Garrette's Challenge Accepted, Ed Backs Out [Archive]

View Full Version : Garrette's Challenge Accepted, Ed Backs Out

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 01:47 PM

Well its been several days since Garrette's cold reading claim has been accepted by Dr. Gary Schwartz, Dr. Peter Hayes and Dr. J Beischel.

Sadly I had to tell them today that Dittus as of now has backed out of any involvement. He first rejected Garrette and then rejected Schwartz and his team because Schwartz was too jewish which he quickly qualified according to some joke from an old movie. Whatever the reason, we get the point. Dittus is simply too chicken to put his money where his mouth is. Fine. Garrette if you have to go to Tucson, I will fund this trip myself.

I explained to Schwartz and his team that Garrette was over in Iraq doing his duty and his darndest to stay out of harm's way and that we will take this up with him when his tour ends
Come home safe.......

In the a 3-way, meantime its Garrette 1, Schwartz team 1 and Dittus big fat zero.

PS: The team wants to know if Garrette considers himself a "psychic magician" since they have been seeking, w/o success, self professed cold readers willing to be rated against purportedly genuine mediums; they are very serious about this offer.

CFLarsen

4th November 2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Well its been several days since Garrette's cold reading claim has been accepted by Dr. Gary Schwartz, Dr. Peter Hayes and Dr. J Beischel.

Sadly I had to tell them today that Dittus as of now has backed out of any involvement. He first rejected Garrette and then rejected Schwartz and his team because Schwartz was too jewish which he quickly qualified according to some joke fom an old movie. Whatever the reason, we get the point. Dittus is simply too chicken to put his money where his mouth is. Fine. Garrette if you have to go to Tucson, I will fund this trip myself.

I explained to Schwartz and his team that Garrette was over in Iraq doing his duty and his darndest to stay out of harm's way and that we will take this up with him when his tour ends
Come home safe.......

In the a 3-way, meantime its Garrette 1, Schwartz team 1 and Dittus big fat zero.

PS: The team wants to know if Garrette considers himself a "psychic magician" since they have been seeking, w/o success, self professed cold readers willing to be rated against purportedly genuine mediums; they are very serious about this offer.

Saved for posterity.

4th November 2003, 02:35 PM

What an idiot.

4th November 2003, 02:42 PM

Let me point out one thing. Garrett is a known quantity. If an experimenter knows he is part of the study to begin with you have typical woo-woo, Schwartzian, pseudo-science crap that means nothing.

Par for the course with you and Schwartz, Steve (do you get a chill when I mention your names in the same sentence?)

NoZed Avenger

4th November 2003, 03:18 PM

Is there something showing your authority to make agreements on behalf of the persons mentioned?

Since this is yet -another- new thread, I guess the hopes of having questions raised in the last 4-5 threads begun by you are rapidly approaching the event horizon?

There is: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29970
where questions were raised regarding your understanding of some basic logical fallacies.

Then there was: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29642
with some lingering confusion regarding why JE should be accepted, even if it is admitted that he cheats in some or many situations.

And lest we forget: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29034
and http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26882

where you imply Garrette -- the same guy you'd like to come take a psychic challenge -- is a liar, then follow that up by claiming that asking you to substantiate or retract that insinuation is an attempt to "stifle dissent."

Garrette himself stated that he noted your insinuation, which you have never retracted.

That -- along with skipping from thread to thread when they get 'hot' -- seems to be quite a pattern.

You accuse me by trying to stifle dissent by asking questions, whereas you've actually banned people from your board based on their philosophy and failure to agree with you.

You have accused a number of people of being a liar or dishonest, but seem to have no problem if, for example, JE cheats.

You go off on anonymous posters, unless they -- for example, Lucianarchy -- support you.

You claim to know many practicing psychics with incredible powers, such as the one that did a reading for you, yet the best cases put forward start off with a 120 year old case of a medium whose control, a french doctor, neither spoke good french nor understood medical terms. And despite these incredible, incredible psychics, you support Schwartz' studies with JE, whom you yourself believe to be cold reading on television.

Does any of that sound odd to anyone else?

Shall we ask the silent majority again?

4th November 2003, 03:29 PM

That and the fact that Steve thinks that by my largely ignoring his "commitment" for me that somehow he "wins". Truely delusional.

A sad, medicated, desperate person in tenuous touch with reality due to a psychological trauma.

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 03:33 PM

Garrette: I have offered on other boards--and I do so again here--to personally replicate what was done by JE and the other 'psychics' during the Schwartz experiments (I am less familiar with Scole).

Ans: When are you expected back from Iraq so you can do the Schwartz phase of the above claim? I am sure Schwartz would be delighted to have you as a control under the following protocols.
which I took the liberty of correcting and amending as necessary.

-----------------------------------------------

This is a very specific offer made by Garrette which was passed on to
Dr Schwartz as well as Dr Beischel and Dr Hayes. I do not speak on behalf of these folks but I did transmit Garrette's offer to them verbally and personally and report back that they are definitely interested in Garrette's claim.

Dr. Schwartz is in New York City today and I spoke again with him about this.
He is quite willing to have Garrette, after he returns from his tour, to set something up so he can demonstrate his claim as outlined above. He is particularly interested in knowing if Garrette is a talented amateur or a professional stage mentalist or if he has had training as a psychic magician, which is not a term I heard before but it is equivalent to mentalist. Its irrelevant actually to the claim but is of background interest. Ed, apparently, did not have any faith in Garrette if his early remarks rejecting this offer mean anything. Nor does Ed have any faith in the researchers at the University who will be doing this (not Schwartz personally by the way who is too jewish for Ed's tastes apparently) who he has accused of fraud.

If it becomes necessary for Garrette to travel from his home which is presumably Indiana I am willing to have a foundation I help support finance the trip.

I hope the above comments make this matter abundently clear to all concerned
Insofar as Ed's inane remarks in response to this, he's out of it and what he says doesn't make sense anyway.

Pyrrho

4th November 2003, 04:31 PM

How about we hear from Dr. Schwartz directly, instead of someone playing message boy.

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 04:57 PM

NZA: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=29970
where questions were raised regarding your understanding of some basic logical fallacies.
-----------------------------------------------
If you wish logical fallacies, consider the following and apply them to the circular and fallacious logic employed here by some of your poster boys:

Fallacies of Distraction

False Dilemma: two choices are given when in fact there are three options
From Ignorance: because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false

Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn
Complex Question: two unrelated points are conjoined as a single proposition

Appeals to Motives in Place of Support

Appeal to Force: the reader is persuaded to agree by force

Appeal to Pity: the reader is persuaded to agree by sympathy

Consequences: the reader is warned of unacceptable consequences

Prejudicial Language: value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author

Popularity: a proposition is argued to be true because it is widely held to be true

Changing the Subject

Attacking the Person:

(1) the person's character is attacked

(2) the person's circumstances are noted

(3) the person does not practise what is preached

Appeal to Authority:

(1) the authority is not an expert in the field

(2) experts in the field disagree

(3) the authority was joking, drunk, or in some other way not being serious

Anonymous Authority: the authority in question is not named

Style Over Substance: the manner in which an argument (or arguer) is presented is felt to affect the truth of the conclusion

Inductive Fallacies

Hasty Generalization: the sample is too small to support an inductive generalization about a population

Unrepresentative Sample: the sample is unrepresentative of the sample as a whole

False Analogy: the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

Slothful Induction: the conclusion of a strong inductive argument is denied despite the evidence to the contrary

Fallacy of Exclusion: evidence which would change the outcome of an inductive argument is excluded from consideration

Fallacies Involving Statistical Syllogisms

Accident: a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception

Converse Accident : an exception is applied in circumstances where a generalization should apply

Causal Fallacies

Post Hoc: because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other

Joint effect: one thing is held to cause another when in fact they are both the joint effects of an underlying cause

Insignificant: one thing is held to cause another, and it does, but it is insignificant compared to other causes of the effect

Wrong Direction: the direction between cause and effect is reversed

Complex Cause: the cause identified is only a part of the entire cause of the effect

Missing the Point

Begging the Question: the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

Irrelevant Conclusion: an argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a different conclusion

Straw Man: the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument

Fallacies of Ambiguity

Equivocation: the same term is used with two different meanings

Amphiboly: the structure of a sentence allows two different interpretations

Accent: the emphasis on a word or phrase suggests a meaning contrary to what the sentence actually says

Category Errors

Composition: because the attributes of the parts of a whole have a certain property, it is argued that the whole has that property

Division: because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts have that property

Non Sequitur

Affirming the Consequent: any argument of the form: If A then B, B, therefore A

Denying the Antecedent: any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B

Inconsistency: asserting that contrary or contradictory statements are both true

Syllogistic Errors

Fallacy of Four Terms: a syllogism has four terms

Undistributed Middle: two separate categories are said to be connected because they share a common property

Illicit Major: the predicate of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the predicate

Illicit Minor: the subject of the conclusion talks about all of something, but the premises only mention some cases of the term in the subject

Fallacy of Exclusive Premises: a syllogism has two negative premises

Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise: as the name implies

Existential Fallacy: a particular conclusion is drawn from universal premises

Fallacies of Explanation

Subverted Support (The phenomenon being explained doesn't exist)

Non-support (Evidence for the phenomenon being explained is biased)

Untestability (The theory which explains cannot be tested)

Limited Scope (The theory which explains can only explain one thing)

Limited Depth (The theory which explains does not appeal to underlying causes)

Fallacies of Definition

Too Broad (The definition includes items which should not be included)

Too Narrow (The definition does not include all the items which should be included)

Failure to Elucidate (The definition is more difficult to understand than the word or concept being defined)

Circular Definition (The definition includes the term being defined as a part of the definition)

Conflicting Conditions (The definition is self-contradictory)

--------------------------------------------------
NZA: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=29642
with some lingering confusion regarding why JE should be accepted, even if it is admitted that he cheats in some or many situations.

Answer: There is, indeed lingering doubt. See if you can figure out which logical fallacy Larsen committed when he linked my observations of JE cold reading on LKL with Schwartz's studies of three years earlier under controlled conditions, in one on ones.
-------------------------------------------------
NZA: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=29034
and http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=26882

where you imply Garrette -- the same guy you'd like to come take a psychic challenge -- is a liar, then follow that up by claiming that asking you to substantiate or retract that insinuation is an attempt to "stifle dissent."

Answer: Please repeat, verbatim, exactly where I called Garrette "a liar."

NZA: Garrette himself stated that he noted your insinuation, which you have never retracted.

Answer: Ah, it was an insinuation. And I and others are not the objects of insinuations and worse by Ed, Larsen, yourself and no few others. Please, you can't be serious. Insinuations are in your mind dear sir. You cannot tell me what I was insinuating because you don't know if I was insinuating or not. I was truly perplexed by your jag on this. See what logical fallacy you may be committing.
-------------------------------------------------
That -- along with skipping from thread to thread when they get 'hot' -- seems to be quite a pattern.

Ans: The pattern is that If i start a thread with a single dot....nothing more, Iwill get a harassing retort from Larsen. Now you are a member of his club as well.

NZA: You accuse me by trying to stifle dissent by asking questions, whereas you've actually banned people from your board based on their philosophy and failure to agree with you.

Ans: Were you banned from some other board which I am alleged to have owned and controlled but which I did not own or control completely? I am tired of answering this one. Prove it. Give us the dns registrations proving my ownership of that board and site and I will fess up.

NZA: You have accused a number of people of being a liar or dishonest, but seem to have no problem if, for example, JE cheats.

Ans: I certainly do have a problem w JE cold reading on LKL. If I didnt I would have remained mum. Are you that dense? Insofar as liars, the only two persons on this board I have accused of this are Larsen and Dittus. I have copies of their libels and slanders going back several years. They are beneath contempt. They are sewerage.

NZA: You go off on anonymous posters, unless they -- for example, Lucianarchy -- support you.

Ans: I go off on people who use their cloak of anonymity to swear, libel, slander and by so doing, lie, in order to attack the person rather than the message. If they do not engage in such contemptuous behavior I have no problem with whatever they choose to call themselves.

NZA: You claim to know many practicing psychics with incredible powers, such as the one that did a reading for you, yet the best cases put forward start off with a 120 year old case of a medium whose control, a french doctor, neither spoke good french nor understood medical terms. And despite these incredible, incredible psychics, you support Schwartz' studies with JE, whom you yourself believe to be cold reading on television.

ANS: And how many psychics would that be? How many is many? One, two, three, five ? Yes I made occasional contact with many psychics who were obvious fakes. I have had one evidential reading. But do I know these people? Am I friends with them? Do I go out to dinner with them or otherrwise socialize with them? No. I put forth my one personal case. The 20 best cases offered to Randi were based on a list drawn up by Professor Archie Roy and handed to Randi by Montague Keen. These are NOT my cases., You are engaging in a clear case of misdirection, distraction by misattribution. Shame on you. Check the logical fallacy on that.

4th November 2003, 05:05 PM

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
How about we hear from Dr. Schwartz directly, instead of someone playing message boy.

Sorry Pyrrho-II, Schwartz does not post to bulletin boards and he is AFK right now anyway. I speak with him on the phone and in person.

Anything I post here regarding him is copied and pasted in e-mail confirmation to him.

NoZed Avenger

4th November 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
NZA: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=29970
where questions were raised regarding your understanding of some basic logical fallacies.
-----------------------------------------------
If you wish logical fallacies, consider the following and apply them to the circular and fallacious logic employed here by some of your poster boys: /b]

Non response to the actual questions noted. Let me guess, you'll follow this biut of misdirection with a claim that -everyone else- is engaging in misdirection.

Projection isn't a logical fallacy, but close enough.

In the url, you'll note that I have substantive problems with the definitions that you attempt to give for two logical fallacies. Now that we've seen the url for the thrid time, perhaps you'd care to head over and actually address the question?

--------------------------------------------------
NZA: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=29642
with some lingering confusion regarding why JE should be accepted, even if it is admitted that he cheats in some or many situations.

Answer: There is, indeed lingering doubt. See if you can figure out which logical fallacy Larsen committed when he linked my observations of JE cold reading on LKL with Schwartz's studies of three years earlier under controlled conditions, in one on ones.
-------------------------------------------------

Again a disconnect between words and behavior -- If you refuse to answer questions for someone else (i.e., Keen or Schwartz) after bringing their messages to the forum, why would I -ever- be responsible for answering for another poster whom I have not represented as some kind of agent or messenger?

Claus is here on the board -- direct the question to him. Of course, he may have one or two for you, as well. . .

NZA: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=29034
and http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=26882

where you imply Garrette -- the same guy you'd like to come take a psychic challenge -- is a liar, then follow that up by claiming that asking you to substantiate or retract that insinuation is an attempt to "stifle dissent."

Answer: Please repeat, verbatim, exactly where I called Garrette "a liar."

I expected this bit of pedantry -- which is why I have consistently stated that you implied -- quite clearly -- that he was a liar. This question has been asked of you some 6-7 times now, and you have responded perhaps twice.

Garrette himself stated in the second thread that he, too, saw the obvious attempt to call him a liar without actually coming out and saying it, but you ignored him, too.

Yet in all those messages, you never once question the basic truth until -now-, some 3-4 threads later after you fervently hope that no one will remember what you said. Just one reason that I believe you keep starting new threads over and over.

NZA: Garrette himself stated that he noted your insinuation, which you have never retracted.

Answer: Ah, it was an insinuation. And I and others are not the objects of insinuations and worse by Ed, Larsen, yourself and no few others. Please, you can't be serious. Insinuations are in your mind dear sir. You cannot tell me what I was insinuating because you don't know if I was insinuating or not. I was truly perplexed by your jag on this. See what logical fallacy you may be committing. [/quote]

This is also not a logical fallacy, per se, it is just a disingenuous smokesceen.

I pointed out the clear insinuation a number of times on those threads. I stated quite clearly that if you -truly- did not mean to make that implication, that you should either clarify your remarks, back them up, or apologize.

Again, you let it go for message after message -- even after Garrette himself stated that he read the message exactly as I did -- and left the insinuation out there.

Garrette: "NoZed, thank you for pointing out what you saw as an undeserved slight from Steve regarding me. I agree that Steve was trying to imply I had lied."
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29034&perpage=40&highlight=reading&pagenumber=5

Further, you tried to rephrase my request for a clarification or retraction as an attempt to "stifle dissenting viewpoints" and then postured like I could not request a retraction unless I had been retained by Garrette as an attorney.

Surely, you cannot have already forgotten? Is that why all the new threads get started - you wake up each morning tabula rosa, with no memory of the messages that you left on the day before? That would be one of the only explanations for your conduct, although I prefer a simpler one.

People can and do draw the obvious inferences from actions like those, sir. As it happens, I know exactly what you meant -- without the need for any psychic powers. As I have stated before, I understand you. No medium needed when your words and actions are all too transparent.

-------------------------------------------------
NZA
That -- along with skipping from thread to thread when they get 'hot' -- seems to be quite a pattern.

Ans: The pattern is that If i start a thread with a single dot....nothing more, Iwill get a harassing retort from Larsen. Now you are a member of his club as well.

NZA: You accuse me by trying to stifle dissent by asking questions, whereas you've actually banned people from your board based on their philosophy and failure to agree with you.

Ans: Were you banned from some other board which I am alleged to have owned and controlled but which I did not own or control completely?

I almost laughed on this one. Normally, you at least try to have a message or two go by before you change a term like "control" to "control completely" as you did above.

NZA: You have accused a number of people of being a liar or dishonest, but seem to have no problem if, for example, JE cheats.

Ans: I certainly do have a problem w JE cold reading on LKL. If I didnt I would have remained mum. Are you that dense? Insofar as liars, the only two persons on this board I have accused of this are Larsen and Dittus. I have copies of their libels and slanders going back several years. They are beneath contempt. They are sewerage.

So you'll be clearing up any confusion or miscommunication regarding Garrette, right -- and make it explicit that you have no intention of leaving anyone with the completely mistaken impression that you believe him to be a liar.

I only ask that I note that, even above, you don't actually address that point directly.

NZA: You claim to know many practicing psychics with incredible powers, such as the one that did a reading for you, yet the best cases put forward start off with a 120 year old case of a medium whose control, a french doctor, neither spoke good french nor understood medical terms. And despite these incredible, incredible psychics, you support Schwartz' studies with JE, whom you yourself believe to be cold reading on television.

ANS: And how many psychics would that be? How many is many? One, two, three, five ? Yes I made occasional contact with many psychics who were obvious fakes. I have had one evidential reading.

But the one reading was "routine" was it not? Did you not assert that there were "many" such psychics with similar, astounding accuracy/abilities?

Say around here?http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29034&perpage=40&highlight=psychic&pagenumber=3

But do I know these people? Am I friends with them? Do I go out to dinner with them or otherrwise socialize with them?

Oh, good. I was hoping for a chance to be pedantic like your "Please repeat, verbatim, exactly where I called Garrette "a liar."

So. Please repeat, verbatim, exactly where I said that you were friends with these psychics, went out to dinner with them or otherwise socialize with them.

No. I put forth my one personal case. The 20 best cases offered to Randi were based on a list drawn up by Professor Archie Roy and handed to Randi by Montague Keen. These are NOT my cases., You are engaging in a clear case of misdirection, distraction by missatribution. Shame on you. Check the logical fallacy on that.

Sorry, but we refer to what you are doing as "blowing smoke." I don't know if that's a logical fallacy, or not, but I think your tactics on the threads listed above are pretty clear to everyone by now.

Or shall we check with the silent majority again?

N/A

Pyrrho

4th November 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Sorry Pyrrho-II, Schwartz does not post to bulletin boards and he is AFK right now anyway. I speak with him on the phone and in person.

Anything I post here regarding him is copied and pasted in e-mail confirmation to him.
Ah. Too bad. I can certainly understand his reluctance, though. You do realize, of course, that as far as many of us are concerned, you're not a reliable or trustworthy go-between. I would urge anyone desiring to set up work with Dr. Schwartz to contact Dr. Schwartz directly.

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 06:17 PM

With reference to the "many" psychics I am alleged to "know" perhaps you should consider the definition of the verb you use which is "to know." I do not "know" many psychics, I have knowldge of some very few psychics and you cannot claim that I have stated anywhere, ever, that I said "I know a many psychics." Specific persons perhaps and in fact only one who provided me with evidence.

If I am careful to quote others, e.g. in this case, Professor Roy and M Keen, you can accept or reject anything I said they did or said or check it out for yourself.(*) I would not expect you to do otherwise. Take it or leave it . Why should I care? Or are you now saying posters here are prohibited from reportage or is that just a special consideration you decided to accord to myself?

Insofar as the Grarrette matter is concerned, it seems to be you have interjected yourself into this because you are interested in subverting the willingness of Schwartz and his team to take Garrette up on his stated claim. It remains, it was offered in good faith.
Just like the offer to Randi remained open long after Randi unilaterally terminated any discussion with Schwartz over the data in his experiments.

In good faith I endeavored to involve Dittus because he slandered Schwartz and his team and Schwartz was willing to give him the opportunity to become involved for his own "ed"ification as well as to possibly reverse his stance. Dittus rejected this offer and continued to slander the investigators, so be it. He also rejected Garrette's claim as well.
Perhaps Ed should apologize to Garrette for insulting him in this manner...even if it wasonly an insinuation.

All you have to do is state the exact words where I either called Garrette a liar or insinuated he was a liar. Its a simple request. You can refer me to lengthy posts and discussions but in my mind they do not support your allegation that I insinuated anything of the kind. I am frankly not used to having fair and open conversations with people who will look at every nuance in a paranoid fashion.

So, for your sake and everybody's, simply re-state here your impression of my insinuation or outright accusation and I will be happy to discuss it with you. From the start you have failed to do that. I hope you consider the above a fair request. You will have to forgive me if I do not respond further until this extremely simple request is granted.
If it isn't, it will be apparent who is doing all the smoke blowing around here.
--------------------------------------------------
(*)BTW this offer by Keen of Roy's 20 best cases appears in Keen's rebuttal to Randi's ranting diatribe about Keen in his commentary. I reprinted it in this forum in direct quotes by permission from Keen and it also appears on at least two websites now. Victor Zammits website and survivalafterdeath.org's website. You really do have a problem in trying to criticize people for things they didn't do like accusing ME of offering 120 year old cases when it was someone else. Clear and concise misattribution on your part NZA.

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 06:23 PM

Pyrrho: Ah. Too bad. I can certainly understand his reluctance, though. You do realize, of course, that as far as many of us are concerned, you're not a reliable or trustworthy go-between. I would urge anyone desiring to set up work with Dr. Schwartz to contact Dr. Schwartz directly.

If Garette wants to do so, he can contact me by PM or PEM and I will be happy to give him the phone numbers and e-mail of the investigators. My only role would be to
provide him with a plane ticket from Indianapolis to Tucson and a prepaid hotel reservation plus reimbursement for any meals at the standard IRS travel rates allowed by law.

I do not believe it is a reluctance BTW so much as it is a distraction for him.

4th November 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If I am careful to quote others, e.g. in this case, Professor Roy and M Keen, you can accept or reject anything I said they did or said or check it out for yourself. I would not expect you to do otherwise. Take it or leave it . Why should I care? Or are you now saying posters here are prohibited from reportage or is that just a special consideration you decided to accord to myself?

So if you don't do a direct quote you have permission to lie?

Perhaps Ed should apologize to Garrette for insuting him in this manner...even if it was an insinuation.

Now, we know already that you have problems with written english, we also kow that you lie. Perhaps you can avoid going three for three and show where I insulted Garrette, even if it was an insinuation. Speaking of apologies, where is mine resulting from your hissy fit over an inability to understand my english?

NoZed Avenger

4th November 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
With reference to -

- almost nothing that you were requested to answer, as usual.

My. How soon we stop quoting -my- text when hit with specifics.

That hissing sound in the background is what was left of your credibility leaking through the holes in your last posts.

Its a quiet sound because there wasn't much left to escape.

Oh. By the way. Because you constantly take personal digs at anyone that disagrees with you in the hopes of generating a furor over personalities so that you can then withdraw because of all the meanness thrown at you -- you know, like when you insinuated that Garrette was a liar, as referenced -exhaustively- above -- I have omitted rising to the bait, but lets be clear, since you apparently have no intention of ever answering points raised and because I've had all the fun that I want at the moment. You said this: "You really do have a problem in trying to criticize people for things they didn't do like accusing ME of offering 120 year old cases when it was someone else. Clear and concise misattribution on your part NZA."

This is roughly the 300th time that you've made a similar accusation and it, like all the others, is pure crap. YOU listed Roy's cases and then selected the 120 year old medium as the first one for discussion. YOU demanded answers from the skeptics for that one case -- checks the urls given above if your memory has once again failed you (maybe you ought to have that looked at by a neurologist, by the way -- forgetting entire threads and misunderstanding so many concepts and messages from so many people could point to a serious organic problem).

YOU left a followup message on that specifc case, unless you now claim that Roy hacked your account. YOU demanded a response for the case, unless you now claim that Keen sneaked into your home and commandeered your computer.

After all of your crawfishing on the threads noted above, I am somewhat surprised that even -you- could manage to raise the bar on hypocrisy by claiming that someone else has misattributed something to you. That bar is now somewhere in the stratosphere, and I believe that with just a few more posts from you, the international space station is in real danger of being struck by it.

Mr. Pot, the Kettle is singularly unimpressed.

I am sure that you will gather the tatters of you self respect around you and pretend its a warm, fuzzy blanket that will protect you from the chill wind of truth blowing through the forum - but your imagined royal cloak is as thin and transparent as your tactics.

I invite anyone reading to look at those threads and judge for themselves your evasions, your twists and turns, your denial, and ultimately, the bankruptcy of your position. Yes, one or two of those are lengthy -- mainly because everyone posting for you has to leave the same questions and make the same inquiries time after time after time after time.

After time.

N/A

Pyrrho

4th November 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: Ah. Too bad. I can certainly understand his reluctance, though. You do realize, of course, that as far as many of us are concerned, you're not a reliable or trustworthy go-between. I would urge anyone desiring to set up work with Dr. Schwartz to contact Dr. Schwartz directly.

If Garette wants to do so, he can contact me by PM or PEM and I will be happy to give him the phone numbers and e-mail of the investigators. My only role would be to
provide him with a plane ticket from Indianapolis to Tucson and a prepaid hotel reservation plus reimbursement for any meals at the standard IRS travel rates allowed by law.

I do not believe it is a reluctance BTW so much as it is a distraction for him.
It appears Dr. Schwartz's contact information is available here, unless it's out of date:

http://www.johrei-institute.org/ourpeople.asp

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 07:33 PM

Pyrrho: It appears Dr. Schwartz's contact information is available here, unless it's out of date:

Ans: As I said before, if/when Garette contacts me, I will give him direct contact information for Schwartz and/or his post-doc and team members. The tel number and e-mail in this website is not one I am familiar with or use for him as it may be an office involved in the particular project being described. It may not be out of date but it is not apparently relevant to the mediumship investigations.

The Mighty Thor

4th November 2003, 07:36 PM

Steve
Ans: I certainly do have a problem w JE cold reading on LKL. If I didnt I would have remained mum. Are you that dense? Insofar as liars, the only two persons on this board I have accused of this are Larsen and Dittus. I have copies of their libels and slanders going back several years. They are beneath contempt. They are sewerage.

Reminder to Steve:

You accused me of being dishonest for what you called my 'selective quoting' of your posts, when I was following the forum rules to cut down on bandwith. You just didn't want to answer the specific questions.

You should go back and read some of your threads all the way through to see how disingenuous you have been

malc

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 07:43 PM

If you selectively quote you are comitting a logical fallacy in your debating techniques. That is dishonest but I would not call you a liar. LOL. The problem is you and others take these remarks to heart and become paranoid about them. You think I am insinuating you are lying. okay, okay. I am touched you feel I am hurting your feelings. But be advised ..... I have a much higher bar for calling someone a liar.

And that bar is represented by Edward Dittus.

You have no conception what lying is until you have wandered through the accusations of infidelity, illicit sexual affairs, accusations of certain persons as being whores and similar trash perpetrated by Ed Dittus against myself and others. Dittus is by far the slimiest piece of garbage there is. You can't hold a candle to this piece of mold. Don't worry.

The Mighty Thor

4th November 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If you selectively quote you are comitting a logical fallacy in your debating techniques. That is dishonest but I would not call you a liar. LOL. The problem is you are and others take these remarks and become paranoid about them. Yiu think I am insinuating you are lying. I have a much higher bar for calling someone a liar.
And that bar is represented by Edward Dittus.

You have no conception what lying is until you have wandered through the accusations of infidelity, illicit sexual affairs, accusations of certain persons as being whores and similar garbage perpetrated by Ed Dittus against myself and others. Dittus is by far the slimiest piece of garbage there is. You can't hold a candle to this piece of mold. Don't worry.

Wrong! I pulled specific items from one of your posts that I felt needed to be addressed. Simple as that.

If you say someone engages in dishonest techniques, you accuse that person of dishonesty -- of being a liar.

malc

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 08:00 PM

Wrong again Mal.....

You are doing it again. You ignore the fact that Ed Dittus is a dirtbag and represents "liar" to me. And I gave you the reasons why. You do not. If I do not answer you its because I do not have the answers to your questions. Sorry. I am not the encylopedia. If you make requests about statements made out of context this is dishonest. It doesnt make any difference. And don't worry about bandwith. In case you haven't noticed, people do quote other people's posts enitrely when it is relevant to the issues being discussed. If you quote me out of context that will be the answer to your question. That and you are playing word games. How much bandwith are you causing to be wasted now?

NZA still can't comply with my simple request. I suggest he is incapable of doing it and he has no legitimate gripe, just blowing smoke. Am I calling him a liar? No. Did I call Garrette a liar? No. Prove to me I called Garrette a liar since NZA apparently is incapable of doing so and can only resort to ad hominem attacks which, BTW, is another logical fallacy.....in fact a whole slew of them (see above).

Sorry being dishonest in a debate, quoting someone out of context does not fit MY definition of liar. I told you that. Why do you feel you have the right to redefine terms where my personal outlook is concerned? I gave you examples of lies e.g. Edw Dittus.

You folks are truly pathetic and are a waste of time. You are marginalizing yourselves with your arguments and doing a very good job of it.

The Mighty Thor

4th November 2003, 08:07 PM

Dittus is by far the slimiest piece of garbage there is.

I guess you two don't get along, huh?
:)

Although I have been pulled onto the ad hom route here, I have to say it leads nowhere. But it does give Steve the chance to divert, obfuscate, evade, and equivocate.

malc

NoZed Avenger

4th November 2003, 08:07 PM

Hmmm. It seems Someone else has already noticed your tendency to accuse (or insinuate) that people are missattributing you:

For example, Renata found quite a few examples of this behavior, and all of the examples seem to show a baseless accusation:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870094843&highlight=brown#post1870094843

[From Renata's message in that thread after being accused of . . . . (can you guess?) misattribution by SG]

Hmmm....Why is this thread degenerating into personal attacks?

Is this the quality of debate one seeks? If one does not want to debate in a certain style, one should debate only with people one finds desirable. Really, these personal attacks are getting tiresome.

It seems to me before accusations of misattribiting and such are thrown around, one needs to substantiate them.

I seem to recall Steve making such accusations against me- without merit.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24321&perpage=40&pagenumber=3

Against Stumpy- without merit

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26590&perpage=40&pagenumber=4

Against Brown- without merit.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25017

I seem to recall him mocking another poster on not knowing the difference between testes and testees- when he himself was incorrect.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23922&perpage=40&highlight=testees&pagenumber=20

[urls added to show original accusations/threads]

But of course, that message was a while back, so the list is somewhat incomplete.

How about an accusation about glee?

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=8966&highlight=misattributing+or+misattribute+or+misatt ribution

Or Claus in the same thread a few messages down(well, no surprise there)?

Or Lurker, acrimonious, and Bill Hoyt all in one go (at least it seems that is who he is accusing -- it may be every other poster on the thread, since he says an entire gaggle of posters are misattributing):

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=21304&perpage=40&highlight=misattributing%20or%20misattribute%20or% 20misattribution&pagenumber=3

Darat:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=24321&perpage=40&highlight=misattributing%20or%20misattribute%20or% 20misattribution&pagenumber=2

Hoyt/Larsen again:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=26807&perpage=40&highlight=misattributing%20or%20misattribute%20or% 20misattribution&pagenumber=2

TBK (about TBK's idea of what SG "would" say if some results were different. That's just odd, as TBK did not even attribute the words to SG.):

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=26807&perpage=40&highlight=misattributing%20or%20misattribute%20or% 20misattribution&pagenumber=2

And some others:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=166387&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

Plus of course me in this thread.

Better locate some new material -- this is getting stale.

N/A

NoZed Avenger

4th November 2003, 08:09 PM

Drat. In the tiem it took to type the above message, he added mal to the list [of people accused] in the message almost directly above.

I just cannot keep up with the accusations, folks - sorry.

Edited to correct typo and add material in brackets

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 08:13 PM

NZA are you enjoying yourself? While you are spending all this time finding insinuations, you could've used a few moments to repeat here, verbatim, what I said that you felt caused me to insinuate that Garrette was a liar.

Still can't do it uh? Well, keep up the research buddy. Maybe it will come to you.

NoZed Avenger

4th November 2003, 08:15 PM

Steve.

I list the url above with the specific page of your insinuation.

You were reminded of it 3-4 times on that very thread when all you had to do was scroll up and look at it for yourself.

I've given you the reference -- and Garrette's personal take on it -- that you were indeed making a clumsy attempt at attacking his character -- and yet you avoided the subject until now you claim amnesia concerning the entire episode.

I can give you the link, Steve, but I cannot place you mouse over it and force you to examine your own words in context.

Neither can I force your eyes open when you shut them closed.

Neither will I raise my voice to penetrate your cries of "LA LA LA LA I CANNN"T HEEEEEEEEEAAAR YOU."

Everyone here can simply take a look at your comments, Garrette's comments, and your refusal to address the issue over 3 separate threads and draw their own conclusions.

N/A

hssssssssssssssssssssssssss . . . . .

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 08:17 PM

Malc: Although I have been pulled onto the ad hom route here, I have to say it leads nowhere. But it does give Steve the chance to divert, obfuscate, evade, and equivocate.

Wrong again Mal. What it gives me the chance to do is define the term liar.
Liar=Edw Dittus.

SteveGrenard

4th November 2003, 08:25 PM

NZA. You are turning this insinuation into a pattern over three separate threads, all leading back to an insinuation that Garrette is lying? Wow. Now this is getting interesting. But it can't be that way. You are a lawyer. You were trained to write briefs right?

Just state, plain and simple, where I said or insinuated Garrette is a liar and why.

It shouldn't be that difficult for you. I already told you I do not agree with your assesment of my comments in the links you posted that they rise to the level of calling Garrette a liar. And in my book, I don't insinuate. That's in your imagination.

I prefer the precision of language. In calling Dittus a liar I was very specific. I have unequivocal proof, in writing, from posts he made here, of his lies which were grievious unprovoked personal attacks which were totally irrelvant to anything being discussed here or anywhere else. It's not good enough to get mad because somebody is banned from a board to turn around and call someone a whore or to accuse somebody else of cheating on their wife because of it. It is slander and as a lawyer you know this. You also know since it was not true it was, indeed, a slanderous lie. Not dishonesty in debate, not quoting out of context or making arguments based on logical fallacies. Pure, simple outright slanderous lying.

Night. for now...........

4th November 2003, 08:53 PM

I said:

ED: As a guy who thinks he can find true love with a hooker so you think that you are finding reality on the Internet. Both beliefs are seriously flawed and following either of them is destined to bring dissapointment.

To which Steve, having read my post closely, replied

Reply: I will ask you once again to stop insulting my wife and family. Please delete the above and apologize. Thank you. I will write once again to James Randi and ask him to do this as well. The end result for you Ed may not be as benign as the last time since you feel it is necessary to persistently add to your heap of libel and slander. The pattern of abuse is growing.

And rambles on:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You have no conception what lying is until you have wandered through the accusations of infidelity, illicit sexual affairs, accusations of certain persons as being whores and similar trash perpetrated by Ed Dittus against myself and others. Dittus is by far the slimiest piece of garbage there is. You can't hold a candle to this piece of mold. Don't worry.

But he also in referring to others, unknowingly refers to himself:

The problem is you and others take these remarks to heart and become paranoid about them.

Steve, time to get those meds adjusted.

Garrette

4th November 2003, 09:09 PM

I've only had time to skim this thread, not read it in detail.

Steve,

Much obliged for the offer to pay expenses. I am in Indiana (when I'm not in Iraq), but I'm much much closer to Louisville, Kentucky, than to Indianapolis. A ticket from Standiford Field would be preferable.

Regarding my background. I am strictly an amateur magician. I have never been paid for any magical performance of any type. Long ago, I did some informal stuff for friends and local organizations. I was never very good.

Since my youth, I have concentrated on research as opposed to performance, but I do 'perform' now in casual settings. For instance, I might wow a group of people I just met at a bar or conference or meeting with a little something.

On top of that, I have done impromptu cold readings as part of informal debates.

In short, my knowledge exceeds my experience when it comes to magic. Still, I am convinced that, with some train up between now and then, I can replicate JE's performance.

Remember, though, it's under the exact same conditions.

4th November 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
My only role would be to
provide him with a plane ticket from Indianapolis to Tucson and a prepaid hotel reservation plus reimbursement for any meals at the standard IRS travel rates allowed by law.

Of what earthly relevance are IRS regulations or the "law"? Once again you are trying to make yourself sound important. You can't deduct these expenditures from your taxes so the "law" does not mean anything.

The Mighty Thor

4th November 2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Hmmm. It seems Someone else has already noticed your tendency to accuse (or insinuate) that people are missattributing you:

For example, Renata found quite a few examples of this behavior, and all of the examples seem to show a baseless accusation:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870094843&highlight=brown#post1870094843

But of course, that message was a while back, so the list is somewhat incomplete.

How about an accusation about glee?

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=8966&highlight=misattributing+or+misattribute+or+misatt ribution

Or Claus in the same thread a few messages down(well, no surprise there)?

Or Lurker, acrimonious, and Bill Hoyt all in one go (at least it seems that is who he is accusing -- it may be every other poster on the thread, since he says an entire gaggle of posters are misattributing):

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=21304&perpage=40&highlight=misattributing%20or%20misattribute%20or% 20misattribution&pagenumber=3

Darat:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=24321&perpage=40&highlight=misattributing%20or%20misattribute%20or% 20misattribution&pagenumber=2

Hoyt/Larsen again:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=26807&perpage=40&highlight=misattributing%20or%20misattribute%20or% 20misattribution&pagenumber=2

TBK (about TBK's idea of what SG "would" say if some results were different. That's just odd, as TBK did not even attribute the words to SG.):

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=26807&perpage=40&highlight=misattributing%20or%20misattribute%20or% 20misattribution&pagenumber=2

And some others:

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=166387&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending

Plus of course me in this thread.

Better locate some new material -- this is getting stale.

N/A

Isn't it revealing how EVERY ONE of the above-mentioned threads ends with skeptics asking legitimate questions, and believers just, well, GONE 'not with a bang but a whimper'. These tactics are truly despicable, oh ye who believe!

malc

4th November 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Garrette
Remember, though, it's under the exact same conditions.

The conditions cannot be exact, Garrette. No way, no how.

For the conditions to be exact, they would have to want you to succeed as much as they wanted the mediums to. What do you think the odds of that are? Those holes in the protocol can work against you.

NoZed Avenger

4th November 2003, 09:54 PM

Steve, short of holding you hand and reading to you as you drift off to sleep, I’ve gone over and above what most people would do to respond to your sidestepping. But of course, even without mind reading, its clear that’s why you do it. Take the issue to something personal, drop the other half dozen or dozen points being discussed (there’s that habit again), and then hope everyone forgets to scroll back up and see what all you’re avoiding.

When that fails, start a new thread, eh?

Your request was answered before you even made it.

Before we re-commence with your dance away from the facts, however, my feelings of mercy cause me to ask: Do you –really- want to invoke the rule that a failure to respond to a question or request equals an admission by the party questioned?

Really?

I only ask because if you invoke that rule as valid, you have just admitted somewhere between 60 and 600 damning facts on every subject from allopathy to zoology against a dozen different posters. So be careful throwing out your chest.

And now for more fun.

/raises hand to head.
/closes eyes in concentration

“The spirits speak to me. They say that quoting just the message will lead to a complaint that I have taken things out of context. Citing the thread and page will be ignored (again) and a complaint will be made that no answer was given. Quoting anything but entire messages from the people involved will lead to an accusation of (all together now) misattribution.”

First, for context, we’ll remind everyone of the thread involving Garrette that you abandoned after painting yourself into a corner:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29034

Keep in mind that this was not the first thread on this topic in mid-October, as I noted in that thread on 10:19 at 5:07pm

[from NoZed Avenger]
Yet another new thread?

You were doing so well ignoring the points in the other thread about Mr. Keen, why a second one?

You never answered. Invoking your “admission rule,” of course, proves under your system that you were ignoring points in the first thread involving M. Keen.

This tendency was noted by TLN at 5:55 pm in that thread:

Asked direct questions, you just cut and paste some more.

Give it up Steve.

“Not answered = Admitted” by Steve Grenard.

The message before Garrette posted, made by SG on 10/19 at 7:53 pm included this:
[from SteveGrenard] Piper/GP and Runki's missing leg I wrote up using the following three references:

Immortal Remains: Evidence for Life After Death by Stephen E. Braude (2003)

Mediumship and Survival - A Century of Investigations by Alan Gauld. 1982.
As an aside: this says that the two entries regarding “piper” and the missing leg were written up by you for that thread.

Didn’t you just assert above in this thread that you -weren’t- making any kind of assertion on the piper case – the 120 year old case mentioned above; one the topics you missed when you started the latest tear into personalities? But how is that possiblke, if you “wrote up” the message?

Back to the topic that you do feel like discussing: You give the two above references.

Garrette replies (10/20; 2:36 am):
I don't know about Randi's library, but I have the Gault and Meyers books.

The Gault book is a joke. He admits blatantly, early, and often that he is not trying to prove survival or even show evidence for survival. He is assuming survival is a fact and attempting to show that communication with surviving spirits is the mechanism by which mediums achieve their hits as opposed to telepathy.

If you believe the Gault book shows anything regarding evidence of survival, then you have no critical thinking skills at all.

It's been a while since I've read the Meyers book so can't comment specifically on it, other than to say that it was also unimpressive regarding any evidentiary value.

SG replies in typical fashion (10/20, 3:31 am):
If you have the "Gault" book, the author of which you misspelled several times in your post, then you would also know his name is Gauld, not Gault. So much for details. Easy mistake. I misspelled Meyer's name, which is Myers.

What does your ad hominem about critical thinking skills have to do with sourcing the 20 Archie Roy best cases?

This is just more character assasination. It runs rampant here. It is a symptom of a bankrupt attempt to denigrate individuals instead of the subject matter. It just never ends. There is no way any fence sitter looking on cannot see this tactic in its purest form of action here. You all are a case study in this type of behavioral response.

The paucity of your arguments is noted.

Character assassination is a nice change of pace from misattribution, I’ll say that.

So Garrette, and everyone else, is a case study in this type of bankrupt response. But at least he isn’t a liar, yet.

Also note that SG brings up the books and states that they should be owned by investigators. Garrette responds, and then SG asks what that has to do with the “20 Archie Roy best cases” – apparently forgetting in the space of two messages that he, in fact, brought the books up. (Neurologist. A check up can’t hurt; that’s all I’m saying)

Garrette (10/20; 3:41 am):
[snip]
First, it's an assessment, not an ad hom. If someone said they consider Jack Chick's comics as proof of christianity, I would say they have no critical thinking skills. If you consider GAULD'S book as evidence of survival, then...well, you know what I said...

Second, I was responding to your suggestion that open minded investigators should have these books, not to the books as sourcing.

Third, if you want me to address these books as source material, I will, for Gauld at least. It's not source material. It's not even second-hand. It's not even a detailed summary. Gauld glosses over the cases he mentions without giving detailed description of readings or investigations.

In effect, he says "Piper did convincing stuff. She was investigated by smart people. They found nothing."

He continues by saying "Now that survival is proven, let's determine if ADC or telepathy explains what Piper did." [snip]

SG (10/20; 3:43)
The book is such garbage it was on your list to take to Iraq and is actually there with you? That's very funny. What else did you bring?

Now this, typically, insinuates that Garrette has lied about having the book – if it is so worthless, then why would be have it? It avoids making the direct accusation so that SG can later wait for someone to say that he “called” Garrette a liar and then pounce on that word as a pedantic inaccuracy.

Oh, that’s right – he tried that in this very thread, even though I used imply or insinuate; he changed it and used the tactic anyway – as predicted.

At this point, SG had already abandoned the Montague Keen thread in which he seemed to make a number of claims before starting the thread at issue. That url is here and shows why I was asking (for the nth time -- for SG to either back up his statements concerning my posts on that Keen thread or withdraw his assertions): http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26882

Knowing – after a number of non-responses from SG in the Keen thread – that I wouldn’t have a response, I ask them again, anyway. I’m like that:

N/A (10/20; 9:42 am)

------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
All we seem to get here is the aforementioned ad hominem attacks and character assasination. It is, as I said before, an impoverished tactic that has no true value.
-------------------------------------------

So earlier in this thread when you insinuated that Garrette was a liar when he said that he found the Gauld book less than impressive, that would be an impoverished tactic without any value, right?

Likewise, in the previous thread about Keen - the one you've abandoned to begin this one - your claim that my first message in that thread labeled your message "defensive" or later, "derisive" was an impoverished tactic without any value, right?

- Especially since you have been completely unable to back up that accusation. That would make it -especially- lacking in value, wouldn't it?

Likewise, your comments in that same thread that the people disagreeing with you were engaging in a "three stooges routine," that kind of comment would be out of place and improper, right?

The points above were not answered. By the use of the SG “Not Answered = Admitted” rule, SG has admitted that he insinuated that Garrette was a liar (and used an impoverished tactic to do so), etc.

As another brief aside, we can see on page two and three of the thread how the silent majority of posters supporting SG are feeling:

Barkhorn1x (10/20; 11:38 am)

Hey Steve,

Care to respond to ANY of my posts in the other thread?

Next, after quite a few posts with no response:

N/A (10/22; 9:52 am)
Since the topic has apparently changed, I am guessing that the chance of having earlier questions from this and the other thread on the same (original) subject has been reduced to nil.

No response = Admitted.

N/A (10/22; 11:24)
Since the topic has apparently changed, I am guessing that the chance of having earlier questions from this and the other thread on the same (original) subject has been reduced to nil.

That’s not déjà vu – I tried again to get a response.

Remember: No response = Admitted.

And again:
N/A (10/22; 9:22 pm)

quote:
_______________
Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Since the topic has apparently changed, I am guessing that the chance of having earlier questions from this and the other thread on the same (original) subject has been reduced to nil.
_______________

Good call.

I'd say we'll never find out what statement from Randi supposedly caused Keen to believe that he said the he could debunk 100 year old anecdotes, why Mr. Grenard stated that you first post in the 'Keen' thread labeled his defensive (then derisive) without ever admitting that he made a mistake (most generous reading). We'll also never find out why he insinuated that Garette was a liar regarding the books he read, or see an apology for it.

Time for a new thread.

The trumpets sound! SG responds (10/22; 9:32) (quoted in full)

Ah NoZed, quoting yourself I see. Yes, we did get side tracked but not by me.... by Loki and a few others. Here is the complete article by Keen leading up to the challenge to Randi to explain the 20 cases, two of which I attempted to summarize above.

This has appeared on several websites but I have M.Keen's permission to reprint it. It is not the entire piece which now includes follow-ups as well but they are not directly relevant to these 20 cases which you seem to be inetrested in. This follows in next post.

Sorry to keep you waiting. Please read it carefully, even study it, before responding so that your sharp legal mind can have a full appreciation of Keen's position vis a vis Randi's claims. Your fair and unbiased judgement is awaited.

Er. Well, perhaps “responds” isn’t the right word – no actual answer to the questions that have been asked across 2 threads, and no response to the Garrette matter.

No Response = . . . Well, you know.

Back to me (10/23; 5:36 pm) (italics added)
My sharp, legal mind only says "objection, nonresponsive."

That is, the material you place here from Keen does not deal with the matters inquired about. Arguably, some of it -might- be stretched to some kind of relationship with the quote from Randi where he supposedly claims that he can debunbk anything, no matter how old, but not even that is actually contained in that material. In fact, the closest that it comes is the complaint that Randi does -not- make such a claim as part of his challenge, but (in Keen's opinion) -should-.

I have asked you to back up your statement that my original message labeled your posts as defensive or derisive now somewhere around 4 times. It seems obvious that you have no answer and no plans to answer.

I have asked twice now you to either back up or retract what appears to be a serious insinuation that Garette is lying about how important or authoritative some of the books that he has read on the subject were. It seems obvious that you have no plans to answer that, either.

Before moving on to yet another new discussion, I'd like to have a firm foundation under my feet. If points are continually dropped with no resolution and no closure, then everyone is simply spinning their wheels.

And again, the “response” to the rather serious point about Garrette?

SG (10/23; 6:34 pm) (partial quote – only including part relevant to Garrette; full text on page 4 of thread)
On the subjects of books, I recognize the right of anyone to be a positive or a negative critic of same. It is hardly possible for you or anyone else to render an opinion regarding ones opinion of one or more particular titles without reading them oneself. And even if you agreed say, w/ Garette regarding these titles, please don't think that gives you the right to stifle a dissenting opinion. Even the Supreme court publishes its dissenting opinions. which are embraced by many constitutents.

(1) Note the –complete- non-answer to the request that SG either back up or retract an apparent insinuation of lying. SG does not protest innocence, does not apologize or assert a misunderstanding, does not in fact say anything even germane to the topic.

(2) Note the cute addition of a new claim that I – in requesting a retraction – am now trying to “stifle a dissenting opinion.”

I’m just lucky I didn’t misattribute something.

N/A (10/23; 8:47 pm) (partial quote)
This has nothing to do with Garrette's criticism of a book -- and I cannot believe that you seem to be saying it is -- or that my question -- asking you to retract a bald insinuation that Garrette was lying about his opinion -- is some kind of attempt to "stifle a dissenting opinion."

Not only do you not retract your uncalled-for insinuation regarding Garrette, but now you add a second completely unfounded accusation -- again by insinuation -- against me for calling on you to either back up your comments or withdraw them regarding Garrette's honesty.

You have had multiple occasions to deal with this squarely but have failed or refused to do so. I hope that the silent majority has taken notice.

There is, of course, more. I’ll try to limit the rest.

SG (10/23; 9:52 pm) (partial quote)
Dear Mr. NoZed Avenger:

Garette and I have been corresponding and debating for some two years now.
He is presently unable to always respond because of limited net access due to his current situation.

I have no intention of debating or discussing any real or imagined problem you have interjected yourself in. Are you his lawyer? Are you representing him? Or is this just something you decided to do?

Several more messages followed, including the one quoted above from Garrette where he said that he took SG’s quote to imply, as I did, that SG was insinuating that he was a liar.

Even with that addition, there was no apology; no explanation. This thread is the closest that SG has even come to a denial.

My favorite part is the bit about Garrette having limited net access – like having someone not present to defend himself makes such an implication –better- somehow.

I hope it is clear that this matter could have –easily- been cleared up by SG at any time from the first message onward. For that matter, the questions from the Montague Keen thread could have been easily answered or explained away with little effort and I would have left the thread. Instead, 4 threads and a gross of unanswered questions later, here we are.

Again, I invite – nay, I encourage – all to read the threads referenced above and draw your own conclusions. Besides, you’ve seen so much of them now, there’s no harm in seeing the rest, right?

Heck - bump it up; some questions may have just been overlooked - you never know.

N/A

Garrette

4th November 2003, 10:16 PM

a
Ed:

The conditions cannot be exact, Garrette. No way, no how.

For the conditions to be exact, they would have to want you to succeed as much as they wanted the mediums to. What do you think the odds of that are? Those holes in the protocol can work against you.

Agreed. I tried to mention this in the thread that started it all, but think I got kicked off the net before it posted.

Steve, this is a significant point and one with which I agree (at least the part about the experimenters wanting it to succeed). Any thoughts on how to overcome this?

Anyone else?

Garrette

4th November 2003, 10:21 PM

Oh, yes, Steve:

It little becomes you to

1) Assert that Ed has backed out of this 'challenge.'

2) Post it as part of a thread title.

Ed had nothing to do with this. I agreed to duplicate what was done before. I did not consult with Ed nor he with me. You suggested that he might pay expenses which he declined. He was never part of anything to back out of.

I suspect you know this.

Hannibal

5th November 2003, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Malc: Although I have been pulled onto the ad hom route here, I have to say it leads nowhere. But it does give Steve the chance to divert, obfuscate, evade, and equivocate.

Wrong again Mal. What it gives me the chance to do is define the term liar.
Liar=Edw Dittus.

Steve,

If you wish to be taken seriously- and this is constuctive criticism here - then stop the constant Ed references. You come across like a petulant child.

Bahala Na!

Lucianarchy

5th November 2003, 06:11 AM

1503 E. University Blvd * Building 68 * Tucson, AZ 85721 * Phone: (520) 621-7447 * Fax (520) 621-9306

gschwart@u.arizona.edu

SteveGrenard

5th November 2003, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Garrette

Agreed. I tried to mention this in the thread that started it all, but think I got kicked off the net before it posted.

Steve, this is a significant point and one with which I agree (at least the part about the experimenters wanting it to succeed). Any thoughts on how to overcome this?

Anyone else?

Because this is not a drug trial, chemistry or a physics experiment, conditions related to the original experiments of 3+ years ago can never be duplicated. I think you have to accept this fact and decide if a new protocol, designed to determine if a cold reader can provide the same level of acceptance in a sitter and non-sitter as the purported genuine mediumistic contact meets your conditions. If your offer was based on a precise duplication of everything in phase I, it would be impossible and unreasonable to expect those precise conditions be duplicated in every respect. To me its that simple. In the previous experiments they were not even testing this so how could it ever be the same? In addition you will not have the same mediums involved, you will not have the same premises involved, you will not have a TV crew present and you probably won't have the same sitters.

There are new things to learn, including a tightening up of protocols from the first experiment. For example, as you know there were sitter silent and sitter non-visual contact sessions. There have been since then proxy sittings with mediums. In general if you think or maintain that some type of cold reading can produce the same level of acceptance or greater for that matter, then you must accept the experimental design best designed to demonstrate that. Schwartz and others are truly interested in learning if cold readers can duplicate the performance of purportedly genuine mediums under a variety of conditions.

Conditions would be the same for both the cold reader and the medium. This would go a long way in proving that purportedly genuine mediums are fakes or that what they do can be effectively faked. I think that is the objectivce now.

SteveGrenard

5th November 2003, 07:01 AM

Now NZA that I know what you are talking about (the Gauld/Gault book discussion and question), I would be happy to give you the same answers I havealready given Garrette privately. I also take offense that I did not answer this at the time. I did but you seemed to overlook it. I said anyone has the right to criticize any book, etc etc.

The issue of why Garrette used his precious weight allowance to carry a book he felt was worthless was based on my discussions with many kids going to Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq and Kuwait.
Garrette answered me: he was given the book as a gift and decided to pack it. I accepted this.

In response to the precise question of his "do I think this book provides evidence of surival of consciousness, the answer is no, no book can do that to a scientific certainty. Gauld discusses the pros and cons of many case histories. But none of these were controlled experiments. We had to await the arrival of Robinson and Roy and Schwartz to start doing controlled experiments and these, and these alone, are the only thing that provide such evidence. Even my personal singular experience, as compelling as it was, cannot provide evidence acceptable to others. Likewise I do not believe one can make pro or con judgements on this bigger question from watching TV programs.
When a medium such as JE blatantly cold reads by asking leading questions after he has just cautioned people not to give him such information or you see JVP parrot what the sitters tell him 2 seconds later -- he hardly takes a breath, then you can draw the conclusion such mediums are cold reading at this time.

Re ED

Ed provoked my reactions to him my accusing Schwartz and his team of fraud. This is a very very serious allegation in academia.
Ed knows this. I appraised Schwartz of this accusation and he suggested to me that since Ed implies he is very rich and can even hire me to push pencils for him (assuming he matches my salary) that he fund an experiment so that he can decide for himself if fraud permeates Schwartz's lab. At the same time Garrette was reiterating his earlier offer and I made Schwartz aware of this as well. These two things came together at the same time. I thought Ed would be interested in finding out if
cold reading can really produce similar results to purportedly genuine mediums and pay what amounts to a pittance for him to do so. Apparently not. Ed apparently thinks he can make accusations of fraud without any countenance. He was countered on it, he refused to participate and he did so on grounds which are a matter of record.

I won't bring it up again here.

NoZed Avenger

5th November 2003, 07:28 AM

Let me first point out the number of items not answered from the above post from me, including the one on the 120 years-ago psychic.

Remember, Not Addressed = Admitted.

Come to think of it, for someone who adamantly insists in the strongest terms that all texy from you is quoted, you sure don't feel the need to reciprocate.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Now NZA that I know what you are talking about-

Well, we've established the magic number of times a subject has to be brought up before you realise what its over -- 9. Or was it 10? You -do- realise the first post asking about this was made within a few hours of your initial post?

Like this one?

So earlier in this thread when you insinuated that Garrette was a liar when he said that he found the Gauld book less than impressive, that would be an impoverished tactic without any value, right?

So its your contention that these messages did nothing to inform you about what I was asking. . . . You just had no idea until the magic post, above? NOW you know what I am referring to.

That memory thing, again.

(the Gauld/Gault book discussion and question), I would be happy to give you the same answers I havealready given Garrette privately. I also take offense that I did not answer this at the time. I did but you seemed to overlook it. I said anyone has the right to criticize any book, etc etc.

Your defintion of "at the time" seems extremely fluid, as my first five (5) posts asking for a retraction/explanation went completely unanswered. But then, your definition of "answer" seems overly broad, as well.

As pointed out in the original thread, and in the post above from me -- demanded quite loudly by you, then largely ignored -- this post can be called an "answer" only in the sense that you wrote it some time after my posts and it purported to be to me. It certainly does not answer the actual point about Garrette or provide any explanation regarding the insinuation.

Again, your "answer":SG (10/23; 6:34 pm)
On the subjects of books, I recognize the right of anyone to be a positive or a negative critic of same. It is hardly possible for you or anyone else to render an opinion regarding ones opinion of one or more particular titles without reading them oneself. And even if you agreed say, w/ Garette regarding these titles, please don't think that gives you the right to stifle a dissenting opinion. Even the Supreme court publishes its dissenting opinions. which are embraced by many constitutents.

I will omit my first response, but here is what I said in this thread, as you seem to have missed it:

(1) Note the –complete- non-answer to the request that SG either back up or retract an apparent insinuation of lying. SG does not protest innocence, does not apologize or assert a misunderstanding, does not in fact say anything even germane to the topic.

(2) Note the cute addition of a new claim that I – in requesting a retraction – am now trying to “stifle a dissenting opinion.”

Do you -really- feel that asking someone to retract an implication of dishonesty stifles dissenting opinion?

The issue of why Garrette used his precious weight allowance to carry a book he felt was worthless-[/B]

And here it is. The implication in question expressed by its author.

Here is the original post (which directly followed a post stating that Garrette was engaging in nothing moe than "character assassination," you will recall):The book is such garbage it was on your list to take to Iraq and is actually there with you? That's very funny.

You have just confirmed, again, that your post -was- an attempt to back-handedly insinuate that Garrette was lying when he said that this "worthless" book (your partial paraphrase) was taken with him.

As pointed out above, Garrette felt you had intended that same insinuation.

And yet here we are -what?- 3 threads later?

Edited to correct typos

Garrette

5th November 2003, 09:32 PM

Let's be clear right now about what is on the line here and get this back on track. Here is my original 'offer', in full:

Garrette:

I have offered on other boards--and I do so again here--to personally replicate what was done by JE and the other 'psychics' during the Schwartz experiments (I am less familiar with Scole).

I emphasize, though, that it must be under exactly the same conditions. That means I get to be kept in the same building as the sitters. I get to mingle with the other psychics both before and after they have read the sitters. I get to use the same flawed statistical methods afterwards to determine my hit rate. I get to have my statements count as hits for one fact during the sitting and as an additional hit four weeks later for a different fact (reference the repeat sitter who suffered a loss between readings). I get to have only a flimsy screen separating me from the sitter, and the screen needs a small (insignificant, yes?) gap. The sitters must already be convinced I am real.

And, oh yes, the experiment must not be blinded, the experimenter must also believe in my powers ahead of time, and the experimenter must decide at nearly the last minute to use himself as one of the sitters.

There will be none of this deceitful propensity to apply more stringent conditions to skeptics than to the 'psychics.'

I guess that leaves only the funding. I won't require that HBO fund it, but it certainly can't come out of my pocket (and, to be fair, not out of the experimenter's pocket, either). But I suppose it should come out of the pocket of someone who's ratings could be boosted by a successful outcome. But I'll waive that last bit.

Fair enough?

First point: I never used the word cold-reading. To me, that term refers to a specific method and is too limiting. In any test of which I am a part, I intend to cheat by any means possible, including but not limited to cold reading. I intend this because it will demonstrate that such cheating was possible during the original experiment.

Second point:

Compare this statement of Steve's:

There are new things to learn, including a tightening up of protocols from the first experiment

To this statement of mine:

There will be none of this deceitful propensity to apply more stringent conditions to skeptics than to the 'psychics.'

Third point: My offer had nothing at all to do with comparing my skills to those of a practice medium/psychic/whatever in a controlled environment.

Fourth point: My offer had everything to do with pointing out the flaws in Schwartz's experiments by replicating the results under the same conditions. I do not think I could have been much clearer in my original post.

Fifth point: I understand that asking for a literally exact replication is impossible and am therefore open to discussing necessary and minor compromises. I am not, however, open to changing the tenor of the whole experiment which is what you are now suggesting, Steve.

If you believe there is a lot to learn using stricter controls and both mediums and cold-readers, then I won't criticize you or anyone else for that, but that is a totally separate issue than what I have put forth here.

I must admit that I expected an attempt to change the terms so that the same flaws present in the original experiment would not be there during my test, but I did not expect it so soon or so blatantly.

Still, as I can get to it, I will begin coming up with proposed protocols and present them to Schwartz. Anyone on this board with suggestions is more than welcome to make them.

Hannibal

6th November 2003, 01:58 AM

Steve,

Why is it necessary to change the protocols for the "new" test? If Randi had done this with an applicant for the $1m then I am sure you would be amongst the first to jump on him.

The fact that you are wanting to introduce new measures suggests that you are dubious of the controls on the original, in which case the results gained from it are seriously flawed and cannot be treated as evidence (or at least not credible evidence).

Steve, you are clearly an articulate and educated guy - So how about responding to ALL the points Garrette has raised?

Pyrrho

6th November 2003, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
Still, as I can get to it, I will begin coming up with proposed protocols and present them to Schwartz. Anyone on this board with suggestions is more than welcome to make them.
My first suggestion is for you to deal directly with Dr. Schwartz.

Loki

6th November 2003, 01:37 PM

Garrette,

My offer had everything to do with pointing out the flaws in Schwartz's experiments by replicating the results under the same conditions. I do not think I could have been much clearer in my original post.
For what it's worth, I understood you!!

Still, as I can get to it, I will begin coming up with proposed protocols and present them to Schwartz. Anyone on this board with suggestions is more than welcome to make them.
1. Gather Data.

(a) Ingredients - 1 medium, 10 sitters.
(b) Place "medium" in a room (no windows, closed door).
(c) Select a sitter at random, bring into an adjacent room. Signal medium to begin.
(d) Medium writes down any and all images, references, dates, names, symbols, etc that they wish. There is no contact, visual or audio, between medium and sitter at any stage.
(e) At end of 5 minutes, medium places written notes into a numbered envelope and seals it. Sitter leaves adjacent room.
(f) Repeat (c) to (e) for remaining 9 sitters.

2. Generate Results. Use one of the following two methods (or perhaps alternate on different trials) :

(a) Distribute copies of all 10 readings to all 10 sitters, and ask them to find their own.

(b) Distribute copies of a randomly chosen 5 readings to all 10 sitters, ask them to find their own. It's possible that the sitter's actual reading is not in the 5, and the sitter knows this, so "none" is a possible answer. This approach discourages sitters from trying to "stretch" too far to find a match.

The only way I can see the above can be cheated is either (a) the people conducting the tests cheat or (b) a medium and one or more sitters arrange prior to the test to use "code phrases" so that the sitter(s) can *always* find their own reading. Obviously, this means the medium would need prior knowledge of who the sitter(s) would be.

Assuming competent researchers, both the above possibilities can be eliminated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also like the idea of "reversing" the test so that it's the medium, not the sitters, who generate the validation. Of course, this is pointless for cold-readers, since they *know* they'll fail (so sorry Garrette, but you can't take this test!)

1. Ingredients : 1 medium, 5 sitters. Ideally, the sitters should have as wide a variety of "dead people details" as possible (ie, one sitter has lost a child, one has both parents, one has lost no close family memebers at all, one has lost a wife.husband, etc)

2. Make sure the sitters and medium know each other! Get them as friendly as possible. The sitters should detail every single dead person they can think of who might want to contact them. Names, dates, places, pets names, cause of death, relationship to sitter, everything. Medium takes as many notes as he/she needs.

3. Medium enters small room, no windows, closed door.

4. Randomly select a sitter, have them enter an adjacent room.

5. Medium "does a reading" for 5 minutes, writing down the images, datas, names, symbols, etc. Then (after consulting previous notes if necessary) the medium tries to identify the sitter.

6. If the medium incorrectly identifies the sitter, the sitter and medium go over the reading notes to try and see why. Medium makes any further notes as required.

7. Go back to 4.

8. Repeat until the medium reaches a certain "repeatability level" - say 4 out 5 correct. You could argue that they should be able to (eventually) reach 5 out of 5, but I think that if the medium can do 20 trials and get 16 correct then that's pretty much beyond chance.

The good thing about the above trial is that it should be repeatable. If the medium can do it on a Monday, then they can do it on a Wednesday too, if required.

The bad thing is that this test requires the spirit world to do it's part and behave somewhat predictably. I have a sneaking suspicion that those elusive and funloving spirits will try to trick the poor medium every now and then, just for laughs, so the end result will be something approaching chance.

SteveGrenard

6th November 2003, 03:41 PM

I am not suggesting a protocol at all....none whatsoever. Garrette clearly opened the floor to such suggestions so go for it Hannibal.

I did point out it would be impossible to replicate conditions in the original study which was over 3 years ago unless you have a time machine: same mediums
(Edward, Northrop, Gehman, Anderson and Campbell -- it isn't go to happen); same sitters (see book and published papers) and same students off the street to second guess the mediums).
Linda Ellerbee's production company and TV crew ain't gonna be there (or maybe they will--hmm, who knows?).
Garrette has agreed with this in PM. Barring this, I have made NO suggestions re this matter so feel free to do as Loki has and propose some protocols. I have sent Loki's to Dr Beischel and Dr Schwartz already.

I clearly stated somewhere above my role would be merely to obtain funds to send Garrette from his home in the US to Tucson if and when that becomes necessary to do this. Garrette now has a variety of contact points Pyrrho including some not published here.

Thank you. Now back to you guys.

NoZed Avenger

6th November 2003, 08:34 PM

At the time of my last post on this thread, approximately 24 hours ago, I sealed the following prediction in a hermetically sealed mason jar underneath the front porch of my neighbor.

The text of this prediction can be verified, if necessary.

I invite all who have spent time on these last few threads following Mr. Grenard to judge the accuracy for themselves:

[Prediction regarding SG in the latest thread]

[Time Stamp: 11-05-2003 08:35 PM]

If he follows patterns to date, he will wait a bit on this thread.
He wants 3-4 posts after mine so he can reply to one or more of those and ignore my message. He knows it is more trouble for me to follow up than for him to simply ignore it (as usual). It may be a day or two before he posts anything.

It is -almost- time for him to move to a new thread and try to leave all the inconvenient questions from the last thread behind, just like the others.

I am sending this prediction beforehand. We'll see how accurately I have predicted his behavior.

I await my check for the million dollars for a successful prediction.

Mr. Grenard, thanks for playing. As I think I said in two of the several threads that it has been my pleasure to be ignored in, I -do- understand you. I think the above prediction shows that.

Night night.

Garrette

7th November 2003, 03:24 AM

SteveGrenard:

Now NZA that I know what you are talking about (the Gauld/Gault book discussion and question), I would be happy to give you the same answers I havealready given Garrette privately.

Steve, in one of my pms to you I addressed this statement of yours and asked you to either point out to me where you had pm'd me on this subject or state publicly that you had misspoken. I said I preferred you have the chance to correct yourself before I pointed out an error.

I have not heard from you regarding this, but have had you pm me on other topics.

I therefore feel justified in stating publicly that you have not pm'd me regarding the Gauld book or NZA's/my inference that I had lied.

Just a point of interest for those who care.

7th November 2003, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Garrette

Steve, in one of my pms to you I addressed this statement of yours and asked you to either point out to me where you had pm'd me on this subject or state publicly that you had misspoken. I said I preferred you have the chance to correct yourself before I pointed out an error.

I have not heard from you regarding this, but have had you pm me on other topics.

I therefore feel justified in stating publicly that you have not pm'd me regarding the Gauld book or NZA's/my inference that I had lied.

Just a point of interest for those who care.

Just a quick note, for the record.

So far Steve has:
-Misrepresented my position in this concocted farce
-Attempted to change the ground rules as specifically cited by Garrett
-Rapidly backed off of a change
-Lied about his communications with Garette

Way to go.

NoZed Avenger

7th November 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Garrette

Steve, in one of my pms to you I addressed this statement of yours and asked you to either point out to me where you had pm'd me on this subject or state publicly that you had misspoken. I said I preferred you have the chance to correct yourself before I pointed out an error.

I have not heard from you regarding this, but have had you pm me on other topics.

I therefore feel justified in stating publicly that you have not pm'd me regarding the Gauld book or NZA's/my inference that I had lied.

Just a point of interest for those who care.

Just when you think it cannot get any better. . . or is that worse?

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 07:07 AM

Steve will disappear for a couple of days, then start new threads, like this has never happened.

Should we let him get away with it, or should we collate a list, which will wait for him when he comes back? :)

(Email me at webmaster@skepticreport.com with the points/questions)

Lucianarchy

7th November 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho

My first suggestion is for you to deal directly with Dr. Schwartz.

Indeed. And don't worry about the protocols. All you have to do is get the same results as the mediums under the same conditions. Badda bing...? If the controls are as poor as Mr Ed claims, then it should be easy anyway no matter what they decide on:p

Kudos to Garrette.:th:

SteveGrenard

7th November 2003, 10:06 AM

Please check your PMs. I said you cannot get evidence of survival from a book. Please check my public posts wherein I
said your are free to criticize any book for any purpose. When someone writes a book this is a given.

Please check the public notices wherein I asked why you used your precious weight allowance to carry a book you say you read before and didn't think was any good to Iraq. Please check your answer to that: you got it as a gift so decided to take it. Please check my response: okay...that explains it. I find it rather disingenous of both you and NZA to take offense at this trivial conversation especially when you compare it to the grossest, most putrid, sick and revolting insults and slanders made by Dittus and Larsen which you both seem to have no problem with.

Please check my response regarding the protocol. I have nothing to do with it. I was and I am still willing to fund a trip to Tucson from your home in the US when and if it becomes necessary for the purpose of participating in a mediumship experiment at HESL. However, if you and NZA are trying to pick a fight so you can back out of this, that's fine also. I understand. Just say so. As Luci says whatever would apply to the mediums would apply to you and you would both be rated exactly the same. My only comment on the protocol is that you cannot insert yourself into the precise or identical conditions (mediums, sitters, lab staff, film companies) that existed over 3 years ago.

PS: My posting patterns are dictated by other obligations which are time sensitive whereas responses here are not.

thaiboxerken

7th November 2003, 10:48 AM

I see the protocols as needing revision. Schwartz should only design the test and it should be double blind. The test results should be judged by a third party that doesn't know who the "real" medium is and who the cold reader is. The sitters should not know who the "real" medium is either. Voices should be electronically masked. James Randi should participate in the design and oversee the test to see if Scharwtz is cheating.

NoZed Avenger

7th November 2003, 11:18 AM

The record in this case is clear, though it stretches back some 4-5 threads.

The material, referenced, quoted and cross-indexed at your demand, shows clearly what happened and when it happened. The record clearly shows a continual pattern of evasion, obfuscation, equivocation, and sophistry on your part.

Unfortunately, your repertoire is not varied enough to carry it off. Your tactics are completely predictable. Your latest post -- the tack of which had also been anticipated -- is nothing more than puffed-up posturing that fools no one.

You demand exact quotes, but cannot be bothered to do so yourself.

You accuse others of misattribution and all manner of dishonest tactics, but constantly find "novel" uses for straightforward words and sentences that baffle the rest of the English speaking word.

You haughtily announce that an alleged failure to respond to points indicates the person admits that he cannot respond, but forget that your entire posting history consists of nothing but dropping points made by others and fleeing from thread to thread like a fugitive from justice.

You complain loudly and long about supposed ad hominem attacks, but constantly engage in the tactic yourself.

You contantly move goalposts and change terms being used so that the other person must constantly bring your own words back in front of you in order to stay anywhere near the actual facts.

What language you cannot twist in your favor, you change. What you cannot change, you ignore. What you cannot ignore, you run from. What you cannot run from, you complain about as a misattribution or a vicious, unfair attack.

Your entire act depends on a lack of endurance. You count on the other person simply losing the patience to keep coming back. You try to make it harder for them to respond at every turn: they must quote; they must search; they must point out the exact language; they must remind you of the topic; they must follow you to a new thread -- while you ignore post after post, and then, if by some miracle or mistake you do write a post, it has little or nothing to do with the point. All of that is designed - consciously designed - to wear out the other side. Most people will get tired; most will quit; most will simply give up in disgust.

But you've gone to the well too many times now; you've got nothing new to show anyone.

You made a couple of basic errors. The most obvious was your initial, passive-aggressive response to my first post in the Keen thread, where you aggressively defended yourself against some kind of imagined attack that was not there. When called on it, you could have simply backed off -- but you had to keep going.

The second mistake was thinking that I would get tired like most of the others who have questioned you, or that I would miss the little pedantic language tricks ("Show me precisely where I said that") that you continually use.

The third, of course, was mistaking this for a message board, when it was in fact an operating table. I took your method of discourse onto the table and cut it open for everyone to see; laid your tactics bare and dissected them so that there is no doubt about what you intended to do -- and what you will invariably try to do in the future.

You may posture and bluster and try to save face if you wish, but you have zero credibility left. And I do not take credit for that -- all I did was allow you to do it to yourself and implode. I just printed the handbills and invited the audience - you were the show.

edited to correct typo

Suezoled

7th November 2003, 11:29 AM

Hey NoZed, after I figure out how to have Cleopatra's children (we both being women is a bit of an issue), can I have your child next? ;)

NoZed Avenger

7th November 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Suezoled
Hey NoZed, after I figure out how to have Cleopatra's children (we both being women is a bit of an issue), can I have your child next? ;)

:o

I'm blushing. And combing my hair.

Another convert for the sign file. They all come 'round in the end.

N/A

Garrette

7th November 2003, 09:16 PM

Thanks for the kudos, Luci, and I agree with you and the others who suggest dealing directly with Schwartz.

I now have his contact information but have not as yet contacted him directly. As soon as I've cleaned up my proposal some, I will do so. As it is a serious offer, I want the correspondence to be professional. I estimate another week, perhaps two at the most, before I contact him.

Steve,

I was not discussing the specifics of the thread. I was discussing your latest claim to NoZed that you had corresponded privately with me in regard to his/my impression that you had implied I lied. This was wrong as I had not received any communications from you regarding that issue, though we had pm'd regarding Schwartz. I pm'd you requesting that you either point out to me where I had missed your communications or that you state publicly that you had misspoken. You did neither. Therefore, to clear the record on that point, I posted it here.

I do not apologize for doing that. Nor do I go out of my way to find fault with you.

I have not addressed your perceived victimization at the hands of CFL and others for a couple of reasons. The major reason being that I do not find it my place (usually) to act as the defenders of others. You do not, for the most part, see me jumping in to defend Stumpy or others when they perceive you have attacked them, do you?

But in this instance, you brought me in to it by claiming you had communicated with me. You had not. I gave you a chance to correct the error yourself, but you did not.

It's not too late, though. If I simply did not give you enough time to correct the mistake, then I apologize for that. All you need do is now post that you had misspoken when you told NoZed you had communicated privately with me in regard to the books and the perception of calling me a liar.

Or, show me the private communications we've had, in which case I will apologize.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 05:28 AM

Garrette:

See 11-05 at 7:25 AM. I will NOT republish that private message here. It was private for reasons stated and if you re-read it you will see that. Until that time I truly did not know what NZA was going on about as all I had was lengthy posts citing this thread or that asking me to read them to see if I can find a clue. I couldn't. When NZA finally agreed to be less cryptic and more specific instead of forcing me to read entire threads over again, I answered you in PM.

Steve

Lucianarchy

8th November 2003, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
James Randi should participate in the design and oversee the test to see if Scharwtz is cheating.

No, Randi is a professional skeptic. He makes a living out of 'debunking' and is therefore biased. You wouldn't want Ms Cleo to participate in the design any more than Mr Randi. You need people like Ian Rowland, Monty Keen, Dr Hans Schaer or Prof. David Fontana.

Garrette

8th November 2003, 06:51 AM

Steve, I sincerely apologize.

To CFLarsen, NoZed, Ed, Pyrrho, and any others reading this thread, I have to say I was wrong.

On his very first pm to me, Steve Grenard included a postscript which does address the issue NoZed talked about. I don't know how I missed it. It not only addresses the issue, but does so to my satisfaction. I will decline to post it here.

My apologies to everyone for the error, but especially to Steve for indicating that he had lied when he had, in fact, not.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 06:56 AM

Thank you Garette. And I certainly apologize to you for any misunderstanding
or slight you may've felt as consequence of the original or subsequent interchange.
I think it was also instructive to notice that we both were being influenced by a third party causing us to waste a lot of our precious time (especially your precious time given your location) over seemingly trivial issues.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 07:03 AM

TBK, Randi has stated categorically, at length and on multiple occasions in writing he will not go to Arizona and he will not have anything further to do with Dr. Schwartz. He will not accept e-mail from him, he will not accept calls from him and he will refuse to read or acknowledge snail mail from him.

Insofar as I am aware Randi has never retracted his position regarding this. So it is disingenous of you or anyone to keep nominating Randi or the JREF challenge as any part of anything to do with HESL's mediumship research.

I still want to know if you guys get a commission for this?

If referees or 3rd party observors are to be used in follow-up experiments, there are plenty of qualified scientists with the integrity to do so as Luci states.

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 07:38 AM

TBK, Randi has stated categorically, at length and on multiple occasions in writing he will not go to Arizona and he will not have anything further to do with Dr. Schwartz. He will not accept e-mail from him, he will not accept calls from him and he will refuse to read or acknowledge snail mail from him.

I don't blame him, there is no point in trying to perform scientific experiments with A-holes like Schwartz that are out just to prove that mediums exist. Schwartz is not a credible scientist.

I still want to know if you guys get a commission for this?

Yes, everytime a person fails the test, it rewards us with the knowledge that people don't have superpowers.

If referees or 3rd party observors are to be used in follow-up experiments, there are plenty of qualified scientists with the integrity to do so as Luci states.

But not the expertise.

Lucianarchy

9th November 2003, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
The record in this case is clear, though it stretches back some 4-5 threads.

The material, referenced, quoted and cross-indexed at your demand, shows clearly what happened and when it happened. The record clearly shows a continual pattern of evasion, obfuscation, equivocation, and sophistry on your part.

Unfortunately, your repertoire is not varied enough to carry it off. Your tactics are completely predictable. Your latest post -- the tack of which had also been anticipated -- is nothing more than puffed-up posturing that fools no one.

You demand exact quotes, but cannot be bothered to do so yourself.

You accuse others of misattribution and all manner of dishonest tactics, but constantly find "novel" uses for straightforward words and sentences that baffle the rest of the English speaking word.

You haughtily announce that an alleged failure to respond to points indicates the person admits that he cannot respond, but forget that your entire posting history consists of nothing but dropping points made by others and fleeing from thread to thread like a fugitive from justice.

You complain loudly and long about supposed ad hominem attacks, but constantly engage in the tactic yourself.

You contantly move goalposts and change terms being used so that the other person must constantly bring your own words back in front of you in order to stay anywhere near the actual facts.

What language you cannot twist in your favor, you change. What you cannot change, you ignore. What you cannot ignore, you run from. What you cannot run from, you complain about as a misattribution or a vicious, unfair attack.

Your entire act depends on a lack of endurance. You count on the other person simply losing the patience to keep coming back. You try to make it harder for them to respond at every turn: they must quote; they must search; they must point out the exact language; they must remind you of the topic; they must follow you to a new thread -- while you ignore post after post, and then, if by some miracle or mistake you do write a post, it has little or nothing to do with the point. All of that is designed - consciously designed - to wear out the other side. Most people will get tired; most will quit; most will simply give up in disgust.

But you've gone to the well too many times now; you've got nothing new to show anyone.

You made a couple of basic errors. The most obvious was your initial, passive-aggressive response to my first post in the Keen thread, where you aggressively defended yourself against some kind of imagined attack that was not there. When called on it, you could have simply backed off -- but you had to keep going.

The second mistake was thinking that I would get tired like most of the others who have questioned you, or that I would miss the little pedantic language tricks ("Show me precisely where I said that") that you continually use.

The third, of course, was mistaking this for a message board, when it was in fact an operating table. I took your method of discourse onto the table and cut it open for everyone to see; laid your tactics bare and dissected them so that there is no doubt about what you intended to do -- and what you will invariably try to do in the future.

You may posture and bluster and try to save face if you wish, but you have zero credibility left. And I do not take credit for that -- all I did was allow you to do it to yourself and implode. I just printed the handbills and invited the audience - you were the show.

edited to correct typo

:dl:

*What* a wanker!!

Lucianarchy

9th November 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Just a quick note, for the record.

So far Steve has [...] Lied about his communications with Garette

Garrette has shown that he (Garrette) was in fact wrong, Dr Grenard did not lie.

It would be honourable for you to apologise, but we already know your claim that Schwartz is a fraud is a blatant lie and you have not apologised for that yet.

It looks like you are increasing your malicious intent to defame medical professionals. You commit libel by wilfully publishing lies on the JREF Forum.

Maybe you are taking advice from that twit who thinks she's a lawyer.:D

Why are you publishing your downfall so openly? Is it something you want digitised as a record to show your descendants? Don't you think you are putting the JREF at risk by publishing your libelous campaigns here?

thaiboxerken

9th November 2003, 07:30 AM

I wonder if Schwartz would allow Penn and Teller to sit in on a "test".

Nah, probably not.. they're skeptics.

Jeff Corey

9th November 2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Garrette has shown that he (Garrette) was in fact wrong, Dr Grenard did not lie.
{People with earned doctorates in one field do not use their titles here. They are probably outside their area of expertise. Show me where Garrett was wrong}

It would be honourable for you to apologise, but we already know your claim that Schwartz is a fraud is a blatant lie and you have not apologised for that yet.
{"We" don't know that claim is a lie.}

It looks like you are increasing your malicious intent to defame medical professionals. You commit libel by wilfully publishing lies on the JREF Forum.
{Grenard doesn't even claim to be a medical professional.}

Maybe you are taking advice from that twat who thinks he's a lawyer.:D

Why are you publishing your downfall so openly? Is it something you want digitised as a record to show your descendants? Don't you think you are putting the JREF at risk by publishing your libelous campaigns here?
{If you are so concerned about risks to JREF, report the offending post to a moderator.}

SteveGrenard

9th November 2003, 08:59 AM

Registered: Sep 2001
Location: Waterbury, CT
Posts: 2875

TBK: I wonder if Schwartz would allow Penn and Teller to sit in on a "test".

Schwartz met with Penn to ask/allow and discuss his being a cold reader control. Penn was insulting and abusive and refused to do so.

Hey TBK, is Waterbury anywhere near Wilton? Was just wondering?

thaiboxerken

9th November 2003, 09:35 AM

Schwartz met with Penn to ask/allow and discuss his being a cold reader control. Penn was insulting and abusive and refused to do so.

Where does this "fact" come from?

SteveGrenard

9th November 2003, 09:51 AM

The fact comes directly from Schwartz

CFLarsen

9th November 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The fact comes directly from Schwartz

Sources, please?

thaiboxerken

9th November 2003, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The fact comes directly from Schwartz

Oh, so it must be true. LOL.

For some reason, skeptics seem to all turn into beligerent and abusive people around Schwartz. It MUST be the skeptics, not Schwartz, that has a problem.

:nope:

SteveGrenard

9th November 2003, 10:26 AM

TBK - I am sure Larsen must have archived the original meeting Schwartz had with 7 stage mentalists and cold readers in LA about 2 years ago, one of whom was Penn Jilette. After that meeting Schwartz reported back that none of these cold readers was willing to participate in an experiment under the precise same conditions as the purportedly genuine mediums. He especially mentions that Jilette was personally rude and made references to insulting the memory of his dead mother or grandmother, I dont remember which. So much for Penn Jilette.

CFLarsen

9th November 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
TBK - I am sure Larsen must have archived the original meeting Schwartz had with 7 stage mentalists and cold readers in LA about 2 years ago, one of whom was Penn Jilette. After that meeting Schwartz reported back that none of these cold readers was willing to participate in an experiment under the precise same conditions as the purportedly genuine mediums. He especially mentions that Jilette was personally rude and made references to insulting the memory of his dead mother or grandmother, I dont remember which. So much for Penn Jilette.

Whoa, whoa, whoa....you find your own evidence, Steve. So far, we have seen no evidence. Do you have evidence?

hal bidlack

9th November 2003, 04:28 PM

This post was reported for reasons of language. While somewhat crude, I do not find this to be actionable by me. I understand that in the UK the T word used here is seen as more crude than it does in the US. But as I'm here, and I am a product of my own culture, I use a US standard.

Therefore, I would like to see this edited, but I can not require that it be.

hal

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Garrette has shown that he (Garrette) was in fact wrong, Dr Grenard did not lie.

It would be honourable for you to apologise, but we already know your claim that Schwartz is a fraud is a blatant lie and you have not apologised for that yet.

It looks like you are increasing your malicious intent to defame medical professionals. You commit libel by wilfully publishing lies on the JREF Forum.

Maybe you are taking advice from that twat who thinks he's a lawyer.:D

Why are you publishing your downfall so openly? Is it something you want digitised as a record to show your descendants? Don't you think you are putting the JREF at risk by publishing your libelous campaigns here?

Jeff Corey

9th November 2003, 04:42 PM

Hal, it's a defunct airline joke.
Stewardess: Sir, would you like some of our TWA coffee?

Garrette

9th November 2003, 09:34 PM

Luci,

I admitted I was wrong when I had posted that Steve had not communicated with me via pm in regard to the older issue of the books and whether or not he implied I had lied. Nothing else.

It has nothing at all to do with anyone or anything else.

For the record, I am convinced that Schwartz is a fraud (using the same reasoning others have; i.e, that his education precludes a conclusion of unintentionally devising such a flawed test).

Don't conflate this claim by Ed, Corey, me or anyone else with the issue for which I apologized.

Steve,

I am compelled to comment on this statement of yours:

Steve Grenard:

I think it was also instructive to notice that we both were being influenced by a third party causing us to waste a lot of our precious time (especially your precious time given your location) over seemingly trivial issues.

I was not influenced at all. No one is capable of making me waste my time other than me. I choose on what matters to spend my time and on what not to spend it.

Also, your pm to me was dated 5 November, significantly after the majority of the discussions NoZed had with you regarding the issue. It was still an open issue then.