looks skeptical as well. Hope so. But good to see you on the big screen Richard.

[lionking]

Yeah well as much as I do not want to be critical of new members, Richard has done more for skepticism in Australia than most. Who's the tool?

[Jonquill]

Thanks for the reminder, it's due to be shown in Peth in half an hour's time, I shall attempt to watch it although I can already feel my disgustometer starting to twitch.

[deverett]

Just finished watching the 1st episode.

The search for the missing boy was problematic. The area was bounded and the "psychics" were told when they had reached a boundary. This limits the search area. Also after the first attempt, even if the camera crew were unaware of the boy's location before, they were for every subsequent search which could possibly bias the results.

Only one moved almost directly towards where the boy was hidden. She said, he's near some burnt trees, well you could look in any direction and find burnt trees.

I found the overhead map misleading. They showed the boy's position as a red dot, but the psychic was always shown as a yellow arrow, almost always pointing towards the boy's position.

The "psychics" should not have been allowed into the search area as almost all of them claimed remote viewing ability and should have limited their work to pointing on a map. That would be their only attempt, instead the format allowed them to keep searching and changing their paths during a 15 minute time limit.

The stage performances later on were rather poor except for the last man who "read" only one person and was making significant hits about fairly specific information. Again without revealing any mentalism methods, I have replicated this but I would generally do it with more than one person.

Dave Everett

[wombatwal]

Hughie522 I think you are being very unfair to Richard.
We have not seen the whole show, so who knows how much has been edited out, do you?
Richard is in a difficult spot. He cannot be totally anti the woo or he would not be able to be on the show. We need someone who has some sceptical credibility on the show so give him a chance. Lets see how things pan out over the whole series.

[Jonquill]

First psychic Raylene (?) traipsing through the bush says 'I thought I was going the right way but then I felt something telling me to turn around'- footage of her approaching what appeared to be a steep rocky descent.

[Richard]

Thanks for the nice comments. Wow.. so long the in studio for 1 hour of TV.

[Jonquill]

Was that whole area of bush equally easy to travel through?
I had the impression from the film that there were some areas of thicker bush or steep rocky slopes that would not be practical to take a child?
It looked like a big area from above, but on the ground were there some areas that it was obvious that you wouldn't go into?

[ail]

After first episode

The online voting poll to the question

Are you a believer or a skeptic?

Has Believer at 58% and skeptic at 42% with 2215 respondants

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/b/the-one/ (http://au.tv.yahoo.com/b/the-one/)

Richard,

My perception of the first episode is that it has been heavily edited. Edited to focus on the exciting hits rather than provide a balanced representation of the results.

How would you rank the first episodes editing ?

[dustbunny]

Well, suffice to say I'm convinced.

I've abandoned all rational thought and converted to woo. No, not really. The first episode of Australia's Most Gifted Psychic aired tonight and, well...

...it's a solid hour of entertainment for those without a skeptical bone in their bodies. For everyone else, it's Psychic Detectives all over again.

If you wanted to write a book on psychic cliches, this would be it. They even did some silly cold reading nonesense with unrestricted feedback. And Richard Saunders was a complete tool of the program. Any credibility he may have had has now been blown completely out of the water.

This is something for the woo woo crowd, and nothing more. There was no attempt to disprove or rationalise anything. It's all, "Well, he was certainly close!" and, "He knew things he couldn't have known!"

Ooh, wow, it's amazing, a miracle, sign me up for a thousand crystals and some applied kinesiology.

Dark days, my friends. Very dark days.

In England we had a series called A Sense of Murder (I think that's right) that was made using Australian and New Zealand psychics. It's unlikely we'll get to see the show you mentioned but I was wondering if some of them were used on the show. I can't find any sceptical views about them. Do you know of any helpful websites?

[Richard]

How would you rank the first episodes editing ?

Hmmm, hard to say. Yes, much of what was filmed was not shown.. but that's TV. I was not too unhappy with it. Keep watching and remember to keep score of how our contestants do on the location tests.

[Nankay]

C'mon folks..vote, vote vote

[EHocking]

C'mon folks..vote, vote voteAn absolutely pointless poll.

You can repeatedly vote with no checks.

So someone with a bit of time on their hands can skew that quite easily - and no doubt will, or has...

[wombatwal]

In England we had a series called A Sense of Murder (I think that's right) that was made using Australian and New Zealand psychics. It's unlikely we'll get to see the show you mentioned but I was wondering if some of them were used on the show. I can't find any sceptical views about them. Do you know of any helpful websites?

Here is the website for that show.
There are some sceptics in the forum for the show.
http://www.sensingmurder.co.nz/regfrm/

[wafonso]

The "psychics" should not have been allowed into the search area as almost all of them claimed remote viewing ability and should have limited their work to pointing on a map. That would be their only attempt, instead the format allowed them to keep searching and changing their paths during a 15 minute time limit.

Acting as a bit of a devil's advocate, that's not quite true... "remote viewing" might conceivably mean actually seeing the location one is looking for, and that is not going to tell you where it is, only what it looks like. With that in mind, it makes sense to allow them to look for a place that matches what they allege to be seeing.

That said, yes, they did seem to have a lot of time to search around the area; enough to follow one of the paths all the way to the end and still come back to the correct side. And their cold reading display was simply ridiculous... "do you know any Mary? how about Bob?" Come on!

[Jonquill]

Amazing how the bloke that ran the fastest was one of the ones to find the kid.

I thought that cold reading was rather good, apart from the first 'Do you know Barbara or Bob?' the old duck seemed to agree with everything else, she agreed with so much in fact that I was starting to wonder if she was the psychic's auntie.

[Jonquill]

Amanda-Rousetty, Charmaine Wilson, Ezio De Angelis, She D'Montford, Rayleen Kable and Jason Betts are the psychics, who is the seventh?

I have been amusing myself this morning looking for their websites.

[nettiemoore]

Amanda-Rousetty, Charmaine Wilson, Ezio De Angelis, She D'Montford, Rayleen Kable and Jason Betts are the psychics, who is the seventh?


Mitchell Coombs. Personal psychic to Kyle and Jackie O. :covereyes

[Jonquill]

Ah, yes thanks, how could I forget him.

Did that She D'Montford claim to be a doctor of anything on the show?

"Shé has an honorary doctorate in religion & philosophy, specializing in Tibetan and Hindu Shamanism and ancient warrior codes as well as a degree in metaphysics."

Sounds dodgy.

[nettiemoore]

She does call herself Rev. Dr. but can't remember if I've seen from where. Jason Betts also calls himself doctor as he has an honorray PhD from the "Open International University of Complementary Medicines (Sri Lanka)." He has a real maths degree from U. Tas though.

[Jonquill]

Yes, Jason has a big list of credentials and if you send him some money "in cash or Australia Post Money Order" he can give you a long distance psychic reading or even heal you.
Astounding.

http://www.emeraldalchemy.com/psychic/index.htm

[nettiemoore]

Ratings (national) report from Crikey.com.au:

Last night's TV ratings
The Winners: Seven News was tops again with 1.560 million, with the Seven's The One: Australia's Most Gifted Psychic at 7.30pm second with 1.468 million (the Daddo factor no doubt), the fresh episodes of Two and a Half Men at 8.30pm to 9.30pm averaged 1.447 million and Today Tonight was 4th with 1.385 million people. Wipeout on Nine at 7.30pm averaged 1.339 million and the second repeat episode of NCIS at 9.30pm averaged 1.318 million. The fresh episode of All Saints at 8.30pm averaged 1.274 million in 8th spot and A Current Affair was 9th with 1.266 million viewers. Nine News was 10th with 1.229 million and Home and Away averaged 1.229 million at 7pm for Seven. The 7pm ABC News was 12th with 1.205 million and the first repeat of NCIS at 8.30pm averaged 1.071 million. The Simpsons repeat at 8pm averaged 1.053 million on Ten in 14th spot and the fresh Simpsons episode at 7.30pm averaged 1.025 million.

[Jonquill]

What about the woman that claims to help the police solve crimes - there was no mention of that on her website - rather enjoyed her predictions for 2008 though.

http://www.angelbreeze.com.au/?page_id=34

http://www.angelbreeze.com.au/?page_id=23

[Cuddles]

Two threads on this subject merged. The posts are ordered chronologically, so they may be a bit mixed up. Sorry for any confusion.

[Richard]

We are trying to find a torrent. My VCR did not work so I don't have the show.

[Richard]

Right... this might work. Run a torrent search for

the.one1x01.avi

[Richard]

Sigh... still working on the torrent... for now here are some reports on the show.

http://podblack.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/part-one-of-there-can-be-only-the-one/

http://podblack.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/part-two-of-there-can-be-only-the-one/

[PBTree]

Why is that nobody ever says to these pyschics,
"ok, you can see the future and dead people etc and you knew well in advance that you were coming on this show".
"can you please sit over there and write down all of the answers to the questions we are going to ask you"?
"here is a map, can you mark the grave of the missing person"?

When you get the stupified look from the contestant, just ask,

"surely you know exactly what we are going to ask"?
"I mean, you are psychic, aren't you"?

:nope: :nope:

[arthwollipot]

Once again, it comes down to exactly what they claim to be able to do. As Randi says, you can't get a piano player to demonstrate their musical ability by asking them to play a violin.

[wafonso]

Why is that nobody ever says to these pyschics,
"ok, you can see the future and dead people etc and you knew well in advance that you were coming on this show".
"can you please sit over there and write down all of the answers to the questions we are going to ask you"?

Well, they did ask them to predict who would be the three finalists...

[PBTree]

Once again, it comes down to exactly what they claim to be able to do. As Randi says, you can't get a piano player to demonstrate their musical ability by asking them to play a violin.



Maybe not but I bet most piano players could hum the tune based upon the violin's sheet music.

You could also get around that by requesting these people explain what they can do before they attend and then tell them there will be a set of questions waiting for them on the show. So bring along their answers.

[hughie522]

I'll apologise for labelling Mr. Saunders a tool; I'm sure he's not, but with the way Channel 7 edited it there was certainly the impression that little strings were making him nod at everything that was being said.

I'm easily agitated and every now and then delude myself into believing, 'this time it will be different'.

[arthwollipot]

Maybe not but I bet most piano players could hum the tune based upon the violin's sheet music.

You could also get around that by requesting these people explain what they can do before they attend and then tell them there will be a set of questions waiting for them on the show. So bring along their answers.Yes, this is the normal process for the MDC. Get the claimant to state exactly what it is that they can do, and what conditions would constitute a success.

I'll apologise for labelling Mr. Saunders a tool; I'm sure he's not, but with the way Channel 7 edited it there was certainly the impression that little strings were making him nod at everything that was being said.

I'm easily agitated and every now and then delude myself into believing, 'this time it will be different'.Actually, I read your statement not as saying that Richard was a tool, but as saying that Richard was a "tool of the programme" - ie. a piece of equipment that they use for a specific purpose.

[Richard]

I'll apologise for labelling Mr. Saunders a tool; I'm sure he's not, but with the way Channel 7 edited it there was certainly the impression that little strings were making him nod at everything that was being said.

I'm easily agitated and every now and then delude myself into believing, 'this time it will be different'.

That's OK. I note that many skeptics are speaking up online about the show. Look, this show won't change much, I just hope it brings more attention to Australian Skeptics. In fact I have media interviews lined up so I will be putting my case.

Remember to keep score on each show and thank you for all your support.

[Richard]

Right... found a torrent (thanks Amanda)

http://chronictracker.com

you need to sign up, it's simple.. then run a search for

The.One-Australias

[Senex]

That's OK. I note that many skeptics are speaking up online about the show. Look, this show won't change much, I just hope it brings more attention to Australian Skeptics. In fact I have media interviews lined up so I will be putting my case.

Remember to keep score on each show and thank you for all your support.

As far as I know you are unique for fame as a skeptic without being famous first in another area. I know you perform magic and write but unlike Randi or Hitchens you became a well known skeptic first.

Kudos for your unique career in skepticism! You know you have my non-monetary support from the other side of the world. i'd say a prayer for you but we know that would be a waste of time ;)

[AndyD]

I've posted a few articles on my opinion of the show's premise and promotion and a review of episode one on my blog (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/).

Direct links to articles:

THE ONE: The search for Australia's most gullible audience (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-search-for-australias-most-gullible.html)
The One: Episode one (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-one.html)
The One: Episode one, take two! (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-one-take-two.html)
A prediction (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/prediction.html)

My call for predictions on the olympians in the upcoming show:
What can we know? (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-can-we-know.html)

Apparently I either can't post pics or this forum doesn't accept them so my "cartoon" here:
The One: A bit of fun (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-bit-of-fun.html)

For those who can't be bothered reading all that, I'll summarise by stating that all promotional material for the show is absolutely closed-minded. There is barely a suggestion that skepticism will even be tolerated in regards to what will be televised. We are told the contests ARE psychics. We are told one judge IS psychic and we are advised to suspend disbelief but, as someone noted above, no one's told to suspend their belief.

Whilst Richard's skepticism was challenged by Daddo, with questions about his willingness to believe and what it would take for him to do so, I don't recall his "psychic" counterpart being asked what it would take for her to abandon her delusions.

Conclusion from episode 1: Credulous whitewash. When Richard says he was alone, he isn't exaggerating. The contestants are against him. The other judge is against him. The host finds him amusing. The ad department can't stand him. The editor apparently despises him. A large part of the viewing audience presumably think he's an idiot. And the spirits have even started screwing up his video equipment!

"Alone" is probably an understatement.

Richard: Unless I misunderstood, you said you've taped the final show. How can this be if the final decision is to be made by public voting? Were only genuine psychics allowed to vote since no one else is in a position to judge the remaining shows. If so, the phones must have been running cold.

On a side note: Is anyone here from Aussie Bad Psychics? If so, can I ask why is there no review of this show on the site? All we're given is some cut and paste promotional material which is anything but skeptical. Not even a one-line dismissal of this nonsense. Is the site all but dead?

I've seen the detailed and humorous reviews at PodBlack's blog (http://podblack.wordpress.com/) and a bit at FlopEaredMule (http://flopearedmule.net/2008/07/andrew-daddo-is-no-harry-houdi.html) but are there any other Aussie blogs covering this stupidity?

Stacey Demarco is certainly making the most of the very positive exposure, using it to promote her services on her blog. (http://themodernwitch.blogspot.com/2008/07/happy-you-enjoyed-it.html)

[Gib]

Thanks for the torrent Richard, but unfortunately there aren't any seeders. If anyone already has this, can you please hop back onto the torrent, and seed. If you download, please leave your torrent open for a few days for others to download. Thanks !!

[nettiemoore]

I have the torrent sitting there available for seeding (has been for days) but it isn't. Ugh. I'll try to sort it this afternoon. I'd hate to have to mess with all that port forwarding business again as the last time I did that I nuked my net connection entirely. Other torrents are seeding though, perhaps its something to do with it being a private tracker.

If anyone has knowledge of using Transmission with a Mac and wants to give advice, PM me for the greater skeptical good. :)

[Gib]

Thanks nettiemoore. I've taken another look and started with another bittorrent client. It seems I was getting an error "Cheating are we?" when using bitcomet, but I'm downloading now I'm using bittornado from 1 seed at 7kbps... Must be a discerning tracker which doesn't like bitcomet.
Cheers!

[nettiemoore]

Oh well I hope you're seeding off me because being a leecher keeps me up at night.

[wafonso]

Richard, in case you're still reading this, I was wondering... did you have anything to do with designing the testing procedures?

The reason I ask is that it's very easy to do this wrong. I don't believe most of the population has any idea of how hard it is to design proper testing procedures, and I wouldn't expect the Channel 7 guys to know how to do it either.

For example, do the camera crews know where the thing being looked for is? (they probably do after the first person finds it...) How isolated are the contestants from each other and from the production team before and after the tests? And so on and on...

I couldn't help but noticing that the one person who went straight for the boy was the last one to be tested (assuming they're showing the tests in the order they are recorded).

[Jonquill]

I watched this program with my husband and I don't know if he was just winding me up but he kept saying things like "That's amazing that they found the kid in all that bush, do you know how hard it is to find someone lost in the bush?" Ignoring the fact that a lot of the 'psychics' first bolted off in the wrong direction.
I like to think he's not a complete idiot but.....

[Gib]

Thanks nettiemoore, I've got it, have finished being a nasty leecher, and have graduated to a fellow seeder.

[SezMe]

I've posted a few articles on my opinion of the show's premise and promotion and a review of episode one on my blog (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/).

Direct links to articles:

THE ONE: The search for Australia's most gullible audience (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-search-for-australias-most-gullible.html)
I read just the first one and, frankly, AndyD, you're being really naive. The producers have one and only one goal: Get and keep eyes on the screen so the sales staff can sell lots of expensive advertising and make gobs of money.

Telling the truth? Exposing psychics as frauds? Kick ass and take names? These were never on the same continent while the show was being designed, sold and produced. To expect that they would be is to forget that, first and foremost, TV is an entertainment medium that is a cash cow for the owners.

[Richard]

Richard, in case you're still reading this, I was wondering... did you have anything to do with designing the testing procedures?


The producers came up with the tests, I cast an eye over them and added some controls where I could. Please remember that these tests are not meant to be scientific as they are not repeated for example. The show is light entertainment and should be viewed as such.

I must say that some folks have told me they thought I came across like no skeptic they have seen on TV. Open to the possibility of the paranormal and not just saying it's all BS. Will I turn to the other side?????? Tune in to find out. :)

[AndyD]

I read just the first one and, frankly, AndyD, you're being really naive.

Naive? Did I give the impression that I expected the show to be a serious look at the underbelly of the psychic industry? I'll have to ramp up my sarcasm a little ;)


I must say that some folks have told me they thought I came across like no skeptic they have seen on TV. Open to the possibility of the paranormal and not just saying it's all BS.

I'd have to agree. One episode in and it looks like there's eight and a half believers on the show - plus an entirely credulous production team. I hope, for all our sakes, there's a twist that us non-psychics won't see coming :)

I know you can't say much about the show but can you comment, in general, on the way you feel you've been portrayed by TV stations in the past? I ask because I dug up the old "spider on the security camera" story yesterday (I didn't know you were in it because it was before my time on the forums) and was surprised by the soundbytes in which you almost seem to support the idea that the vision is astonishing ("one of the most intriguing viedeos I've ever seen"). And although you initially dismiss the paranormal option, you are then shown saying "it looks like it could be a ghost" and later that it may be "one of the best" videos you've seen of "maybe a paranormal nature".

In the end, a "blob" with two significant rounded parts, one larger than the other and things that look like legs to the point where the whole things looks exactly like a whole, living spider, is delivered to the viewing public as anything but the obvious and the show declares it unsolved, undebunked, inexplicable.

I know it's all about the editing but I'm wondering in what context you end up saying things that seem to lend credence to the woo side once they've spliced it all together? (And who was that forensic video analyst who's apparently never seen a spider before?)

[Richard]

I know it's all about the editing but I'm wondering in what context you end up saying things that seem to lend credence to the woo side once they've spliced it all together? (And who was that forensic video analyst who's apparently never seen a spider before?)

hmmm.. I said lots of stuff that day and yes, they used what they wanted. I remember thinking it was in fact one of the best videos I'd see as it did look sort of like a ghost... (whatever a ghost looks like) I mean most ghost videos are rubbish. I was also hamming it up but left them with no doubt that it was not a ghost.

I never did find out who the forensic video analyst people were, but they were awful. I mean come on.. it's so clearly something near the camera.

[epitide]

After seeing the show tonight, I think that it's likely any one could make it through to the final 3 just by flying under the radar. You can progress to the next stage if someone else does badly! Just be being 'Not the worst' you are likely to progress.

[wombatwal]

Overall a pretty mediocre show 3/10 for entertainment, and that is only because Richard is there.:D:D
The "skykicks" bombed out in the main event of finding something in a container amongst 70 containers. They got 100% wrong. I suppose a 1 in 70 chance is very slim and the result is probably expected through chance.

[Jonquill]

The shipping container challenge could have been made more fun by comparing their results to a team of trained beagles :D

[AndyD]

Last week I made a prediction (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/prediction.html) about the show.

My prediction was short and to the point. I did not use a shotgun approach and was anything but vague. I missed the end of the show tonight but I'm advised I was pretty damned close to the way it ended. In fact, if anyone on that show can be considered psychic based on what they've demonstrated, then I might be a master of the Gift and should set up business right away.

Here's my prediction again. (You can check it at the original link (http://thinkingrreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/prediction.html), since I moved the website yesterday, which was still well before the show was aired).

I predict that the first person to be dismissed from "The One" will not say "I didn't see that coming" but will claim that they had difficulty tuning their powers under the pressure of a studio situation. Stacey Demarco is clouding my vibes a bit but I think she's nodding in agreement. Someone's saying it's tough and they're out of their comfort zone. Damn, Demarco's made it all a bit cloudy with all that nodding. I'm feeling that there was an air of skepticism blocking the channels. I'm receiving an "R" sound and I am also sensing a "woman", but don't ask me why. Oops, I'm also seeing a baby - someone's in for a surprise!

I had no prior knowledge of the outcome and, as far as I know, there was nothing posted on the net prior to me making my prediction. Not that I need a disclaimer since I'm not claiming to be psychic. It was all perfectly reasoned.

Of course, if my prediction bears no resemblance to the way the show finished then it not only proves my lack of psychic ability but confirms the desire of my family to nod in agreement to questions even when they shouldn't (I had to ask them if I was right about this and this and this...)

[domofish]

Thanks for the torrent Richard, but unfortunately there aren't any seeders. If anyone already has this, can you please hop back onto the torrent, and seed. If you download, please leave your torrent open for a few days for others to download. Thanks !!

[sidetrack]
The episode is easy to find on Usenet. If you download often, it is much better than torrents.

[Richard]

Here is a short clip from the 2nd show.

0VZabTJOu4g

[AndyD]

My review of most of episode two is here (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-two.html).

I was called away during the final portion so have had to rely on my son's notes.

If you haven't seen the show yet, or read about it, then do a little test. Think of five or six Australian Olympians. Don't try too hard, just the first that come to mind. Write them down before reading the next instruction.



Now check how many on you list are swimmers? How many could you describe as having their arms going around?

[Senex]

So, that woman sitting next to you is Stacey Demarco, a practicing witch. Any chance that she might invite you and a few of your closest skeptic mates :rolleyes: to a skyclad initiation ceremony in order to induct skeptics into the ways of the dark side? I've always wanted to see the southern constellations during a skyclad ritual. I'm very spiritual that way.

Wouldn't hurt to ask?

[Senex]

My review of most of episode two is here (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-two.html).

If you haven't seen the show yet, or read about it, then do a little test. Think of five or six Australian Olympians. Don't try too hard, just the first that come to mind. Write them down before reading the next instruction.

Hmmm, this seems to be similar but actually an impossible version of the "think of a country that starts with the letter "D" trick." Even Americans can come up with Denmark, but 5 or 6 Australian Olympians? I remember your female beach volleyball and basketball teams were very pretty and dressed for the hot weather but that's all I got.

[AndyD]

Hmmm, this seems to be similar but actually an impossible version of the "think of a country that starts with the letter "D" trick." Even Americans can come up with Denmark, but 5 or 6 Australian Olympians? I remember your female beach volleyball and basketball teams were very pretty and dressed for the hot weather but that's all I got.

He he, it probably doesn't work too well in Connecticut. But trust me, even Aussies who aren't interested in sport (like me) could name a bunch of our Olympians. They are national heroes. The great thing is that even without actual names, the psychic guesses (public eye, charity work, career offer, moving arms, purpose, study...) still work due to the similarities of all the sportsters. In fact, you don't even have to use Aussie Olympians, use any you can think of and the guesses are still likely to fit.

[Richard]

Show 1 and 2 on torrent

http://chronictracker.com

you need to sign up, it's simple.. then run a search for

The.One-Australias

[arthwollipot]

Hmmm, this seems to be similar but actually an impossible version of the "think of a country that starts with the letter "D" trick." Even Americans can come up with Denmark, but 5 or 6 Australian Olympians? I remember your female beach volleyball and basketball teams were very pretty and dressed for the hot weather but that's all I got.I think that test was designed for Australians. I personally can think of three Australian olympians who aren't swimmers. One is a runner (Cathy Freeman), one a weightlifter (that huge tuna fisherman from Nowra whose name I can't currently recall) and one an equestrian (Andrew Hay). In fact, the only Australian swimmer whose name I can currently recall is Dawn Fraser, and that's going back quite some time. Oh, and there's Shane Gould as well.

[devnull]

you forgot the shooting guy, Michael something....... :)

[arthwollipot]

Yep. Forgot him.

[Gib]

Richard, in the segment where Amanda matched the cross to the Maltese guy, the biggest hit there I think was the "Malta" connection. I've heard of something called a Maltese cross though.

I couldn't see what the item looked like, Amanda hid it from the camera quite well. Was it possibly of Maltese design ?

[Richard]

Richard, in the segment where Amanda matched the cross to the Maltese guy, the biggest hit there I think was the "Malta" connection. I've heard of something called a Maltese cross though.

I couldn't see what the item looked like, Amanda hid it from the camera quite well. Was it possibly of Maltese design ?

Very good question. I did not have time to look. The day in the studio was VERY busy with deadlines and much to film. For the record, I just don't know.

[AndyD]

Richard, in the segment where Amanda matched the cross to the Maltese guy, the biggest hit there I think was the "Malta" connection. I've heard of something called a Maltese cross though.

I couldn't see what the item looked like, Amanda hid it from the camera quite well. Was it possibly of Maltese design ?

I agree it was the only thing you could call a hit since it wasn't as general as most of the other guesses and I asked the same question in my review - was it a Maltese Cross? I guess we'll never know.

Interestingly, according to the show's website, Amanda's the only one not reading professionally!

Next week I'll have to tape the show since it's a pain (and a risk) to review from notes and memory. And I can't/won't d/l torrents.

[Gib]

Yes Richard, I can certainly believe the studio would have been very busy. They were rushing through those readings.

I'll try to go back when I have more time and go frame-by-frame to see if I can identify the pendant. I have gone back quickly to the beginning of the segment where they show all the items on the table, but I couldn't see the cross there. I'll try again.

Another question Richard - is each episode filmed on a separate day ? Is is possible the Maltese guy was sitting in the audience previously, and seen by Amanda actually wearing the cross ?

It would have been pretty easy for the psychics in this test anyway, to identify the people who had items on the table. They're the ones looking thoughtful as the psychic is going through their spiel. We saw that when one of the psychics picked out two women near each other, both of whom had items on the table.

And, of course, it's possible the items were seen by the audience while the psychic was handling them, or even figured out based on how they were being held. For instance, the comb was quite a different shape and size and must have been easy to identify.

[AndyD]

As podblack cat (http://podblack.com/?p=765)noted in her entertaining review of the show, Charmaine (the one who picked the two women) actually announced to the audience, before making her guesses, that she held a ring. That knocked out a fair chunk of the audience participants and the two women she picked were grinning like audience members at a cold-reading show.

I'm going to go out on a limb, here and now, and put my next prediction here where I can't edit it later.

I'm getting a sadness and feel disappointment. I'm feeling closed in. Locked, caged. I see a father figure but I'm also seeing a woman. The spirits are confused, both vibrant and sad. There's a happy man but there's disappointment. I'm getting an "E'. I see Demarco talking to angels. Again I'm getting a sense that the spirits were uncooperative under test conditions. They did an exceptional job - under the circumstances. I'm getting "middle-age" and wow! A strong female presence! They're telling me she must go. She has to go. I'm not getting a clear message but whoever she is, she is leaving next week. There's a strong ethnic presence and, damn, Demarco is messing things up with all her nodding again. Every time the guides try to tell me something, she chimes in with a comment about difficulty and success. She's impressed but she's blocking the vibe, it's all about the vibe. The vibe, I hear music. The spirits want to talk about the music. This makes no sense to me but they're pointing to the music. Over and out.

If anyone can post a Youtube of the end of episode two - the eviction segment - I'd appreciate it.

[Gib]

I rewatched Amanda with the Maltese bloke, and it is very difficult to see the cross, but from what I could see, it looked like a normal cross, certainly not what you get with a normal "google images" search of "maltese cross". So I don't understand the Maltese connection. I tried to see if he was in the audience in the previous episode, but couldn't see him.

I checked the hits and misses for him though, and got:
She said "red car", he didn't know about that. Miss.
She said "trains". He works for railways. Hit.
She said the name "mary catherine". His dead mum's name is "mary". Partial hit.
She said "pain in hands". He said he does, because he's a drummer. Hit.
She said "malta". He said his kids are half maltese. Hit
She said "takeaway food". He says he eats too much of it. Hit ?
She said "communication problems". He didn't mention that. Miss.
She said "dry throat in mornings". He didn't mention that. Miss
She said "4 oclock". He said that's when he finishes at work. Hit
She didn't say anything about his back when reading him, but then prompted him on it when speaking to him, and he admitted he had back problems. That was just weird, possibly due to editing ? Or because she knew him, and was reading for him, and forgot she didn't say back problems... I won't class that as hit or miss.

So, that totals 3.5 misses, 5.5 hits. The trains was a lucky hit, the others were very broad, except Malta was a good hit.

[Richard]

Another question Richard - is each episode filmed on a separate day ? Is is possible the Maltese guy was sitting in the audience previously, and seen by Amanda actually wearing the cross ?

Each show was filmed on a separate day. The studio hours were long. It is possible the man in question was there before, I really have no idea. The contestant were able to pick the item they wanted to use from a table as you saw on the show.

[nettiemoore]

It's entirely possible the contestants saw specific people with their items. During the break between the morning and the arvo sessions Amanda was wandering out through the audience holding area to get food with her kids so there was no segregation. I think they collected the items earlier in the day but it does show the extremely slack application of "controls", despite Richard's best efforts.

However I strongly doubt it happened since the readings were all quite atrocious -- more so than the edited version shows. We remember "Malta" because it stood out so much as a relatively obscure hit amongst the obvious barnums etc. But of course as we know the cold reading hypothesis explains that better than the psychic hypothesis. :)

[Richard]

If anyone can post a Youtube of the end of episode two - the eviction segment - I'd appreciate it.

I just found this online.

Ek-DeHr6ruY

[Brendy]

I just found this online.

Ek-DeHr6ruY

why are the psychics so worried about wether they are going home or not?

Aren't they psychic, can't they sense whether they are the one eliminated or not?

[Richard]

From some local newspapers

[PBTree]

From some local newspapers

Nah, sorry. I'm a complete cynic. I think you are still just plugging the show.

Statements such as "will I turn? You will have to tune in".

Posting utubes of the show ("just found [fortuitous] this on the web") when people ask.

Local reports such as this last lot, that are really just ads for the show.

Not saying anything on the show that would convince watchers you are, not only skeptical but completely gobsmacked at how wrong these people are. :nope:

You will have to do a lot better than this to convince me you are there for any other reason than 'being a part of the (paid I presume) entertainment'.

:)

[arthwollipot]

BTW,

The Maltese Cross (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Maltese-Cross-Heraldry.svg)

[AndyD]

Obviously as a participant in the show, Richard's going to promote it and if he doesn't point us to public information then the only people seeing it and commenting on it will be the believers sent there by the other participants.

I'm thankful for the pointers. It saves me a lot of Googling and gives me something to blog on in regards to the show. That said, I'm equally disappointed at the lack of skepticism put to air so far. It's a whitewash for sure.

However, the Aussie skeptic community can share some blame here. I only starting blogging last week, mostly because of this very show and the fact that I could find almost no one in Australia covering it in any depth. I'm new to the idea of formal skepticism but besides my own and PodBlack's blog coverage of the show so far, I'm not aware of any other blogs covering it to any useful extent. Where are Australia's skeptics and why aren't they making a public statement against nonsense like this?

As Penn and Teller explained (well, Penn did), the thing that got their skeptical show on TV was the fact that it promised a financial return to the station. Nothing more, nothing less. We can't look to commercial TV for reason or morality (they gave us Big Brother - that should tell us all we need to know about motive). So, they have to have reason to deliver shows with a skeptical bias. One look at the poll on The One's website would show any TV exec that their best bet lies with the deluded. According to that poll, we're either seriously outnumbered or apathetic, neither of which bodes well.

Frankly, if this is the level of public support Richard's enjoyed throughout his time heading the Aust. Skeptics, I'm not surprised he's been seduced by the silly side.

So start blogging and/or writing to Channel Seven to demand better. At the very least, show strong support for people who are doing it by leaving comments on my (sorry, their) blog :)

http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/)

I'm open to constructive criticism.

[wombatwal]

Well I am doing battle with those evil believers :D. Talking on the Australian show.
I am on the N.Z. Sensing Murder forum.
http://www.sensingmurder.co.nz/regfrm/viewtopic.php?t=814&start=100
Anyone lend a sceptical hand.

[nettiemoore]

National exposure on the 10th most show of the week vs. a couple of extra blogs read by a dozen people who already agree with you. Anyone care to predict which has the most potential benefit for our ideas?

[Richard]

Nah, sorry. I'm a complete cynic. I think you are still just plugging the show.

Me??? Never. And don't forget to tune in again on Tuesday night at 7.30pm

[wombatwal]

Here is another spot where the heroic sceptics are doing battle with those evil believers.
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/b/the-one/11/about-the-show?page=21#comments

[nettiemoore]

Of course I would love it if Richard got the chance to deliver, in prime time to a national audience of a couple million riveted viewers, a 60 minute monologue to camera forensically dissecting cold reading. I'd also love to spend my life snorting coke from George Clooney's naked thighs.

Ain't neither of these things going to happen. Deal.

I think people need to realise that really this has never really been done before and is only 2/5 over. You don't pull the plug on an experiment less than half the way through just because you get pouty at the results so far. What we have done a lot of before (and we should absolutely keep doing) is blogging our outrage, kvetching on forums and bitching to friends. We know the parametres of that kind of thing and what it can and can't achieve. We don't know that about this yet.

There is not only one single way to reach people and the spread the message. There are any number of different ways. You need to look at it from outside your own point of view, no one on this forum is the show's intended audience. Sure, we know all about what's going on already. We rulz. Why deny others the opportunity to get the thought planted in their heads. Just a little, nagging thought. That's all.

Worst case scenario? Just another stupid psychic show on telly, they are on every single day of the week so one more hardly makes a difference. I think its already been better than that (one line of proper scepticism on telly is better than none) and having seen the live tapings am pretty confident the harder line skeptic position only gets more represented from here.

[AndyD]

National exposure on the 10th most show of the week vs. a couple of extra blogs read by a dozen people who already agree with you. Anyone care to predict which has the most potential benefit for our ideas?

It's not a matter of equality of coverage, it's a matter of some decent level of coverage of "our" side. It's also not about swaying closed-minded believers. The people who need to find information are the open-minded fence sitters. People who might be taking an active interest for their first time.

Six months ago I knew nothing about global warming denialism, anti-vax activism or the extent of formalised atheism going on around the world. If it wasn't for the skeptical blogosphere, I still wouldn't know. I found the information because I looked for information on pyramid scams. The rest, for me, is history.

When a show like this hits prime time, I'd assume (yes, assume) that some people are likely to go googling for information about it. I think it would be good if they find the skeptical viewpoint heavily represented, especially from Australian bloggers. Logical fallacy or not, it's much easier to sway an opinion if you've got some level of popularity on your side.

imho :)

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Really, why is anyone expending even one calorie of brain energy even thinking about this train wreck of a show?
What do you expect from it? Reason? Logic? Ptagh!!
Good that Master Saunders is there, but I hardly think that the producers are giving, or likely to give,the voice of reason and logic that he undoutably has anything like equal time.
More like someone for the true believers to hiss at and scorn, between add breaks.
The only thing that this show informs me, is that as one astute observer noted, there is actually room beneath Big Brother.

[AndyD]

Really, why is anyone expending even one calorie of brain energy even thinking about this train wreck of a show?

Because prime time commercial television is a powerful force and if any of us care about spreading skepticism and defeating mass delusion, it's our duty to point out the flaws to those who can't see them for themselves.

Of course no one here expected a rational, scientific assessment of paranormality. That doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss it's flaws though. Consider it an easy workout, especially for those of us who are new to the skeptic movement and who aren't in a position to quote pubmed references to debunk pseudo-sciences.

[nettiemoore]

If it wasn't for the skeptical blogosphere, I still wouldn't know. I found the information because I looked for information on pyramid scams. The rest, for me, is history.


Absolutely, me too and your blog is great and you should keep doing it (as purveyor of a little read blog myself, I love little read blogs! :D )

BUT it is not the only valid way to spread the message and people who put themselves on the line to try something different should not have the Skeptical Purity Police called out on them. The "More Skeptical Than Thou" line -- very unappealing and can we drop it?

[Richard]

Some good results. People at the car race track came over to meet me as they saw me on TV. Gave me the chance to talk to them about skeptics and our point of view. Turns out one of the women was a client of one of the 'psychics' on the show. They were not mad, they were happy to hear me. Very nice.

[Marius vanderLubbe]

Some good results. People at the car race track came over to meet me as they saw me on TV. Gave me the chance to talk to them about skeptics and our point of view. Turns out one of the women was a client of one of the 'psychics' on the show. They were not mad, they were happy to hear me. Very nice.

Any toe hold that we as logical rational thinkers can gain into the world of the true believer, or indeed the fence sitter, has by its very nature be a good thing.
That they included your good self in this show self is to be commended, even though doubtless it is not out of some overpowering need to seem impartial, or Zenu forbid, provide a focus for the "negative energy" of the TBs, which by the way, can attract viewers. At least the positively charged ones.
But what about when its all over, and the fickle public is searching for the next superparanormalnatural televisual feast, having forgotten, or never learned any lessons in critical thought that you may have introduced them too?
Will it be business as usual for the hordes of the all too uninformed?
Well , yes, it will.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could produce a skepticl version?
"Australia's finest skeptic"
The prizes would be awarded on the basis of how many frauds exposed, ghosts busted, minds opened, quacks castrated and cats saved from trees.
Something like Brian Dunning and co are trying to float in the US and A
As I am still too new, i cannot post links apparently, so The best I can do here is to leave a space in the address. Http: //skeptologists.com/

Seriously, we need to really be on top of our game. Its getting a little crazy out there. Anyone noticed the Papal Mass hysteria in Oz lately? Is that the behavior you want to see in the leaders of the future?
Not me.

[AndyD]

My initial reaction to Richard's presence on the show was similar to that of many posters - I wished he could just condemn the nonsense before him. But I'm warming to the idea of him doing his way.

How many shows do we have with any skeptics on? We've got "drama" series about various "psychics" solving everyone's problems and even the various "CSI" type shows often hint at paranormal approaches to solving murder when they drift into those ghostly visualisation effects. Some of the key players seem to solve the crimes almost psychically rather than as a result of methodical science. How many shows represent a skeptical (not just a scientific) viewpoint?

So, if Richard can show that skeptics can be friendly, happy, humorous people with a heart (not, I'd assume, the stereotype), maybe that's what it takes to get a skeptical influence on telly. It would be nice to think that his connection with the station could buy some influence down the track for a TV version of his Mystery Investigators. And wouldn't it be great if it was televised in children's prime time?

[arthwollipot]

Well I am doing battle with those evil believers :D. Talking on the Australian show.
I am on the N.Z. Sensing Murder forum.
http://www.sensingmurder.co.nz/regfrm/viewtopic.php?t=814&start=100
Anyone lend a sceptical hand.I would, but I've never had the intestinal fortitude to actually force myself to sit through an episode of the show.

Some good results. People at the car race track came over to meet me as they saw me on TV. Gave me the chance to talk to them about skeptics and our point of view. Turns out one of the women was a client of one of the 'psychics' on the show. They were not mad, they were happy to hear me. Very nice.Is your new avatar a still from the show? :D

[Richard]

Is your new avatar a still from the show? :D

Oh yes.. it's me looking very skeptical indeed. :P

[The Bad Astronomer]

So, if Richard can show that skeptics can be friendly, happy, humorous people with a heart (not, I'd assume, the stereotype), maybe that's what it takes to get a skeptical influence on telly.

DINGDINGDINGDING!

We have a winner!

:-)

[Richard]

DINGDINGDINGDING!

We have a winner!

That's better than being a weener.

I'll be on MMM radio (Brisbane) at 8.05am Eastern Australian Time.

TRIPLE M – Breakfast - The Cage

Date: Tuesday 22nd July

URL for live feed: http://www.triplem.com.au/brisbane/shows/thecage/

-----------

New promo for this week's show. Ned Kelly was an outlaw in the 19th Century.

Ll_2z4BISnw

[EHocking]

New promo for this week's show. Ned Kelly was an outlaw in the 19th Century.
Ll_2z4BISnw[cough] bushranger [cough]

[AndyD]

I love this week's promo, especially Stacey Demarco exclaiming, almost incredulously, how amazed she is that three people found something IN FOUR AN A HALF THOUSAND SQUARE METRES!!!

I had to wait until the ad came on again so I could check what I'd heard. Seriously, I don't think I could make that text big enough or bold enough (or CAPS enough) to reflect her amazement that people could find something in an area a little over......... one acre.

That's one fifth of the size of the block I live on and we often find green(ish) tennis balls on our green(ish) block - without even looking for them.

One acre (4046sqm) is the size of four traditional Aussie suburban housing lots. Unless they're searching for something smaller than a hairclip - or the area is laden with mines - then I think Demarco's exasperation might be a little over the top. It'll be interesting to see how big the area looks on camera - and how fast they can run.

Keep up to date at: http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/

[AndyD]

Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
So, if Richard can show that skeptics can be friendly, happy, humorous people with a heart (not, I'd assume, the stereotype), maybe that's what it takes to get a skeptical influence on telly.
DINGDINGDINGDING!

We have a winner!

:-)

Hey, I missed this earlier. What do I win? :eye-poppi The million? I didn't even say I was psychic. What am I saying?!! Of course I'm psychic and, somehow, I proved it! Bank transfer is acceptable. Do you want my Account details and PIN?

I'm skeptical of the announcement that I actually won anything though and, unlike Richard, I'm not really the friendly, happy, humorous "person with a heart" type skeptic :(

[Richard]

Sydney Newspaper today.

[PBTree]

That's better than being a weener.

I'll be on MMM radio (Brisbane) at 8.05am Eastern Australian Time.

TRIPLE M – Breakfast - The Cage

Date: Tuesday 22nd July

URL for live feed: http://www.triplem.com.au/brisbane/shows/thecage/

-----------

New promo for this week's show. Ned Kelly was an outlaw in the 19th Century.

Ll_2z4BISnw

My critique.

Listened to the show. Why did you even bother turning up? We ended up with both Martin and that Sammy woman believing this Madeline person was real. Quotes such as "wow", "how did she do that"?
You should have definitely told her to be quiet when you were talking, as you had the good manners to do that when she was talking. her continuous interruptions made your explanations appear quite weak. I'm sorry to say, you came across as the bumbling skeptic who failed to explain anything.

Surely a loaded question along the lines of;

"Why does Madeline need to say things like, "I see a person whose name begins with a D or a C", surely if she is TALKING to the dead person, this person should know the name of his own brother and/or mother"?

or why not say to the Cage Team, "When the next person rings in and Madeline makes contact with their dead, have the person ringing in remain silent and have Madeline tell the radio audience what the dead person is saying. Then get the caller to remark on what she has said, without any further remarks from Madeline".

Always a good laugh when they can't ask questions.

I was so furious with the show that I actually wrote to them and told them 'grown-ups' should not be so gullible. I also told them how mean these people are when they take money from the lonely and the bereaved. Told them to get hold of some cold reading books and suggested they do a spot on the show where they try out their own cold reading skills. Then they will see how anyone can do it. It just takes practice.

Also told them to look up Sylvia and Shawn Hornbeck if they wanted to see how dangerous these vile people are.

This is twice triple m have done a pyschic/medium show and both times it has turned out being a great ad for them.

We are losing ground, methinks.

:)

[Richard]

My critique.

I'm sorry to say, you came across as the bumbling skeptic who failed to explain anything.



I think you are being unfair. It is VERY hard indeed to be put on the spot like that. I did not know before hand that it would be this sort of thing. Anyway, I always could have done better, but you know what, I think I made some good points.

This sort of analysis of cold reading have never been done on Australian radio as far as I know. It's much harder than you think.

Judge for yourselves...

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/files/4MMM.mp3

[SimonD]

I think you are being unfair. It is VERY hard indeed to be put on the spot like that. I did not know before hand that it would be this sort of thing.

I don't understand how you could think that commercial radios treatment of skepticism would be any different from commercial television.

What did you expect?

[Richard]

I don't understand how you could think that commercial radios treatment of skepticism would be any different from commercial television.

What did you expect?

We had no idea this would happen. I thought it was just going to be an interview about the show and what I do. By the time we got going it was too late. I have asked that this does not happen again.

[AndyD]

Well, it seems my psychic powers may rival those of any contestant on The One. Following last week's success in which I predicted Rayleen's eviction, I have had another perfect hit. Here's the prediction again (original prediction at #124 above):

I'm getting a sadness and feel disappointment. I'm feeling closed in. Locked, caged. I see a father figure but I'm also seeing a woman. The spirits are confused, both vibrant and sad. There's a happy man but there's disappointment. I'm getting an "E'. I see Demarco talking to angels. Again I'm getting a sense that the spirits were uncooperative under test conditions. They did an exceptional job - under the circumstances. I'm getting "middle-age" and wow! A strong female presence! They're telling me she must go. She has to go. I'm not getting a clear message but whoever she is, she is leaving next week. There's a strong ethnic presence and, damn, Demarco is messing things up with all her nodding again. Every time the guides try to tell me something, she chimes in with a comment about difficulty and success. She's impressed but she's blocking the vibe, it's all about the vibe. The vibe, I hear music. The spirits want to talk about the music. This makes no sense to me but they're pointing to the music. Over and out.

Now, weeding out all the nonsense, you can clearly see I predicted that "She has to go." I wrote exactly those words. Tonight, She was evicted. Again, Demarco waved away doubts with the standard disclaimer that conditions were difficult and praised what she considered to be success. The music reference was clear to anyone who watched - though I cheated here, as I did with the closed-in feeling. Both the music legends and Ned Kelly prison segments had been advertised.

I'll have more to say at: http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/ later tonight (WA time) but the show can be summed up with a fairly short "pffft!"

Richard, your skepticism got much better coverage tonight. Congrats.

[Richard]

Thanks to podblack for finding this..

qwU_3g8OKC8

[Klippa]

We had no idea this would happen. I thought it was just going to be an interview about the show and what I do. By the time we got going it was too late. I have asked that this does not happen again.

The special pleading from Richard is what I hear from the psychics. Has Richard 'crossed over' or can we please hear more intelligent feed back.

[Nankay]

sigh.."Video no longer available."

[AndyD]

Try the one on podblack's blog (http://podblack.com/). I assume it's the same?

[AndyD]

I just listened to the MMM recording and I can't see the what the complaint is about? Not to seem sycophantic but I think Richard stood up exceptionally well under the circumstances. It's a stark difference from the edited coverage we're seeing on TV (although that wasn't so bad tonight).

If anyone thinks it's easy to do a live debunk under those circumstances, I'd challenge them just to try and take notes during a reading (especially Charmaine's). I was trying tonight during "The One" and I was lost within a couple of sentences. That woman doesn't use a scatter-gun approach, she uses a machine gun! And if you think taking notes is easy, try debunking Charmaine while the grieving parent, sibling or spouse is still on the line and a handful of radio personalities are shouting you down.

While it's most likely true that no true-believers were convinced to disbelieve by that radio segment, I doubt any fence-sitters would have decided to go to the woo either.

I only wish we could see a bit of that Richard Saunders on The One.

Part one of tonight's review of The One, Episode Three is here: http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-episode-three.html

[Richard]

sigh.."Video no longer available."

That's odd. More people are posting the shows on youtube now. Run a youtube search for "the one".

Here is the link for part 1 of the first show: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=qwU_3g8OKC8

[PBTree]

I think you are being unfair. It is VERY hard indeed to be put on the spot like that. I did not know before hand that it would be this sort of thing. Anyway, I always could have done better, but you know what, I think I made some good points.

This sort of analysis of cold reading have never been done on Australian radio as far as I know. It's much harder than you think.

Judge for yourselves...

http://www.mysteryinvestigators.com/files/4MMM.mp3

I can understand your frustration and appreciate the predicament you were placed in, but;

Plan the work and work the plan is an old adage.
If you are going to place yourself into the position of being "a renowned skeptic", you need to take guard at all times. Don't attend these sessions without a backup plan. Always go to a session with the view they are going to 'back-door' you.

Nearly all of the posts on this thread that say you are doing a great job, are of the opinion that niceness is the best attitude. Sorry, WRONG. You need to get down and dirty (not angry) with these people and start putting them on the spot. Next time get them to let you do the next caller and you cold read them. "I see a B or is it a D" etc etc. Maybe we will get remarks such as "wow, even skeptics are psychics".

Have a list with you at all times of questions you know (pre-tested) they can't answer. Don't try to wing it, they are very cagey as you know.

When they had the psychic on a couple of weeks ago, I tried to ring in and ask them a question but couldn't get through. This psychic was invited into the show and they sat and asked him questions. I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for sh*t's sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.

I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.

:)

[Richard]

Nearly all of the posts on this thread that say you are doing a great job, are of the opinion that niceness is the best attitude. Sorry, WRONG.

I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.

:)

You have a right to comment, but what I would rather hear is your radio interviews so I can learn from your winning tactics.

[AndyD]

When they had the psychic on a couple of weeks ago, I tried to ring in and ask them a question but couldn't get through. This psychic was invited into the show and they sat and asked him questions. I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for sh*t's sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.

They would just say "It doesn't work like that and these skeptics know it." They might even throw in a few disparaging remarks about how people who don't believe are closed-minded and scared of the truth - and the hosts would agree with them and start poking fun at you. The "psychic" might even offer to pray for you :) The hosts would probably then advise other callers that if they aren't interested in a reading, get off the lines and let the genuine callers through. Psychic 1 : Skeptic Nil. You have to remember the hosts don't have them on with the intent of embarrassing them.

These discussions are very much like political discussions and it's amazing what people can get away with when they avoid the question and change the subject. It's like trying to push a Liberal Party argument on the ABC.

I may be marking you a bit hard and I'm trying not to be bad mannered but I do think you got everything you deserved by not being prepared.

I can only assume I listened to a different interview - the one in which the "psychic" admitted to her own disbelief in a lot of the nonsense that gets passed off as psychic powers. You don't hear that very often (it was a first for me).

[nettiemoore]

I wanted to ask them; "If this chap knew he was coming into the show and that you were going to ask him questions, why didn't he just bring in the answers and show them to you. He's a psychic for sh*t's sake". Just wish now I had got through. These are the sorts of things I feel, put them on the spot.

That kind of question will do no good whatsoever. Firstly, you just sound like a smartarse. Secondly, they will just say "Spirit doesn't work that way." Killer question instantly negated. Next caller.

I do not disagree that sticking the boot in can be a valid response, but it is not the only possible valid way to go about this.

[Damien Evans]

[cough] bushranger [cough]

bushrangers are outlaws, you know.

[Damien Evans]

The special pleading from Richard is what I hear from the psychics. Has Richard 'crossed over' or can we please hear more intelligent feed back.

Normally I'd suggest a person who posted like this was an idiot.

[Brendy]

I have a question.

Why didn't this show do an american idol style showing of the preliminary search for psychics? I think it would have been hilarious to see all the types of people that tried to show their abilities. I think maybe the preliminary tests would show that almost all of the people that showed up did a really horrible job and had zero 'hits'. Maybe that's why they didn't tape them?

[AndyD]

Why didn't this show do an american idol style showing of the preliminary search for psychics? I think it would have been hilarious to see all the types of people that tried to show their abilities. I think maybe the preliminary tests would show that almost all of the people that showed up did a really horrible job and had zero 'hits'. Maybe that's why they didn't tape them?

I asked that same question and made the same point on my first blog (http://thinkingisreal.blogspot.com/2008/07/one-search-for-australias-most-gullible.html) about the show.

Why is it okay for vicious judges to destroy the ambitions of young people and community choirs whose only crime is to think they can sing (and many of them do have potential), yet not okay to give the same treatment to people who already charge good money to supposedly do something which they apparently can not do very well, if at all?

Cold readers are apparently a special breed that TV executives are scared to upset either in fear of poor ratings or because they actually believe it would bring bad karma.

We could write to Channel Seven and ask them to air an "audition" show after this show ends but my spirit guides tell me they didn't video the auditions in a way that would be suitable for editing into a TV format. But if anyone can provide an email address for Seven's Programming manager, I'll send them a note.

[PBTree]

You have a right to comment, but what I would rather hear is your radio interviews so I can learn from your winning tactics.

Point taken but that just shows neither of us is winning.

Obviously my comments are a bit too acid (grumpy old man syndrome), so I will apologise and refrain from any further comment.

But just remember, you are the one who is the "renowned Australian skeptic" who gets to appear on these shows. You are the one who started the thread to let us know the shows were on and you were attending as a skeptic representative.

So it behooves you to attend 'prepared', for all things relating to that show. Otherwise the show might as well just call in someone off the street and call them the skeptic.

The point I was trying to make (badly it seems) is that being able to shoot you down and make you look baffled on either of those shows, is probably worth much more to them than proving their ridiculous claims.


:)

[nettiemoore]

You have asserted Richard hasn't been prepared (for the radio thing or the TV show in general? You seem to be jumping back and forth between the two). I see no evidence for that.

In fact as far as the show goes, I know it is not true.

Have you watched the show? After the first episode no one could say he is portrayed as the skeptic who can't explain anything. Of course he doesn't get time for a worthy monologue on subjective validity but the lines they are leaving in are good for our side.

[PBTree]

You have asserted Richard hasn't been prepared (for the radio thing or the TV show in general? You seem to be jumping back and forth between the two). I see no evidence for that.

In fact as far as the show goes, I know it is not true.

Have you watched the show? After the first episode no one could say he is portrayed as the skeptic who can't explain anything. Of course he doesn't get time for a worthy monologue on subjective validity but the lines they are leaving in are good for our side.


Nope, didn't assert that at all. Read it again.

""So it behooves you to attend 'prepared', for all things relating to that show. Otherwise the show might as well just call in someone off the street and call them the skeptic.""

We had no idea this would happen. I thought it was just going to be an interview about the show and what I do. By the time we got going it was too late. I have asked that this does not happen again.

I was trying to get across the point that I bet the medium knew exactly what was going to happen on the show and asked all sorts of leading questions before saying yes. Its called self preservation.
__


For my ten cents worth of opinion, I have watched the show and I think that as much as they allow Richard to do/say, I think he is doing fine.

I accept my chastisement and think I was using Richard as the whipping boy to get rid of my grumpiness at those fools. I won't criticise again as I agree with his previous deserved sarcasm (winning tactics). I'm not putting myself out there and until I do, I don't have that right.

:)

[nettiemoore]

my grumpiness at those fools.

That's certainly something we can all agree with! :)

[EHocking]

bushrangers are outlaws, you know.Just wanting to edjumukate the wider audience

[AndyD]

Richard, can you explain who was awarding points in this week's speed-reading exercise and how much of the reading session was edited out?

I ask because it would appear Ezio effectively cheated by switching his focus to a more willing audience member who stated agreement with all previous guesses - which he then quickly repeated to her, scoring points in the process (yes, I know, it's just