Great Time.com article. "Larry King and the Paranormal [Archive]

TruthSeeker

7th November 2003, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Truth is TIME does the same thing and it is not a media whore, it is the media.

I don't read TIME regularly but was interested in this idea. So, I searched their archive for PARANORMAL and found this article (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_search/0,10987,1101010305-100555,00.html) about John Edward by the same author:

Clairvoyants who claim to communicate with the dead--and warnings not to listen to them--go back at least as far as the Old Testament, yet psychics continue to flourish in back parlors and storefronts across America. None today is better known or more listened to than John Edward, a fast-talking former ballroom-dancing instructor who is cleaning up on his proclaimed ability " to connect with energies of people who have crossed over." Died, that is. Indeed, his nightly Crossing Over with John Edward is the highest-rated show on the Sci Fi network and is about to go into syndication.

And then there is this article (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,199773,00.html), again by Jaroff describing a failed attempt to win Randi's challenge

Jaroff has an impressive list of articles (for purchase) including one about Mr. Randi.

Aside from Jaroff...

This article about talking to the dead on TV (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_search/0,10987,1101000828-52955,00.html) requires purchase but the teaser paragraph has a skeptical tinge.

A short piece (http://www.time.com/time/search/article/0,8599,5219,00.html) on the remote viewing program concludes with the following:
"The CIA and the Defense Department have used psychics to pinpoint POW's in Vietnam and Cambodia, and there have been instances where they have helped. But their batting average is pretty low, and it's never really panned out."

There are others but because only a teaser paragraph is available, I will not judge. Instead, I'll ask, how would you describe TIME's stance towards the paranormal?

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 06:40 AM

TS: There are others but because only a teaser paragraph is available, I will not judge. Instead, I'll ask, how would you describe TIME's stance towards the paranormal?

Its not TIME's stance, its Jaroff's. These are all signed editorial columns. If you were familiar with TIME you will know its "fact-based news" (which could still be slanted by editorial input) is not usually signed but is put together by staff or signed by multiple staffers in small print down at the bottom. TIME publishes on paranormal because they know it is of interest and appeals to a large number of readers. They have even done major cover stories discussing religion and creationism for example. There is no problem with this. Why shoudn't they publish stuff that sells? That's their business. What "would be" hypocritical of them is their failure to realize Larry King (CNN) is doing the same thing. But it's not really hypocritical because Jaroff's article does not represent their official position, its represents the opinion of the writer, Jaroff. And it sells magazines.

TIME is part of a huge conglomerate (Time-Life Warner AOL) which owns many subsidiary companies including my publishers. We would be naive if we didnt realize all they were interested in was their bottom line. If renata chooses to characterize Larry King as a media whore, I can't disagree. But TIME is also.

Guess who owns CNN (Larry King)?

© 2003 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you. from CNN's website.

(note: Recently Time-Life Warner AOL eliminated AOL and Life from its corporate name and shortened it to Time Warner but they still own AOL, Life and, yes, CNN and many other media and publishing companies).

Unas

8th November 2003, 06:51 AM

Have you been able to find any evidence to support your claim that Jaroff lied in his TIME article about John Edward, Mr. Grenard?

Clancie

8th November 2003, 06:51 AM

Posted by Steve Grenard

But it's not really hypocritical because Jaroff's article does not represent their official position, its represents the opinion of the writer, Jaroff. And it sells magazines.
Hi Steve,

I don't know if you're referring to the JE article by Jaroff or not, but if so, I disagree. That article was in the science section, appearing as a by-lined feature with the clear implication that it was all factual (which it wasn't). If Jaroff had labelled it an Op-Ed piece, "I think Edward is a fake because...." etc. I wouldn't have had any objections.

Appearing in the Science section of TIME gave the (false) impression that it was well-researched by Jaroff, their long-time science reporter, and completely factual.

Clancie

8th November 2003, 07:02 AM

Posted by Unas

Have you been able to find any evidence to support your claim that Jaroff lied in his TIME article about John Edward, Mr. Grenard?
Unas, have you read the article? Here's an analogy to what Jaroff does in it.

Its like me writing a TIME news story saying that I've heard from a friend of mine who knows your neighbor that he says you, Unas, are a drug addict and thief. In my article, my only "facts" are the second hand quotes that your neighbor told my friend, combined with my own opinion that its all true. I title my article about you "Unas: Are Drugs and Theft Becoming His Undoing?" I never interview the neighbor for myself, or even drive past your house to see if you really seem to be a man with a drug problem. I never ask what your other neighbors think about the allegations.

In other words, Jaroff did no research at all. He took the email that a man sent to (Jaroff's long time friend) Randi. The man had been read at CO (initially with some satisfaction). Jaroff didn't interview the man about his claims ("hidden mikes" for example, has never been backed up by anyone, including Jim Underdown from CSI-West, a CSICOP semi-affiliate, who investigated a taping for himself). Jaroff never interviewed anyone who had been read by JE (including O'Neill, the man who sent the email to Randi). He never went to the show, never did any research and just spouted off what he apparently -thought- was true, using Randi's email to support it.

A shoddy piece of work. If you read it, you'll see....

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Appearing in the Science section of TIME gave the (false) impression that it was well-researched by Jaroff, their long-time science reporter, and completely factual.

What, in the article, was not "factual"?

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 07:04 AM

Sorry I thought we were talking about this week's column re Larry King. That should be abundently clear from my response.

No, I am NOT talking about the JE article Jaroff signed (which is still a signed piece with his picture no less -- show me any other news item in TIME that is presented that way.) Shermer did the same story in his column in Scientific American. Randi did the same story in his column in The Skeptic. Then, after Jaroff borrowed the Randi story from The Skeptic with a full nod from Randi, Shermer did another column in The Skeptic bragging how a story in The Skeptic made it into TIME. I guess Randi and Shermer will never stop bragging about it.

Jaroff's article on JE was not an opinion piece but was presented as a fact based investigation by, er, Jaroff. Jaroff never left Boca Raton (FL) to file this story. He was invited by the producers to investigate for himself (or he couldve sent a researcher) to a taping but refused. He did not notify CO untril the day before the story was going to press.

The holes in Jaroff's JE story are self evident by applying critical thinking skills to the statements made and the account of the source (provided by Randi)" Michael O'Neill. Yes Clancie, it may've masquaraded as "science" but was pure and simple personal opinion in the end. I have said repeatedly that if this is science we are in big trouble. It was the biggest pile of rubbish I frankly have ever seen Jaroff write (up to that time) and at one time I was sorta a fan of his.

PS: Remember Jaroff used to be a science editor at TIME so this is why his status but not necessaily his content, gets him that position. Was it misrepped as science? Without a doubt.

Unas

8th November 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
A shoddy piece of work. If you read it, you'll see....
You still have provided no specific evidence for any specific lies allegedly told by Jaroff in the article.

What are the specific lies you claim Jaroff told in the article, and what is the specific evidence that said statements are lies?

If you cannot provide specifics, are you willing to retract your accusation? If not, why not?

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No, I am NOT talking about the JE article Jaroff signed (which is still a signed piece with his picture no less -- show me any other news item in TIME that is presented that way.)

Shermer did the same story in his column in Scientific American. Randi did the same story in his column in The Skeptic. Then, after Jaroff borrowed the Randi story from The Skeptic with a full nod from Randi, Shermer did another column in The Skeptic bragging how a story in The Skeptic made it into TIME. I guess Randi and Shermer will never stop bragging about it.

What is your evidence of this, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Jaroff's article on JE was not an opinion piece but was presented as a fact based investigation by, er, Jaroff. Jaroff never left Boca Raton (FL) to file this story. He was invited by the producers to investigate for himself (or he couldve sent a researcher) to a taping but refused. He did not notify CO untril the day before the story was going to press.

Tsk, tsk, Steve....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The holes in Jaroff's JE story are self evident by applying critical thinking skills to the statements made and the account of the source (provided by Randi)" Michael O'Neill. Yes Clancie, it may've masquaraded as "science" but was pure and simple personal opinion in the end. I have said repeatedly that if this is science we are in big trouble. It was the biggest pile of rubbish I frankly have ever seen Jaroff write (up to that time) and at one time I was sorta a fan of his.

Yes, yes, we know you think this, but what is wrong with it? Where are the lies, what are the "holes"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
PS: Remember Jaroff used to be a science editor at TIME so this is why his status but not necessaily his content, gets him that position. Was it misrepped as science? Without a doubt.

To you, perhaps. But your perception of the universe is (luckily for the rest of us) not the real one.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 07:42 AM

In a private e-mail I received just now and will share here:

The first question one has to ask is why did an apparently respectable publication such as TIME employ a professional libeller like Jaroff as Science Editor for so long?

Note that John Edward isn't Jaroff's first victim, not by a very long way. In 1973, TIME ran a story on J B Rhine and the FRNM, penned by Jaroff, entitled Thirty Years of Hoaxes.

Jaroff's number one chum in the denial business isn't Zwinge, but Martin Gardner, veteran liar, propagandist and mudslinger, and father figure to the "sceptical" movement.

Rather odd, actually, when one considers that Gardner is an Evangelical Christian and Jaroff is a militant atheist and one-time admirer of Stalin.

Very strange bedfellows, these folks. What unites them is a hatred of the truth.

A

-----------------------------------------------
I suspect Gardner et al have other agendas. It would be interesting to
understand their motivations given that Gardner is a bible thumping evangelical fundamentalist whose credo is that talking to the dead is akin to satan worship. It does get weird.
_____________________________

There will be NO retractions regarding assertions made against Jaroff for his having signed the JE article.

As Clancie said, Jaroff was using as a source third party hearsay received by e-mail no less (and we know how anonymous that could be--see above)
never went to a taping and never investigated anything. In the first part of the article he made up everything he said as he could not/did not say he investigated the studio personally or sent a researcher (and who) to do so. In the second part of the article he quotes the e-mail source, a man named Michael O'Neill, who was there and made all kinds of unbsusbtantiated assertions that made no sense:

1. Staff were standing around overhearing us while they were telling everyone to be "very quiet" --that makes no sense whatsoever.

2. A van load of ringers came. ONeill tracked them to their seats and said all the van members sat in separate locations. But not one of them received a reading or O'Neill, who was tracking them, would've noticed that. Instead O'Neill received a reading. Makes no sense.

3. O'Neill admits JE got hits for him but qualified the hits as guesses. How could he know they were guesses? Well, I guess he could guess they were guesses . Hardly scientific or factual.
Nor were we told what they are. Even if Jaroff didnt have space to it, Randi in commentary or Shermer could've expanded on this in The Skeptic. They did not. All of them repeated the same pre-agreed editorialized version of O'Neill's account. There was no deviation in their accounts.

4. Jaroff asserts there are hidden mics everywhere eavesdropping on people. If they were hidden how does Jaroff know they there? Also, since he was never there, how does he know this? I have been there, so was Jim Underdown, and many others. There were no open mics to be seen anywhere outside the studio and I could not see how there were hidden mics. Of course there are mics around inside, its a TV studio recording sound. How stupid. Also I wonder how anyone monitoring dozens or hundreds of hidden mics know whose words they were overhearing also? It would be a technical nightmare.

The probnlem UNAS is not that there is evidence that Jaroff fabricated this story based on fabrications or misinterpretations of Randi's e-mail from O'Neill, copies of which we have never seen -- only editorialized versions of it from Randi. There is no evidence he didn't fabricate this story. None of it makes sense. Not one single shred of it.
Sorry.

UNAS, if you put on your critical thinking cap and analyze the Jaroff JE piece very carefully you also will be able to pick it apart. Step outside your cynic's suit
and give it a decent skeptical effort.

PS: You dont have to pay TIME magazine to retrieve this story. If you enter "Leon Jaroff and John Edward" in
Google you will get returns on sites where the story is posted and accessible free of charge.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 08:12 AM

Steve,

Where is your evidence that this is a "signed" piece? You are accusing Jaroff of fraud here.

Are there any false statements in the article?

Where are the "holes"?

No answers from you.

Again, I have to correct your own false statements:

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In a private e-mail I received just now and will share here:

How can you complain that Jaroff receives something by email, when you try to make an argument from an anonymous source yourself? You are incredibly ridiculous, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There will be NO retractions regarding assertions made against Jaroff for his having signed the JE article.

And no evidence of your claims, either.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
1. Staff were standing around overhearing us while they were telling everyone to be "very quiet" --that makes no sense whatsoever.

That does not mean it didn't happen. As you yourself have agreed to, the rules regarding this were changed, because of the article.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
2. A van load of ringers came. ONeill tracked them to their seats and said all the van members sat in separate locations. But not one of them received a reading or O'Neill, who was tracking them, would've noticed that. Instead O'Neill received a reading. Makes no sense.

This is from the Skeptic article, not Jaroff's. Please get your facts straight.

O'Neill says nothing of these people being read or not.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
3. O'Neill admits JE got hits for him but qualified the hits as guesses. How could he know they were guesses? Well, I guess he could guess they were guesses . Hardly scientific or factual.
Nor were we told what they are. Even if Jaroff didnt have space to it, Randi in commentary or Shermer could've expanded on this in The Skeptic. They did not. All of them repeated the same pre-agreed editorialized version of O'Neill's account. There was no deviation in their accounts.

Would you call a statement "Yeah, they were messages from the dead" "scientific" and "factual"?

That there was no deviation in their accounts very much speaks in favor of them reporting correctly. That is why cops have people give their testimony many times: If they change their story, they are not telling the truth.

Again, you complain of what they didn't do, not what they did.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
4. Jaroff asserts there are hidden mics everywhere eavesdropping on people. If they were hidden how does Jaroff know they there? Also, since he was never there, how does he know this? I have been there, so was Jim Underdown, and many others. There were no open mics to be seen anywhere outside the studio and I could not see how there were hidden mics. Of course there are mics around inside, its a TV studio recording sound. How stupid. Also I wonder how anyone monitoring dozens or hundreds of hidden mics know whose words they were overhearing also? It would be a technical nightmare.

This is what O'Neill had to say in the Skeptic article:

"I think that the whole place is bugged somehow."

It is his opinion.

Jaroff writes:

"These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium."

It is an outright lie that Jaroff "asserts" that there are hidden mics everywhere.

If you cannot see hidden mics, does that mean they were not there?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The probnlem UNAS is not that there is evidence that Jaroff fabricated this story based on fabrications or misinterpretations of Randi's e-mail from O'Neill, copies of which we have never seen -- only editorialized versions of it from Randi. There is no evidence he didn't fabricate this story. None of it makes sense. Not one single shred of it.
Sorry.

There is also no evidence that Jaroff isn't a tentacled bug-eyed alien from Planet X, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
UNAS, if you put on your critical thinking cap and analyze the Jaroff JE piece very carefully you also will be able to pick it apart. Step outside your cynic's suit
and give it a decent skeptical effort.

Where is the evidence of fraud, Steve?

Clancie

8th November 2003, 08:24 AM

Posted by Unas

You still have provided no specific evidence for any specific lies allegedly told by Jaroff in the article.

What are the specific lies you claim Jaroff told in the article, and what is the specific evidence that said statements are lies?

If you cannot provide specifics, are you willing to retract your accusation? If not, why not?
Unas,

My point is that Jaroff's article was a shoddy piece of journalism, making untrue statements that were "supported" only by a third-hand account (O'Neill's sent to Randi and forward to Jaroff)--statements that Jaroff neither independently corroborated nor researched for himself (and which have subsequently been refuted, even by skeptics, as in the "hidden mike" claim, among others).

Steve and I have both tried to reason with you about the article, but it is impossible when you apparently haven't even read it, and therefore are unable to intelligently comment on its contents one way or the other.

If you still think Jaroff's work holds up journalistically, (as a completely factual depiction of CO/JE exactly as he presented it), after you've read it, and you want to discuss it further at that point, let me know....

Unas

8th November 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In a private e-mail I received just now and will share here:
quote:
The first question one has to ask is why did an apparently respectable publication such as TIME employ a professional libeller like Jaroff as Science Editor for so long?
You are publishing unattributed and unsupported claims of libel against Leon Jaroff. Is this an example of the "critical thinking" you exhort me to employ?
Jaroff's number one chum in the denial business isn't Zwinge, but Martin Gardner, veteran liar, propagandist and mudslinger, and father figure to the "sceptical" movement.
And you follow up with another unattributed and evidence-free accusation that Martin Gardner is a liar.

What are the specific lies you claim Jaroff told in the article, and what is the specific evidence that said statements are lies?

If you cannot provide specifics against Jaroff, are you willing to retract your accusation? If not, why not?

What are the specific lies that have been allegedly told by Martin Gardner, and what is the specific evidence that said statements are lies?

If you cannot provide specifics against Gardner, are you willing to retract your accusation? If not, why not?

If you cannot provide a shred of evidence for either accusation, why should your credibility be considered to have a value greater than zero?

As Clancie said, Jaroff was using as a source third party hearsay received by e-mail no less (and we know how anonymous that could be--see above)
Why do you consider it acceptable to employ third party hearsay received by e-mail to make an accusation against Gardner?

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 08:35 AM

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html

UNAS... Click on the above site for the Jaroff article.

NO, I do not consider it acceptable. It is no more and no less than the example of what Randi did with the O'Neill e-mail which made it into gospel reprinted in

TIME

Scientific American

The Skeptic

PS: Martin Gardner's religious beliefs are a matter of record. He has admitted these himself. Jaroff admits he is a close friend of Gardner's. I do not know the basis for, at one time, his admiration for Joe Stalin but I'll let that one rest.
Some source sent me this e-mail a few minutes before I posted it. It was signed Angus Huck. (A). John Benneth also sent me an e-mail a week or so ago I did not publish here stating that when Randi lst saw Geller's act, he loved it and wanted Geller to team up with him (The Amazing Randi and Geller?) but Geller rebuffed his advances and soon thereafter the only place both names appeared were on legal papers separated by the word
"Vrs."

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
NO, I do not consider it acceptable. It is no more and no less than the example of what Randi did with the O'Neill e-mail which made it into gospel reprinted in

TIME

Scientific American

The Skeptic

OK, so it's unacceptable. So, you are back to square one, Steve. Could we now see your evidence?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
PS: Martin Gardner's religious beliefs are a matter of record. He has admitted these himself. Jaroff admits he is a close friend of Gardner's. I do not know the basis for, at one time, his admiration for Joe Stalin but I'll let that one rest.
Some source sent me this e-mail a few minutes before I posted it. It was signed Angus Huck. (A). John Benneth also sent me an e-mail a week or so ago I did not publish here stating that when Randi lst saw Geller's act, he loved it and wanted Geller to team up with him (The Amazing Randi and Geller?) but Geller rebuffed his advances and soon thereafter the only place both names appeared were on legal papers separated by the word
"Vrs."

What does this have to do with Jaroff's article?? You are ranting again.

Unas

8th November 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
NO, I do not consider it acceptable.
Your statement is puzzling. You have just done something that you claim to consider unacceptable. Are we to conclude from this that you routinely commit acts that contravene your sense of morality, or that you are lying when you say that you consider your own actions unacceptable?

You have yet to provide any specifics regarding the lies you claim that Jaroff and Gardner have told, or your evidence for your claims. Do you have any specifics, Mr. Grenard? That question can be answered simply: either yes or no. No more evasion, Mr. Grenard: provide the specifics.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 08:57 AM

You are missing the point UNAS. See logical fallacies on "missing the point. "

You consider Randi's use of an unsubstantiated e-mail from O'Neill as the absolute gospel but you do not consider an e-mail I received in the same light. So what does that beg? A double standard based on the fact that I have a different name than James Randell Zwinge?

The e-mail I received from Huck, and I get many from him on such issues (he has been around long enough and has been a watcher of Randi, etc for decades) are usually just deleted or filed if of interest. But since we were discussing the veracity of an article by Jaroff based on the same sort of hearsay, I decided to quote it as an example or object lesson. It got precisely the response I predicted. And when you asked if I considered it acceptable, my answer was unequivocable: NO. And it is also unequivocable where Jaroff's use of the O'Neill e- mail is concerned: NO... that was not acceptable either.

I have not gone out to substantiate anything Huck wrote in that e-mail.
Jaroff did NOT go out and substantiate anything O'Neill wrote in an e-mail to Randi either. (See Clancie's post above). And how do we know this? Because if Jaroff did this, or if Randi or Shermer did this, they would've said so. Randi could have done it elsewhere (not in TIME) and Shermer owns The Skeptic and he would've have said so. He also would've used that substantiation in his monthly column in SciAm. But did he? No. He did not. Because it was not done.

Nothing about O'Neill's e-mail was substantiated and, frankly, on careful critical analysis, none of it made much sense either. It was a self-disproving document . and still is. Unless or until the real Michael O'Neill shows up and agrees to be questionned further about the assertions he made as re-penned by Randi, Jaroff and Shermer, it remains exactly that: 3rd party hearsay or rubbish.

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 09:18 AM

Yet again, SG and company have swindled the skeptics into thinking that it's the burden of the skeptics to prove that JE and Sylvia are not real.

Don't let them do it, it's the believer's burden to provide evidence to support their beliefs.

I also note that they seriously want to discredit any skeptic writer as well, desperate to discredit is more like it.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 09:27 AM

TBK you are missing the point also and where did Sylvia Browne come into the picture? Is this a distraction? If so, its transparent.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether JE is the real deal or not. This has to do with the credibility of the O'Neill e-mail as reported by Randi and then parrotted by Jaroff and Shermer. It has to do with Jaroff's credibility .... that he was implying all this stuff about the studio set up when neither he nor anyone on TIME's payroll has ever been there and willing to say so. I have been there. Jim Underdown, who reported on this at TAM 1, has been there. It is already agreed by the evidence or rather Jaroff's very poignant lack of evidence, that nothing he wrote implying all the tricks alleged to be used on Crossing Over really occurs.

I have already acknowledged that I have clearly seen JE employ cold reading in telephone readings on LKL.
It was incompetent that Jaroff never touched on this or gave any examples.
of cold reading. He did no research whatsoever. There is nothing worse than a lazy science writer.

What is important in the end is truth.
And using lies and fabrications to arrive at the truth is unethical and immoral and these are the tactics I accuse Randi, Jaroff and Shermer using in this specific instance.

PS: I am not shifting the burden on you or anyone to disprove what I am saying. I am not asking you to do that. You are not making claims, why should I? This has nothing to do with that favorite argument of yours. More logical fallacy on your part. I am asking you and others to read the quotes of O'Neill, read the statements made by Jaroff prior to his use of O'Neill and then show me where he says he has substantiated any of it. He doesn't. End of story, Case closed. Not very difficult. The Jaroff article on JE is a pile of crap. To Jaroff I say get off your ass and get us the real goods. If you want to be an investigative journalist do some investigating. Otherwise your pontiifcations and maybes add up to nothing.

Jeff Corey

8th November 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
[John Benneth also sent me an e-mail a week or so ago I did not publish here stating that when Randi lst saw Geller's act, he loved it and wanted Geller to team up with him (The Amazing Randi and Geller?) but Geller rebuffed his advances and soon thereafter the only place both names appeared were on legal papers separated by the word
"Vrs."
You consider an e-mail from Benneth a reliable source of information?
Are you totally deluded?

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 09:53 AM

Sigh...just more of the same. I should open a herring shop, what with all the red ones on the trail.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 10:10 AM

COREY: You consider an e-mail from Benneth a reliable source of information?
Are you totally deluded?

As a true skeptic I would have to answer that by saying I don't know. On the surface, however, I agree much of what he writes can seem outlandish. This particular account was especially amusing. It could be a blend of some truths and a healthy dose of delusion. Am I going to write an article for TIME Magazine based on this? I think not. It is what Jaroff did with O'Neill's e-mail:

The Hellfire Curse

Matthew 5:22 : but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. (KJV)

If you're having trouble understanding that, maybe there's a different way to put it. Such as, "If you tell a man to go to Hell and he does, you have to go with him. The only way out is love. You got to love your enemy. You resist nothing, you don't even resist what you used to think was evil."

(The Reverend Johnny Jack Jovan St. John on horseback at the Church of the Savage Mine in Virginia City, Nevada)

I peeked in on Uri Geller's website today to see how he was doing. It had been years since I talked to Uri, before Eldon died, or I should say passed away. And I did finally see Eldon, after he died.On a video tape that was made just before he went. He was talking about mind control. The tape was brought to me by a friend of mine, who by another strange coincidence not only knew and met Eldon Byrd, but Uri Geller as well.

It's one thing to know Uri Geller, to have met him and talked to him, but it's another thing to know who Eldon Byrd is and to have met and talked to him. And by strange coincidence, both these qualities appear. As far as strange coincidences go, I experience more strange and sometimes awe inspiring coincidences than anyone I know.

So of course the phone rings and it's Uri. Or perhaps, someone who sounded like him.

The video tape that I saw Eldon in was on mind control.

Uri said by some fluke in his computer an essay I wrote on skepticism had got through to him. "Synchronicity, I guess," he said.

Eldon once told me that he was at Uri's house one day eating spaghetti and he stabbed himself in the chin with the fork.

I hope it doesn't take you as long to get that as it took me.

I really love Uri Geller. He called right at the right moment, too. I think I've been getting real depressed. I sleep a lot, obsess over things. I don't stay busy enough. But Uri Geller gives me tremendous confidence in myself. But what I really love about Uri is that anyone can get that from him, all they got to do is stop being so skeptical, stop acting afraid.

<snip>

He got very angry with me when I started putting him up to a level with Jesus Christ, but this is the man one observer wrote was something other than human, a different species, homo geller. Why not? They're both Jewish.

Marcello Truzzi was the first editor of CSICOP's magazine, during sTarbaby, the Gaughelin fiasco. He must have seen through Kurtz, Randi and the others, seen what they were really into and backed off.

During Eldon's libel suit against Randi Truzzi stood up for Eldon.

Eldon was the guy who convinced me Uri was for real. He did the tests on Uri back in the seventies for the U.S. Navy. When Randi attacked Uri, he also attacked Eldon. I guess Eldon had really stood up for Uri.

Marcello died within thirty days of Eldon.

Uri may not even know this and I won't say how I do. Ask Randi if its true. Randi started out almost desperately in love with Uri. He used to write to Uri, but Uri never responded. Randi wanted to form a partnership with Uri after he saw him perform in New York, or was it New Jersey?

The letters Randi wrote became more and more desperate until they finally turned to threats and curses, then ceased altogether. Uri never read the letters.

Randi once accused me of betraying him by saying he thought he could trust me. I thought that was odd for a man to expect to trust someone you've been reviling as a stupid crazy liar. But I think I am mostly crazy in Randi's book.

<snipped>

So far during the three years this has been going on I haven't heard any denials. I saw what he did to X's marriage. But that was just for having the audacity to show up in Ft. Lauderdale. What I did to Randi deserved the special treatment, for revealing those affidavits from the civil compromises detailing ......<snipped>

Yep, for that I get the special treatment.

Goldschneider and Elffer's Secret Language of Relationships describes the astrological relationship between Leo II's, Randi, and Sagittarian Capricorn Cusps, Uri.

"These two may find themselves acting out a drama over which they have no control. Their relationship has a peculiar fated quality to it, which each partner taking on defined roles, as if someone were pulling the strings. Well directed and strong minded, the relationship knows where it is going and what it is sup[posed to do, but the question is, do its partners?"

I get to wondering what would happen if Uri Geller started studying the Sermon on the Mount. I mean here's the greatest living paragnost, he ought to read up and practice what the most legendary master of healing did and how he did it.

One can appear to bend metal with his mind, locate gold and old submarines by waving his hands over maps, and the other guy can heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead. And as far as what Uri does he says, "if you believe, you can tell that mountain over there to get up and cast itself into the sea and it will."

George Harrison of the Beatles got mad at Uri once because he felt Uri wasn't using his powers for healing, but I don't think Uri knows how. Or maybe Uri has avoided knowing how, just as most of the rest of us have.

I think he wants to know how. But maybe something keeps getting in the way. And I think Randi wants to know how, but something keeps getting even more in his way.

But look at this. It tells you how. It ells you how to become able to do all sorts of incredible things.

The primitive Christians were noted for their ability to escape from incarceration, to suddenly become invisible enough to walk through a crowd, having the power of bilocation and to speak in a way that they could be understood by any foreign tongue, to glow with halos, to levitate. Simon the Magician claimed he too could levitate but broke a leg in a show down with one of the apostles when he fell.

Blessed are the meek, they inherit the Earth, they get the world after the arrogant have blown away.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say , Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 10:12 AM

I guess we're on the Randi-bashing bifurcation now...

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 10:13 AM

It is already agreed by the evidence or rather Jaroff's very poignant lack of evidence, that nothing he wrote implying all the tricks alleged to be used on Crossing Over really occurs.

Oh, I get it. You're not shifting the burden of evidence to the skeptics here. You are trying to shift it to Jaroff. Sorry, but JE is still the one that has the burden of evidence.

TruthSeeker

8th November 2003, 10:19 AM

Boy, look at what I started with a question about TIME!

Steve, I am well aware of the difference between an editorial columnist and the "news". This is why in my original post I said "aside from Jaroff" and asked about the magazine more generally.

I do not want to derail this discussion that is going on but I remembered this morning that several months ago TIME did a cover story on meditation. I bought the issue as I meditate (it helps my insomnia) and found the article very cynical and skeptical in places. I was not alone in this as a few weeks later letters to the editor commented on the same thing. So, while this is highly anecdotal, I shall conclude that, in addition to Jaroff, it is not unheard of that TIME takes a skeptical stance towards not only the paranormal but also alternative medicine and spiritual practice.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

You consider an e-mail from Benneth a reliable source of information?
Are you totally deluded?

Hard to say, really. It seems Steve will accept anything from anyone, as long as it is critical of skeptics. He doesn't consider the source, he simply laps it up.

He wouldn't be the first creduloid to do this.

Steve could be deluded, I'll grant you that. His actions over the years clearly point in that direction.

Is it possible to be both knowingly deceitful and deluded? The part of you that knows you cheat cooperates with the part of you that is deluded?

Hmmm.....

Clancie

8th November 2003, 10:21 AM

Posted by thaiboxerken

Oh, I get it. You're not shifting the burden of evidence to the skeptics here. You are trying to shift it to Jaroff. Sorry, but JE is still the one that has the burden of evidence
Actually, tbk, this thread begins with an article by Jaroff, in which he criticizes Larry King for his shows with paranormalists.

So, in terms of this thread and this issue of journalistic fairness/balance/and bias, tbk, Jaroff's past writing on this topic and his own shoddy journalistic standards in regard to it -do- seem quite relevant.....

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
So, while this is highly anecdotal, I shall conclude that, in addition to Jaroff, it is not unheard of that TIME takes a skeptical stance towards not only the paranormal but also alternative medicine and spiritual practice.
As journalists, they should take a skeptical stance toward everything. Good reporters know that they can't take things at face value. Otherwise, all that would be reported is PR releases and the "party line".

kookbreaker

8th November 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
John Benneth also sent me an e-mail a week or so ago I did not publish here stating that when Randi lst saw Geller's act, he loved it and wanted Geller to team up with him (The Amazing Randi and Geller?) but Geller rebuffed his advances and soon thereafter the only place both names appeared were on legal papers separated by the word
"Vrs."

Believing crap from Benneth now? Can you sink any lower or get any more stupid?

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 10:35 AM

TrtuhSeeker if you are seeking the truth go with renata on this. They will publish whatever benefits their bottom line.

Remember that

Time-Life-Warner-AOL-CNN etc

has a box in almost everyone's living room attached to our TV sets. They do something friends of mine who work for the local cable company call "zapping." Its used to detect any illegal pay station use. However, if it can do that it can also tell the conglomerate what millions and millions of Americans are watching on TV.
They use this information to design their editorial policies and sell magazines and programming. The recent move to digital interactive cable interfaces facilitates this even easier. They are going beserk trying to get people to convert to digital cable. And AOL, of course, knows what millions of their subscribers are doing with their web browsing habits as well. They do not like to talk about it.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 10:36 AM

Pyrrho: As journalists, they should take a skeptical stance toward everything. Good reporters know that they can't take things at face value. Otherwise, all that would be reported is PR releases and the "party line".

True. However the above excludes Jaroff as a "good reporter."

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: As journalists, they should take a skeptical stance toward everything. Good reporters know that they can't take things at face value. Otherwise, all that would be reported is PR releases and the "party line".

True. However the above excludes Jaroff as a "good reporter."
He's an editor, and he wrote an editorial. That's an opinion piece. I agree, though, that when he writes articles, he needs to verify facts before committing them to print. So should any reporter.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 10:54 AM

I've read the Jaroff article located here:

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html

Jaroff hasn't portrayed O'Neill's as fact. He merely repeats what O'Neill has said, if not in the same words O'Neill probably used. He includes a couple of quotes from O'Neill. It is clear that even O'Neill did not assert the "hidden microphones" as fact:

These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium. (A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)

Jaroff clearly identifies O'Neill's statements as "O'Neill's suspicions". Now, I wouldn't say that O'Neill's suspicions were an adequate explanation of JE's abilities, because those suspicions would have to be corroborated by other evidence. It is enough, however, to raise questions about how the show is run and how information could be obtained.

TruthSeeker

8th November 2003, 10:56 AM

Although this may cause my brain to explode...I agree with both Pyrrho and Steve (about one point).

All journalists should adopt a skeptical attitude regardless of subject matter and should check facts. Editorial columns have different standards regarding expression of opinion but this does not change the responsibility of checking facts. All of this fact-checking and skepticism takes place within the context of publishing a magazine that would like to make a profit. As such, there is some "tailoring" of stories to maximize readership. However, Steve, I would suggest that this is true of all for-profit and for-propaganda publications. "Tailoring" or targeting does not reduce the demand for skepticism and fact-checking. That it might, would not surprise me.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 10:58 AM

What the hell is this? Benneth's email?

The Hellfire Curse

Matthew 5:22 : but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire. (KJV)

If you're having trouble understanding that, maybe there's a different way to put it. Such as, "If you tell a man to go to Hell and he does, you have to go with him. The only way out is love. You got to love your enemy. You resist nothing, you don't even resist what you used to think was evil."

(The Reverend Johnny Jack Jovan St. John on horseback at the Church of the Savage Mine in Virginia City, Nevada)

I peeked in on Uri Geller's website today to see how he was doing. It had been years since I talked to Uri, before Eldon died, or I should say passed away. And I did finally see Eldon, after he died.On a video tape that was made just before he went. He was talking about mind control. The tape was brought to me by a friend of mine, who by another strange coincidence not only knew and met Eldon Byrd, but Uri Geller as well.

It's one thing to know Uri Geller, to have met him and talked to him, but it's another thing to know who Eldon Byrd is and to have met and talked to him. And by strange coincidence, both these qualities appear. As far as strange coincidences go, I experience more strange and sometimes awe inspiring coincidences than anyone I know.

So of course the phone rings and it's Uri. Or perhaps, someone who sounded like him.

The video tape that I saw Eldon in was on mind control.

Uri said by some fluke in his computer an essay I wrote on skepticism had got through to him. "Synchronicity, I guess," he said.

Eldon once told me that he was at Uri's house one day eating spaghetti and he stabbed himself in the chin with the fork.

I hope it doesn't take you as long to get that as it took me.

I really love Uri Geller. He called right at the right moment, too. I think I've been getting real depressed. I sleep a lot, obsess over things. I don't stay busy enough. But Uri Geller gives me tremendous confidence in myself. But what I really love about Uri is that anyone can get that from him, all they got to do is stop being so skeptical, stop acting afraid.

He got very angry with me when I started putting him up to a level with Jesus Christ, but this is the man one observer wrote was something other than human, a different species, homo geller. Why not? They're both Jewish.

Marcello Truzzi was the first editor of CSICOP's magazine, during sTarbaby, the Gaughelin fiasco. He must have seen through Kurtz, Randi and the others, seen what they were really into and backed off.

During Eldon's libel suit against Randi Truzzi stood up for Eldon.

Eldon was the guy who convinced me Uri was for real. He did the tests on Uri back in the seventies for the U.S. Navy. When Randi attacked Uri, he also attacked Eldon. I guess Eldon had really stood up for Uri.

Marcello died within thirty days of Eldon.

Uri may not even know this and I won't say how I do. Ask Randi if its true. Randi started out almost desperately in love with Uri. He used to write to Uri, but Uri never responded. Randi wanted to form a partnership with Uri after he saw him perform in New York, or was it New Jersey?

The letters Randi wrote became more and more desperate until they finally turned to threats and curses, then ceased altogether. Uri never read the letters.

Randi once accused me of betraying him by saying he thought he could trust me. I thought that was odd for a man to expect to trust someone you've been reviling as a stupid crazy liar. But I think I am mostly crazy in Randi's book.

So far during the three years this has been going on I haven't heard any denials. I saw what he did to X's marriage. But that was just for having the audacity to show up in Ft. Lauderdale. What I did to Randi deserved the special treatment, for revealing those affidavits from the civil compromises detailing ......

Yep, for that I get the special treatment.

Goldschneider and Elffer's Secret Language of Relationships describes the astrological relationship between Leo II's, Randi, and Sagittarian Capricorn Cusps, Uri.

"These two may find themselves acting out a drama over which they have no control. Their relationship has a peculiar fated quality to it, which each partner taking on defined roles, as if someone were pulling the strings. Well directed and strong minded, the relationship knows where it is going and what it is sup[posed to do, but the question is, do its partners?"

I get to wondering what would happen if Uri Geller started studying the Sermon on the Mount. I mean here's the greatest living paragnost, he ought to read up and practice what the most legendary master of healing did and how he did it.

One can appear to bend metal with his mind, locate gold and old submarines by waving his hands over maps, and the other guy can heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead. And as far as what Uri does he says, "if you believe, you can tell that mountain over there to get up and cast itself into the sea and it will."

George Harrison of the Beatles got mad at Uri once because he felt Uri wasn't using his powers for healing, but I don't think Uri knows how. Or maybe Uri has avoided knowing how, just as most of the rest of us have.

I think he wants to know how. But maybe something keeps getting in the way. And I think Randi wants to know how, but something keeps getting even more in his way.

But look at this. It tells you how. It ells you how to become able to do all sorts of incredible things.

The primitive Christians were noted for their ability to escape from incarceration, to suddenly become invisible enough to walk through a crowd, having the power of bilocation and to speak in a way that they could be understood by any foreign tongue, to glow with halos, to levitate. Simon the Magician claimed he too could levitate but broke a leg in a show down with one of the apostles when he fell.

Blessed are the meek, they inherit the Earth, they get the world after the arrogant have blown away.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.

Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgement: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgement: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say , Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.

You can read about the alleged letters from Randi to Geller on Geller's website:

http://www.uri-geller.com/books/magician-or-mystic/chapter13.htm

Scroll down to the bottom.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 10:58 AM

Pyrrho: He's an editor, and he wrote an editorial. That's an opinion piece. I agree, though, that when he writes articles, he needs to verify facts before committing them to print. So should any reporter.

Technically Jaroff was then and still is a "retired" editor freelancing his stuff to TIME. The problem with his prior JE piece, as Clancie points out, was that is was passed off as Science in the science section and carried the cachet of a science writer/editor. It was indeed an editorial and an opinion piece. But even editorials need to be based on facts or should be. He didn't preface anything reported by "My opinion is...." or "I think or believe that ...." The pieces were crafted to seem like science fact when they were only un-substantiated opinion. The Jaroff article represented the culmination of a concerted effort by Randi (along with Shermer and Jaroff) to attempt to embarass JE on the eave of his show being rolled out into syndication. Randi, Shermer and Jaroff all were naive enough to believe that this article would be sufficient to kill JE"s ratings and have the showed pulled from the networks in markets where it was shown. The only place it was not shown was on public (non-cable) networks in the Bible Belt states populated by large numbers of fundamentalist envangelical christians. Instead their efforts only piqued interest in JE and new watchers joined his ratings pool. At that point it was up to JE whether he would keep those viewers or not. Sooner or later, like all TV programming, his show will wither due to boredom and not the efforts of Randi, Shermer or Jaroff. Remember the old saw "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name right."

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 11:00 AM

Yes Pyrrho, I said the item in quotes was Benneth's e-mail. I actually snipped out some highly libelous and slanderous remarks.

My point is, as a non-fiction writer, would I or should I use this e-mail as my sole source to back up my opinions or alegations? Answer: NO. This is what Jaroff did in re O'Neill.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
Although this may cause my brain to explode...I agree with both Pyrrho and Steve (about one point).

All journalists should adopt a skeptical attitude regardless of subject matter and should check facts. Editorial columns have different standards regarding expression of opinion but this does not change the responsibility of checking facts. All of this fact-checking and skepticism takes place within the context of publishing a magazine that would like to make a profit. As such, there is some "tailoring" of stories to maximize readership. However, Steve, I would suggest that this is true of all for-profit and for-propaganda publications. "Tailoring" or targeting does not reduce the demand for skepticism and fact-checking. That it might, would not surprise me.
Going a bit further, I am reminded of that old saying, "Don't believe everything you read."

Editorial decisions are made by committee. A direction for the magazine is already known, and editorial decisions follow accordingly. Yes, marketing is an important factor; the magazine's marketing image is taken into consideration, etc.

In the case of Jaroff's article about O'Neill's experience on the JE show, we don't know if Jaroff attempted to verify facts; he reported what O'Neill said, period. He did not assert that O'Neill's suspicions were factually true. Granted, he didn't point out that they might be wrong, either.

It is apparent from the article that the Crossing Over show was contacted: "A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism." No denial, just a refusal to discuss the questions raised. We can hardly criticize Jaroff for not checking facts when the people contacted refused to discuss the issue.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes Pyrrho, I said the item in quotes was Benneth's e-mail. I actually snipped out some highly libelous and slanderous remarks.

My point is, as a non-fiction writer, would I or should I use this e-mail as my sole source to back up my opinions or alegations? Answer: NO. This is what Jaroff did in re O'Neill.

Agreed. Jaroff or his staff apparently did, however, try to contact Crossing Over for comment, and they apparently responded with the standard, "John Edward does not respond to criticism." I don't think Jaroff is pretending to be neutral -- his column is titled "The Skeptical Eye", after all. Now, if this were straight news, I'd expect a balanced approach, but I don't expect that from a columnist.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 11:14 AM

Pyrrho: It is apparent from the article that the Crossing Over show was contacted: "A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism." No denial, just a refusal to discuss the questions raised. We can hardly criticize Jaroff for not checking facts when the people contacted refused to discuss the issue.

Actually this is not completely the whole story on this. This was the first thing TIME got when they cold called. Jaroff was called back and invited to come to the show. He said he wanted a comment, if they had one, after he read them the piece. They responded by inviting him to attend a taping and see if what he was alleging was true.

Jaroff declined the invitation, nor did he offer to have TIME send a researcher in his place (he was in Florida). TIME editorial offices were within walking distance of the studio at that time. Jaroff spoke to them the day before the story was locked. I doubt he wanted to publicize their invitation so you may not have heard about it from him. This came from CO.

I attended, Jim Underdown attended and others I know or have heard from attended in addition to the three others who attended with me. None of us could confirm what Jaroff wrote about, nor could we confirm his opinions if you wish to call them that. Jaroff or a deputy should have taken the invitation but then why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

I also agree with Clancie that it was highly irrepsonsible for Jaroff to accept what O'Neill wrote in an e-mail to Randi without contacting O'Neill and interviewing him. If he had done that we would have heard about it, no? If he had no space in TIME to give a few lines about it, surely space could have been found in The Skeptic or on a website somewhere for that purpose. Nothing. Nada. This was very poor journalism
Sorry.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: He's an editor, and he wrote an editorial. That's an opinion piece. I agree, though, that when he writes articles, he needs to verify facts before committing them to print. So should any reporter.

Technically Jaroff was then and still is a "retired" editor freelancing his stuff to TIME. The problem with his prior JE piece, as Clancie points out, was that is was passed off as Science in the science section and carried the cachet of a science writer/editor. It was indeed an editorial and an opinion piece. But even editorials need to be based on facts or should be. He didn't preface anything reported by "My opinion is...." or "I think or believe that ...." The pieces were crafted to seem like science fact when they were only un-substantiated opinion.

Um...they are substantiated opinion, if only by virtue of O'Neill's experience and suspicions. Yes, even columnists and editors should make sure of their facts. I would expect a science writer to be skeptical of people such as JE, given that what they do is contradictory to known science. As to whether the articles were deliberately passed off as science, I think that's a subjective opinion.

The Jaroff article represented the culmination of a concerted effort by Randi (along with Shermer and Jaroff) to attempt to embarass JE on the eave of his show being rolled out into syndication. Randi, Shermer and Jaroff all were naive enough to believe that this article would be sufficient to kill JE"s ratings and have the showed pulled from the networks in markets where it was shown.

Do you have a source to substantiate that, or is it just your opinion?

The only place it was not shown was on public (non-cable) networks in the Bible Belt states populated by large numbers of fundamentalist envangelical christians. Instead their efforts only piqued interest in JE and new watchers joined his ratings pool. At that point it was up to JE whether he would keep those viewers or not. Sooner or later, like all TV programming, his show will wither due to boredom and not the efforts of Randi, Shermer or Jaroff. Remember the old saw "I don't care what you say about me so long as you spell my name right." [/B]
Oh, I don't think Randi or Shermer or Jaroff have enough of an audience to affect TV ratings or to substantially affect interest in any given TV show.

Randi himself has said similar things about JE and others.

http://www.randi.org/jr/07-27-01.html

But there's hope. In my opinion — and I've seen a lot of these crazes come and go — the "talking-with-the-dead" artists are actually doing themselves out of business. With John Edward going into syndication this Fall, it may be perceived that the public taste for this flummery has brought the whole shoddy trade a respectability it ill deserves. I believe that with Char going to NBC in 2002, and astrologer Ferdie Pacheco, Miss Cleo, and Van Praagh coming up for much wider exposure as well, the basic "cold-reading" gimmick of guessing and extracting information from the victims, will become evident to even the most naive viewer — and as soon as the consumer gets smart, the con game is over. This is over-saturation bringing on Darwinian limits.....

I've said this before, too: the latest fad only lasts as long as the jaded public is interested, and sooner or later, they move on to the next titillation.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: It is apparent from the article that the Crossing Over show was contacted: "A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism." No denial, just a refusal to discuss the questions raised. We can hardly criticize Jaroff for not checking facts when the people contacted refused to discuss the issue.

Actually this is not completely the whole story on this. This was the first thing TIME got when they cold called. Jaroff was called back and invited to come to the show. He said he wanted a comment, if they had one, after he read them the piece. They responded by inviting him to attend a taping and see if what he was alleging was true.

Jaroff declined the invitation, nor did he offer to have TIME send a researcher in his place (he was in Florida). TIME editorial offices were within walking distance of the studio at that time. Jaroff spoke to them the day before the story was locked. I doubt he wanted to publicize their invitation so you may not have heard about it from him. This came from CO.

Any proof or evidence that such an invitation was offered? If we contact Jaroff, can he confirm this?

I attended, Jim Underdown attended and others I know or have heard from attended in addition to the three others who attended with me. None of us could confirm what Jaroff wrote about, nor could we confirm his opinions if you wish to call them that. Jaroff or a deputy should have taken the invitation but then why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

Were you given unfettered access to the studio in order to check O'Neill's suspicions, or were you just sitting in the audience?

I also agree with Clancie that it was highly irrepsonsible for Jaroff to accept what O'Neill wrote in an e-mail to Randi without contacting O'Neill and interviewing him. If he had done that we would have heard about it, no? If he had no space in TIME to give a few lines about it, surely space could have been found in The Skeptic or on a website somewhere for that purpose. Nothing. Nada. This was very poor journalism
Sorry.
How do you know Jaroff didn't interview O'Neill?

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I've said this before, too: the latest fad only lasts as long as the jaded public is interested, and sooner or later, they move on to the next titillation.

They already are. JVPs show was quickly cancelled and the ratings of JE's Crossing Over has by far the biggest drop of all the talkshows.

Recent Talk Show Ratings:
Judge Judy: 7.1 (no change)
Oprah: 6.5 (+12)
Dr. Phil: 5.3 (+23)
Judge Joe Brown: 4.5 (+ 5)
Live With Regis & Kelly: 3.5 (+ 6)
Divorce Court: 3.4 (no change)
Maury: 3.0 (+ 3)
Texas Justice: 2.7 (+ 4)
Jerry Springer: 2.7 (+13)
Judge Hatchett: 2.4 (+14)
Montel: 2.4 (+ 4)
People's Court: 2.2 (+22)
Judge Mathis: 2.1 (+31)
Sharon Osbourne: 1.5
Ricki: 1.4 (- 7)
Ellen DeGeneres: 1.4
John Walsh: 1.1 (-21)
John Edward: 1.1 (-42)
Good Day Live: 1.0
Wayne Brady: 1.0
Living It Up with Jack & Ali: 1.0
Ask Rita: 0.7

Source: TVTalkshows

John Edward now ranks below such pop icons as Sharon Osbourne, Ricki, Montel and Jerry Springer. When his show is cancelled, we will see all sorts of excuses that this is in no way reflecting on his popularity or validity.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 11:40 AM

Pyrrho: Um...they are substantiated opinion, if only by virtue of O'Neill's experience and suspicions. Yes, even columnists and editors should make sure of their facts. I would expect a science writer to be skeptical of people such as JE, given that what they do is contradictory to known science. As to whether the articles were deliberately passed off as science, I think that's a subjective opinion.

Answer : An e-mail by a third party (O'Neill) to a second party (Randi) is not substantiation to the first party (Jaroff). I felt I pointed that out here and above with the e-mails I have received from Huck and Benneth. I would expect a science writer not only to be skeptical of JE but also of someone who describes an experience with JE and to check both, and certainly the latter most carefully. It was not done. That these items were passed off as science fact is based on its placement in the magazine as Clancie points out but is otherwise my opinion.
and no doubt hers.

This is a forum where opinion is clearly allowed and discussed in near real time. Its not TIME magazine.

Pyrrho: Do you have a source to substantiate that, or is it just your opinion?

Answer: It is opinion based on the circumstances and timing. This piece was timed to coincide with the aforementioned roll out onto syndication of CO and Randi was grousing about it for weeks and months after the syndication deal was announced and before the articles appeared. We knew something was coming but didn't know what.

Pyrrho: Oh, I don't think Randi or Shermer or Jaroff have enough of an audience to affect TV ratings or to substantially affect interest in any given TV show.

Answer: You would be surprised on the sample sizes used to make marketing decisions. Perhaps Ed can help us out there, it used to be his business. In any case I think the combined weight of TIME and Scientific American magazines alone would be sufficient to lead the perpetrators to believe they had a shot at this. It back fired as it sometimes does. It stimulated instead of quelling interest.

Pyrrho: This is over-saturation bringing on Darwinian limits.....

Answe: I agree. Oversaturation and bordeom with the field will bring about its demise on the popular sea and the cycle of die-hards discussing this in semi-private or poorly accessed media will remain once again. Although we never had the internet before so its hard to say what will happen next.

Pyrrho: I've said this before, too: the latest fad only lasts as long as the jaded public is interested, and sooner or later, they move on to the next titillation.

Answer: Yup.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 11:43 AM

No evidence from Steve, then.

Much ado about nothing.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 11:58 AM

Pyrrho: Any proof or evidence that such an invitation was offered? If we contact Jaroff, can he confirm this?

Answer: I said this came from C.O., By all means ask Jaroff to confirm or deny.

Pyrrho: Were you given unfettered access to the studio in order to check O'Neill's suspicions, or were you just sitting in the audience?

Reply: We went in as if we were normal audience members. We mingled, watched and observed and went thru the standard procedures. Our primary ticketholder was a lady from Ohio. She brought me, and I in turn invited the head of the Parapsychologiy Foundation (the skeptical medium Eileen Garrett's grand daughter and her married name is not Garrett) and an interior designer from Manhattan as guests. We also had a friend arrive separately who was not known to be related to us who was allowed to watch the taping from the control booth because he knew people on the program. Our presence was revealed afterwards. We were then allowed to visit the control booth, meet with Paul Shavelson in his office and meet with JE. This was after the taping was over. We all met for several hours afterwards to compare notes. We could not confirm anything O'Neill asserted or believed about the set-up.

Pyrrho: How do you know Jaroff didn't interview O'Neill?

Answer: Because as a writer myself, if I had interviewed the source I would have said so. This is SOP. Jaroff never said so. If he interviewed O'Neill and didnt quote him directly or explain that he interviewed him personally, he would
be guilty of one of the grossest misrepresentations in journalism. One short line would be all that would've been required in TIME. And the results of that interview could easily have found a home elsewhere, in other media including on the internet. Its not there. It doesn't exist. When O'Neill surfaces and agrees to be interviewed about this, I will retract if he confirms everything Jaroff and Randi represented. BTW CO did find the footage of O'Neill's reading and said they could not confirm that it was edted to make it look like he was agreeing when in fact, he was not. The head-nod issue.

Unas

8th November 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You are missing the point UNAS. See logical fallacies on "missing the point. "
You refuse to answer the simple questions I have asked you, Mr. Grenard. Why?
You consider Randi's use of an unsubstantiated e-mail from O'Neill as the absolute gospel but you do not consider an e-mail I received in the same light.
I have made no statement regarding any "unsubstantiated e-mail", Mr. Grenard. See logical fallacies on "straw man".

Your statement is false. Did you post this false statement deliberately? If not, kindly apologize for your mischaracterization of my views.
And when you asked if I considered it acceptable, my answer was unequivocable: NO.
You have yet to answer my question: You have just done something that you claim to consider unacceptable. Are we to conclude from this that you routinely commit acts that contravene your sense of morality, or that you are lying when you say that you consider your own actions unacceptable?

You have yet to provide any specifics regarding the lies you claim that Jaroff and Gardner have told, or your evidence for your claims. Do you have any specifics, Mr. Grenard? That question can be answered simply: either yes or no. No more evasion, Mr. Grenard: provide the specifics.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Our presence was revealed afterwards. We were then allowed to visit the control booth, meet with Paul Shavelson in his office and meet with JE. This was after the taping was over.

Why were you invited the control booth? That's hardly "backstage", you know...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Because as a writer myself, if I had interviewed the source I would have said so. This is SOP. Jaroff never said so.

Again, you criticize people for what they didn't do but what you wanted them to do. This is "SOP" for you. You claim fault with others, because they don't do what you do.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It doesn't exist.

You don't know that.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
BTW CO did find the footage of O'Neill's reading and said they could not confirm that it was edted to make it look like he was agreeing when in fact, he was not. The head-nod issue.

Steve, you are incredibly gullible. You really think they would come out and agree that they cheated?

Unas

8th November 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What is important in the end is truth. And using lies and fabrications to arrive at the truth is unethical and immoral and these are the tactics I accuse Randi, Jaroff and Shermer using in this specific instance.
What lies and fabrications has Randi told, Mr. Grenard? Stop your vague handwaving. Provide specifics.

What lies and fabrications has Jaroff told, Mr. Grenard? Stop your vague handwaving. Provide specifics.

What lies and fabrications has Shermer told, Mr. Grenard? Stop your vague handwaving. Provide specifics.

You have yet to cite a single specific lie that you allege any of these men have told, Mr. Grenard.

You are engaged in simple character assassination. You have presented no facts to back up your accusation that the three men you have named are liars.

Why do you continue to discredit yourself publically on this forum?

Unas

8th November 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
...Jaroff's past writing on this topic and his own shoddy journalistic standards in regard to it -do- seem quite relevant.....
The original accusation made by Steve Grenard was that Jaroff lied.

Do you agree with Mr. Grenard's accusation? Yes or no. Anything else is evasion.

Unas

8th November 2003, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Randi, Shermer and Jaroff all were naive enough to believe that this article would be sufficient to kill JE"s ratings and have the showed pulled from the networks in markets where it was shown.
What is your evidence for this statement? Do you claim to have powers of telepathy that allow you to know what other believe?

What lies did those three men tell, Mr. Grenard? When will you answer this simple question?

Unas

8th November 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: How do you know Jaroff didn't interview O'Neill?

Answer: Because as a writer myself, if I had interviewed the source I would have said so.
You've made an accusation against Jaroff based solely on what you would have done? Why is that sufficient justification for calling him a liar?

renata

8th November 2003, 12:22 PM

I am sorry, and perhaps it is not relevant, but doesn't Steve now think John Edward is a cold reader?

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

By comparison, I NOW feel what we see JE provide is rubbish and cold reading. I now agree JE has the advantage of some short term prior research on major publicly available data as well as the advantage of asking questions. He asks questions even though he protests not to give him any info (e.g. the last LKL performance) which has really turned him off for me.

I guess Steve and Jaroff agree on JE, in essense :)

And, thanks for this, Steve:
TrtuhSeeker if you are seeking the truth go with renata on this.
Why, I might make it my Sig!;)

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 12:49 PM

I have seen evidence that JE used cold reading on phone in readings on his last appearance on Larry King Live. Not one person here, skeptic or so-called believer noticed this before I mentioned it. Or if they did, they didnt mention it.

Again this is not about whether JE is the real deal. I do not agree with Jaroff because nothing he said was substantiated fact including the O'Neill e-mail. What is so difficult to understand that making an argument built on a base of poor journalistic inquery and a tissue of un-substantiated facts is both immoral and unethical. JE may be a fraud but so is Jaroff in the way he wrote this story.

JE is almost irrelevant renata to this issue. While Randi may obviously feel it is necessary to fight fire with fire --- engage in fraud to fight fraud, I do not.
It is anaethema to our heritage and the basic truths of rule of law and ethics.

If one is to debunk or disprove JE or anything else, one should do so honestly, open mindedly and in a truly skeptical rather than cynical fashion and back up their statements with evidence.

O'Neill's comments which I have already recounted ad nauseum are non-sensical. They might as well have been written by Lewis Carrol.
Jaroff's "opinions" are crafted to make it look like he personally investigated his charges but a careful reading demonstrates he has done nothing of the kind. The only baloney being spouted is Jaroff's.

Unas .... Have you read the original Randi column on this in The Skeptic? Sorry I cannot provide it. Have you read Shermer's column in Scientific American on this? No? Yes? Jaroff, like Shermer, followed Randi's lead on this. So they are all, by their own choosing and their own wirtten words, in this together.
The remarks on the studio are innuendo and are not true as I have been there and seen it. So have thousands of others. Jaroff may be trying to fool the couple of million people who read TIME who will never be there but he cant fool people who have been there and seen it for themselves. That is my only answer to you. If you dont accept it, start working now to go yourself. If not, so be it.

Martin Gardner is an admitted practicing evangelical Catholic. You are not familiar with all that he has written over the decades or you would know this. I didn't say anything bad about MG so have nothing to retract. However evangelical christians do believe that mediumship and communicating with spirits is the devil's work so he has a philosophical dilemma on his hands.

I am sure Martin has rationalized it quite nicely to his own and everyone of his follower's satisfaction. Every envangelical I have ever had the misfortune of talking to has accused mediums of satanism and demonology. I am afraid I do not take this supersititon very seriously. I truly wonder, given his religious admissions, what MG's take on this is? Perhaps the following account holds some answers.

"Equivocation with respect to naturalism makes religion look like
fraud to many secular observers. The skeptic Martin Gardner put
the dilemma of contemporary theism particularly well, writing that
modernist clergy face a choice between being `loyal liars' and
`truthful traitors.' (Gardner M., "The Flight of Peter Fromm,"
William Kauffmann: Los Altos CA, 1973).

The loyal liar reassures the simple folk by pretending to believe that the universe was created by a supernatural being called God who had a Son who
really did rise from the dead; the truthful traitor betrays the faithful
by admitting that the supernatural elements in religion are all
fantasy. Of course Gardner's `liars' see themselves as merely tactful,
and his `traitors' usually see themselves as saving the faith rather
than betraying it. In fact, it is perfectly possible to continue
Christianity for a time on a naturalistic basis. People do have
religious feelings, even if those feelings are anachronistic by
products of evolution rather that signposts pointing to an ultimate
reality. Naturalistic Christianity exists in plenty, but it is a hollow
shell sustained mainly by nostalgia. Once Christian institutions have
accepted naturalistic metaphysics, they inevitably repeat the process
of secularization that the formerly Christian universities completed
years ago." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance: The Case
Against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education," InterVarsity
Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, p.202). [-posted by SB elsewhere.

Clancie

8th November 2003, 01:00 PM

The account of Jaroff's last minute phone call (just asking for a comment he could include in his ridiculous story to, imo, try to give it a credibility that it didn't warrant) is told in JE's book "Crossing Over: The Stories Behind the Stories". Jaroff has never challenged any part of that account--and he said nothing that indicated he had actually followed a higher ethic when he appeared on LKL....nor in anything about the incident in TIME....nor anywhere else, even after the publication of JE's book.

Jaroff obviously wanted to write a biased story masquerading as "objective" in TIME, and he didn't even check his source by talking with O'Neill or by attending a taping for himself. Very shoddy...very biased. (Reading his attack on LKL for a supposedly pro paranormal bias...how do you spell "hypocrite"?)

Unas

8th November 2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Unas .... Have you read the original Randi column on this in The Skeptic? Sorry I cannot provide it. Have you read Shermer's column in Scientific American on this? No? Yes? Jaroff, like Shermer, followed Randi's lead on this. So they are all, by their own choosing and their own wirtten words, in this together.
What are the specific lies that you claim those three men told?

It's a very, very simple question, Mr. Grenard. Why do you find it so difficult to answer? Or is the concept of backing up accusations with facts simply unfamiliar to you?

Martin Gardener is an admitted practicing evangelical Catholic. You are not familiar with all that he has written over the decades or you would know this. I didn't say anything bad about MG so have nothing to retract.
False. Your earlier post accused Gardner of being a liar as well. Do you always have this much trouble keeping track of the fact-free accusations you make against others, Mr. Grenard?

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
The account of Jaroff's last minute phone call (just asking for a comment he could include in his ridiculous story to, imo, try to give it a credibility that it didn't warrant) is told in JE's book "Crossing Over: The Stories Behind the Stories".

Oh. Wow. It must be true, then. It's in a book! Hey, let's believe JE at face value, whatever he says, shall we?

Originally posted by Clancie
Jaroff has never challenged any part of that account--he said nothing that indicated a higher ethic when he appeared on LKL....nor in TIME....nor anywhere else, even after the publication of the book.

You are using Steve's technique here: Holding people responsible for what you want them to do, not what they are actually doing.

Originally posted by Clancie
He obviously wanted to write a biased story masquerading as "objective" in TIME, and he didn't even check his source by talking with O'Neill or by attending a taping for himself. Very shoddy...very biased. (Reading his attack on LKL for a supposedly pro paranormal bias...how do you spell "hypocrite"?)

Whoa....what is wrong in the article? Where are the lies? What is not "factual"? These are the questions you keep avoiding.

Unas

8th November 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Jaroff obviously wanted to write a biased story masquerading as "objective" in TIME...
Yada yada yada. Stop evading.

The original accusation made by Steve Grenard was that Jaroff lied.

Do you agree with Mr. Grenard's accusation? Yes or no. Anything else is evasion.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 01:16 PM

Jaroff Lied, Prevaricated and Fabricated his opinions regarding everything he said in the article which is posted above. Everything. Not one specific thing but all of it. He had not one single sliver of personal, eyewitness evidence to substantiate a single thing he wrote. Not one. Does that answer your question Dont ask me for specific instances of lying when the entire article which you can access for free (we have given you the URL) is all tainted.

Jaroff sold TIME a work of fiction masquarading as non-fiction and worse, as some sort of science.

Why Unas? Because it is based on information which he did not investigate as he has never attended a studio taping to see for himself. Others have and they refute every single item he wrote. However, Randi wrote most of this first (see: The Skeptic) and Shermer parrotted it in Scientific American. Shermer is also the editor and publisher of The Skeptic where Randi wrote this.

Does that help bring Shermer and Randi into this for you? Geez. Does that add up to 3?

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 01:22 PM

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 01:27 PM

LOL. I wouldn't believe SG, because he's a liar and a fool. He just wants to try and censor skeptics because they threaten his fantasies.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Jaroff Lied, Prevaricated and Fabricated his opinions regarding everything he said in the article which is posted above. Everything. Not one specific thing but all of it. He had not one single sliver of personal, eyewitness evidence to substantiate a single thing he wrote. Not one. Does that answer your question Dont ask me for specific instances of lying when the entire article which you can access for free (we have given you the URL) is all tainted.

Jaroff sold TIME a work of fiction masquarading as non-fiction and worse, as some sort of science.

Why Unas? Because it is based on information which he did not investigate as he has never attended a studio taping to see for himself. Others have and they refute every single item he wrote. However, Randi wrote most of this first (see: The Skeptic) and Shermer parrotted it in Scientific American. Shermer is also the editor and publisher of The Skeptic where Randi wrote this.

Does that help bring Shermer and Randi into this for you? Geez. Does that add up to 3?

Steve,

Please present your evidence that Jaroff lied.

No. I retract that.

Present your evidence that Jaroff lied.

No "please". I am very tired of you throwing out accusations like these. I am very tired of your acidic rants. You never follow up with evidence. You attack Randi. You attack Jaroff. You attack anyone who disagrees with you. No evidence is ever provided.

You are a brute, Steve. You don't play fair. You are very quick to accuse those you do not agree with. No evidence from you, ever. Just evasions, outbursts, more accusations.

I can easily understand why you do not refer to Schwartz anymore. I can understand if he wants to distance himself from you. You have placed your bets on Keen lately. Now, you seem to rely on Benneth.

Who will you go to next, in your spiral of dwindling credibility? Peter Popoff? Uri Geller?

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 01:37 PM

Before I stop responding to you, please show me where I said Gardner was a liar. Here is the first and only thing I originally said about Gardner and BTW the beginning of these remarks are not mine but were from an e-mail sent by Angus Huck which I properly attributed to him:

Angus wrote:
Rather odd, actually, when one considers that Gardner is an Evangelical Christian and Jaroff is a militant atheist and one-time admirer of Stalin.

Very strange bedfellows, these folks. What unites them is a hatred of the truth.

SG (that's me) added:
-----------------------------------------------
I suspect Gardner et al have other agendas. It would be interesting to
understand their motivations given that Gardner is a bible thumping evangelical fundamentalist whose credo(*) is that talking to the dead is akin to satan worship. It does get weird.

At no time did I say Martin Gardner was a liar. You are clearly becoming caught up in this and evidencing some delusions regarding this or is it the usual tactic of misattribution, distraction and argument for argument's sake that motivates you? Whatever the case, please retract your assertion I called MG a liar or consider yourself properly labeled a liar yourself for saying this.
Angus Huck said he and Jaroff share a common hatred of the truth. I did not say this. Nor did I say MG was a liar.
In addition I even said that I would NOT write an article on such a baseless e-mail without personally investigating the claims made by the writer. If you realized that you might realize I was actually agreeing with you and critcising Huck or rather his e-mail. I compared it with Jaroff using O'Neill's e-mail account as provided by Randi for similar if not much more nefarious purposes.

footnote:
I add for your understanding the following (*)starred advisory: envangelical christians consider mediumship communing with the devil, satanist and demonological.

Unas

8th November 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Dont ask me for specific instances of lying when the entire article which you can access for free (we have given you the URL) is all tainted.
I'll ask you whatever I please. Kindly bear in mind that you do not control this forum.

What are the specific lies Jaroff wrote? All you've given us so far are vague, hysterical accusations that everything Jaroff wrote was a lie. You cannot specify one single statement he published that was false? Not one?

If that is the case, then it is your own accusations against Mr. Jaroff that can be dismissed as lies. The same is true of your accusations against Mr. Randi and Mr. Shermer. You obviously haven't investigated the claims that they've lied. If you had, you could produce specific instances and evidence. That's SOP for a writer, remember?

Clancie

8th November 2003, 01:40 PM

Unas,

I've stated my point for you. I don't notice you responding to it.

Also, you've still not said whether or not you've even bothered to read the Jaroff article about CO that you're so vigorously defending. Have you? Yet?

If so...do you feel its a credible piece of journalism? (Because, if not, then we have no reason to continue to argue about it....)

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 01:47 PM

Unas: I'll ask you whatever I please. Kindly bear in mind that you do not control this forum.

Answer: You can indeed ask what you please. And therefore I can answer what I please. When you ask questions which are based on lies you yourself are making (see Martin Gardner issue above), I will not answer you.
It is my privilege to ignore you or anyone on this forum. I unequivocably control that.

Unas: What are the specific lies Jaroff wrote? All you've given us so far are vague, hysterical accusations that everything Jaroff wrote was a lie. You cannot specify one single statement he published that was false? Not one?

Answer: Have you read the article? And the precursor articles? Shermer in SciAm? Randi in The Skeptic? Jaroff in TIME? Yes, no? You havent answered the question. Are you arguing from extreme ignorance or not? You dont have to answer.

How old is this troll anyway?

Unas: If that is the case, then it is your own accusations against Mr. Jaroff that can be dismissed as lies. The same is true of your accusations against Mr. Randi and Mr. Shermer. You obviously haven't investigated the claims that they've lied. If you had, you could produce specific instances and evidence. That's SOP for a writer, remember?

Answer: Unlike yourself I have read and dissected all three of the above sources at length in many forums since they were first published. Unlike yourself I have investigated Jaroff's claims by attending a CO taping with others and we all found his descriptions to be totally incorrect.

I think I said this several times above but in your haste to spit out invective you probably overlooked it.

Unas

8th November 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I've stated my point for you.
You have evaded a simple question: The original accusation made by Steve Grenard was that Jaroff lied. Do you agree with Mr. Grenard's accusation? Yes or no. Anything else is evasion.

renata

8th November 2003, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have seen evidence that JE used cold reading on phone in readings on his last appearance on Larry King Live. Not one person here, skeptic or so-called believer noticed this before I mentioned it. Or if they did, they didnt mention it.

I am not sure whether you mean whether anyone noticed that JE cold read on LKL before, or whether they noticed he cold read on this particular LKL program, but I assure you people noticed and mentioned both before you.

This is where people called this very performance cold reading
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28028&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

This is where people noticed other performances resembled cold reading. Performances, by the way that did not differ all that much from this one. http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24032

Again this is not about whether JE is the real deal. I do not agree with Jaroff because nothing he said was substantiated fact including the O'Neill e-mail. What is so difficult to understand that making an argument built on a base of poor journalistic inquery and a tissue of un-substantiated facts is both immoral and unethical. JE may be a fraud but so is Jaroff in the way he wrote this story.

Why doesn't JE sue Jaroff and Time? He can, you know. There have been several suits of newspapers by celebrities when those newspapers printed lies. Sue it, settle it once and for all.

JE is almost irrelevant renata to this issue. While Randi may obviously feel it is necessary to fight fire with fire --- engage in fraud to fight fraud, I do not.
It is anaethema to our heritage and the basic truths of rule of law and ethics.

So I take it you then are saying Randi is committing fraud to fight a fraud (JE). I will leave it to others to engage you on that matter, I just wanted to confirm that you did think JE was a fraud...you are just objecting to the methods.

If one is to debunk or disprove JE or anything else, one should do so honestly, open mindedly and in a truly skeptical rather than cynical fashion and back up their statements with evidence.

I would like to see some examples of what you have in mind.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 01:53 PM

Let's examine the Jaroff article more critically.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,100555,00.html

Items reported as "fact" in the article (meaning that these items have not been qualified with disclaimers such as "In my opinion," or "I believe that," or similar disclaimers.)

Clairvoyants who claim to communicate with the dead--and warnings not to listen to them--go back at least as far as the Old Testament, yet psychics continue to flourish in back parlors and storefronts across America.
Factually correct. There are Old Testament warnings against soothsayers, and psychics do continue to do business in America. Whether or not they flourish is subjective opinion, but certainly not a lie.

None today is better known or more listened to than John Edward, a fast-talking former ballroom-dancing instructor who is cleaning up on his proclaimed ability "to connect with energies of people who have crossed over." Died, that is.
At the time of Jaroff's writing, this was factually correct. It is probably still factually correct. John Edward did work as a dancing instructor, he was and is quite popular, he does talk fast, and he does proclaim the abilities mentioned.

Indeed, his nightly Crossing Over with John Edward is the highest-rated show on the Sci Fi network and is about to go into syndication. He has made appearances on Larry King Live, Dateline, an HBO special, Entertainment Tonight and other TV shows. Between his fees for individual appointments, tickets for his seminars and stage appearances, and sales of his books, audiotapes and videotapes, Edward seems to be one of the few growth industries in an otherwise lackluster economy.
Again, factually correct. Note the qualifier, "seems to be".

But is he for real? Edward's critics claim his feats are merely illusions created by standard magicians' ploys--helped along, they charge, by a few tactics that are downright underhanded.
Factually correct. These are indeed the claims of JE's critics. Jaroff has not claimed that the critics are right.

Like other mediums, Edward relies heavily on a technique known in the trade as "cold reading." .
Whether JE relies heavily on cold reading or has genuine powers has not been established. It is Jaroff's opinion that he does rely on cold reading, but Jaroff has not qualified this as opinion. Even so, can this properly be called a lie? What JE does do does match the factual description of cold reading.

It involves posing a series of questions and suggestions, each shaped by the subject's previous response. Practitioners often begin, for example, by uttering a generality: "I sense an older father figure here," eliciting a response that leads him to the next question. "I'm getting that his death resulted from a problem in his chest" is a statistically sound guess that could cover everything from lung cancer and emphysema to a heart attack. Should the subject answer no, the cold reader will often say, "Well, we'll get back to that," and quickly change tack. It's a sophisticated form of the game Twenty Questions, during which the subject, anxious to hear from the dead, seldom realizes that he, not the medium or the departed, is supplying the answers.
Factually correct, if brief, description of cold reading.

Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather.
Unless Jaroff is misrepresenting what O'Neill reported, this is not a lie. We'd need O'Neill's original account to perform a comparison to see if Jaroff has lied about what O'Neill reported. Please note that this has nothing to do with whether or not O'Neill has lied; the subject at hand is whether or not Jaroff lied in his article.

While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known.
Again, Jaroff is reporting what O'Neill claimed. Unless Jaroff is misrepresenting what O'Neill reported, this is not a lie. We'd need O'Neill's original account to perform a comparison to see if Jaroff has lied about what O'Neill reported. Please remember that this has nothing to do with whether or not O'Neill has lied; the subject at hand is whether or not Jaroff lied in his article.

It was not until weeks after the performance, when O'Neill saw the show on TV, that he began to suspect chicanery. Clips of him nodding yes had been spliced into the videotape after statements with which he remembers disagreeing. In addition, says O'Neill, most of Edward's "misses," both on him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape.
Same as above. Jaroff is still relaying O'Neill's report, if not in O'Neill's original words. This still does not qualify as a lie by Jaroff.

Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected.
Jaroff is still relaying O'Neill's report, if not in O'Neill's original words. This still does not qualify as a lie by Jaroff.

And what did most of the audience--drawn by the prospect of communicating with their departed relatives--talk about during the delays? Those departed relatives, of course. These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium.
Jaroff is still relaying O'Neill's report, if not in O'Neill's original words. This still does not qualify as a lie by Jaroff.

(A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)
An assertion of fact. We have this from Steve Grenard, which, if Steve is correct, corroborates that Jaroff or TIME contacted Crossing Over:

Grenard:
Actually this is not completely the whole story on this. This was the first thing TIME got when they cold called. Jaroff was called back and invited to come to the show. He said he wanted a comment, if they had one, after he read them the piece. They responded by inviting him to attend a taping and see if what he was alleging was true.
Thus, Jaroff did not lie about this in his article, even if he did omit mention of an invitation from Crossing Over to come to the show. That assertion by Steve Grenard has not been corroborated, however.

Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career. Some of what Randi has learned is scheduled to be aired this week on Inside Edition, in what will probably be the first nationally televised show to take a skeptical look at the Edward phenomenon. Among other things, the show will feature Randi's demonstration of the cold-reading technique used by magicians to entertain and mediums to hoodwink an unsuspecting public.
Factually correct.

I can find no instance in this article that indicates that Leon Jaroff lied. There is one instance, when Jaroff talks of JE relying heavily on cold reading, in which Jaroff's opinion is not labeled as such, but this cannot properly be called a lie.

renata

8th November 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
I can find no instance in this article that indicates that Leon Jaroff lied. There is one instance, when Jaroff talks of JE relying heavily on cold reading, in which Jaroff's opinion is not labeled as such, but this cannot properly be called a lie.

Well done. Indeed, that one comment you will find Steve in perfect agreement with :D
He does think JE cold reads, and as he mentioned earlier, he does not seem to like the tactics used to debunk him- fraud with fraud, like with like. I could say something about Homeopathic fraud busting, but I better let it go...

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 02:04 PM

re last LKL:

On the very first call JE waved his hand and shut the caller up and then launched into an advisory that one should not give any information to the medium.

Five minutes later and for the rest of the show he did nothing but ask for the information he was so vociiferously declining at the outset. I don't recall anyone mentioning this.

-------------------------------------------------
Jaroff's thesis is that JE's hits can be blamed entirely on:

1. hot reading based on eavesdropping:
staff and mics overhearing audience members when said staff members were telling those same audience members to be "very" quiet, e.g. don't talk, don't say anything. Makes no sense to me. We saw no mics in areas we were herded before being allowed in the studio. Once in the studio we really couldn't talk.

2. the presence of ringers in the audience, a van load of them as espied by Michael O'Neill. But O'Neill does not say any of this van load of ringers was read whereas, lo, he was. The van, by the way, is a commercial transport vehicle that picks people up at hotels near LaGuardia. Occupants are basically starngers to each other. Why would they necessarily sit together in the studio?

3. guessing, as espoused by O'Neill to explain his hits without, by the way, revealing what the hits were so a reasonable person could at least mentally calculate the odds for guessing those hits

I am sorry. Jaroff and O'Neill got some splaining to do.

renata

8th November 2003, 02:10 PM

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 02:11 PM

Jaroff's thesis is that JE's hits can be blamed entirely on:

1. hot reading based on eavesdropping:
2. the presence of ringers in the audience,
3. guessing

These are mundane explanations of how JE probably does what he does. Because of the nature of his claims, these 3 explanations must be ruled out before jumping to the "JE has superpowers" explanation. It has to do with the whole "burden of evidence" thing that believers so often try to shift onto skeptics.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
re last LKL:

On the very first call JE waved his hand and shut the caller up and then launched into an advisory that one should not give any information to the medium.

Five minutes later and for the rest of the show he did nothing but ask for the information he was so vociiferously declining at the outset. I don't recall anyone mentioning this.

-------------------------------------------------
Jaroff's thesis is that JE's hits can be blamed entirely on:

1. hot reading based on eavesdropping:
staff and mics overhearing audience members when said staff members were telling those same audience members to be "very" quiet, e.g. don't talk, don't say anything. Makes no sense to me. We saw no mics in areas we were herded before being allowed in the studio. Once in the studio we really couldn't talk.

How is that Jaroff's "thesis"? It's O'Neill's suspicion, as reported by Jaroff. There is no indication that Jaroff believes this. He wasn't lying when he reported O'Neill's suspicions as O'Neill's suspicions.

2. the presence of ringers in the audience, a van load of them as espied by Michael O'Neill. But O'Neill does not say any of this van load of ringers was read whereas, lo, he was. The van, by the way, is a commercial transport vehicle that picks people up at hotels near LaGuardia. Occupants are basically starngers to each other. Why would they necessarily sit together in the studio?

Eh, it's anecdotal. I find it hard to swallow, myself. Still doesn't make it Jaroff's assertion.

3. guessing, as espoused by O'Neill to explain his hits without, by the way, revealing what the hits were so a reasonable person could at least mentally calculate the odds for guessing those hits

I am sorry. Jaroff and O'Neill got some splaining to do.
O'Neill does, sure. Jaroff, no. I don't think O'Neill's anecdotal account is any more true or false than any other anecdotal account. That's not at issue. The issue is whether or not Jaroff was lying in his article, as you have claimed. As far as I can tell, he wasn't. By any standard, Jaroff was not lying.

Clancie

8th November 2003, 02:20 PM

Pyrhho and Unas,

You both seem quite obsessed with Steve, but hopefully, you understand my point as well--which is that Jaroff's article is a shabby excuse for journalism. (And I notice, Unas, that you still give no indication that you've actually -read- the article you're defending...)

Quoting a third-hand source (i.e. an email purportedly sent to Randi by someone in the CO audience and forwarded to Jaroff) is not good journalism.

Jaroff didn't check his facts...didn't check his primary source (which actually is a third hand one)...was willing to reprint a whole lot of negative and unsubstantiated speculation from someone who told someone else he'd been in the gallery....it's almost unbelievably unprofessional.

Seriously, imagine a TIME article quoting a "believer" in the same way and giving this kind of credibility to a -favorable JE- email to, say, Schwartz!!!! Everyone would scream "unfair!" "biased!" etc. And, as with Jaroff and O'Neill, they would be right to.

No, Jaroff didn't confirm the source of the quotes. He didn't look at a CO taping for himself to see if his description of it was even close or made any sense at all. He tried to sandbag the CO staff by reading the article to them 24 hours before it was scheduled to be printed--nice tactic to cover himself by including a quote from them--i.e. he tried at the last minute to give the article a veneer of doing his homework when in fact, he'd done none!!!

This article really irks me because there is so little good criticism of JE out there to begin with. When I first tracked it down, I was avidly hunting for exposes of JE. I xeroxed it in the library and fully expected that the TIME magazine science writer would "deliver the goods". What a total disappointment to see something based only on innuendo and rumor!!!!

I still look at it and think...what a disgraceful piece of work....Really, it's appallingly bad in every respect and most of all for Jaroff's utter laziness and lack of journalistic standards...

Any second year high school journalism student would have done better....

He's quite the hypocrite for now blasting Larry King (on his talk show) for bias and a lack of balance.... :rolleyes:

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Pyrhho and Unas,

You both seem quite obsessed with Steve, but hopefully, you understand my point as well--which is that Jaroff's article is a shabby excuse for journalism. (And I notice, Unas, that you still give no indication that you've actually -read- the article you're defending...)

Quoting a third-hand source (i.e. an email purportedly sent to Randi by someone in the CO audience and forwarded to Jaroff) is not good journalism.

Jaroff didn't check his facts...didn't check his primary source (which actually is a third hand one)...was willing to reprint a whole lot of negative and unsubstantiated speculation from someone who told someone else he'd been in the gallery....it's almost unbelievably unprofessional.

Seriously, imagine a TIME article quoting a "believer" in the same way and giving this kind of credibility to a -favorable JE- email to, say, Schwartz!!!! Everyone would scream "unfair!" "biased!" etc. And, as with Jaroff and O'Neill, they would be right to.

No, Jaroff didn't confirm the source of the quotes. He didn't look at a CO taping for himself to see if his description of it was even close or made any sense at all. He tried to sandbag the CO staff by reading the article to them 24 hours before it was scheduled to be printed--nice tactic to cover himself by including a quote from them--i.e. he tried at the last minute to give the article a veneer of doing his homework when in fact, he'd done none!!!

This article really irks me because there is so little good criticism of JE out there to begin with. When I first tracked it down, I was avidly hunting for exposes of JE. I xeroxed it in the library and fully expected that the TIME magazine science writer would "deliver the goods". What a total disappointment to see something based only on innuendo and rumor!!!!

I still look at it and think...what a disgraceful piece of work....Really, it's appallingly bad in every respect and most of all for Jaroff's utter laziness and lack of journalistic standards...

Any second year high school journalism student would have done better....

He's quite the hypocrite for now blasting Larry King (on his talk show) for bias and a lack of balance.... :rolleyes:

Saved for posterity. Sorry, it has come to this: I don't trust that this will not be edited later on.

Unas

8th November 2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Before I stop responding to you, please show me where I said Gardner was a liar. Here is the first and only thing I originally said about Gardner and BTW the beginning of these remarks are not mine but were from an e-mail sent by Angus Huck which I properly attributed to him:
Angus wrote:
Rather odd, actually, when one considers that Gardner is an Evangelical Christian and Jaroff is a militant atheist and one-time admirer of Stalin.

Very strange bedfellows, these folks. What unites them is a hatred of the truth.
See the fish. See the fish in the barrel. Shoot the fish (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870179913#post1870179913):
Jaroff's number one chum in the denial business isn't Zwinge, but Martin Gardner, veteran liar, propagandist and mudslinger, and father figure to the "sceptical" movement.
Your claim that the segment you quoted above was "the first and only thing [you] originally said about Gardner" is false.

Would we now be justified in characterizing you in exactly the same manner that you characterize Jaroff, Gardner, and Shermer?

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Pyrhho and Unas,

You both seem quite obsessed with Steve, but hopefully, you understand my point as well--which is that Jaroff's article is a shabby excuse for journalism. (And I notice, Unas, that you still give no indication that you've actually -read- the article you're defending...)

Believe me, I am not obsessed with Steve Grenard. :rolleyes:

The question was not whether Jaroff's article is shabby journalism, which it may be, but whether or not Jaroff lied in his article, as Steve has asserted.

Quoting a third-hand source (i.e. an email purportedly sent to Randi by someone in the CO audience and forwarded to Jaroff) is not good journalism.

Jaroff didn't check his facts...didn't check his primary source (which actually is a third hand one)...was willing to reprint a whole lot of negative and unsubstantiated speculation from someone who told someone else he'd been in the gallery....it's almost unbelievably unprofessional.
[
Since we have no way to know, aside from asking Jaroff himself, if he communicated directly with O'Neill, we cannot make the assertion that Jaroff did not check his primary source. Jaroff did not report O'Neill's speculations as fact, but as "O'Neill's suspicions."

Seriously, imagine a TIME article quoting a "believer" in the same way and giving this kind of credibility to a -favorable JE- email to, say, Schwartz!!!! Everyone would scream "unfair!" "biased!" etc. And, as with Jaroff and O'Neill, they would be right to.

Maybe yes, maybe no. That's not relevant to the question of whether or not Jaroff lied. The question of bias is a separate question.

No, Jaroff didn't confirm the source of the quotes. He didn't look at a CO taping for himself to see if his description of it was even close or made any sense at all. He tried to sandbag the CO staff by reading the article to them 24 hours before it was scheduled to be printed--nice tactic to cover himself by including a quote from them--i.e. he tried at the last minute to give the article a veneer of doing his homework when in fact, he'd done none!!!

Clancie, none of us knows that to be a fact.

This article really irks me because there is so little good criticism of JE out there to begin with. When I first tracked it down, I was avidly hunting for exposes of JE. I xeroxed it in the library and fully expected that the TIME magazine science writer would "deliver the goods". What a total disappointment to see something based only on innuendo and rumor!!!!

I won't dispute the evidential quality of O'Neill's anecdotal account. I agree that, as far as I know, it is uncorroborated.

I still look at it and think...what a disgraceful piece of work....Really, it's appallingly bad in every respect and most of all for Jaroff's utter laziness and lack of journalistic standards...

Any second year high school journalism student would have done better....

He's quite the hypocrite for now blasting Larry King (on his talk show) for bias and a lack of balance.... :rolleyes:
Perhaps Jaroff is biased, and perhaps he shows a lack of journalistic balance and fairness, but he didn't lie. His criticism of Larry King should be judged on its own merits, and not on the basis of Jaroff's old article about John Edward.

Unas

8th November 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Unas: I'll ask you whatever I please. Kindly bear in mind that you do not control this forum.

Answer: You can indeed ask what you please. And therefore I can answer what I please.
Yes, you can. And when that answer consists solely of evasion -- as yours does -- I'll point that out.
Have you read the article?
You're still evading. What are the specific lies Jaroff wrote? All you've given us so far are vague, hysterical accusations that everything Jaroff wrote was a lie. You cannot specify one single statement he published that was false? Not one?

Unas

8th November 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
You both seem quite obsessed with Steve, but hopefully, you understand my point as well--which is that Jaroff's article is a shabby excuse for journalism.
Again, you have evaded a simple question: The original accusation made by Steve Grenard was that Jaroff lied. Do you agree with Mr. Grenard's accusation? Yes or no. Anything else is evasion.
(And I notice, Unas, that you still give no indication that you've actually -read- the article you're defending...)
Cite any article in any thread anywhere in this discussion forum in which I defend anything that Mr. Jaroff has written. You want sloppy? Check your own posts, Clancie.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 03:56 PM

TBK: These are mundane explanations of how JE probably does what he does. Because of the nature of his claims, these 3 explanations must be ruled out before jumping to the "JE has superpowers" explanation. It has to do with the whole "burden of evidence" thing that believers so often try to shift onto skeptics.

Answer: Nope. The most parsiomnious explanations are none of these things. They are too convoluted and difficult to pull off. If JE were a fraud, it would be because:

1. He asks a lot of questions: game of 20 questions. A cold reading technique.

2. Warm reading: he reads people's body language, appearance and voice intonation.

3. He uses pigeon-holing of information. Actually JVP is the most blatant of these. He gives back information provided by the sitters.

4. And finally a part of, but not his entire readings are generalizations. I tend to dismiss generalizations unless they are the whole reading since a lot of stuff can be general because it is common, not just because it fits a lot of people (which it does).

JE "has superpowers" is the very last factor you would consider but the above four come before hot reading scams.

There should be pretty tough standards for scientifically validating mediums. They need to rule out any possibility of any type of cold or warm reading as well as hot reading. You cannot do this from a TV show.

Jaroff would have done his readers a favor if he concentrated on how fraudulent mediums work rather than
cashing out opinions on van loads of ringers, whether JE was guessing O'Neill's hits (without telling anybody what they are because Jaroff didn't know -- he never spoke to O'Neill) or that JE's part time staff of two dozen college kids/interns were in on some giant conpiracy to report to him everything audience members said.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 04:01 PM

UNAS: You're still evading. What are the specific lies Jaroff wrote? All you've given us so far are vague, hysterical accusations that everything Jaroff wrote was a lie. You cannot specify one single statement he published that was false? Not one?

Sorry sonny. Unless you can tell me you've done ypur homework, I will not do it for you by rehashing the article here. For one thing you won't even know what I am talking about and therefore would not appreciate any answers I give you. I already told you that Jaroff's entire article, from word one to the last period was a fabrication because of two very simple facts:

1. He did not check out the Crossing Over set or an actual taping himself.

2. He did not corroborate what Michael O'Neill said in an e-mail to a second party (Randi).

xouper

8th November 2003, 04:04 PM

Sheesh, I can't believe I just read through 80+ posts looking for the punchline and there is none. Steve accuses Jaroff of lying and can't even provide a single specific example of a lie, let alone say why it's a lie. How pathetic. Steve Grenard is a joke with no punchline.

Jeff Corey

8th November 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
COREY: You consider an e-mail from Benneth a reliable source of information?
Are you totally deluded?

As a true skeptic I would have to answer that by saying I don't know. On the surface, however, I agree much of what he writes can seem outlandish. This particular account was especially amusing. It could be a blend of some truths and a healthy dose of delusion. Am I going to write an article for TIME Magazine based on this? I think not. It is what Jaroff did with O'Neill's e-mail:
Sorry abut the late reply. Just spent all day burying the cat.
You're comparing Jaroff's journalistic methods to those of the looniest delusional person in both hemispheres?

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 04:42 PM

Xouper, you win. The following is an example of Jaroff's lies or fabrications. He based his story on an e-mail sent to James Randi which he did not check and on a visit to the gallery he did not make. He investigated or checked nothing.

Jaroff: Clairvoyants who claim to communicate with the dead--and warnings not to listen to them--go back at least as far as the Old Testament, yet psychics continue to flourish in back parlors and storefronts across America.

Comment: And the source of these warnings? The Holy Bible. And what is the basis of the warnings Jaroff omits:
that those who communicate with the dead are communing with Satan and demons. Oookay. Jaroff makes it sound like some real important authority is warning you against this.

Jaroff: None today is better known or more listened to than John Edward, a fast-talking former ballroom-dancing instructor who is cleaning up on his proclaimed ability "to connect with energies of people who have crossed over." Died, that is.

Comment: JE taught ballroom dancing after he met his wife who taught him to ballroom dance and who owned such a studio. Why didn't Jaroff also mention that JE worked as a supervisor in the laboratory department of the North Shore University Hospital? Just a tad misrepping here, eh? I guess former ballroom dance instructor sounded cheesier to Jaroff.

Jaroff: Indeed, his nightly Crossing Over with John Edward is the highest-rated show on the Sci Fi network and is about to go into syndication.

Comment: Ah yes. Here's the bit that supports the contention this story, preceded by Randi's column in The Skeptic, which goes into greater detail, was designed to discredit Edward at this point (syndication) in the show's success.

Jaroff: He has made appearances on Larry King Live, Dateline, an HBO special, Entertainment Tonight and other TV shows. Between his fees for individual appointments, tickets for his seminars and stage appearances, and sales of his books, audiotapes and videotapes, Edward seems to be one of the few growth industries in an otherwise lackluster economy.

Comment: How does Jaroff know this? He has not seriously done an economic feasibility and comparison between JE and say the steel industry? eh?

Jaroff: But is he for real? Edward's critics claim his feats are merely illusions created by standard magicians' ploys--helped along, they charge, by a few tactics that are downright underhanded.

Comment: A rhetorical question. Jaroff calls what JE does a magician's ploy plus underhandedness. But offers no evidence. He makes claims ...er, but no support.

Jaroff: Like other mediums, Edward relies heavily on a technique known in the trade as "cold reading." It involves posing a series of questions and suggestions, each shaped by the subject's previous response. Practitioners often begin, for example, by uttering a generality: "I sense an older father figure here," eliciting a response that leads him to the next question. "I'm getting that his death resulted from a problem in his chest" is a statistically sound guess that could cover everything from lung cancer and emphysema to a heart attack. Should the subject answer no, the cold reader will often say, "Well, we'll get back to that," and quickly change tack. It's a sophisticated form of the game Twenty Questions, during which the subject, anxious to hear from the dead, seldom realizes that he, not the medium or the departed, is supplying the answers.

Comment: This proves that not only didn't Jaroff investigate the specifics and O'Neill for this story but has never watched JE either. This is not the way he usually cold reads. Jaroff and Randi cant seem to get past the identifying relatives ploys and the old problem in the chest area thing . For some reason JE will go way beyond this in many instances.

Jaroff: Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, had no preconceived notions about Edward but experienced what he is convinced was a "hot reading"--a variation on the cold reading in which the medium takes advantage of information surreptitiously gathered in advance. Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather.

Comment: Jaroff makes it seem he is first class buddies with O'Neill. But be careful. He never met him or spoke to him. This material is straight from Randi and the e-mail Randi got from O'Neill.

Jaroff: While many of those messages seemed to O'Neill to be clearly off base, Edward made a few correct "hits," mystifying everyone by dropping family names and facts he could not possibly have known.

Comment: In Randi's article O'Neill is alleged to call the hits "guess hits" but there as here we still don't know what they are. Wonder why that is? Oh yes, its because Jaroff never spoke to or communicated with O'Neill about this e-mail.

Jaroff: It was not until weeks after the performance, when O'Neill saw the show on TV, that he began to suspect chicanery. Clips of him nodding yes had been spliced into the videotape after statements with which he remembers disagreeing.

Comment: Jaroff doesnt explain how head nods equate with the affirmative information JE gave him. Either JE got the names correct or he didn't. And what about the facts JE couldn't possibly have known? Was this also inferred from head nod editing? Makes no sense. Did O'Neill say what JE gave them in names and facts was actual stuff he discussed with family before they sat down? No.

Jaroff: In addition, says O'Neill, most of Edward's "misses," both on him and other audience members, had been edited out of the final tape.

Comment: This runs contrary to readings all of us have seen on air....
with both misses and hits. I suggest O'Neill was not keeping proper records and that Jaroff never grilled him on this.
Oh, we already know that.

Jaroff: Now suspicious, O'Neill recalled that while the audience was waiting to be seated, Edward's aides were scurrying about, striking up conversations and getting people to fill out cards with their name, family tree and other facts. Once inside the auditorium, where each family was directed to preassigned seats, more than an hour passed before show time while "technical difficulties" backstage were corrected.

Comment: Now here is a really big lie by omission that Jaroff told: in Randi's account O'Neill says staff were scurrying around overhearing audience members speak while telling them to be "very quiet." Whatever happened to that Jaroff? He omitted the admonition to be "very quiet."

CO does not require members to write down their names, names of deceased family members and family tree information and give it to the staff.
Absolutely not. Jaroff attributes this bogus information to O'Neill so fine. Somebody is lying.

There are NO preassigned seats either.
People go into the studio in random order and are seated in an orderly fashion to prevent crowding. This is another lie. O'Neills? Jaroffs? Dont know

Jaroff: And what did most of the audience--drawn by the prospect of communicating with their departed relatives--talk about during the delays? Those departed relatives, of course. These conversations, O'Neill suspects, may have been picked up by the microphones strategically placed around the auditorium and then passed on to the medium. (A spokesperson for Crossing Over would say only that Edward does not respond to criticism.)

Comment: Here Jaroff implies by quoring O'Neill that conversations may be picked up by mics.

Jaroff forgets to mention he was invited to attend a taping to see if anything O'Neill said was true and he didnt want to get off his rear and come to NY from Florida. He could've had a researcher or several from TIME do so if he wanted. But he just refused and forgot about the offer. Lies by omission ? I would say so.

Jaroff: Meanwhile, O'Neill e-mailed his suspicions to the James Randi Educational Foundation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., where the Amazing Randi, a magician and skeptic, had been tracking Edward's career. Some of what Randi has learned is scheduled to be aired this week on Inside Edition, in what will probably be the first nationally televised show to take a skeptical look at the Edward phenomenon. Among other things, the show will feature Randi's demonstration of the cold-reading technique used by magicians to entertain and mediums to hoodwink an unsuspecting public.

Comment: "Meanwhile" my ass. Randi had this e-mail and published his O'Neill account well before Jaroff used it. This makes it sound like Jaroff knew about O'Neill and spoke to him all along and that ONeill advised Randi afterwards. Wrong. Deliberate misrepping of timelines to create a false impression. It doesn't get any better than this.

Randi's version contained the allegations about a van load of ringers, hidden mics and eavesdropping by staff members.

And renata, as to why JE decided not to sue Jaroff and TIME, it was because they would have been forced to subpoena and even quite possibly sue a gallery member as well (Michael O'Neill) and they clearly did not want to be placed in this position. So the cowards Jaroff and Randi hide behind O'Neill, knowing full well that CO would never sue an audience member. If they did they would suddenly become very un-popular with the public and this is clearly not something they wanted to do. So they just had to stay mum, well as mum as they could but certainly not drag O'Neill into court to defend Randii, Jaroff, TIME or The Skeptic.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 04:54 PM

Condolences on the loss of your cat.

Unas

8th November 2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The following is an example of Jaroff's lies or fabrications.
You present not one single shred of evidence to back up your claim. None of your comments contains any information that would prove that any of the statements you quoted from Jaroff's article are lies. Furthermore, you haven't even attempted to back up the accusations you've made against Shermer, Randi, and Gardner.

You've proven yourself to be the actual liar in this instance, Mr. Grenard. Expect to be reminded of that fact often.

Jeff Corey

8th November 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Jaroff forgets to mention he was invited to attend a taping to see if anything O'Neill said was true and he didnt want to get off his rear and come to NY from Florida. He could've had a researcher or several from TIME do so if he wanted. But he just refused and forgot about the offer. Lies by omission ? I would say so.

Do you have any documentation that proves that? Let's just start with the first statement. Any proof he was invited to a taping?
If Jaroff said he was invited, I'd believe it.
But not if you state it as fact.
I must larsen this statement. Prove what you said was true while providing a credible source.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 05:24 PM

JC: Do you have any documentation that proves that? Let's just start with the first statement. Any proof he was invited to a taping? If Jaroff said he was invited, I'd believe it. But not if you state it as fact.

Yup, dont take my word for it. Somebody already suggested they would ask this question directly to Jaroff. Go for it. My info is only second hand, coming from CO and what JE has written about it. To date Jaroff has not refuted CO's claim.

Whatta about the other half of the equation?

By the way, going to the taping is only half of the investigation that would;ve been needed to be done. The other half was to corroborate what O'Neill said.
For this Randi would have to have given Jaroff O'Neill's contact info or at the very least his e-mail complete with his e-mail address. Surely you dont think this would have been too hard for Randi to do for his ole bddy Jaroff eh? Especially since Jaroff plastered O'Neill as a source all over his column.

Jeff, my condolences on the death of your cat. Did you bury it at home or take it to the pet cemetary?

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
UNAS: You're still evading. What are the specific lies Jaroff wrote? All you've given us so far are vague, hysterical accusations that everything Jaroff wrote was a lie. You cannot specify one single statement he published that was false? Not one?

Sorry sonny. Unless you can tell me you've done ypur homework, I will not do it for you by rehashing the article here. For one thing you won't even know what I am talking about and therefore would not appreciate any answers I give you. I already told you that Jaroff's entire article, from word one to the last period was a fabrication because of two very simple facts:

1. He did not check out the Crossing Over set or an actual taping himself.

2. He did not corroborate what Michael O'Neill said in an e-mail to a second party (Randi).
I think you need to define the word "lie" for us, so we know that you don't mean a literal "lie", but some other definition that you privately hold.

Failure to inspect the Crossing Over set or actual taping does not make Jaroff's article a lie.

Failure to corroborate O'Neill's comments does not make Jaroff's article a lie.

If Jaroff's article was a fabrication, it would have been built out of whole cloth, as they say, which it was not.

If you want to call Jaroff's article piss-poor journalism, I might agree. Calling it a lie is just plain wrong.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 06:14 PM

Here is Shermer's version of the O'Neill/Jaroff thing excerpted from a larger article he did called Deconstructing the Dead:

Shermer:

Last month Skeptic magazine was the first national publication to run an expose of John Edward in James "The Amazing" Randi's column (in Vol. 8, #3, now on newsstands and bookstores or at www.skeptic.com), a story that was picked up this week by Time magazine, who featured a full-page article on what is rapidly becoming the Edward phenomenon.

Comment: Okay, I hope this supports contentions about the provenance of Jaroff’s article.

Shermer: Time's reporter Leon Jaroff, quoting from the Skeptic article, wrote a skeptical piece in which he reported the experiences of an audience member from an Edward taping. His name is Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, who reported his experiences as follows (quoting from the Skeptic article):

O'Neill: "I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess "hits" on me that was featured on the show.

Comment: Here it is …. Multiple “guess hits” And what were these guesses and just how guess were they? We will never know, I guess.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill: However, it was edited so that my answer to another question was edited in after one of his questions. In other words, his question and my answer were deliberately mismatched.

Comment: But if JE had multiple guess hits why would he need to mismatch O’Neill’s head nods and answers?

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill:

Only a fraction of what went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30 minute show. He was wrong about a lot and was very aggressive when somebody failed to acknowledge something he said.

Comment: Well of course. The taping is 4 hours, the 30 minute show you O’Neill was on was only 22 minutes. Of course O’Neill, Randi nor Shermer and certainly not Jaroff failed to mentioned that 6 to 8 or moré shows are cut from the 4 hour taping. A minor lapse perhaps or deliberate prevarication? I call this a gross deception to be kind.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill:

Also, his "production assistants" were always around while we waited to get into the studio. They told us to keep very quiet, and they overheard a lot. I think that the whole place is bugged somehow.

Comment: Yes, eavesdropping while telling you to remain “very quiet/” Makes no sense whatsoever. Ah, and here it is: “the whole place is bugged somehow.” Another stupid reason to tell the audience to “keep very quiet” They should’ve been saying “talk about your dead relatives so the mics and production assistants can hear you. Speak up for gosh sakes.”

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill:

Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two hours before the show began. Throughout that time everybody was talking about what dead relative of theirs might pop up. Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with cameras already set up. My guess is that he was backstage listening and looking at us all and noting certain readings. When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were trying to spot people he recognized.

Comment: And did O’Neill say what he and his family were saying about their dead relatives that came up in the reading he had? Nope.

Perhaps JE was looking hard at people trying to connect for them. Perhaps he was trying to figure out which one
OF THE he mics on the stage foor was picking up muted conversations in the gallery and from whom. I dont know but the latter seems ridiculous if not impossible. It is not parsimonious.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill:

He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell because about fifteen people arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."

Comment: Again, if JE had ringers in the audience, why weren’t any or all of them read instead of O’Neill? Still can’t answer that one.
------------------------------------------------

Pyrrho, you bring up another good reason besides the one I brought up as to why CO will not sue TIME, Jaroff, Randi or Shermer. None of them are making their own assertions, they are using O'Neill and therefore they are not lying except by reason of quoting O'Neill. Piss poor and worse journalism by Jaroff is an understatement.

The effect, at the end, is the same. Using the convivance of language and hiding behind a source, Randi, Shermer and ultimately Jaroff caused O'Neill's pap to reach millions and Jaroff never checked it out. So Jaroff can't even say for sure that any of what O'Neill allegedly wrote was true. I agree. I am not sure what that makes him. But it isnt pretty.

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 06:15 PM

JE "has superpowers" is the very last factor you would consider but the above four come before hot reading scams.

Why before? They are just as plausible as hot reading. They are just as valid of explanations as the rest of the mundane possibilities.

There should be pretty tough standards for scientifically validating mediums. They need to rule out any possibility of any type of cold or warm reading as well as hot reading. You cannot do this from a TV show.

Of course not.

Jaroff would have done his readers a favor if he concentrated on how fraudulent mediums work rather than
cashing out opinions on van loads of ringers, whether JE was guessing O'Neill's hits (without telling anybody what they are because Jaroff didn't know -- he never spoke to O'Neill) or that JE's part time staff of two dozen college kids/interns were in on some giant conpiracy to report to him everything audience members said.

It's a television show with an agreement policy that studio members cannot contest fabrications and fictionalizations of what occurs during the taping sequences. Because of this, even if JE was caught "hot reading", he is in no legal trouble. It's done in a studio full of camera's and microphones and you think that it's not very plausible that evesdropping is occuring?

It's evident here that your entire purpose is to cry and discredit any skeptical viewpoint. This is your own form of censorship, and it's dishonest.

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 06:21 PM

Again, if JE had ringers in the audience, why weren’t any or all of them read instead of O’Neill? Still can’t answer that one.

Easy answer. The ringers are there just in case JE can't seem to get decent hits or his "hot reading" isn't working out that great. A ringer can be used once, after that his identity will be compromised and the fraud exposed.

I guess SG just doesn't have the thinking skills to understand the differing deceptions often employed by "mediums" or other "entertainers".

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 06:29 PM

But if JE had multiple guess hits why would he need to mismatch O’Neill’s head nods and answers?

Simple, some hits are very uninteresting.

Here is an example of an uninteresting guess and hit.

JE: You like girls
O'Neille: Yes (nods yes)

Now, that's not much of a hit at all.. nothing "extraordinary".

Ok, here is another guess.

JE: You fell in love with a woman named Barbara and she drove a red corvette. She is german and is a midget.

O'Neille: Not even close.

JE, being an entertainer, realizes that the first guess is a hit but not very entertaining. He realizes that the second guess would be great if it was a hit.

So... mismatching nods and answers with some editting, the Crossing Over show plays this.

JE: You fell in love with a woman named Barbara and she drove a red corvette. She is german and is a midget.

O'Neille: Yes (nods yes)

It's not a hard concept to grasp, SG. But you are so blinded with hate towards skeptics that you automaticallly want to rationalize to yourself that O'Neille must be telling lies.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Here is Shermer's version of the O'Neill/Jaroff thing excerpted from a larger article he did called Deconstructing the Dead:

Shermer: Last month Skeptic magazine was the first national publication to run an expose of John Edward in James "The Amazing" Randi's column (in Vol. 8, #3, now on newsstands and bookstores or at www.skeptic.com), a story that was picked up this week by Time magazine, who featured a full-page article on what is rapidly becoming the Edward phenomenon.

Comment: Okay, I hope this supports contentions about the provenance of Jaroff’s article.

So far, so good. Agreed.

Shermer: Time's reporter Leon Jaroff, quoting from the Skeptic article, wrote a skeptical piece in which he reported the experiences of an audience member from an Edward taping. His name is Michael O'Neill, a New York City marketing manager, who reported his experiences as follows (quoting from the Skeptic article):

"I was on the John Edward show. He even had a multiple guess "hits" on me that was featured on the show.

Comment: Here it is …. Multiple “guess hits” And what were these guesses and just how guess were they? We will never know, I guess.

No way to know. O'Neill's story was anecdotal, except that his presence at the show could have been verified.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill: However, it was edited so that my answer to another question was edited in after one of his questions. In other words, his question and my answer were deliberately mismatched.

Comment: But if JE had multiple guess hits why would he need to mismatch O’Neill’s head nods and answers?

No way to know. This is what O'Neill is telling us is true. All we can do is to read his statements and say, "Hmm."

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill: Only a fraction of what went on in the studio was actually seen in the final 30 minute show. He was wrong about a lot and was very aggressive when somebody failed to acknowledge something he said.

Comment: Well of course. The taping is 4 hours, the 30 minute show you O’Neill was on was only 22 minutes. Of course O’Neill, Randi nor Shermer and certainly not Jaroff failed to mentioned that 6 to 8 or moiré shows are cut from the 4 hour taping. A minor lapse perhaps or deliberate prevarication?

Certainly not a lie. Since O'Neill cites no numbers other than "30 minute show", I'd say neither a lapse nor a lie.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill:

Also, his "production assistants" were always around while we waited to get into the studio. They told us to keep very quiet, and they overheard a lot. I think that the whole place is bugged somehow.

Comment: Yes, eavesdropping while telling you to remain “very quiet/” Makes no sense whatsoever. Ah, and here it is: “the whole place is bugged somehow.” Another stupid reason to tell the audience to “keep very quiet” They should’ve been saying “talk about your dead relatives so the mics and production assistants can hear you. Speak up for gosh sakes.”

O'Neill is giving his opinion: "I think" is the modifier. He could be wrong in his suspicions, but that doesn't make it a lie.

Shermer quoring Randi quoting O’Neill:

Also, once in the studio we had to wait around for almost two hours before the show began. Throughout that time everybody was talking about what dead relative of theirs might pop up. Remember that all this occurred under microphones and with cameras already set up. My guess is that he was backstage listening and looking at us all and noting certain readings. When he finally appeared, he looked at the audience as if he were trying to spot people he recognized.

Comment: And did O’Neill say what he and his family were saying about their dead relatives come up in the reading he had? Nope. {erhaps he was looking hard at people trying to connect for them. Perhaps he was trying to figure out which one
The mics on the stage foor was picking up muted conversations in the gallery and
from whom. This is whacko.

A directional mike could certainly pick up conversations in the gallery. O'Neill said he was guessing; he does not state anything with absolute certainty. Opinions are not lies.

Shermer quoting Randi quoting O’Neill:

He also had ringers in the audience. I can tell because about fifteen people arrived in a chartered van, and once inside they did not sit together."

Comment: Again, if JE had ringers in the audience, why weren’t any or all of them read instead of O’Neill? Still can’t answer that one.

It was never established that these "ringers" were read or not read. You can't legitimately say that they were not, any more than I can say that they were. No way to know if they were "ringer" or not. I would agree that it does not follow that a chartered van full of attendees is full of ringers.

Pyrrho, you bring up another good reason besides the one I brought up as to why CO will not sue TIME, Jaroff, Randi or Shermer. None of them are making their own assertions, they are using O'Neill and therefore they are not liying except by reason of quoting O'Neill. Piss poor and worse journalism by Jaroff is an understatement.

Quoting O'Neill is not committing a lie.

The effect, at the end, is the same. Using the convivance of language and hiding behind a source, Randi, Shermer and ultimately Jaroff caused O'Neill's pap to reach millions and Jaroff never checked out out. So Jaroff can't even say for sure that any of what O'Neill allegedly wrote was true. I agree. I am not sure what that makes him. But it isnt pretty.
You do not know that Jaroff never checked O'Neill's statements. Jaroff's article contains the statement that a Crossing Over spokesperson would only say that John Edward does not respond to criticism. We have only your claim that Crossing Over subsequently invited Jaroff to inspect the show, and frankly, you're not a reliable source. It's plain that Jaroff or his staff did contact Crossing Over for a comment on the article, and they blew their chance to discredit O'Neill. Whose fault is that? Certainly not Jaroff's.

Besides, a planned visit by Jaroff or his staff would not have revealed anything, even if Crossing Over had been planting hidden microphones, etc., because they would have had the opportunity to sanitize the operation long before Jaroff or his staff arrived. No, Jaroff would have had to assign someone to pose as an audience member, without the knowledge of Crossing Over, in order to properly inspect the operation.

Coming up next: Does Michael O'Neill even exist?

thaiboxerken

8th November 2003, 06:35 PM

Perhaps JE was looking hard at people trying to connect for them. Perhaps he was trying to figure out which one
OF THE he mics on the stage foor was picking up muted conversations in the gallery and from whom. I dont know but the latter seems ridiculous if not impossible. It is not parsimonious.

Looking hard at people "trying to connect for them" is parsimonious? Hardly.

It's very easy to believe that JE could have been looking and memorizing who looks like what. The people operating the mics that could be listening can easily transmit to JE "see the guy in the red sweater, he wants to connect with his mom". Very easy to believe because it doesn't violate physics.

O'Neille did not lie either, he is speculating about the whole microphone and hot reading thing.

I guess speculation is fabrication to you.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 06:49 PM

Pyrrho: You do not know that Jaroff never checked O'Neill's statements. Jaroff's article contains the statement that a Crossing Over spokesperson would only say that John Edward does not respond to criticism. We have only your claim that Crossing Over subsequently invited Jaroff to inspect the show, and frankly, you're not a reliable source.

Reply: Your ad hominem is duly noted but you missed Clancie's reference to the source for this information which was JE. JE was my source also. Oh, I know, he's also not a reliable source for this. But when Edward revealed this, Jaroff responded not at all. Oh well. It will go on forever.

Pyrrho: It's plain that Jaroff or his staff did contact Crossing Over for a comment on the article, and they blew their chance to discredit O'Neill. Whose fault is that? Certainly not Jaroff's.

Reply: First of all Jaroff has no staff. He lives in retirement in Boca Raton, Florida. He must be nearing 80 god bless him. Secondly, CO was not interested in discrediting O'Neill nor were they interested in getting into a pissing contest with a gallery member. This is exactly what Randi, Shermer and Jaroff would have liked. But it didn't happen.

Pyrrho: Besides, a planned visit by Jaroff or his staff would not have revealed anything, even if Crossing Over had been planting hidden microphones, etc., because they would have had the opportunity to sanitize the operation long before Jaroff or his staff arrived. No, Jaroff would have had to assign someone to pose as an audience member, without the knowledge of Crossing Over, in order to properly inspect the operation.

Reply: From my understanding he or a researcher was invited to come to a taping the next day. But Jaroff refused.

Pyrrho: Coming up next: Does Michael O'Neill even exist?

Reply: Oh, Michael definitely exists. This is why CO did not want to get into a debate with or about him. He was a gallery member and he did have an evidential reading even though somehow the word "guess hits" were found to describe it. His raw footage and aired segment has been reviewed as well. The bigger question is why doesn't Michael want to come out and discuss this in the open, agree to be interviewed by the press (several reporters wanted to speak to him after Jaroff's story appeared but were rebuffed, I think through Randi who is protecting his source). In fact even Jaroff probably would've like to talk to him and wasn't allowed to either.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: You do not know that Jaroff never checked O'Neill's statements. Jaroff's article contains the statement that a Crossing Over spokesperson would only say that John Edward does not respond to criticism. We have only your claim that Crossing Over subsequently invited Jaroff to inspect the show, and frankly, you're not a reliable source.

Reply: Your ad hominem is duly noted but you missed Clancie's reference to the source for this information which was JE. JE was my source also. Oh, I know, he's also not a reliable source for this. But when Edward revealed this, Jaroff responded not at all. Oh well. It will go on forever.

I'll accept that John Edward was a source. Did you or Clancie get your information directly from John Edward? Can you cite a corroborating source where John Edward says this?

Pyrrho: It's plain that Jaroff or his staff did contact Crossing Over for a comment on the article, and they blew their chance to discredit O'Neill. Whose fault is that? Certainly not Jaroff's.

Reply: First of all Jaroff has no staff. He lives in retirement in Boca Raton, Florida. He must be nearing 80 god bless him. Secondly, CO was not interested in discrediting O'Neill nor were they interested in getting into a pissing contest with a gallery member. This is exactly what Randi, Shermer and Jaroff would have liked. But it didn't happen.

Fine, Jaroff has no staff. Did he or did he not contact Crossing Over for comment? It would seem that he certainly did. Again, you claim some kind of Randi/Shermer/Jaroff conspiracy, which is irrelevant to this question.

Pyrrho: Besides, a planned visit by Jaroff or his staff would not have revealed anything, even if Crossing Over had been planting hidden microphones, etc., because they would have had the opportunity to sanitize the operation long before Jaroff or his staff arrived. No, Jaroff would have had to assign someone to pose as an audience member, without the knowledge of Crossing Over, in order to properly inspect the operation.

Reply: From my understanding he or a researcher was invited to come to a taping the next day. But Jaroff refused.

His attending a taping would have proved nothing, as I already explained.

Pyrrho: Coming up next: Does Michael O'Neill even exist?

Reply: Oh, Michael definitely exists. This is why CO did not want to get into a debate with or about him. He was a gallery member and he did have an evidential reading even though somehow the word "guess hits" were found to describe it. His raw footage and aired segment has been reviewed as well.

Good, he exists.

The bigger question is why doesn't Michael want to come out and discuss this in the open, agree to be interviewed by the press (several reporters wanted to speak to him after Jaroff's story appeared but were rebuffed, I think through Randi who is protecting his source). In fact even Jaroff probably would've like to talk to him and wasn't allowed to either.
Back to Randi again...obviously Michael O'Neill isn't an anonymous source, and Crossing Over should certainly have his contact information. Who knows why he doesn't discuss it openly? No point in speculating. We're getting into more second- or third-hand reports from you, which are about as trustworthy as O'Neill's email, and there is little point in discussing your assertions.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 07:14 PM

In addition to Randi who would have his e-mail address at the very least, CO at that time may've had his signature on a release form and since he was read additional, contact information. Again, and I dont know how many times I have to say this but CO clearly was not interested in getting into a pissing contest with a gallery member. They may've called him or they may not have. If they did, he may have said he doesn't want to talk about it anymore, leave me alone. We dont know. Yes, it is now entering the realm of speculation. The time was ripe for Jaroff, however, to interview him for the TIME piece. Clearly this was not done.

It would be up to Michael and Michael alone to confirm, deny and answer a reporter's questions on his own. If he decides to come forward.

Your additional ad hominem is also noted. The source for JE having said Jaroff was invited is JE in his book which Clancie cited above and you seemed to ignore. Was this in order to take another potshot at me. Is this reaching the level of harassment yet? I suppose you honestly could've missed it but then all you could've done is simply ask.

Do you guys have a smilie of an ad hominem meter yet?

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In addition to Randi who would have his e-mail address at the very least, CO at that time may've had his signature on a release form and since he was read additional, contact information. Again, and I dont know how many times I have to say this but CO clearly was not interested into getting into a pissing contest with a gallery member. They may've called him or they may not have. If they did, he may have said he doesn't want to talk about it anymore, leave me alone. We dont know. Yes, it is now entering the realm of speculation. The time was ripe for Jaroff, however, to interview him for the TIME piece. Clearly this was not done.

It would be up to Michael and Michael alone to confirm, deny and answer a reporter's questions on his own. If he decides to come forward.
Good. You admit that it's speculation; therefore, it cannot be said that Michael O'Neill lied when he emailed his opinions and suspicions, and it cannot be said that Randi, Shermer, or Jaroff lied when they quoted O'Neill in their articles.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 07:26 PM

Oh lord..I said realm of speculation about why Michael O'Neill will not or would not talk to reporters after the TIME piece appeared and in the realm of speculation as to what CO may have done about contacting him or not.

There is nothing speculative about Randi, Shermer and Jaroff using O'Neill as a human shield to their prevarications about JE. They stand squarely in back of him, protected by a gallery member whose every statement is disputable and makes no sense; educated persons of Shermer's and Jaroff's calibre know this. It doesnt excuse Jaroff for taking O'Neill's word for it, a 3rd party hearsay in an e-mail message. LOL what a farce.
It doesnt excuse Shermer for repeating it as above and worse again in Un-Scientific American magazine.

You can play word games all you want. Jaroff's article on JE was, is and will be for a long time the biggest piece of rubbish in the history of anti-everything journalism. The only thing that comes as troublingly close is Emily Rosa's one subject (herself) study getting published in JAMA. Thank god that editor is gone now.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 07:32 PM

Source for John Edward comments re: Michael O'Neill.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/06/lkl.00.html

KING: That's from John Edward, a very successful show on the Sci-fi Network, which by the way, is going into syndication. Here is just a portion of the article by Jaroff in "TIME" magazine in which he says, writing about our guest: "It is a sophisticated form of the game 20 Questions, during which the subject, anxious to hear from dead, seldom realizes that he, not the medium or the departed, is supplying the answers."

That is from "TIME" magazine. John, were you upset over that article.

EDWARD: Was I upset? I don't think I was as upset as the people who work on the show and the people that actually have come to the show. I think it is insulting to the intelligence of the people in the audience, and I think it's insulting to the credibility and the integrity of everybody that works on show trying to do, and that's to help people understand that this is real.

KING: Well, the claim says there are a lot of setups in the audience. Questionnaires are filled out, bugging is used. They listen to people --they learn things in advance. When you have the thing wrong, they edit out things when you are wrong. All of that is wrong?

EDWARD: All of that is complete wrong -- completely wrong, and if the person had actually come to the show and maybe interviewed the people who work on the show, spend time with us at the show, maybe, interviewed me, asked me about what my process is or how this works, bring people on his own, for us to work with, you know, I mean I think that the show and myself would have been more than happy to do that for this guy or for "TIME" or for anybody. We just want to show that this is something that's real and credible.

Is the show edited? Absolutely. It's edited for time, not for content. Some of the readings that we do go on for anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour. It's only a half hour show. So, if you do the math, it's only logical that there are certain things that are not going to make it.

KING: He quotes a Michael O'Neil (ph), who attended one of your shows, and writes that O'Neil claims that his encounter on the show was edited and gave a false impression. Clips of him nodding "yes" spliced into the videotape about statements which he remembers disagreeing. Is O'Neil wrong?

EDWARD: You know, I have to say that I would believe so, because I don't believe that they'd edit the show in that capacity. And again, I think that this is subjective to somebody's experience. And if somebody came to a show, and they were hoping to understand -- if they were hoping to hear from one person, and maybe they didn't, maybe they're disappointed, or maybe they just don't believe in it. I can't speak for, you know, Michael, I can only speak for myself.

KING: And there is no microphones in the audience where you picked up private conversations to learn things that you could use later?

EDWARD: Absolutely not. I mean, the information that comes through during any type of session -- or, actually, I should say this in a bigger, general way: the information that any medium brings through should be something that validates the person, and that is not something -- I mean, these are things that are, like, private personal things that people look at you sometimes and like, why would they say that? You know, something that's completely remote and obscure, but it's a validation of the person who is actually coming through.

It is not always about, you know, love and light, peace and new age fluffy stuff. It is to validate that the energy outside the physical body is still connected to the family that's here.

Jaroff's comments:

KING: Now let's meet our entire panel. In New York, again, with us is John Edward. He'll be with us throughout the program, the subject of the article in "TIME."

Here in Los Angeles, Sylvia Browne, the world-renowned psychic who has appeared on many shows, including this one. Also in L.A. is James Van Praagh, the known spiritual medium who has also appeared on many shows, including this one.

In Buffalo, New York, is Paul Kurtz, professor of philosophy at the State University of New York in Buffalo. He publishes "The Skeptical Inquirer." In, I said Miami, I believe it's Boca Raton, Florida is Leon Jaroff, contributor to "TIME" magazine who wrote the critical article that we're discussing here tonight and in London is Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, co-author of "The Psychic and the Rabbi." The co-author, by the way, is the famed Uri Geller.

Let's start with Leon Jaroff, who wrote the article. First, one of the things, you never attended a show yourself nor did you call Mr. Edward.

LEON JAROFF, "TIME" MAGAZINE CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I tried to get in touch with people on the show, but I was told that John Edward does not respond to criticism. So, I did talk to the director of public relations of the show. By the way, Larry, I have written a book, too, but it's on a real subject, the human genome project. I thought I would throw that in.

No mention by John Edward that Leon Jaroff had been invited to attend a taping.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Oh lord..I said realm of speculation about why Michael O'Neill will not or would not talk to reporters after the TIME piece appeared and in the realm of speculation as to what CO may have done about contacting him or not.

There is nothing speculative about Randi, Shermer and Jaroff using O'Neill as a human shield to their prevarications about JE. They stand squarely in back of him, protected by a gallery member whose every statement is disputable and makes no sense; educated persons of Shermer's and Jaroff's calibre know this. It doesnt excuse Jaroff for taking O'Neill's word for it, a 3rd party hearsay in an e-mail message. LOL what a farce.
It doesnt excuse Shermer for repeating it as above and worse again in Un-Scientific American magazine.

You can play word games all you want. Jaroff's article on JE was, is and will be for a long time the biggest piece of rubbish in the history of anti-everything journalism. The only thing that comes as troublingly close is Emily Rosa's one subject (herself) study getting published in JAMA. Thank god that editor is gone now.
Steve, if anyone is playing word games, it's you. You equate what you deem to be journalistic laziness with plain lying; you have not established that Michael O'Neill lied at all, yet you accuse others of lying because they quoted him in articles. O'Neill's comments aren't hearsay -- they are his opinions of his experience, and his suspicions and speculation on how John Edward achieves his results. Even if he is completely wrong, quoting him in an article does not make the writer of the article a liar. Even if every statement of O'Neill's is disputable, it does not make the writer who quotes him a liar. Even if the writer is a shoddy journalist, it does not make the writer a liar.

So, now you're going to drag Emily Rosa across the trail as a red herring? Try to stay on topic. That's an entirely different subject which has been hashed and re-hashed elsewhere.

Admit it, Steve. You cannot prove that Leon Jaroff lied in his article.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 07:45 PM

Check Clancie's reference above. Go to a bookstore and read the book yourself. What JE said extemporaneously on TV may not have included this precise information at that time. This was a live, unrehearsed discussion on LKL....

Jaroff clearly alludes to the first contact where he is told to buzz off, the second contact but he neglects to mention the
invitation. or glosses over it. Clearly JE clearly rieterates the invitation in his response. I can read, can you?

EDWARD: All of that is complete wrong -- completely wrong, and if the person had actually come to the show and maybe interviewed the people who work on the show, spend time with us at the show, maybe, interviewed me, asked me about what my process is or how this works, bring people on his own, for us to work with, you know, I mean I think that the show and myself would have been more than happy to do that for this guy or for "TIME" or for anybody. We just want to show that this is something that's real and credible.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Check Clancie's reference above. Go to a bookstore and read the book yourself. What JE said extemporaneously on TV may not have included this precise information at that time. This was a live, unrehearsed discussion on LKL....

Jaroff clearly alludes to the first contact where he is told to buzz off, the second contact but he neglects to mention the
invitation. or glosses over it. Clearly JE clearly rieterates the invitation in his response. I can read, can you?
Here's Edward:

EDWARD: All of that is complete wrong -- completely wrong, and if the person had actually come to the show and maybe interviewed the people who work on the show, spend time with us at the show, maybe, interviewed me, asked me about what my process is or how this works, bring people on his own, for us to work with, you know, I mean I think that the show and myself would have been more than happy to do that for this guy or for "TIME" or for anybody. We just want to show that this is something that's real and credible.
That's not a reiteration of an invitation.

Jaroff mentions only one contact, not a second.

Still does not show that Jaroff is a liar.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 07:52 PM

Okay, take back the word lying and change it to deception. You still don't get it:

Leon Jaroff, Shermer as well as Randi repeated what appears to be factual statements from somebody who wrote Randi an e-mail. Neither Randi, Shermer and Jaroff/TIME who was clearly invited to visit the show (by JE himself) decided to check it out. It suited their agenda., It suited their biases. It was a missive they were in complete agreement with so they did not fact check it, just go with it.

Jaroff, standing alone, was handed this by Randi and Shermer's magazine but did nothing to check it out himself. He did not speak to O'Neill, he did not interview him, he did not verify his existence (yes he exists but Leon Jaroff didn't know that at the time). He took on faith what this e-mail to Randi said.
This is a deception. And Jaroff is guilty of it. Sorry

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
The account of Jaroff's last minute phone call (just asking for a comment he could include in his ridiculous story to, imo, try to give it a credibility that it didn't warrant) is told in JE's book "Crossing Over: The Stories Behind the Stories". Jaroff has never challenged any part of that account--and he said nothing that indicated he had actually followed a higher ethic when he appeared on LKL....nor in anything about the incident in TIME....nor anywhere else, even after the publication of JE's book.

So, because Jaroff hasn't challenged JE's book, what JE claims is true? Sorry, the premise does not justify the conclusion.

Jaroff obviously wanted to write a biased story masquerading as "objective" in TIME, and he didn't even check his source by talking with O'Neill or by attending a taping for himself. Very shoddy...very biased. (Reading his attack on LKL for a supposedly pro paranormal bias...how do you spell "hypocrite"?)
Shoddy, maybe. Lie, no.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 07:58 PM

That's not a reiteration of an invitation.
Jaroff mentions only one contact, not a second. Still does not show that Jaroff is a lying.

Read the book and what JE wrote. Somebody is lying. Jaroff never refuted what JE says therein. Jaroff cold called the producers and got the buzz off and then in a subsequent call he got the publcist. Of course Jaroff is not going to say he was invited. That's because he refused. He also initiated these calls, for comment, on the eave of publishing the story while he was sitting at home in south Florida. It was an ultimatum call he made. Sorry, can't visit the studio, can't research this further. Story is locked. You have one shot at giving us a comment or goodbye. He's a reprobate, liar and deceiver. His story is a pile of dog poop.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Okay, take back the word lying and change it to deception. You still don't get it:

Leon Jaroff, Shermer as well as Randi repeated what appears to be factual statements from somebody who wrote Randi an e-mail. Neither Randi, Shermer and Jaroff/TIME who was clearly invited to visit the show (by JE himself) decided to check it out. It suited their agenda., It suited their biases. It was a missive they were in complete agreement with so they did not fact check it, just go with it.

That's your opinion. If you're mistaken, and I quote you in an article, am I guilty of lying or deception?

Jaroff, standing alone, was handed this by Randi and Shermer's magazine but did nothing to check it out himself. He did not speak to O'Neill, he did not interview him, he did not verify his existence (yes he exists but Leon Jaroff didn't know that at the time). He took on faith what this e-mail to Randi said.
This is a deception. And Jaroff is guilty of it. Sorry
Umm, no. I've already shown that Jaroff is not guilty of either lying or deception in the John Edward article, at least as far as the common definition of lying or deception is concerned. It seems that in your definition, anyone who quotes a source without checking the validity of the source's statements is guilty of lying or deception. Curious. This has profound implications.

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
That's not a reiteration of an invitation.
Jaroff mentions only one contact, not a second. Still does not show that Jaroff is a lying.

Read the book and what JE wrote. Somebody is lying. Jaroff never refuted what JE says therein. Jaroff cold called the producers and got the buzz off and then in a subsequent call he got the publcist. Of course Jaroff is not going to say he was invited. That's because he refused. He also initiated these calls, for comment, on the eave of publishing the story while he was sitting at home in south Florida. It was an ultimatum call he made. Sorry, can't visit the studio, can't research this further. Story is locked. You have one shot at giving us a comment or goodbye. He's a reprobate, liar and deceiver. His story is a pile of dog poop.
Even if Jaroff has not refuted statements made by JE, it does not follow that what JE said is necessarily true. It's like saying that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian because she has never said that she isn't.

He said, she said. Even if Jaroff omitted mention of an invitation to visit the studio, it does not make him a liar. If the invitation to attend came after the story was locked, too bad for the Crossing Over folks. They had their chance and muffed it.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 08:08 PM

You can twist and color this anyway you want Pyrrho ...

Pyrrho: "anyone who quotes a source without checking the validity of the source's statements is guilty of lying or deception. Curious. This has profound implications."

Sorry NOT anybody. A writer for a magazine such as TIME reaching millions of people. Media that is supposed to be highly credible and fact checked and believed. This is standard in journalism. Newspapers and news magazines and good writers of non-fiction interview and check their sources. This is not some puny two bit discussion on a forum such as JREF. This is a major publication reaching millions of people.
Why do you think Jason Blair got booted form the NY Times? Because he faked his stories much the same way Jaroff faked this story by having someone else source it for him and all but write it for him as well. (I provided the evidence of that above).

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 08:09 PM

Now that the discussion has descended to the level of dog turds, I will carefully step aside. Bye bye boys, have fun storming the castle!

Pyrrho

8th November 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You can twist and color this anyway you want Pyrrho ...

Pyrrho: "anyone who quotes a source without checking the validity of the source's statements is guilty of lying or deception. Curious. This has profound implications."

Sorry NOT anybody. A writer for a magazine such as TIME reaching millions of people. Media that is supposed to be highly credible and fact checked and believed. This is standard in journalism. Newspapers and news magazines and good writers of non-fiction interview and check their sources. This is not some puny two bit disucssion on a forum such as JREF. This is a major publication reaching millions of people.
Why do you think Jason Blair got booted form the NY Times? Because he faked his stories much the same way Jaroff faked this story but having someone else source it for him and all but write it for him as well.
Good, actionable libel. Always fun to read.

I'll explain why your position has profound implications some other time. I'm leaving this thread.

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 08:21 PM

Pyrrho: Good, actionable libel. Always fun to read.

Funny when Ed Dittus calls Schwartz a fraud that isnt actionable libel according to the mods here. Funny how when Ed accuses people of infidelity or being town whores that isn't libelous either on this forum.

I guess it goes back to the old double standard here -- some members are immune to such accusations whereas others are not. I invite Leon Jaroff to prove to me he didn't fake this story and lift it from Randi and Shermer almost in its entirety. OR That he did any research on it himself save for making the ultimatum phone call. Unfortunatey for Jaroff, Randi and Shermer have left an indelible trail that leads right to the story with his byline on it and his alone. I did not quote all of Shermer's article or Randi's original article at all (which I have as hardcopy in the magazine) so you missed out on the identical explanations of cold reading that were truncated by Jaroff and appear in his piece as well. Jaroff's article should have read: " BY: James Randi, Michael Shermer and Leon Jaroff." At least Emily shared the byline for her JAMA study with her parents who undoubtedly wrote it up for that publication.

Remember Pyrrho, before you make accusations of actionable libel, the libelous statements have to be proven incorrect. In Jaroff's case they are correct and just too easy to prove.

Jeff Corey

8th November 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Do you have any documentation that proves that? Let's just start with the first statement. Any proof he was invited to a taping?
If Jaroff said he was invited, I'd believe it.
But not if you state it as fact.
I must larsen this statement. Prove what you said was true while providing a credible source.

good luck

SteveGrenard

8th November 2003, 08:43 PM

Pyrrho was kind enough to provide a statement by JE that he made on LKL indicating that this TIME reporter person was welcome to come and visit the program and see how it works.

I am sorry if you do not like this report but it is where I get the notion he was invited.

JE also discusses this in his Stories behind the Stories. as quoted above by Clancie. I am sorry also if you don't like this either. Too bad.

It is really moot now and it does not negate the fact that Jaroff could have had months to do this story properly (instead of lifting, well acc to Shermer, "picked up" from Randi's column in The Skeptic...see, er, Shermer quotes above). That once Jaroff had "picked up" Randi's stuff and the O'Neill e-mails from Randi he could've corroborated them with O'Neill as well. He didn't.

Unas

9th November 2003, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Why do you think Jason Blair got booted form the NY Times? Because he faked his stories much the same way Jaroff faked this story by having someone else source it for him and all but write it for him as well. (I provided the evidence of that above).
You're lying again, Grenard. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that Jaroff faked the story. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that someone else wrote the story for Jaroff.

You have been proven to have lied regarding the content of your past posts attacking Martin Gardner, as well.

Put up a photo of yourself as your avatar, Grenard. That can serve as the official JREF Forums "ad hominem smilie".

Unas

9th November 2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Remember Pyrrho, before you make accusations of actionable libel, the libelous statements have to be proven incorrect. In Jaroff's case they are correct and just too easy to prove.
You have offered no proof that Jaroff lied in his article, or at any other time. You have also provided no proof to support your accusations against Shermer, Randi, and Martin Gardner.

You're a liar, Grenard. You're going to be stuck with that label for the rest of your stay on this forum.

CFLarsen

9th November 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by Unas
Put up a photo of yourself as your avatar, Grenard. That can serve as the official JREF Forums "ad hominem smilie".
(cough) (http://www.enformy.com/SteveGrenard.jpg)

Unas

9th November 2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Read the book and what JE wrote. Somebody is lying.
My goodness... from accusations that Jaroff, Randi, Shermer, and Gardner are all liars to "somebody is lying". Be careful, Grenard... in your haste to backpedal away from your earlier accusations, you might trip over a scruple or two that you obviously dropped earlier.

Wouldn't want you to hurt yourself...

Jeff Corey

9th November 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho was kind enough to provide a statement by JE that he made on LKL indicating that this TIME reporter person was welcome to come and visit the program and see how it works.

That's your proof? A con man on a media whore's show said it?
Get real.
Let's see, you've cited that and the ravings of Benneth as evidence so far.
What's next?
Uri Geller's testimony? The Tooth Fairy's evidence?
What a credulous person.

thaiboxerken

9th November 2003, 08:11 AM

Read the book and what JE wrote.

LOL. But what JE says in his books cannot be, and should not be, construed as factual statements. Did you not read the disclaimer in the book?

SteveGrenard

9th November 2003, 10:41 AM

The distraction is a very nice touch fellows but you are still not getting it.

1. Jaroff could have, should have interviewed Michael O'Neill, verified his e-mail and his comments. Instead he "picks up" (per Shermer) the stuff from Randi's article in The Skeptic and never speaks with or otherwise communicates with O'Neill. How do I know this? Because if he did, he would have said so. And he has never said he has verified O'Neill's e-mail with O'Neill. A primary source no less coming through the backdoor as a hearsay from Randi.

2. Jaroff could have, should have visited the set or cause the set to be investigated . It was at the time a few blocks from TIME's Hq. If TIME called up CO's PR or USA's PR department they would have arranged it in a literal NY minute. These people are investigative reporters, not kindergarden kids. They can get in anywhere, anytime they want to unless there is national security involved. They have sources working on all these NY based live TV show sets as well. It does not make any diff whether JE, the Pope or anyone invited him to the studio.

But NO, Jaroff didn't find it was necessary to do that. He would just take Michael O'Neill's word for everything, a person he never spoke to or laid eyes on in his life. And if I believe what Randi wrote, Randi never interviewed or laid eyes on O'Neill either.

I am done with this 15th Jaroff conversation now myself. The story was rubbish, the non-actions of the person who got the byline was rubbish and the whole thing was a farce.

CFLarsen

9th November 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
1. Jaroff could have, should have interviewed Michael O'Neill, verified his e-mail and his comments. Instead he "picks up" (per Shermer) the stuff from Randi's article in The Skeptic and never speaks with or otherwise communicates with O'Neill. How do I know this? Because if he did, he would have said so. And he has never said he has verified O'Neill's e-mail with O'Neill. A primary source no less coming through the backdoor as a hearsay from Randi.

Wrong. Is Hilary Clinton a lesbian? Following your "logic", she must be, because she never said she wasn't.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
2. Jaroff could have, should have visited the set or cause the set to be investigated . It was at the time a few blocks from TIME's Hq. If TIME called up CO's PR or USA's PR department they would have arranged it in a literal NY minute. These people are investigative reporters, not kindergarden kids. They can get in anywhere, anytime they want to unless there is national security involved. They have sources working on all these NY based live TV show sets as well. It does not make any diff whether JE, the Pope or anyone invited him to the studio.

They can get in "anywhere"? Could ABC get in? No.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
But NO, Jaroff didn't find it was necessary to do that. He would just take Michael O'Neill's word for everything, a person he never spoke to or laid eyes on in his life. And if I believe what Randi wrote, Randi never interviewed or laid eyes on O'Neill either.

You don't know for sure that Jaroff didn't speak to O'Neill. You are repeating this false statement, until it becomes real. It won't work here, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am done with this 15th Jaroff conversation now myself. The story was rubbish, the non-actions of the person who got the byline was rubbish and the whole thing was a farce.

And not a shred of evidence from you, either. This was a lesson in how Steve Grenard argues: Accusations, innuendos, evasions, attacks, logical fallacies...

Unas

9th November 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The distraction is a very nice touch fellows but you are still not getting it.
We get it just fine, Grenard. You accuse people of lying and run away when challenged to provide evidence for your accusations.
1. Jaroff could have, should have interviewed Michael O'Neill, verified his e-mail and his comments.
Where are the lies that Mr. Jaroff supposedly printed in the TIME article, Grenard?
2. Jaroff could have, should have visited the set or cause the set to be investigated .
Where are the lies that Mr. Jaroff supposedly printed in the TIME article, Grenard?
But NO, Jaroff didn't find it was necessary to do that. He would just take Michael O'Neill's word for everything, a person he never spoke to or laid eyes on in his life.
Where are the lies that Mr. Jaroff supposedly printed in the TIME article, Grenard?
I am done with this 15th Jaroff conversation now myself.
Where are the lies that Mr. Jaroff supposedly printed in the TIME article, Grenard?
The story was rubbish, the non-actions of the person who got the byline was rubbish and the whole thing was a farce.
Your accusations are rubbish, Grenard. Your behavior is that of a man who knows he's been caught making false accusations.

You're running away. Do you find that you have to do that often, Grenard?

Jeff Corey

9th November 2003, 10:58 AM

(Grenard)"...the whole thing was a farce."
Your whole post was a farce. You seize upon innuendo from questionable sources and then proceed to erect a house of straw to bolster your opinions.
And you call yourself "a true skeptic".

Claus, I know you're saving all these gems of credulity. Maybe you should print them out and present a poster at TAM2.

CFLarsen

9th November 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
(Grenard)"...the whole thing was a farce."
Your whole post was a farce. You seize upon innuendo from questionable sources and then proceed to erect a house of straw to bolster your opinions.
And you call yourself "a true skeptic".

Claus, I know you're saving all these gems of credulity. Maybe you should print them out and present a poster at TAM2.

Sure. But if people want a copy, I'd have to get access to a photocopier (for free! :), because I cannot haul all those volumes in less than 5 suitcases....

Jeff Corey

9th November 2003, 11:44 AM

Last year I ran out of copies of my paper and ran more off at the hotel.
If that's not possible, Kinkos is relatively cheap.
And you only have to hand out papers to those who are interested in a peek into the contorted illogic of a credulous person.

CFLarsen

9th November 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Last year I ran out of copies of my paper and ran more off at the hotel.
If that's not possible, Kinkos is relatively cheap.
And you only have to hand out papers to those who are interested in a peek into the contorted illogic of a credulous person.

I wasn't referring to the number of people wanting to read it. I was referring to the number of gems of credulity... :D

JimTheBrit

14th November 2003, 06:28 PM

SG: [O'Neill's email regarding the CO show] was a missive [Randi, Shermer and Jaroff] were in complete agreement with so they did not fact check it, just go with it.

Regarding Randi's agreement, I think this has been overlooked:

Randi comments on some of O'Neill's observations (http://www.randi.org/jr/04-06-2001.html) (scroll down, article after crystal pics)

SteveGrenard

14th November 2003, 06:48 PM

James Randi wrote:

There's been much to-do about the hints that the "Crossing Over" TV show might owe it's success to hidden microphones that pick up conversations among those about to enter the studio to have their deceased relatives contacted by John Edward, the performer who says he talks to and hears from, dead people. I've never taken that electronic eavesdropping possibility seriously, simply because it's not a needed gimmick. It would certainly be nice, a means of fluffing up the show, but such technological advantages are not at all necessary, or even probable. The "cold-reading" process is all that Edward — or any of the others — needs to succeed, and it is obviously the method he uses. A half-hour of observing the show reveals that fact.

I've received a posting from a person who is closely acquainted with a member of the production staff for the "Crossing Over" show. This staff member has made it very clear that no tricks other than Edward's stage performance are used. There are, she states, no hidden microphones, no assistants listening in before the show and funneling information to Edwards, and neither Edwards nor his handlers have knowledge of who is going to be the celebrity guest prior to taping. Everything he does, she says, he does "on the fly," and although the sessions are edited, they are edited for time rather than for content. She is often in the booth while they do it.

I've no idea how expert an observer this person is, but in view of this, and my own experience with such acts, I consider this "hidden microphones" claim to be a "straw man" set up to bring in the eavesdropping possibility. It's simply not needed, and the claim can be rather easily shown to be a frivolous bit of reasoning. And, Edward's handlers have been proclaiming lately to the media that his studio audiences are now being strictly cautioned not to discuss family matters. I suggest that since we've eliminated that rather unlikely cheating possibility, we can ask John Edward to do readings:

a. Without asking questions and giving hints and suggestions

b. Without requiring people to tell him who the guesses might apply to.

He's still throwing out guesses and hints, asking questions, and requiring his audience to fill in the gaps — which they happily do. Hey! Wait a minute! Isn't that the very definition of "cold reading"?

Yep.
-------------------------------------------------

I guess he forgot to tell Shermer and Jaroff about the above. It would've messed up Jaroff's story as well as Shermer's piece "Deconstructing the Dead." Too bad Randi's commentary didn't get the exposure TIME did on this or Shermer got in SciAm.

Schwartz has accepted quite some time ago that the best way to test a medium involves the following conditions:

1. The sitter and medium cannot see each other.

2. The sitter and medium do not know each other nor have they met beforehand. The identity and details re the sitter is kept confidential from the medium prior to the trial.

3. The sitter provides no verbal feedback whatsoever and the medium asks no questions of the sitter. No sensory leakage of any kind is permitted.

4. In the case of an experiment with a number of mediums and sitters, pairing is done by random draw.

I agree with Randi that JE asks questions to elicit confirmation of information he receives. I agree this clearly leaves the door open for the accusation of cold reading. I do not agree all mediums do this and this is based on personal experience and is anecdotal so I will not (again) provide details. Mediums wishing to participate in research need to accept these sorts of conditions. Cold reader controls need to do likewise.

It's fascinating that Randi now here indirectly accuses O'Neill (not by name) of establishing a strawman in the hidden mic and eavesdropping accusations since when he published these O'Neill speculations in The Skeptic and provided it to Jaroff, this did not come up.

Does anyone think he is being somewhat inconsistent here or was he just going with the flow?

Patricia Robertson and Archie Roy's third paper and final study of mediums is scheduled for publication in the JSPR (UK) in January. It is my understanding that they imposed these kinds of conditions but I have no details regarding numbers, stats or results at this time. Tricia Robertson circulated the following e-mail announcement today:

"I am pleased to announce that paper three in the Robetson/Roy MIA series of testing mediumship information is now scheduled for publication in the JSPR January 2004.

I must say here and now that if anyone states that we did not follow the strict protocol to the letter, or that our methodologies were faulty, they must state categorically where errors were made. Not " oh maybe it's possible that .........." We know that we operated 100% within the strict protocol. We know that the mediums' made individual statements to intended recipients, people whom the medium had no way of knowing who they were and with no sensory leakage of any description.

If the last stance of the super sceptic is to say that we in some way cheated - then we will simply sue.

Tricia Robertson"

Oh, and thanks Jim for ferreting these Randi paragraphs out of that commentary.

Pyrrho

14th November 2003, 08:00 PM

If all else fails to silence your critics, there is always barratry.

These days, you can be sued for voicing an opinion, even for saying "this is what I think may have happened". If someone doesn't like it, you can be haled into court. Dissent has become synonymous with libel or slander. We dare not scoff, lest we be accused of either one.

It's always the other guy's opinion that is libel...

And people wonder why I choose to remain anonymous. Yeah, yeah, I'm a coward, etc. Hopefully that will save some people from verbosely pointing that out, but I hope in vain.

Back to the regularly scheduled vituperation...

SteveGrenard

14th November 2003, 08:58 PM

Pyrrho wrote: These days, you can be sued for voicing an opinion, even for saying "this is what I think may have happened". If someone doesn't like it, you can be haled into court. Dissent has become synonymous with libel or slander. We dare not scoff, lest we be accused of either one.

It's always the other guy's opinion that is libel...

And people wonder why I choose to remain anonymous. Yeah, yeah, I'm a coward, etc. Hopefully that will save some people from verbosely pointing that out, but I hope in vain.

Robertson's announcement could also be construed as defending against spurious and yes, libelous speculation using the full panopoly of verbiage designed for that purpose: perhaps, maybe, possibly and so on. This can go beyond mere opinion.

Robertson clearly invited criticism but she invited concrete critcism, not supposition.

I take it you feel it is okay, for example, to accuse a researcher of fraud (e.g. Ed Dittus re Gary Schwartz and more recently even Garrette re Gary Schwartz) giving absolutely no evidence or proof to back up such assertions. And if that's the reason people hide behind screen names (as you imply for yourself) and use hotmail and other e-mail forwarders or web-based e-mail, then we have been misled by many who give other reasons for using nom de plumes. Thanks for this succinct and tell-it-like-it-is rationale..... it was very revealing.

Pyrrho

14th November 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Perhaps Robertson's announcement could also be construed as defending against spurious and yes, libelous speculation using the full panopoly of verbiage designed for that purpose: perhaps, maybe, possibl and so on.

Robertson clearly invited criticism but she invited concrete critcism, not supposition.

Whatever. I see it as a clear warning not to say that they cheated. According to your criteria, as shown above, we may not even suppose publicly that cheating occurred, or be subject to lawsuit.

It doesn't matter much, anyway. Science is not ultimately conducted in courtrooms, and nature will have its way regardless of what we believe about it.

I take it you feel it is okay, for example, to accuse a researcher of fraud (e.g. Ed Dittus re Gary Schwartz and more recently even Garrette re Gary Schwartz) giving absolutely no evidence or proof to back up such assertions.

No, I do not. I categorically denounce baseless accusations.

And if that's the reason people hide behind screen names (as you imply for yourself) and use hotmail and other e-mail forwarders or web-based e-mail, then we have been misled by many who give other reasons for using nom de plumes. Thanks for this succinct and tell-it-like-it-is rationale..... it was very revealing.
Thank yourself; it is your rationale, not mine.

I am anonymous to avoid harrassment, not to avoid litigation. I have never written libelous statements, however. I'm not stupid: anyone can be traced.

SteveGrenard

14th November 2003, 09:13 PM

Pyrrho: Science is not ultimately conducted in courtrooms, and nature will have its way regardless of what we believe about it.

Science sure as hell is not conducted by making unproven and unsubstantiated opinions such as so and so cheated or so and so is a fraud. You must be kidding.

Science is based on facts, not opinions or beliefs and when Garette, for example, says he believes Schwartz is a fraud and Dittus did the same before him, they were doing so not only without provocation but without any evidence whatsoever. That's what I call not very scientific. And when that happens, yes, lawyers and courtrooms often enter the picture. And it comes time to back up those opinions with facts and evidence or get hung out to
dry.

Pyrrho: Thank yourself; it is your rationale, not mine.

I am anonymous to avoid harrassment, not to avoid litigation. I have never written libelous statements, however. I'm not stupid: anyone can be traced.

Indeed they can. Excuse me for thinking that you choose to remain anonymous for fear of legal action.....
you were not very specific and this statement followed your verbiage re
legal action against people for expressing opinions which demean, denigrate, slander or libel others.

Pyrrho

14th November 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Pyrrho: Science is not ultimately conducted in courtrooms, and nature will have its way regardless of what we believe about it.

Science sure as hell is not conducted by making unproven and unsubstantiated opinions such as so and so cheated or so and so is a fraud. You must be kidding.

I don't see anything in my statement to contradict yours. My point is that while it may be possible to use the court system to force adherence to a certain set of beliefs and then call those beliefs scientific fact, nature is as it is. Also, while scientists may be within their rights to sue those who call them frauds, such actions could easily be extended to those who merely voice opinions that contradict those of the offended researcher. I see a possibility that barratry could be used to stifle honest criticism.

I certainly agree with your statement that science is not conducted by making unproven and unsubstantiated accusations that someone has cheated or is a fraud. It is also important to remember that message boards are hotbeds of unproven and unsubstantiated opinions and accusations. Very little of it is actionable libel, even if offensive. Still, one has the right to protect one's reputation.

Science is based on facts, not opinions or beliefs and when Garette, for example, says he believes Schwartz is a fraud and Dittus did the same before him, they were doing so not only without provocation but without any evidence whatsoever. That's what I call not very scientific. And when that happens, yes, lawyers and courtrooms often enter the picture. And it comes time to back up those opinions with facts and evidence or get hung out to dry.
Well, nobody is conducting science here. And you're right: if anyone claims that Schwartz is a fraud, evidence of this should be demanded of them. If they can't provide such evidence, they would be well advised not to make such accusations.

Indeed they can. Excuse me for thinking that you choose to remain anonymous for fear of legal action.....
you were not very specific and this statement followed your verbiage re legal action against people for expressing opinions which demean, denigrate, slander or libel others.
Y'know, honestly, this whole "skeptic" vs. "believer" thing has pretty much worn thin with me. I'm in agreement with those who say that the argument has become pretty much sterile and pointless. There is altogether too much animosity and hatred and twisting of words, and there is nothing redeeming in it.

I know I've written a lot of offensive things over the time I've been involved in discussions, and for the ones I've written toward you, I honestly apologize. And you're partly right; to a certain extent I choose anonymity because people resort so quickly these days to litigation. I suppose I did waffle a bit in my answer.

Everybody seems to believe the worst of everyone else, and it's a pity, because so much time and intelligence is wasted in cheap shots and viciousness. There is no denying that both "sides" are at fault for creating this atmosphere of mutual derision.

When I see statements such as the one from Robertson, I'm saddened that what should be objective science is descending to the level of "if you say we cheated, we'll sue". That's no way to defend your work. There will always be skeptics and naysayers, and even those who cry "fraud". If the work is good and correct and true to high standards, it will stand. If not, it won't.

The thing is, I can't be honest with myself and back off from holding scientists to high standards of evidence. This in no way is an implication that someone is cheating or is a fraud -- it's just that, when we get down to it, they are doing themselves a disservice if they don't adhere to strict standards. The same should apply to skeptics.

Garrette

15th November 2003, 04:08 AM

It appears to me that Steve and Pyrrho agree on the general idea of libel and making accusations.

On the specifics, I need to clarify my own position and why I do not feel it is libel. I believe Ed's reasoning is similar to mine but I have no inside information and so am not speaking for him.

1. Schwartz is highly educated, to a level at which it is reasonable to assume he knows how to avoid fundamental and fatal flaws in an experiment's protocol

2. Schwartz conducted the Afterlife Experiments

3. Schwartz published reports and a book based on the Afterlife Experiments, claiming them as strong evidence of survival.

4. Fundamental and fatal flaws are pointed out. I do not know if they were pointed out directly to Schwartz, but I do not believe it matters. I am not a scientist nor a statistician, yet I wrote a fairly thorough deconstruction of the experiments pointing out both scientific and statistical flaws.

5. Schwartz continues to say the Afterlife Experiments are evidence of survival.

Someone with the education Schwartz has cannot fall back on the defense that he didn't know better in designing the experiments.

Therefore, I conclude that Schwartz engaged in fraud. I did not begin with that opinion; I arrived at it after reviewing his reports.

My conclusion of fraud is my opinion. The analysis of the experiments is not. The experiments are flawed, fatally so.

I distinguish between the two. Others should, also. Whether or not I can be found guilty of libel or slander (or whatever is the proper term) I do not know, but I know I should not be able to be found guilty for stating the following, which I stand by:

It is my opinion that Schwartz is a fraud.
I base this opinion on the fact that he continues to draw erroneous conclusions from experiments that his education has equipped him to discern as being fatally flawed.

My name is quite easy to find, if legal action is considered.

I do know how to counter sue.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 04:50 AM

There are a lot of things we can have opinions on: who will win the SuperBowl or the WorldSeries, how good the food was at a particular restaurant, how we liked the last book we read, whether we liked a movie or not, TV programs, etc etc ad infinitum. No one is going to sue anyone for voicing an opinion on such subjects. We say a movie stinks or a movie is great. We dont call it fraudulent. These are opinions. We read a book and report our opinions about what the book "said" and whether we felt it was a good or a bad book. We dont call it a fraud. We don't call the author a liar unless there is proof to back up such an assertion.

So there are subjects, areas where certain categories of beliefs and opinions constitute a serious problem unless backed up with hard evidence,
or you simply don't go there. You dont, for example, accuse someone of being a prostitute unless you have the pictures or police reports or eye witness first hand notarized testimony to back it up. You don't accuse someone of cheating on their wife unless you have the pictures/testimony to back it up. And you do not express the opinion someone has comitted fraud (look up fraud first) without the hard evidence to substantiate such an accusation based on the true definition of the term.

I thank Garette for giving us his reasons for his belief or opinion. The question is whether what he believes to be evidence really is sufficient evidence or evidence at all of this particular allegation. I don't know. When treading in this area it pays to be more careful than when simply giving a movie or restaurant review. Although I have heard, rarely, of restaurant owners suing food critics because they ruined their business by their writing one or more bad things in their newspaper resatruant reviews. And winning.

Garrette

15th November 2003, 05:05 AM

I don't disagree with any of the specifics of your last post, Steve.

There are opinions which, even if not illegal to voice, would be uncivil or uncharitable to voice.

I disagree on where we draw the line, though.

Strictly as an example: Suppose I say it is my opinion that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and her boyfriend. Have I crossed the line? I obviously have no proof.

In most cases, I err on the side of keeping quiet. On occasion I do not. This is one of them. For one thing, I do not consider this situation analogous with some of your examples, particularly that of prostitution. Prostitution is (or can be) an honest profession, even if illegal. Schwartz is not (imo again) being honest.

If I feel that Schwartz himself has crossed the line and, more importantly, is swaying others with what I consider to be fraudulent means, why am I bound to be quiet about what I admit is my opinion? Some will call it uncivil. It probably is, but civility in this matter is a secondary consideration for me.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by Garrette I don't disagree with any of the specifics of your last post, Steve.

There are opinions which, even if not illegal to voice, would be uncivil or uncharitable to voice.

I disagree on where we draw the line, though.

Strictly as an example: Suppose I say it is my opinion that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and her boyfriend. Have I crossed the line? I obviously have no proof.

I think it is safe to say this based on the court case; you and others with deeper pockets than you are safe in saying this because they know that Simpson has no desire to go back into a courtroom to debate this subject in a libel case proceeding. What's going on in the U.K. re Prince Charles is another example of this. Charles has been accused in the media of having had a homosexual liasion with a palace employee. At first the law in Britain prohibited the press from shouting the specifics, then they did so through innunedo safe in the knowledge that Charles is not likely to sue and if he did, it would be even a bigger story for them than what started it.

In most cases, I err on the side of keeping quiet. On occasion I do not. This is one of them. For one thing, I do not consider this situation analogous with some of your examples, particularly that of prostitution. Prostitution is (or can be) an honest profession, even if illegal. Schwartz is not (imo again) being honest.

It is if you call a specific person the town whore and this person is married, has a young child and is obviously not doing what you said she was doing.
Sure prostitution can be a honest profession but under certain circumstances...in places where it is not legal and with respect to persons where it would be an immoral occupation, it is not a honest profession.

If I feel that Schwartz himself has crossed the line and, more importantly, is swaying others with what I consider to be fraudulent means, why am I bound to be quiet about what I admit is my opinion? Some will call it uncivil. It probably is, but civility in this matter is a secondary consideration for me.

I think the problem comes in with your choice of the word "fraud." You need to research its meaning and then to test it against the existence of certain knowledge you have. There is a higher standard, that the knowledge in such a case is certain knowledge. If you feel confident enough to defend it in a courtroom, then sure, go ahead. However if you use the term loosely, in the certain knowledge that you and your pockets are not deep enough for any lawyer or accused person to bother to sue you, you can probably get away with it. This is not honest but goes on all the time. On the other hand if you are the founder, former chief stockholder and CEO of a multinational company and have a great deal of worth (or you are a Rosie O'Donnell) then you should worry about the legal and financial consequencies of your actions more carefully. Even though neither side won in the Rosie case, its still to be decided who pays who's legal costs and for Rosie thats projected at eight million dollars right now. On a much smaller level, such costs were what set Randi on his rear end after encountering Geller's lawyers in a courtrom. No lawyer is going to take a case, however, unless they are sure both the plaintiffs or defendents can pay up regardless of to whom the decision goes.

Garrette

15th November 2003, 06:15 AM

Whether or not a person could be convicted for voice an opinion is separate from whether or not someone else would try to obtain that conviction; we are agreed on that.

I think you meant I should look up the meaning of 'slander' as opposed to the meaning of 'fraud.'

In this instance, I mean 'fraud' in the sense that merriam-webster defines it, understanding that the legal definition will vary some from region to region.

a: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting

In this case, the 'something of value' is the money spent on the book Schwartz wrote.

'Slander' and 'libel' are similar, but libel refers to the written word; I don't know what case law says about the internet and message boards--whether it qualifies as 'published' of whatever.

Here are m-w's definitions of the 2:

Libel

a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Slander:

1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare

These definitions could be interpreted to mean that whether an utterance/writing is expressed as merely opinion or not is irrelevent. I'd have to check various statutes if the legal definitions concur.

My position stands, though. Opinion should not be convictable (?), even if it is, especially when stated openly as such. To do otherwise is to presume idiocy on the part of the public, which while perhaps factually correct should not be the responsibility of the state.

All that being said, I know well the financial dangers of being the victim of even an unwarranted lawsuit. The warnings are appreciated.

I'm a big boy, though. I have voiced my opinion. Schwartz will know of my opinion soon enough directly from me. He can choose how to address it.

15th November 2003, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Condolences on the loss of your cat.

He didn't say it died, just that he buried it.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 06:26 AM

To accuse someone of fraud is to accuse them of an intentional criminal act.

Be sure to include Schwartz's co-author who wrote the book, Bill Simon as well as his publishers who printed and wholesaled the book, the distributors, Amazon dot com, Brentanos, Waldenbooks, Barnes and Noble and all others who have a position in your contention that you or others have been defrauded when they willingly purchased a book which they also could have reviewed first and prior to parting with their twenty dollars. And which, by the way, was returnable if they were unhappy with it. No, I don't think the circumstances or act of selling a book meets the standard for fraud nor do I suspect it was your intention to mean it that way when you said Schwartz is a fraud. I think you meant to say that his experiments were conducted criminally or fraudlently ... that the results obtained was done so by cheating. In this case be sure and include the five mediums, all the sitters, the TV crew, above and below the line, Linda Ellerbee, and her distributors (HBO),
Schwartz's research assistants, his
employer (The Univ of Az), his oversight committee (members of the faculty of the University including skeptics), the random assortment of univ students off the street to do a cold paper reading, his statisticians, oh, and Randi, who despite his protests, did have input on these experiments.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 06:29 AM

quote:Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Condolences on the loss of your cat.

Dittus: He didn't say it died, just that he buried it.

Response: Where did I say it died? Please don't misquote or put words into statements that werent there in the first place. Thank you.

And besides, why isn't Corey asserting this? Is he too busy burying more cats?

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Garrette
Strictly as an example: Suppose I say it is my opinion that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and her boyfriend. Have I crossed the line? I obviously have no proof.

You got to be kidding, right?? http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/scared.gif

Jeff Corey

15th November 2003, 07:12 AM

"Hello, Mrs. Premise."
"Hello, Mrs. Conclusion. Buzy day?"
"Spent four hours burying the cat."
(for the python disabled))

15th November 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
quote:Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Condolences on the loss of your cat.

Dittus: He didn't say it died, just that he buried it.

Response: Where did I say it died? Please don't misquote or put words into statements that werent there in the first place. Thank you.

And besides, why isn't Corey asserting this? Is he too busy burying more cats?

Steve, you really do have problems with the English language, don't you. You really are a humorless prig too, evidentially.

If you are expressing condolences it is for a loss. If he buried it, it is clearly not physically lost since he, well, he buried it. Your assumption was that it died (unless you aver that you thought that he buried it and forgot where). So, do you think that it died or do you think that Corey, lamentably, buried his kitty for safe keeping and then forgot where and thus condolences were called for?

Again, you show the basic weakness in your thought processes. You suggest that the banal possibility of a dead cat must be weighed against the possibility of a buried (yet alive) cat whose place of interment is forgotten. By extention, rather than believing that mediums are frauds, you conjure up an afterlife hypothesis. It all fits.

I will not explain my humorous jape since it would be beyond you. Console yourself with the sure knowledge that others who read it are chuckling while you remain clueless.

Oh, yes. I love your mentions of me when I am not around. It increases awareness of moi while firmly designating you as a groupie.

BTW, any number of high profile sceptics could not change the ratings of a tv show in any manner at all. The error range of ratings is pretty big (I forget the exact numbers) but they would have to shift the viewing of a couple of million households, at least. I never understood why action directed at sponsors is not used. If 1000 letters went to a product manager he/she would have pause. After all, one show is as good as another, generally, and all they would have to do is say "pull CO, buy Guiding Light" or whatever. Much simpler to do that than to argue the "truth" of JE. The fact is, in my opinion, that sceptics are as lard-assed as most other people and that complaining and talking to themselves is a hell of a lot easier than taking coordinated action. We need an Al Sharpton!!!!!!!!

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 07:50 AM

I really got the impression Corey was burying Schrödinger's cat all along.

edited to place two dots over the 'O' in
Schrödinger

15th November 2003, 07:57 AM

I suspect that Corey has a dark secret and is a secret Poe fan. It follows, therefore, that he buried a neighbors cat alive.:jaw:

Jeff Corey

15th November 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I really got the impression Corey was burying Shrodinger's cat all along.
Maybe. Or maybe not.
Psst: it's Shroedinger

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 08:06 AM

Go here, open the box and find out

http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/~JH290/science/shroding.htm

Thanks for the spelling tip on the guy with the cat. I thought it was that "o" with the two dots up top like here...Schrödinger

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html

15th November 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Go here, open the box and find out

http://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/~JH290/science/shroding.htm

Thanks for the spelling tip on the guy with the cat. I thought it was that "o" with the two dots up top like here...

http://www.phobe.com/s_cat/s_cat.html

Nien. Mine nomen ist Hilter, ja. No umlote things on my name.....

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 08:20 AM

I will go with the Nobel Prize Committee's homepage on this......

http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1933/

Its spelled differently by many people but I am afraid if you want to believe the Nobel prize committee, I was right. Also a lot of people called him Edwin but his real name was Erwin! LOL.

Erwin Schrödinger -- with those two dots over the "o."

"Erwin Schrödinger was born on August 12, 1887, in Vienna, the only child of Rudolf Schrödinger, who was married to a daughter of Alexander Bauer, his Professor of Chemistry at the Technical College of Vienna. Erwin's father came from a Bavarian family which generations before had settled in Vienna.....(truncated/snipped from the above website)

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 08:40 AM

So Edolph, have you learned anything today about how to spell Schrödinger?

Edolph wrote: Nien. Mine nomen ist Hilter, ja. No umlote things on my name.....

BTW your ignorance know's no bounds, it is umlaut, not umlote things ... the two dots, that is.

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Erwin Schrödinger -- with those two dots over the "o."

Umlaut. (http://www.bartleby.com/61/67/U0016700.html)

Your ignorance knows no boundaries, Steve.

Pyrrho

15th November 2003, 09:57 AM

Dr. Schwartz, James Randi, and other "public persons" have a harder time proving libel than "private persons". You become a "public person", you might as well accept the lumps along with the glory.

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072492171/student_view0/chapter5/chapter_overview.html

Here's handy checklist:

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/libelfrm.htm

Might be useful to use before publishing. Also useful before accusing someone else of libel.

I'd be very surprised if anything in these threads is actionable.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 10:37 AM

I notice that in the first reference this applied to legal action against a publication or publisher of libel but did not hold accountable another individual or person who uttered the allegedly libelous or slanderous statement. Presumably persons as well as pubications are liable for libel.

The second document was also interesting. Answering the questions as best as possible, even those where the statement is said to be an opinion by the alleged libeler, in the weight of other factors, makes the utterance actionable. This is a "test" definitely worth carrying out before one utters anything possibly or potentially libelous.

I entered Claus' recent statement that "Your ignorance knows no bounds, Steve" -- which clearly indicates that Claus says I am ignorant, ignorant beyond all bounds and properly identifies me by name and found that I
have a case against Claus which he could best defend only by having I.Q. test scores demonstrating my true ignorance and the bounds to which it goes. In reality, I properly described a grammatical device in the German language as two dots over the letter O which, since I did not name (umlaut) caused Claus to state I am ignorant beyond all bounds. On the other hand, in a parody of that, I stated that someone named Edolph (who claimed to be Hitler in a previous post) was ignorant beyond all bounds because he didn't know how to spell umlaut. I could also suggest ignorance on the part of someone named Corey for not knowing the proper spelling of Erwin Schrödinger's last name and dissing me for spelling it wrong when in fact the correction itself was in error.

The weight itself of being a public or quasi public person does not seem sufficient to entirely relieve the burden Pyrrho. Authors can be criticized for what they write but they cannot be accused of a criminal act, to wit, that of comitting fraud: e.g. of stealing $20.00 from Garette because Garrette may've bought his book.

In the case of Schwartz we are talking about a person who works as a university researcher. I am afraid some of the other considerations in the Univ of Texas test overtake the exemption for public persons in this case.

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 10:47 AM

Whoa...you got me off ignore, too?? Clancie's taken me off ignore and now you.

Aww, that's so sweet! Must be that new cologne of mine... :)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I notice that in the first reference this applied to legal action against a publication or publisher of libel but did not hold accountable another individual or person who uttered the allegedly libelous or slanderous statement. Presumably persons as well as pubications are liable for libel.

The second document was also interesting. Answering the questions as best as possible, even those where the statement is said to be an opinion by the alleged libeler, in the weight of other factors, makes the utterance actionable. This is a "test" definitely worth carrying out before one utters anything possibly or potentially libelous.

I entered Claus' recent statement that "Your ignorance knows no bounds, Steve" -- which clearly indicates that Claus says I am ignorant, ignorant beyond all bounds and properly identifies me by name and found that I
have a case against Claus which he could best defend only by having I.Q. test scores demonstrating my true ignorance and the bounds to which it goes. In reality, I properly described a grammatical device in the German language as two dots over the letter O which, since I did not name (umlaut) caused Claus to state I am ignorant beyond all bounds. On the other hand, in a parody of that, I stated that someone named Edolph (who claimed to be Hitler in a previous post) was ignorant beyond all bounds because he didn't know how to spell umlaut. I could also suggest ignorance on the part of someone named Corey for not knowing the proper spelling of Erwin Schrödinger's last name and dissing me for spelling it wrong when in fact the correction itself was in error.

Steve, I.Q. tests are not very suitable to show how ignorant people are. You can be intelligent and still be ignorant of things.

E.g. what electrical resistance is measured in.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 11:03 AM

Actually you are not off ignore Claus. I simply hit the option to let me read your post because I was looking for a recent example of some utterance that was potentially libelous and was interested in seeing if you were kind enough to provide it. You were, as you were in your follow-up regarding your lack of knowledge regarding skin's resistance, the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms. The resistance aka impedance derived from that is obtained by an impedance meter which registers the impedance (which is what it is called in human phsyiology which you may not also know) in units called kilo-ohms. Therefore, like Corey's failed attempt to correct the spelling of Schrödinger's name, your persistent reference to my alleged misunderstanding of the impedance of the skin is in fact based on your own lack of knowledge on this highly specific procedure or some irrelevant remarks made by electric shop hobby boys. I tried to educate you and them by pointing you to web resources on what I was talking about but you weren't interested then and are not educated on this yet or you would have stopped harping on it. Since it is a subject I work with every day and have done so successfully and competently for 30+ years, for a salary, you are also libeling me by falsely casting doubt on my understanding of a subject which you yourself have never come anywhere near much less understand. I, and staff under my direct supervision, perform such procedures on real people on a daily basis. I am not worried because both the people I work with and for know that I am fully conversant with what's involved and why.

If you had said I was ignorant of the German language or its grammar, you would be correct. But you did not say this. You used the example of that ignorance, to which I plead guilty, to assert I am ignorant "beyond all bounds." You set me adrift on a limitless sea of ignorance; to defend your claim you would need to test me to see if that were true or a libelous slander.

I am waiting now patiently for real German language experts to explain what the umlaut over the "o" in Schrödinger's name signifies in terms of its English iteration. :)

Claus, you are a minor annoyance who is back on ignore.

Jeff Corey

15th November 2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

E.g. what electrical resistance is measured in.

Ohmlauts?

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Actually you are not off ignore Claus.

Which is why you address my posts. OK, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I simply hit the option to let me read your post because I was looking for a recent example of some utterance that was potentially libelous and was interested in seeing if you were kind enough to provide it. You were, as you were in your follow-up regarding your lack of knowledge regarding skin's resistance, the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms. The resistance aka impedance derived from that is obtained by an impedance meter which registers the impedance (which is what it is called in human phsyiology which you may not also know) in units called kilo-ohms.

Resistance is measured not in volts (be it ever so small), it is measured in Ohm. Get that through your thick skull, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Therefore, like Corey's failed attempt to correct the spelling of Schrödinger's name

Ah, now you got it right. Finally.

Jeff wasn't incorrect, you can write "ö" as "oe". A shortcut, if you like. You cannot, however, write "ö" as "o", like you did.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
your persistent reference to my alleged misunderstanding of the impedance of the skin is in fact based on your own lack of knowledge on this highly specific procedure or some irrelevant remarks made by electric shop hobby boys. I tried to educate you and them by pointing you to web resources on what I was talking about but you weren't interested then and are not educated on this yet or you would have stopped harping on it. Since it is a subject I work with every day and have done so successfully and competently for 30+ years, for a salary, you are also libeling me by falsely casting doubt on my understanding of a subject which you yourself have never come anywhere near much less understand. I, and staff under my direct supervision, perform such procedures on real people on a daily basis. I am not worried because both the people I work with and for know that I am fully conversant with what's involved and why.

Fine. I have "libelled" you. Now, I await the lawsuit.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If you had said I was ignorant of the German language or its grammar, you would be correct. But you did not say this. You used the example of that ignorance, to which I plead guilty, to assert I am ignorant "beyond all bounds." You set me adrift on a limitless sea of ignorance; to defend your claim you would need to test me to see if that were true or a libelous slander.

"Or"? I just thought you said I was libeling you?? Please make up your mind, Steve. You can't already back out. You have to wait until you have threatened me some more. Gotta follow your routine, you know...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am waiting now patiently for real German language experts to explain what the umlaut over the "o" in Schrödinger's name signifies in terms of its English iteration. :)

Why not simply find out for yourself? Isn't that what you always tell people? Try Google, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Claus, you are a minor annoyance who is back on ignore.

I never was, was I?

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Ohmlauts?

:D

Quit your daytime job and go work for SNL!

Pyrrho

15th November 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

The weight itself of being a public or quasi public person does not seem sufficient to entirely relieve the burden Pyrrho. Authors can be criticized for what they write but they cannot be accused of a criminal act, to wit, that of comitting fraud: e.g. of stealing $20.00 from Garette because Garrette may've bought his book.

In the case of Schwartz we are talking about a person who works as a university researcher. I am afraid some of the other considerations in the Univ of Texas test overtake the exemption for public persons in this case.
Well, yes, Garrette can accuse Schwartz of fraud, for he has supported his reasons for doing so, and he has clarified that is is his opinion that Schwartz is a fraud. This is not the same as publishing in a newspaper, magazine, or on a TV or radio show, and his opinions do not seem to be founded in malice.

Schwartz is very much a public person and while there isn't an exemption for public persons as regard libel, they do have to work harder to prove libel. Garrette's opinions about Schwartz are no different from the opinions voiced by many that Randi is a fraud, e.g, the JREF Challenge is fraudulent, and no different from your accusations that Leon Jaroff is a "reprobate and liar". It comes with the territory.

When the accuser is just another yelper on an Internet message board, it is extremely doubtful that their statements would have any effect on the accused's reputation or character. However, if a person were to publish such accusations in a newspaper, book, magazine, on a TV or radio show, or for purposely wide distribution on the Internet, such as on many different Usenet groups or in an email campaign, there'd be a difference, and the accuser's derogatory statements could be considered actionable.

All that said, accurate legal opinions on libel should be obtained from actual practicing lawyers. Following legal advice from the Internet is as dangerous as following Internet medical advice.

thaiboxerken

15th November 2003, 11:44 AM

the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms.

This is wrong, volts is the measure of electric potential (voltage), not resistance. Ohms is the proper unit to measure resistance and impedance.

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Pyrrho
However, if a person were to publish such accusations in a newspaper, book, magazine, on a TV or radio show, or for purposely wide distribution on the Internet, such as on many different Usenet groups or in an email campaign, there'd be a difference, and the accuser's derogatory statements could be considered actionable.

You mean, like the anonymous email campaign against Randi and JREF, started by Steve? You are so right.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 12:18 PM

TBK: This is wrong, volts is the measure of electric potential (voltage), not resistance. Ohms is the proper unit to measure resistance and impedance.

No no TBK, its ohmlauts.....measured in ohmlauts. Get it right.
................................................
In measuring the impedance of the skin in people....the result is obtained in kilo ohms of which one is a thousand ohms. Typical impedance for the skin on the lower legs in an adult is between 10,000 and 20,000 ohms or betweeen 10 and 20 kilo ohms. It is obtained by applying a ground ref electrode on the subject (e.g. on the forehead) and a seeking or exploring electrode on the patch of skin fr which the impedance is being measured. They are plugged into a special imnpedance measuring device. This can be set to push a current through the ground electrode which is then picked up by the seeking electrode which then registers the impedance. Devices used in medicine are have a dialabe (low) test current that is sent.

The impedance, which YES, is measured in kilo ohms, can change then with the current being pushed.

Impedance Meter Specs:
Tests impedances of applied electrodes used in various diagnostic procedures such as EEG, EKG, EMG, ENG and Evoked Potentials.

Digital Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) indicates impedance with an accuracy of ±5% at 30 Hz. Range is 200 ohms to 200,000 ohms.

Electrode Selection

An electrode selector switch selects any of 10 electrodes for readout. Impedance is indicated for the one selected electrode as referred to all other electrodes connected in parallel as a reference. The electrode terminals on this unit are recessed male 1.5 mm diameter (0.059-inch) GRASS SAFELEAD connectors conforming to the latest requirements of UL, CSA, and FDA. Only recessed 1.5 mm diameter female electrode leads will provide proper connection.

Electrode (test) current is less than 1 microampere. No DC polarizing current.

15th November 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Actually you are not off ignore Claus. I simply hit the option to let me read your post because I was looking for a recent example of some utterance that was potentially libelous and was interested in seeing if you were kind enough to provide it. You were, as you were in your follow-up regarding your lack of knowledge regarding skin's resistance, the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms. The resistance aka impedance derived from that is obtained by an impedance meter which registers the impedance (which is what it is called in human phsyiology which you may not also know) in units called kilo-ohms. Therefore, like Corey's failed attempt to correct the spelling of Schrödinger's name, your persistent reference to my alleged misunderstanding of the impedance of the skin is in fact based on your own lack of knowledge on this highly specific procedure or some irrelevant remarks made by electric shop hobby boys. I tried to educate you and them by pointing you to web resources on what I was talking about but you weren't interested then and are not educated on this yet or you would have stopped harping on it. Since it is a subject I work with every day and have done so successfully and competently for 30+ years, for a salary, you are also libeling me by falsely casting doubt on my understanding of a subject which you yourself have never come anywhere near much less understand. I, and staff under my direct supervision, perform such procedures on real people on a daily basis. I am not worried because both the people I work with and for know that I am fully conversant with what's involved and why.

.

Steve. What to say.... Impedance is in a non-DC circuit, resistance is in a DC circuit.

A measure of the total opposition to current flow in an alternating current circuit, made up of two components, ohmic resistance and reactance, and usually represented in complex notation as Z = R + iX, where R is the ohmic resistance and X is the reactance.

An analogous measure of resistance to an alternating effect, as the resistance to vibration of the medium in sound transmission.

An ohmmeter has a battery and you are quite right the passage of current is used to measure the resistance, in OHMS.

Since you have proudly explained to us all that this is something you know about, and since you are catagorically, absolutely, brilliantly wrong will you be quiet about this subject now and let those with electronics hobbiest knowledge take over?

to quote you again (cuz it is really funny):

Since it is a subject I work with every day and have done so successfully and competently for 30+ years, for a salary, you are also libeling me by falsely casting doubt on my understanding of a subject

Steve, there is a difference between 30 years of experience and one year repeated 30 times. You, clearly are in the latter camp.

You are loudly expounding on something that you know little about. Guess it's not libel, huh?

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Ed
Steve, there is a difference between 30 years of experience and one year repeated 30 times. You, clearly are in the latter camp.

Truer words were never spoken.

Jeff Corey

15th November 2003, 12:36 PM

I could think of some truer words, but I'z afeared of gittin' lawsuited.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 12:37 PM

EDOLPH--do you know how to spell schrodinger yet? Here's some more specs on this subject to help you understand what we do:

"Prep-Check" Biopotential Electrode Impedance Meters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

105 Prep-Check (for ECG monitoring) - For testing impedances of small numbers of electrodes at 10 or 30Hz. Compact, handheld with large LCD readout. Ideally suited for single lead ECG monitoring.

107-Multilead Prep-Check Plus (for EEG and ECG stress testing) - For testing impedance and offset voltage of up to 160 electrodes using quick-connect multi-pin headbox connector. Automatic and manual operation with fully programmable operating features. Compact, handheld, ideally suited for EEG and ECG stress testing.

107-20A Prep-Check Plus (for Polysomnography, EEG and other biopotential electrode) - For testing impedance and offset voltage of up to 20 electrodes using 0.060" safety DIN connectors. Automatic and manual operation with fully programmable operating features. Compact, handheld, ideally suited for Polysomnography, EEG and other biopotential electrode applications. Illuminated readout for low light environments.
The -105 is a compact, handheld, 3-lead electrode impedance meter for testing lead wires, cables, electrodes and electrode-site preps used for ECG and other biopotential monitoring.

IF YOUR ECGs, EEGs, EMGs HAVE..........
WANDERING BASELINES
FUZZY TRACES
EXCESSIVE ARTIFACT
FALSE HEART RATE ALARMS
LOST HOLTER STUDIES
EXCESSIVE ELECTRODE REPLACEMENTS

..............THEN READ THIS!
Importance Of Electrode Site Preparation:
Problems with cables, lead wires, bad electrodes and improper electrode site preparation cause baseline wander, excessive 60 Hz interference (fuzzy traces), motion artifact and false heart rate alarms. This will interfere with important critical care monitoring, ambulatory monitoring, and stress tests. These problems are avoidable with proper electrode site preparation, use of known-good electrodes and replacement of faulty lead wires and patient cables. Measurement of electrode impedance is a fast, simple way to identify and correct ALL of these problems and smooth out the wrinkles in ECG monitoring.

EVALUATING ELECTRODES AND METHODS OF SITE PREPARATION?
If you have ever tried to evaluate the performance of electrodes, then you know how difficult, subjective and frustrating this process can be. With the introduction of specialty electrodes for stress testing, E.R. use, resting ECGs, etc., combined with the variety of types and price differences, this task is now more difficult than ever. To select the BEST PERFORMING & BEST PRICED electrode for each task, the only way to do this is by actual assessment of the two most essential properties of an electrode, namely, its ability to conduct the ECG signal (what is its impedance?) and its ability to perform in its operative environment (will it stay on the patient?). Whereas you can determine the second property without instrumentation, the only way to determine an electrode's ability to conduct the ECG is by measuring the impedance. The PREP-CHECK is simply the best way to do this!

With regard to electrode site preparation, there are many techniques and materials available to do this. An article, Rx for ECG Monitoring Artifact (see below) published in Critical Care Nursing (Vol 4, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1984) fully explains the sources of ECG artifact and provides helpful insights in addressing them. As the article explains, one very important part of getting good traces is proper electrode site preparation. D.O. Weaver (www.doweaver.com) is one of several providers of prepping agents. They will be glad to send you a sample and, as the article explains, you will see an immediate change in electrode-skin impedance and a concurrent improvement in your traces. Using the PREP-CHECK to monitor your prepping results, you will be able to develop an effective, standardized prepping procedure perfectly suited to your specific needs. You will get clearer, stronger voltage read outs.

EIM-105 PREP-CHECK ELECTRODE IMPEDANCE METERThe EIM-105 PREP-CHECK has long been the "gold standard" in electrode impedance meters and is used by all major monitoring and electrode companies. This simple-to-use instrument quickly measures the QUALITY of your electrode system and pinpoints what is right and what is wrong. Taking just seconds to use, PREP-CHECK provides an clear, unambiguous measurement of the quality of the electrode and the electrode site preparation as well as detecting faulty lead wires and patient cables. Using this simple instrument, you can get good traces ALL the time under ALL circumstances.

Accurate and simple to use, measurements are presented on BOTH a large numerical readout as well as by color-coded GOOD/POOR lights. A lead selector switch permits measurement of each individual electrode and permits unambiguous identification of problem sources. Simple to use, with user-friendly controls, you just plug in your lead wires - push the start button - fix the problems and done! It even turns itself off when you are finished! It's that easy!

Saving valuable time and money, PREP-CHECK minimizes annoying and dangerous false alarming, reduces disturbances to the patient, and provides consistent high quality monitoring. Even if your equipment already has impedance measurement or "leads-off" capability, PREP-CHECK will save time, money and smooth out the wrinkles in ECG monitoring.

PREP-CHECK Features:

Accurate Impedance Measurements
Clear Identification Of Problem Leads & Electrodes
AAMI Recommended Test Frequency
Fast, Convenient Connection To Lead Wires
Large Numeric LCD
Color-Coded Good/Poor Lights
Automatic Turn-Off
Fast & Easy To Use
Lead Selector Switch
Inexpensive, Long-Lasting 9 Volt Battery
Compact, Rugged ABS Plastic Case

Technical Specifications:

Impedance Range: 100 to 199,999 ohms
Impedance Accuracy: +/- 3% of Reading, +/- 200 ohms
Number Electrodes Tested: Up to 3
Test Current: 10 uA, 10 or 30 Hz, Sinusoidal, 0 D.C.
Display: 3 ½ digit, ½" LCD Readout with Good/Poor LEDs
Self-Test: Internal 100k, 1% precision resistor
Battery Test: Continuous, with LCD Indication
Battery Type: 1 9 Volt Alkaline Battery
Case Size: 3.5" x 5.65" x 1.35"
Inexpensive, Long-Lasting 9 Volt Battery
Enclosure: Impact Resistance, Fire Retardant ABS Plastic

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 12:40 PM

Again, Steve does not supply sources for his extensive quoting.

15th November 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am not worried because both the people I work with and for know that I am fully conversant with what's involved and why.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo you are not.

Do they really know how "conversant" you are?

"resistance aka impedence" I love the smug sentence construction and the offhand "aka".

15th November 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
EDOLPH--do you know how to spell schrodinger yet? Here's some more specs on this subject to help you understand what we do:

Impedance Range: 100 to 199,999 ohms
Impedance Accuracy: +/- 3% of Reading, +/- 200 ohms
Number Electrodes Tested: Up to 3
Test Current: 10 uA, 10 or 30 Hz, Sinusoidal, 0 D.C.
Display: 3 ½ digit, ½" LCD Readout with Good/Poor LEDs
Self-Test: Internal 100k, 1% precision resistor
Battery Test: Continuous, with LCD Indication
Battery Type: 1 9 Volt Alkaline Battery
Case Size: 3.5" x 5.65" x 1.35"
Inexpensive, Long-Lasting 9 Volt Battery
Enclosure: Impact Resistance, Fire Retardant ABS Plastic

Ummmm...... Impedence is measured in Ohms too, just check the back of your speakers "Impedance=8 Ohms" or something.

You don't get it do you?

Notice the current is AC, not DC as in an Ohmmeter which uses DC.

This is the problem of reading without understanding. But we already established that you have problems with written english already, haven't we?

15th November 2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
EDOLPH--do you know how to spell schrodinger yet?

Well, I know enough to capitalize it.

Where did I try to spell that particular krauts name?

15th November 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Again, Steve does not supply sources for his extensive quoting.

But, what is the relevance? He is just frothing, I think. It is best not to post when one is frothing. Embarassing, don't you know.

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 01:02 PM

Am I understanding this correctly?

Steve is claiming that impedance is measured in volts, because the battery in the impedance meter is?

Please tell me I am wrong. Please.

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Ed
But, what is the relevance? He is just frothing, I think. It is best not to post when one is frothing. Embarassing, don't you know.

Well, as long as he doesn't froth on me, I guess it's OK.

JamesM

15th November 2003, 01:25 PM

Steve, I read the material about the impedance meters you've provided, but I don't see the bit where it states that the impedance is measured in volts. Or was this material not meant to illustrate that?

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by JamesM
Steve, I read the material about the impedance meters you've provided, but I don't see the bit where it states that the impedance is measured in volts. Or was this material not meant to illustrate that?

The problem James is the usual misquoting and misattribution or deliberate play dumbo misunderstanding practiced by certain clowns on this board. I have never said that impedance is reported or measured in anything but kilo ohms.

Let me know if you understand this as it appears that the TBK-Ed-Claus do not.

I said that in human testing of the impedance provided by the skin, an electrical current, denominated actually in microAmperes and frequency, (microvolts also) is used to determine that resistance. This test current is sent through a referential electrode, picked up by a seeking or exploring electrode placed on the spot you wish to determine impedance for and then measured in kilo ohms on the device. These electrodes, when operational, measure microvolt level
currents (10 to 300 microvolts ) produced by the human body and then record these with respect to frequency and amplitude on a calibrated chart recorder, oscilloscope (cal=50 microvolts per vertical cm) or chart recorder program on a PC which is the std nowadays.

If you scroll back you will see that I have repeatedly ephasized that impedance meters read out in ohms, well actually kilo ohms is more convenient (cuts down on the# of zeros one has to write where human skin impedances are concerned).

15th November 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Am I understanding this correctly?

Steve is claiming that impedance is measured in volts, because the battery in the impedance meter is?

Please tell me I am wrong. Please.

Well, I only took electronics for a couple of years, far less than 30, but as I recall E in a measurement device is sorta constant so when a certain current flows R can be computed. In fact, an Ohmmeter is an Ammeter with a new scale. If E varies as a function of R then the supply is unregulated (ie, not producing a constant potential). I guess you can do it that way but it sounds odd. Again, I am working from ancient memories. I really find it hard to believe that they use volts, even Steves superfluous post says something about Ohms. Maybe he is confusing the signal strength with contact resistance? As I recall, we measured EEG in microvolts, could be wrong by an order of magnitude. Who knows.

15th November 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

The problem James is the usual misquoting and misattribution or deliberate play dumbo misunderstanding practiced by certain clowns on this board. I have never said that impedance is reported or measured in anything but kilo ohms.

I think that I quoted you accurately. Incidentially, one would correctly say that something is measured in Ohms, the kilo simply refers to the scale. Ohms is the unit.

Let me know if you understand this as it appears that the TBK-Ed-Claus do not.

I said that in human testing of the impedance provided by the skin, an electrical current, denominated actually in microAmperes and frequency, (microvolts also)

Frequency in in Hertz, not microvolts.

is used to determine that resistance. This test current is sent through a referential electrode, picked up by a seeking or exploring electrode placed on the spot you wish to determine impedance for and then measured in kilo ohms on the device. These electrodes, when operational, measure microvolt level
currents (10 to 300 microvolts )

OK, got it now. Except if you are measuring current the unit is amperage, not volts. You are measuring changes in potential difference (volts)

produced by the human body and then record these with respect to frequency and amplitude on a calibrated chart recorder, oscilloscope (cal=50 microvolts per vertical cm) or chart recorder program on a PC which is the std nowadays.

If you scroll back you will see that I have repeatedly ephasized that impedance meters read out in ohms, well actually kilo ohms is more convenient (cuts down on the# of zeros one has to write where human skin impedances are concerned).

Ok. I see what happened. Steve just learned the procedure by rote so the actual units and stuff are memorized without understanding. Simple screw-up. Hence the immortal "resistance AKA impedience" statement.

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I said that in human testing of the impedance provided by the skin, an electrical current, denominated actually in microAmperes and frequency, (microvolts also) is used to determine that resistance.

Frequency is measured in microvolts??

Steve, go back to school. No, kindergarten. You are a disgrace. That you are ever allowed near sick people is a travesty.

I sincerely hope you never do any harm to other people.

Jeff Corey

15th November 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Frequency is measured in microvolts??

Now that really Hertz.

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Now that really Hertz.

You are wasting your time in the US. Come to Europe.

JamesM

15th November 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

I have never said that impedance is reported or measured in anything but kilo ohms.

Let me know if you understand this
Ok Steve, I understand that. Just one question. To be totally clear, when you say that
in human testing of the impedance provided by the skin, an electrical current, denominated actually in microAmperes and frequency, (microvolts also) is used to determine that resistance.
do you mean that the potential difference and frequency that is associated with the current is measured, rather than being a measure of the current itself? This would also make sense of your statement about currents being at a microvolt level. It would be unfortunate if whatever discussion remained feasible between the interested parties here was held up by these rather minor points.

thaiboxerken

15th November 2003, 02:24 PM

The problem James is the usual misquoting and misattribution or deliberate play dumbo misunderstanding practiced by certain clowns on this board. I have never said that impedance is reported or measured in anything but kilo ohms.

Except in this thread. You said this:

the resistance of the skin to the test passage of a current of electricity measured in millionths of a volt (microvolts), not ohms.

That is a direct cut and paste from your post. You might have gone back and editted it, but I'm sure CFL will have the original post saved. You are mistaken or telling lies in this case.

I said that in human testing of the impedance provided by the skin, an electrical current, denominated actually in microAmperes and frequency, (microvolts also) is used to determine that resistance.

Frequency is measured in Hertz (Hz), as in cycles per second.. not in microvolts. Resistance can be calculated from the microAmps and voltage, but an ohmmeter is probably a better tool.

This test current is sent through a referential electrode, picked up by a seeking or exploring electrode placed on the spot you wish to determine impedance for and then measured in kilo ohms on the device. These electrodes, when operational, measure microvolt level
currents (10 to 300 microvolts ) produced by the human body and then record these with respect to frequency and amplitude on a calibrated chart recorder, oscilloscope (cal=50 microvolts per vertical cm) or chart recorder program on a PC which is the std nowadays.

Impedance is measured in ohms, not microvolts. If one knows the impedance and current, microvolts can be calculated.

If you scroll back you will see that I have repeatedly ephasized that impedance meters read out in ohms, well actually kilo ohms is more convenient (cuts down on the# of zeros one has to write where human skin impedances are concerned).

Then why do you keep mentioning microvolts. You are having some serious problems keeping your units straight.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 03:23 PM

It just proves TBK that either you cant read or I can't make myself understood
or both. Probably both.

Read it again. The test current is in microamperes, at certain frequencies (millionths of a volt.) The resistance/impedance is measured by sending this test current through the system. Remember we are not measuring a pre-existing reistance through an inanimate wire or circuit here. We are doing this in people. Human bodies. I have never said that the resistance is not denominated in kilo ohm units. To the contrary, I specifically always said it was.

I think what we have here is me explaining how it is done in people and you not interested in that ---

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 03:28 PM

TBK: If one knows the impedance and current, microvolts can be calculated.

Indeed except people are not circuits in the conventional sense. We do NOT know what the impedance is for a particular patch of skin we are interested in using.
Hence we need to send in a test current a
known number of microvolts through the electrode at a gven amperage and frequency and then determine the impedance. Same equation, different unknowns. Geez.

CFLarsen

15th November 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Read it again. The test current is in microamperes, at certain frequencies (millionths of a volt.)

Steve, you dimwit! Frequencies are not measured in volt!

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The resistance/impedance is measured by sending this test current through the system. Remember we are not measuring a pre-existing reistance through an inanimate wire or circuit here. We are doing this in people. Human bodies. I have never said that the resistance is not denominated in kilo ohm units. To the contrary, I specifically always said it was.

It doesn't matter what you are sending the current through, you incredible nincompoop!

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I think what we have here is me explaining how it is done in people and you not interested in that ---

I don't be-f*cking-lieve this. You are dangerous to people, Steve.

15th November 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
TBK: If one knows the impedance and current, microvolts can be calculated.

Indeed except people are not circuits in the conventional sense. We do NOT know what the impedance is for a particular patch of skin we are interested in using.
Hence we need to send in a test current a
known number of microvolts through the electrode at a gven amperage and frequency and then determine the impedance. Same equation, different unknowns. Geez.

Geez indeed. The problem is that you don't have the foggiest idea of the concept. You are plucking terms out of the air without a clue as to what you are talking about.

The voltage is set. The impedience is set. The current varies as a function of the impedence. R=E/I (for a DC circuit, let's keep it simple). You don't "send in the test current ... at a given amperage". You measure the amperage that results from putting a potential across a load. The current that flows is what you measure directly. It varies, it is not constant. You just don't understand what it is that you are doing. I just told you what you are doing.

Look, if you shot in a current at a given voltage and current then R would always be the same, see? R=E/I. If current and voltage are "given" you just solve the equation. You just don't understand basic electricity, your pronouncements aside.

Put it another way, if you know the voltage and you measure the current the impedence follows.

Wait a sec ....

So when you give an orientation to new folks you pompously explain what you are doing the way you just did to us???????????
You tell them this knowledge is the result of 30 years experience?

:jaw:

Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 04:11 PM

The means of impedance measurement in humans is based on the Voll two electrode impedance measurement method. One is the measurement electrode (exploring or seeking) which is an Al-AgCl electrode with a diameter of4mm and pasted with an electrolyte gel on the skin. The other is a reference electrode; we use that is AgCL gold plated. Before the measurement, the skin is wiped using ethanol and/or is mildly abraded. The simplest skin impedance model is the Cole equation which is the empirical equation to describe tissue impedance and consists of two ideal resistors and one constant phase element.

You cannot, as much as you would like to, apply anything other than the Cole Equation to this. You must use two electrodes. You must send a current through one and measure the impedance with the other. The test current can be sent at various frequencies, from 5 Hz to 50 Hz depending on your set-up. The amperage is low, in micro amps. In spite of the ranting of some people here who don't know anything about this, this is done routinely every day and every night in every EEG and sleep lab in the world. I have been doing this for years as have my staff. The human skin impedance is obtained in kilo-ohms.

The electrical current manufactured by the heart, muscle activity and brain activity is recorded in microvolts on a
chart recorder (computerized now mostly) calibrated to read 50 microvolts per vertical cm deflection. The frequency is measured in cycles per second. "Paper speed" changes dictates how the curves look to the human eye.

Again, do not apply what you know about household electricity or basic non-biological electrical pricniples to the measurement of impedance in human skin. It is a related but largely different
methodology.

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 04:15 PM

Wrong Ed. Get it through your noggin that the impedance of a point on human skin is not set, it is NOT adjustable and it is not predictable. LOL. It is an unknown we are trying to find, establish, determine, measure so we can then lower it to obtain a better electrical current signal from the activity of the brain, heart and/or muscle activity.

15th November 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Wrong Ed. Get it through your noggin that the impedance of a point on human skin is not set, it is NOT adjustable and it is not predictable. LOL. It is an unknown we are trying to find, establish, determine, measure so we can then lower it to obtain a better electrical current signal from the activity of the brain, heart and/or muscle activity.

I have no doubt that that is what you do. I simply observe that you have no idea how you get there. Which is fairly obvious.

Can you explain why you use the Cole Equation when all you are attempting to do is get a good contact? Specifically, why?

JamesM

15th November 2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The electrical current manufactured by the heart, muscle activity and brain activity is recorded in microvolts
Sorry to get caught up in the middle of this, but are you sure the current is measured in microvolts? Surely the potential associated with the current is measured?

Jeff Corey

15th November 2003, 06:09 PM

Looks like SG is not familiar with current terminology. His bulb is powered with low amperage and voltage.
But Watt else is new?

SteveGrenard

15th November 2003, 10:10 PM

Yes, James I am sure these signals are measured in microvolts.

The structure and chemical composition of neurons leads to the generation of an electrical potential, which is a relative difference in electrical charge across the nerve cell membrane

The electroencephalogram is a voltmeter for the brain

Electrical activity in the human brain was measured for the first time by an electroencephalogram (EEG) more than 60 years ago. EEG remains a valuable tool. [snipped]

"EEG measures the electrical activity of brain cells during physiological processes in both normal and pathological states, during awake periods, and during sleep. To obtain data, scientists connect electrodes from the EEG machine to the surface of the scalp. "

The voltage generated by brain cells and picked up by EEG is extremely small – between 20 and 100 microvolts after amplification on the order of ten thousand times. The signal is so small that electrical interference, called artifacts, from outside sources – for example, motors, overhead lights, even an eye blink – is often as strong as the signal that the EEG is trying to detect. When reading EEG charts, physicians need skill and experience to distinguish artifacts from brain activity and to decode the brain’s electrical rhythms into diagnostic information.

The skull is a poor conductor of electricity that interferes with the transmission of electrical charges to the scalp. Although the brain and the scalp are separated by only a few millimetres, the distance is an enormous chasm in EEG terms.

above excerpted from the following where you can read more:

http://www.mni.mcgill.ca/nm/1998s/en/EEG.html

or this one excerpted from from:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00i/dissfa01/EEG_lesson.html

Four simple periodic rhythms recorded in the EEG are alpha, beta, delta, and theta. These rhythms are identified by frequency (Hz or cycles/sec) and amplitude (Table 3.1). The amplitudes recorded by scalp electrodes are in the range of microvolts (uV or l/l,OOO,OOO of a volt).

Table 3.1 Typical Frequencies and Amplitudes of Synchronized Brainwaves

wave type-frequency - amplitude in uV

alpha 8-13 hz .............20-200 uV
beta 13-30 .................. 5-10
delta 1-5 ...................20-200
theta 4-8 ...................... 10

EMG and ECG also produce signals of pre-defined frequencies, shape or morphoplogy and amplitude measured iin micro-volts.

Jeff Corey

15th November 2003, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Electrical activity in the human brain was measured for the first time by an electroencephalogram (EEG) more than 60 years ago. EEG remains a valuable tool. [snipped]
Well, that reference must be a bit dated, Since Hans Berger (we don't have no stinking umlaut) published his work in 1929, based on work he did five years earlier.

15th November 2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes, James I am sure these signals are measured in microvolts.

You miss his point. He is suggesting that your use of the word "current" implies amps. You are not following

The structure and chemical composition of neurons leads to the generation of an electrical potential, which is a relative difference in electrical charge across the nerve cell membrane

Steve, you are just parroting stuff that you don't understand. Your latest foray into self aggrandizement was your reference to the Cole Equation. Since you brought it up tell us why it is used if your concern is a good interface between skin and electrode. Is this equation relevant on a gross level?

The electroencephalogram is a voltmeter for the brain

Electrical activity in the human brain was measured for the first time by an electroencephalogram (EEG) more than 60 years ago. EEG remains a valuable tool. [snipped]

"EEG measures the electrical activity of brain cells during physiological processes in both normal and pathological states, during awake periods, and during sleep. To obtain data, scientists connect electrodes from the EEG machine to the surface of the scalp. "

The voltage generated by brain cells and picked up by EEG is extremely small – between 20 and 100 microvolts after amplification on the order of ten thousand times. The signal is so small that electrical interference, called artifacts, from outside sources – for example, motors, overhead lights, even an eye blink – is often as strong as the signal that the EEG is trying to detect. When reading EEG charts, physicians need skill and experience to distinguish artifacts from brain activity and to decode the brain’s electrical rhythms into diagnostic information.

The skull is a poor conductor of electricity that interferes with the transmission of electrical charges to the scalp. Although the brain and the scalp are separated by only a few millimetres, the distance is an enormous chasm in EEG terms.

above excerpted from the following where you can read more:

http://www.mni.mcgill.ca/nm/1998s/en/EEG.html

or this one excerpted from from:

http://www.csun.edu/~vcpsy00i/dissfa01/EEG_lesson.html

Four simple periodic rhythms recorded in the EEG are alpha, beta, delta, and theta. These rhythms are identified by frequency (Hz or cycles/sec) and amplitude (Table 3.1). The amplitudes recorded by scalp electrodes are in the range of microvolts (uV or l/l,OOO,OOO of a volt).

Table 3.1 Typical Frequencies and Amplitudes of Synchronized Brainwaves

wave type-frequency - amplitude in uV

alpha 8-13 hz .............20-200 uV
beta 13-30 .................. 5-10
delta 1-5 ...................20-200
theta 4-8 ...................... 10

EMG and ECG also produce signals of pre-defined frequencies, shape or morphoplogy and amplitude measured iin micro-volts.

So what is the amplitude? 2-20 uv or an amplified signal of 2-20 uv? Why would anyone report (or care about) the amplitude of an amplified signal? Do you understand this question? If you are sure that the measurement is in microvolts, you can see that the McGill paper has a typo, right? If McGill is right the measurement is in picovolts.

Garrette

16th November 2003, 01:28 AM

Steve Grenard:
To accuse someone of fraud is to accuse them of an intentional criminal act.

Be sure to include Schwartz's co-author who wrote the book, Bill Simon as well as his publishers who printed and wholesaled the book, the distributors, Amazon dot com, Brentanos, Waldenbooks, Barnes and Noble and all others who have a position in your contention that you or others have been defrauded when they willingly purchased a book which they also could have reviewed first and prior to parting with their twenty dollars. And which, by the way, was returnable if they were unhappy with it. No, I don't think the circumstances or act of selling a book meets the standard for fraud nor do I suspect it was your intention to mean it that way when you said Schwartz is a fraud. I think you meant to say that his experiments were conducted criminally or fraudlently ... that the results obtained was done so by cheating. In this case be sure and include the five mediums, all the sitters, the TV crew, above and below the line, Linda Ellerbee, and her distributors (HBO),
Schwartz's research assistants, his
employer (The Univ of Az), his oversight committee (members of the faculty of the University including skeptics), the random assortment of univ students off the street to do a cold paper reading, his statisticians, oh, and Randi, who despite his protests, did have input on these experiments.

If you want to argue legal distinctions, then no, I do not have to ‘accuse’ anyone else. I am quite free to limit my opinions how so ever I wish, even legally.

And if you decide to check precedent, I think you will have difficulty finding examples of book publishers, and especially distributors, being found guilty/liable/whatever simply because one of their authors was.

That being said, I’m quite happy to include JE in my opinion of fraud.

All that being said, this is pointless. If you’re simply trying to warn me that I am crossing (or at least approaching) some legal line and should therefore be cautious, then point taken. I have considered it and stand by what I have posted here.

Nothing left to discuss.

Ceinwyn

16th November 2003, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Garrette

All that being said, this is pointless. If you’re simply trying to warn me that I am crossing (or at least approaching) some legal line and should therefore be cautious, then point taken. I have considered it and stand by what I have posted here.

Nothing left to discuss.
Oh but there is. Steve is about to tell us how amps and voltage and resistance give those like JE the means to see dead people.

Fascinating.

Garrette

16th November 2003, 02:06 AM

That's funny. I thought it was vibrations. That's what JE says....

I think it's related to the vibrational flux of the ZPE during a slow light experiment inside the box with the cat. Which makes me wonder....if JE talks to Schrodinger's cat, is that mediumship or telepathy?

CFLarsen

16th November 2003, 02:10 AM

Let's not forget the blinking lamps, either....

CFLarsen

17th November 2003, 01:44 PM

Bump!

Or rather: Blink!

17th November 2003, 03:26 PM

I want to know about the Cole Equation.

Jeff Corey

17th November 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Ed
I want to know about the Cole Equation.
OK, try http://www.g-p-r.com/electric.htm
And I'm having trouble linking to the equations with all the Es in subscript and superscript.

"But Jim, Ah'm jest an ole country doctor, dammit!"
"Bones... I ... didn't know....thatyouwere...from the old country."
(Episode 86, "The Drapes of Gath")

17th November 2003, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

OK, try http://www.g-p-r.com/electric.htm
And I'm having trouble linking to the equations with all the Es in subscript and superscript.
"But Jim, Ah'm jest an ole country doctor"

The link on the site didn't work. No matter, I was wondering why SG pompously referred to it when it appears to have to do with micro-biology and membrane conductivity and the like. I really think he just learned what he does by rote without a whit of understanding. Maybe not. Let's see if he can explain the use of said equasion in his own words without cutting and pasting more owners manuals.

SteveGrenard

17th November 2003, 05:59 PM

Nope. It has to do with biological impedance ..... which is what I have been talking about all along while some here think that it's the same thing as electrical impedance in a circuit. I have never said I was an expert on the Cole Equation, only that I am not stupid enough not to know that the algorithms upon which instruments built to measure impedance of biological tissues including the skin... are based on it. Perhaps the following references will help you since no matter what I say, it makes little difference and I will suffer fools no longer:

www.shef.ac.uk/~mpce/rsch/pm0117.pdf

Physiol. Meas. 21 (2000) 137-144. Printed in the UK PII: S0967-3334(00)10545-3

Cole equation modelling to measurements made using an
impulse driven transfer impedance system

A R Waterworth, P Milnes, R H Smallwood and B H Brown
Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, University of Sheffield,
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK

E-mail: a.waterworth@sheffield.ac.uk

Received 16 July 1999

Abstract. Electrical impedance measurements are used to obtain information about a subject,
tissue sample or tissue model under test. There are several ways of obtaining these impedance data
and thereafter analysing the data to obtain relevant parameters. This paper shows how a completely
isolated drive and receive system using current pulses, as opposed to sine waves, achieves good
fitted results with resistor-capacitor Cole phantoms.
Keywords: electrical impedance, pulsatile system, isolated, Cole model

1. Introduction
There are many methods of acquiring impedance data from excised tissue, living subjects
and resistor-capacitor phantoms. These range from the simple balanced bridge for excised
tissue to the more sophisticated multiple electrode 3D acquisition systems. There are however
problems associated with these systems. One such problem is that introduced by the stray
capacitance between drive and receive cables. This has been modelled by various groups and
it is seen that for small stray capacitances large errors can be formed (Lu et al 1996).

This paper introduces a modified hardware approach using an electrically isolated pulsed
current source and electrically isolated voltage measurement circuit. This configuration
increases the number of frequencies at which data can be collected, within small measurement
periods, whilst reducing the effects of stray capacitance. To verify this technique a commonly
used tissue model (single dispersion Cole model, Cole and Cole 1941) was fitted to the data.
(SNIPPED)

www.shef.ac.uk/~mpce/rsch/19991350.pdf

ELECTRONICS LETTERS 11th November 1999 Vol. 35 No. 23

Measurement of high frequency electrical
transfer impedances from biological tissues

S. Nebuya, B.H. Brown, R.H. Smallwood, P. Milnes, A.R.
Waterworth and M. Noshiro

Two novel methods are compared for achieving the isolation required to
perform high frequency transfer impedance measurements on biological
tissue. The first uses sinusoids and the second pulsatile current
injection. Sinusoidal current injection offers the higher accuracy but
both give similar performance when used to model tissue in terms of a
Cole-Cole equation.
Introduction: Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a non-invasive
method for characterising human tissue. Because currents will pass
either around or through cells depending on the frequency, EIS can be
used to observe the structure and arrangement of cells. EIS has been
used to identify precancerous changes in the oesophagus and cervix [1].
Many of the precancerous changes in tissue concern the cell nucleus
where frequencies of > 1MHz are needed to gain information. However,
methods for measuring impedance in which wired connections to elec-trodes
on the tissue surface are used do not perform well at high fre-quencies.
Parasitic capacitances between wires and between current
injection (drive) and voltage measurement (receive) circuitry can pro-duce
large errors [2]. Common-mode currents between drive and receive
circuits also affect accuracy. The optical isolation of both circuits
reduces such problems but requires synchronisation for complex trans-fer
impedance measurement.
(SNIPPED)

www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0967-3334/21/1/317

Cole equation modelling to measurements made using an impulse driven transfer impedance system
A R Waterworth, P Milnes, R H Smallwood and B H Brown
Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, University of Sheffield, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield S10 2JF, UK

E-mail: a.waterworth@sheffield.ac.uk
Received 16 July 1999

Abstract. Electrical impedance measurements are used to obtain information about a subject, tissue sample or tissue model under test. There are several ways of obtaining these impedance data and thereafter analysing the data to obtain relevant parameters. This paper shows how a completely isolated drive and receive system using current pulses, as opposed to sine waves, achieves good fitted results with resistor-capacitor Cole phantoms.
Keywords: electrical impedance, pulsatile system, isolated, Cole model

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/abs_free.jsp?arNumber=4599

Skin impedance from 1 Hz to 1 MHz

Rosell, J. Colominas, J. Riu, P. Pallas-Areny, R. Webster, J.G.
Dept. of Electron. Eng., Univ. Politecnica de Cataluna, Barcelona;
This paper appears in: Biomedical Engineering, IEEE Transactions on

Publication Date: Aug 1988
On page(s): 649-651
Volume: 35, Issue: 8
ISSN: 0018-9294
References Cited: 8
CODEN: IEBEAX

Abstract:

The impedance of skin coated with gel but otherwise unprepared was measured from 1 Hz to 1 MHz at ten sites on the thorax, leg, and forehead of ten subjects. For a 1-cm2 area, the 1 Hz impedance varied from 10 kO to 1 MO, which suggests that the bipotential amplifier input impedance should be very high to avoid common-mode-to-differential-mode voltage conversion. The 1-MHz impedance was tightly clustered about 120 O. The 100-kHz impedance was about 220 O, which suggests that the variation in skin impedance can cause errors in two-electrode electrical impedance tomographs.

Skin impedance measurements using simple and compound electrodes
Authors: Woo, E.J. Hua, P. Webster, J. G. Tompkins, W.J. Pallás-Areny, P.
Journal: Medical&Biological Enginnering & Computing Iss: 6 p. 97-102 Date Jan. 1992.

Abstract: The authors have studied the effect of the electrode configuration on the measurement of body impedance and found that the electrode configuration greatly affects the impedance measurement using the four-electrode method. They studied the characteristics of the compound electrode and found that the compound electrode provides the four-electrode method in a compact form. A new method of measuring the skin impedance using simple electrodes at low frequencies was developed. At high frequencies where the effect of internal tissue impedance is not negligible, the compensation method using compound electrodes was used because they measure the voltage right under the skin. At 50 kHz, the real part of the skin impedance of less than 80 Omega was measured on the thorax. A simple instrument which can measure accurate skin impedance at various frequencies is proposed.
-------------------------------------------------
The measure system is based on the principle of voltage measure between two electrodes in which fixed current is injected. In the first prototype the frequency of the signal applied can be varied from zero to 100 kHz in order to estimate the frequency band in which the variations of conductance due to emotional stimulation are greater. Measurement of skin conductance variations due to acoustic and visual stimuli ..(C. Cescon, P. Ossola).

If you want more may I suggest you buy a book.