Questions for Cantata

[Lucianarchy]

http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002817

What makes this dude tick? A nice lady named poinsetta
posted here yesterday, said that she wondered if the scent
of roses could be a sign from her dad, who had passed. As a person
who's on the fence about this stuff, I can't say whether is
was or it wasn't.(Neither can anyone, for that matter).

So what does Cantata do? He busts in with his big, arrogant
assertion that it is not possible. To top that, he
jumps on Neofight, telling her that she should show
more sympathy. Like HE did??

What is this guy's PROBLEM?? When a grieving person posts
about hearing from their loved ones, why the hell can't
these smart-assed skeptics keep their big mouths shut? Cantata
has turned into the very worst.
What IS it with him? Does he enjoy cutting people down, does
he believe that he's ALWAYS right? Or is he just a
first-rate *******? "

[Rosencrantz]

A man goes into a bar, and the bartender notices he has a frog stuck to his forehead. "Wow, that's not too attractive," the bartender says, "What happened?" The frog says, "Well, it started out as a wart on my ass..."

[The Central Scrutinizer]

State OKs low clearance for bridge at Mizzou

The Missouri Department of Transportation has agreed to allow a clearance of 16 feet, 6 inches on the west side of a pedestrian bridge that the University of Missouri at Columbia is building over Providence Road.

Original plans called for a 17-foot clearance across the bridge's entire five-lane span, but the university discovered last week that the clearance over the most western lane was coming out at only 16 feet, 3 inches.

The university said Wednesday that its design firm and contractor will make the 3-inch adjustment and absorb its cost. The bridge, between Memorial Stadium on the road's east side and athletic fields on the west, is expect to be finished for the first home football game on Sept. 7.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz
A man goes into a bar, and the bartender notices he has a frog stuck to his forehead. "Wow, that's not too attractive," the bartender says, "What happened?" The frog says, "Well, it started out as a wart on my ass..."

This reminds me of another that bears repeating:

A grasshopper walks into a bar,and the bartender says, "You know, we have a drink named after you." Grasshopper says,"You have a drink named Richard!?"

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Three 10 year old boys are sitting around trying to figure out which of them can remember back the furthest.

The first one says "I can remember all the way back to the doctor cutting my pee-pee. It hurt like hell"

The second one says "I can remember all the way back to being in a dark place, then being shot out into a bright room. Then the doctor grabbed me by the ankles and smacked my ass."

The third boy thinks for a moment and then says "I can beat both of you. I remember going to the prom with my dad and coming home with my mom!!!"

:D :D

[Titanpoint]

A horse walks into a bar and the barman says: "Why the long face?"

:D

[RichardR]

Man walks into a bar.

He goes "Ouw!"

It was an iron bar.

[Lucianarchy]

Larsen walks into a bar....
which is strange for Larsen, as he's continually raising it.

[Jeff Corey]

What do you call a british lawyer with an IQ of 50?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
What do you call a british lawyer with an IQ of 50?

I don't know, what do you call a british lawyer with an IQ of 50? :confused: :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

I would be delighted to answer your questions.

What do you say? I answer one of yours, you answer one of mine?

If you agree, you can even ask me the first question.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

I would be delighted to answer your questions.

What do you say? I answer one of yours, you answer one of mine?

If you agree, you can even ask me the first question.

Enough with the sophistry, you are transparent.

"1. What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down? Please provide the names of the scientists, and if possible, JE's reasons for refusing the test." is not my question, I am just pointing out how incredibly hypocritical you are these days. http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002816

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Enough with the sophistry, you are transparent.

"1. What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down? Please provide the names of the scientists, and if possible, JE's reasons for refusing the test." is not my question, I am just pointing out how incredibly hypocritical you are these days. http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002816

Aha. I'm a little unsure if that was a "yes" or a "no", but since your post did contain a question mark, I assume it was affirmative.

First, I said that John Edward didn't want to be tested, at least not in an environment where he cannot perform his carnival act.

That said, let's look at how John Edward looks at his critics. We all remember the "Bite me!" quip, don't we? That was in response to his critics, some of which see the need for putting John Edward to the test. John Edward does not think he has anything to prove.

Does John Edward want to take the Randi Challenge? No.

Now, calm down! I know that this isn't a scientific test of any kind. Far from it. The Challenge is only about actually proving that you can do what you claim you can do. Not why you can do it. You only need to do it once. The stakes are far higher in a real scientific test. There, you also need to replicate it.

John Edward claims he can talk to dead people. He claims to be doing this on a syndicated TV-show. He must be pretty sure he can do it. Flunking on TV is not a good career move.

But even in an environment that would be far more lax than in a scientific lab (albeit somewhat more tightly controlled than a TV-studio!), John Edward does not want to be tested.

No wonder John Edward has turned down the Randi Challenge.

Did John Edward participate in Schwartz' experiment? Yes.

Now, calm down! I know that it cannot possibly be called a scientific test. Far from it. The "controls" were ludicrous, no double-blind test were performed (something that will catch the critical eye of any scientist) and the ratings were not binary, but subject to interpretation. There was no independent verification of the hits and misses. These are not the only things that can be criticized.

So, we can conclude that John Edward is willing to do his stuff on TV and work with a scientist who already at that time had a record of believing in an afterlife. Schwartz also assured John Edward that he only had to do a little better than anyone else. Which, with John Edward's training in cold-reading, was a carte-blanche for success.

No wonder John Edward accepted to participate in Schwartz' experiment.



Sometimes, when the answer is not written on a billboard in Times Square, we have to look for the answer in bits and pieces.

I think we have found it in this case.

My turn:

Looking for psi.


WHAT are you actually looking for? How do you define it, how do you discover it, measure it, discern it from other phenomena?

[Rosencrantz]

I'm not Cantata, but I thought I'd give your questions a shot. I'm hoping that if I show good faith, you'll do the same with questions I have for you. :) I tried not to let your answers influence mine.
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
1. What makes this dude tick?I suspect his heart, by regulating blood flow throughout his body. This is the most likely explanation.Originally posted by Lucianarchy
2. So what does Cantata do?He posted a reply. You can read the thread here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002811).Origin ally posted by Lucianarchy
3. Like HE did??Er, yes. His response seemed very sympathetic:Originally posted by Cantata on tvtalkshows.com
As Lurker said, the important thing is that you loved your dad. Nothing else matters. Not what I say, or what anyone else says.Originally posted by Lucianarchy
4. What is this guy's PROBLEM??I don't understand the question. Is it rhetorical?Originally posted by Lucianarchy
5. When a grieving person posts about hearing from their loved ones, why the hell can't these smart-assed skeptics keep their big mouths shut?I suspect that Cantata posts for the same reason that other people on the forum posts: because he cares about the subject matter. I would have replied in a similar way, because I believe that convincing grieving people that the dead can communicate with the living does more harm than good.Originally posted by Lucianarchy
6. What IS it with him?See my answer for #4.Originally posted by Lucianarchy
7. Does he enjoy cutting people down, does he believe that he's ALWAYS right?This is actually two questions. I don't think his response cut anyone down, so I doubt that's the case. I also don't think he believes he's always right, but I think he wisely researches a topic before he posts about it, to minimize his chances of being wrong.Originally posted by Lucianarchy
9. Or is he just a first-rate *******?I don't understand your grading criteria.

Okay, I answered six of your nine questions. If you want to clarify the other three so that I can answer them, I'll try them on, too. Will you reward my efforts by answering some questions that I have? It might help to restore some of your credibility, and since I'm not Mr. Larsen you wouldn't be capitulating or anything.

1. I didn't see "Lucianarchy" as one of the names in either the original or the post you referenced on tvtalkshows.com. How are you involved in that discussion?

2. I'd like to understand what you're arguing. What position does criticizing Cantata support?

3. Why do you think it cruel to tell "poinsetta" that her father is probably not sending her a message from beyond the grave?

4. Why do you believe that the dead can send messages to the living?

5. What would convince you that this hypothesis is flawed?

6. I'm not sure about your credibility. Do you have a professional stake in life after death?

7. Do you have an emotional stake in life after death? Perhaps a close relative of yours died, someone who you desperately want to receive a message from.

8. When you post on this board, are you trying to help people or hurt people?

9. Do you think that your tone when posting here forwards your goals in question #8?

I think if you answered my questions it would greatly improve your reputation here. Thanks!

(Edited to clarify the opening paragraph. I thought in retrospect that it sounded like I thought I was Cantata.)

[TABBY]

I tell you that this canata IS well known (maybe not WELL liked, but WELL known).....he sure gets around EVERYWHERE......

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TABBY
I tell you that this canata well known (maybe not WELL liked, but well known).....here sure gets around EVERYWHERE......

'Round, 'round, get around, I get around, yeah, round, round, (u-U-u-uuuu)

I get around.

Now, where are those 30 virgins?????

http://www.amantium.com/images/funnyfaces/007.gif

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
A nice lady named poinsetta posted here yesterday, said that she wondered if the scent of roses could be a sign from her dad, who had passed.

All I have to say about this is: If there's life after death, and if there's a way to send a sign to your beloved you've left behind, then when I die people are gonna ****in' know it! None of this vague ****, "the scent of roses," or "a little tweeting bird perched on the windowsill." My family's gettin' a ****in' giraffe in the backyard! And it'll **** all over the place so my wife'll have to clean up after me one more time and she'll know! :D

Come on, you wimpy dead guys, let's see something obvious!!!

[TLN]

Luci, how dare you subject others to scrutiny while you yourself hide and suck your thumb, dodging questions. You're a coward.

I know you've read my posts.

Now put up or shut up. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5924)

Until you do your credibility is worth exactly nothing.

[aerosolben]

Time passed with no response since Luci agreed (albiet tacitly) to answer questions if its questions were answered, and Claus fulfilled his side of the bargain: 4 hours

Perhaps a Luci clock would be in order...

[CFLarsen]

aerosolben,

Remember that Lucianarchy is in the UK.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
aerosolben,

Remember that Lucianarchy is in the UK.

I remembered. One would suspect it didn't go to bed directly after writing its last post. If you wish, consider it an educated guess.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
aerosolben,

Remember that Lucianarchy is in the UK.

Man fears time.

Time fears the pyramids.

Posters to active forums fear time causing a pyramid sized number of posts and threads to bury they questions they asked.

:)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Aha. I'm a little unsure if that was a "yes" or a "no", but since your post did contain a question mark, I assume it was affirmative.

First, I said that John Edward didn't want to be tested, at least not in an environment where he cannot perform his carnival act.

That said, let's look at how John Edward looks at his critics. We all remember the "Bite me!" quip, don't we? That was in response to his critics, some of which see the need for putting John Edward to the test. John Edward does not think he has anything to prove.

Does John Edward want to take the Randi Challenge? No.

Now, calm down! I know that this isn't a scientific test of any kind. Far from it. The Challenge is only about actually proving that you can do what you claim you can do. Not why you can do it. You only need to do it once. The stakes are far higher in a real scientific test. There, you also need to replicate it.

John Edward claims he can talk to dead people. He claims to be doing this on a syndicated TV-show. He must be pretty sure he can do it. Flunking on TV is not a good career move.

But even in an environment that would be far more lax than in a scientific lab (albeit somewhat more tightly controlled than a TV-studio!), John Edward does not want to be tested.

No wonder John Edward has turned down the Randi Challenge.

Did John Edward participate in Schwartz' experiment? Yes.

Now, calm down! I know that it cannot possibly be called a scientific test. Far from it. The "controls" were ludicrous, no double-blind test were performed (something that will catch the critical eye of any scientist) and the ratings were not binary, but subject to interpretation. There was no independent verification of the hits and misses. These are not the only things that can be criticized.

So, we can conclude that John Edward is willing to do his stuff on TV and work with a scientist who already at that time had a record of believing in an afterlife. Schwartz also assured John Edward that he only had to do a little better than anyone else. Which, with John Edward's training in cold-reading, was a carte-blanche for success.

No wonder John Edward accepted to participate in Schwartz' experiment.



Sometimes, when the answer is not written on a billboard in Times Square, we have to look for the answer in bits and pieces.

I think we have found it in this case.

My turn:

Looking for psi.


WHAT are you actually looking for? How do you define it, how do you discover it, measure it, discern it from other phenomena?


OK, so you *cant* say what the scientific tests are that John Edward has turned down.

And you *can't* provide the names of the scientists,

And you *can't* provide JE's reasons for refusing the test.


In response to your question, I, personally, am not "'looking for" anything. Ergo, I did not discover "it", measure "it" or discerned "it" from other phenomena. I am merely letting data speak for itself. Of which, there is currently no known method of action for the "it" effect which has been measured and recorded in many of the parapsychology experiments.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK, so you *cant* say what the scientific tests are that John Edward has turned down.

And you *can't* provide the names of the scientists,

And you *can't* provide JE's reasons for refusing the test.

Actually, yes. He does not feel he has anything to prove (he said so himself). Add the other reasons I gave and you have the answer.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In response to your question, I, personally, am not "'looking for" anything. Ergo, I did not discover "it", measure "it" or discerned "it" from other phenomena. I am merely letting data speak for itself. Of which, there is currently no known method of action for the "it" effect which has been measured and recorded in many of the parapsychology experiments.

Ah! Finally!

You can call it "it", "psi" or "Alphonse" - whatever is your pleasure.


You are not looking for anything.
You have not discovered anything.
You cannot measure it.
You cannot discern it from other phenomena.
There is no known method of action that it can be measured and recorded with in any parapsychology experiment.


That would mean that a cup of tea is "it".

Thanks for the answers!!

Want to go on? Next question?

Edited to add:

Some questions are follow-ups to your answer to this one, so can you agree that your answers to these would be:


HOW would you construct a set of coherent experiments that would show the existance/nonexistance of this?
Answer: I can't.
WHO would you accept to perform these tests? What lab, group or organization?
It wouldn't be difficult at all to find a lab that could do these tests unbiased: That's how double-blind tests work. The ones who actually performs the experiment doesn't know what we are looking for.
Answer: Nobody, since there is no method of measuring or recording it. No lab, group or organization has ever found anything.
WHY would a negative result not convince you?
Even PEAR and SRI come up with negative results sometimes, yet you don't weigh these as important as the positive ones.
Answer: It isn't possible to tell a positive result from a negative result, since nothing can be measure or recorded.
Are the few experiments you constantly point to as proof of psi done from a positive theory or a negative theory?
Answer: Nothing has ever been found, since it cannot be either measured or recorded. Therefore, the theory must be negative: There is no way we can discern it from other phenomena.
Can you actually form a positive theory and construct an experiment that would prove the existence of psi, instead of relying on negative theories ("We found something, we don't know what it is, it can't be anything we know of today, so it must be psi!")?
Answer: No


That is what you are saying in your reply, isn't it?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Actually, yes. He does not feel he has anything to prove (he said so himself). Add the other reasons I gave and you have the answer.



Then provide the names of the scientists and which specific scientific tests he has turned down and provide the quotes of any reasons, if any scientific tests were turned down.


I was quite specific in my answer, please have the courtesy of doing the same.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Then provide the names of the scientists and which specific scientific tests he has turned down and provide the quotes of any reasons, if any scientific tests were turned down.

I was quite specific in my answer, please have the courtesy of doing the same.

I have given you my answer. Did we agree that we each had to be satisfied with the answers? I don't think so. I, for one, am not satisfied with your first answer, but that's OK - you gave your answer, and that's what it is.

All we agreed to was to ask the other a question, get an answer, and the tables would turn.

On the other hand, if this is your next question, my answer will be:

I have already given my answer to that. Which means I get to ask you a question now.

(If it isn't your next question, then what is it?)

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
Luci, how dare you subject others to scrutiny while you yourself hide and suck your thumb, dodging questions. You're a coward.

I know you've read my posts.

Now put up or shut up. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5924)

Until you do your credibility is worth exactly nothing.

Luci, just admint you're too scared to engage in a debate.

[Clancie]

Lucianarchy,

...and after even more posts in "response" to your questions, Claus/Cantata STILL hasn't....

1. said what the scientific tests are that John Edward has turned down.

2. provided the names of the scientists

3. provided JE's reasons for "refusing to be tested" ("reasons" can't be given until we know of tests that he has refused).

I guess you're never going to get any evidence from him of what he claims to be true. (Nor, apparently, is he willing to admit he doesn't have any).

Clancy

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Clancy
Lucianarchy,

...and after even more posts in "response" to your questions, Claus/Cantata STILL hasn't....

1. said what the scientific tests are that John Edward has turned down.

2. provided the names of the scientists

3. provided JE's reasons for "refusing to be tested" ("reasons" can't be given until we know of tests that he has refused).

I guess you're never going to get any evidence from him of what he claims to be true. (Nor, apparently, is he willing to admit he doesn't have any).

Clancy
Luci, is this you again? Be honest now.

[Clancie]

RichardR

Do we really sound that much alike?

Or is questioning of Claus's unsupported claims just that unusual over here?

Clancy

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Clancy
RichardR

Do we really sound that much alike?

Or is questioning of Claus's unsupported claims just that unusual over here?

Clancy
Luci said:

OK, so you *cant* say what the scientific tests are that John Edward has turned down.

And you *can't* provide the names of the scientists,

And you *can't* provide JE's reasons for refusing the test.

You said:

...and after even more posts in "response" to your questions, Claus/Cantata STILL hasn't....

1. said what the scientific tests are that John Edward has turned down.

2. provided the names of the scientists

3. provided JE's reasons for "refusing to be tested" ("reasons" can't be given until we know of tests that he has refused).

Sound alike? I’d say yes

Just fyi, I agree that Claus didn't answer Luci's questions.

[Clancie]

RichardR

Yes, I was originally just quoting her, but then rephrased it so it made more sense as a numerical list.

I'm glad to know that you also noticed that Claus hasn't answered her questions, since he keeps posting as if he expects that no one else will ever call him on it.

Clancy

Clancy, nice to meet you!

Yes, claus aka cantata, does not answer difficult questions. If you notice, he will only ask questions, not answer.

He asked us ten questions over at tvtalk, we answered. We asked two, he responded by adding more questions, No answers. We tried for two days to get him to answer, but he couldn't. Nor would he admit that he couldn't. Instead he ran off to other threads, evading the questions.

Looks like he is doing that here also.

Arrogant? Go over to "warning tvtalkshows is closed" posted by RC on this board, and you can see how arrogant claus aka cantata was with us. And how wonderfully funny he was! He kept me laughing every day.

I luvs the man, I tell ya! I jest luvs him! :)

But all good things must come to an end, and so I must go.

Clancy, very nice to have met you, and Lucianarchy, good luck getting claus to answer. He makes claims but doesn't back them up. And he is Sooooo good at avoiding the questions by typing a bunch of irrelavant things to get one off of the original topic.

I trust you will keep him in line whilst I am away ;)

No wonder claus likes this board, he has you people fooled.


whoever said ""Claus fulfilled his side of the bargain: 4 hours""

where do you get that from?

Claus claimed over at tvtalk that John Edward refused to be tested by a real scientist.

When he was asked


1. What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down? Please provide the names of the scientists, and if possible, JE's reasons for refusing the test."

He DID NOT ANSWER.

at tvtalk he simply asked a bunch of questions, and avoided giving any answers. HE MADE THE CLAIM, now, do you see any place on this board where claus told WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC TESTS WERE THAT JOHN TURNED DOWN? (sorry I'm not yelling)

I saw no lists of test that he named.

Now, Did he provide even one name of a real scientist that John refused to be tested by?

NO

Did he really answer the questions (as he expects others to answer his with facts, sources, etc?)

NO

He has you people fooled. You read his post and don't even catch on to what he does. Pay attention. He talks in circles, but does NOT answer his questions.

Now Claus. Can you back up the claim that JE has turned down scientist and refused to be tested? YES or NO

If yes, please provide the names of those scientist he refused to be tested by, and please list your sources.

now folks, watch how cantata aka claus worms out of answering the questions. He's really quite good at it ya know. I have to give him an E for effort. He will talk in circles, point fingers and make accusations, lie, mislead, twist words, yadda yadda, but he will not say Yes I can name them, or NO I cannot name them.

If he dared say YES he can name the tests and scientist JE turned down, than he would naturally be expected to list his sources. Right? Fair?

It's late, what am I doing here?

By the way, they were simple questions that required one word answers

YES or NO

circle one please :D

If YES, please list your sources.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Rain
......Lucianarchy, good luck getting claus to answer. He makes claims but doesn't back them up. And he is Sooooo good at avoiding the questions by typing a bunch of irrelavant things to get one off of the original topic.

I trust you will keep him in line whilst I am away ;)
To be even handed here, Luci is the master of making silly claims and refusing to answer reasonable questions about them.

[Clancie]

Rain,

Lol. We've met. I use my cat's name as my nick over at TVTalk and my dog's name over here.

Clancy (Gryphon2)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RichardR

To be even handed here, Luci is the master of making silly claims and refusing to answer reasonable questions about them.

No doubt about that. Luci has been on this board for a long time making bold claims and citing obscure studies, yet through all of that she has failed to ever address meaningful questions about these claims.
And it has not just been Claus who has been asking her questions. I have, on many occasions, asked Luci for clarification on some of the studies she cites, and she totally ignores me.
Anytime she is asked to defend her claims, she disappears. She has no interest in a serious debate of any kind.
And suddenly it's Claus who is the one who doesn't answer questions! Gimme a break.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by KelvinG


No doubt about that. Luci has been on this board for a long time making bold claims and citing obscure studies, yet through all of that she has failed to ever address meaningful questions about these claims.
And it has not just been Claus who has been asking her questions. I have, on many occasions, asked Luci for clarification on some of the studies she cites, and she totally ignores me.
Anytime she is asked to defend her claims, she disappears. She has no interest in a serious debate of any kind.
And suddenly it's Claus who is the one who doesn't answer questions! Gimme a break.
Is this what you are alluding to, Kevin?

http://64.94.43.206/~spiderdan/black.jpg

:D

[oceansize]

Can someone please explain to me why so many people are here from tvtalkshows.com???

A bear walks into a bar and says to the bartender "Hi..........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
.........
......... can i get a drink?"

Bartender says "why the big paws?"

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Clancy
Lucianarchy,

...and after even more posts in "response" to your questions, Claus/Cantata STILL hasn't....

1. said what the scientific tests are that John Edward has turned down.

2. provided the names of the scientists

3. provided JE's reasons for "refusing to be tested" ("reasons" can't be given until we know of tests that he has refused).

I guess you're never going to get any evidence from him of what he claims to be true. (Nor, apparently, is he willing to admit he doesn't have any).

Clancy

I know, pathetic isn't it. I'm just doing this to demonstrate (using the tools of skepticism - Claus *hates* the fact that I am true / open minded skeptic ) that he is a complete and raging hypocrite, and his ass-licky-lackeys are just a mindless Pavlovian yap-pack.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by RichardR

Luci, is this you again? Be honest now.

Nope, you are a paranoid fruitcake, just like Claus / Cantata.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Nope, you are a paranoid fruitcake, just like Claus / Cantata.

And you're a coward who won't face a real debate in a forum where you can't retreat or ignore questions.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Rain
Clancy, nice to meet you!

Yes, claus aka cantata, does not answer difficult questions. If you notice, he will only ask questions, not answer.

He asked us ten questions over at tvtalk, we answered. We asked two, he responded by adding more questions, No answers. We tried for two days to get him to answer, but he couldn't. Nor would he admit that he couldn't. Instead he ran off to other threads, evading the questions.

Looks like he is doing that here also.

Arrogant? Go over to "warning tvtalkshows is closed" posted by RC on this board, and you can see how arrogant claus aka cantata was with us. And how wonderfully funny he was! He kept me laughing every day.

I luvs the man, I tell ya! I jest luvs him! :)

But all good things must come to an end, and so I must go.

Clancy, very nice to have met you, and Lucianarchy, good luck getting claus to answer. He makes claims but doesn't back them up. And he is Sooooo good at avoiding the questions by typing a bunch of irrelavant things to get one off of the original topic.

I trust you will keep him in line whilst I am away ;)

He is still learning to be a skeptic, he has a looong way to go of course. He still thinks clinical denial is a recognised form of skepticism, but we're being very patient with the poor fellow.

Originally posted by CFLarsen


'Round, 'round, get around, I get around, yeah, round, round, (u-U-u-uuuu)

I get around.

Now, where are those 30 virgins?????

http://www.amantium.com/images/funnyfaces/007.gif

Ummm sorry Claus! I tried to save myself for you but I just couldn't wait any longer!

[Yahzi]

You want the names of scientists that John Edward refused to do a study with?

That's easy. All of them.

If John Edward could actually talk to the dead, it would utterly revolutionize several major fields, including but not limited to psychology, psychiatry, forensics, criminal justic, history, and archealogy.

If anyone with half a brain even for a moment believed in this man, then half the scientific world would be all over him. Look how much attention those idiots Pons & Fleischman got.

But the fact is, everyone with half a brain recognizes that JE is just doing a party trick for an entertainment show.

If JE really wanted to help people with his gift, he'd beg scientists to test him. But the only person JE wants to help is himself.

Originally posted by TLN


And you're a coward who won't face a real debate in a forum where you can't retreat or ignore questions.

Seems to be true doesn't it? Wonder what he/she is afraid of?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
RichardR

Yes, I was originally just quoting her, but then rephrased it so it made more sense as a numerical list.

I'm glad to know that you also noticed that Claus hasn't answered her questions, since he keeps posting as if he expects that no one else will ever call him on it.

Clancy

First, I did not claim that JE has turned down experiments from scientists. I claimed that he did not want to be tested. There is a difference.

And I showed evidence that JE does not want to be tested. So, I provided evidence for my claim.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rain
Yes, claus aka cantata, does not answer difficult questions. If you notice, he will only ask questions, not answer.

He asked us ten questions over at tvtalk, we answered. We asked two, he responded by adding more questions, No answers. We tried for two days to get him to answer, but he couldn't. Nor would he admit that he couldn't. Instead he ran off to other threads, evading the questions.

This is an outright lie. I have the threads saved, Rain. Do you want me to repost them?

Originally posted by Rain
Looks like he is doing that here also.

Which is, of course, my "rep" here.....not.

Originally posted by Rain
But all good things must come to an end, and so I must go.

Clancy, very nice to have met you, and Lucianarchy, good luck getting claus to answer. He makes claims but doesn't back them up. And he is Sooooo good at avoiding the questions by typing a bunch of irrelavant things to get one off of the original topic.

I trust you will keep him in line whilst I am away ;)

Oh, too bad you are leaving! Are you too scared to hang around?

Rain, you have just made a fool out of yourself. Granted, you couldn't have known that Lucianarchy is the poster here with the most claims that are never backed up. And Lucianarchy is "soooooo" good at avoiding the questions by typing a bunch of irrelevant things to get one off of the original topic.

But you could at least made an effort to find out about Lucianarchy (and me) before you made your move.

Originally posted by Rain
No wonder claus likes this board, he has you people fooled.

Ah, of course. Rain knows the truth, all of you must be downright fooled! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Rain
Claus claimed over at tvtalk that John Edward refused to be tested by a real scientist.

Actually, no. I didn't. I said that John Edward did not want to be tested. I have the threads, do you want me to repost them?

Originally posted by Rain
When he was asked

1. What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down? Please provide the names of the scientists, and if possible, JE's reasons for refusing the test."

He DID NOT ANSWER.

Because that's not what I claimed. I have the threads, do you want me to repost them?

Originally posted by Rain
He has you people fooled. You read his post and don't even catch on to what he does. Pay attention. He talks in circles, but does NOT answer his questions.

Heeheeheehee....this is funny! No, Rain, I mean it! You are really the comedian!

Originally posted by Rain
Now Claus. Can you back up the claim that JE has turned down scientist and refused to be tested? YES or NO

Where did I make that claim? I have the threads, do you want me to repost them?

Originally posted by Rain
now folks, watch how cantata aka claus worms out of answering the questions. He's really quite good at it ya know. I have to give him an E for effort. He will talk in circles, point fingers and make accusations, lie, mislead, twist words, yadda yadda, but he will not say Yes I can name them, or NO I cannot name them.

I have the threads, do you want me to repost them?

Originally posted by Rain
It's late, what am I doing here?

You could start by posting evidence instead of claims.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
Rain,

Lol. We've met. I use my cat's name as my nick over at TVTalk and my dog's name over here.

Clancy (Gryphon2)

Isn't this fantastic? Two TVTalkshow posters meet here and support each other, out of the blue?

Meet the second Gorgon: Gryphon2.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I know, pathetic isn't it. I'm just doing this to demonstrate (using the tools of skepticism - Claus *hates* the fact that I am true / open minded skeptic ) that he is a complete and raging hypocrite, and his ass-licky-lackeys are just a mindless Pavlovian yap-pack.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Nope, you are a paranoid fruitcake, just like Claus / Cantata.

Whoa! Where did that come from? Why do you react so antagonistically all of a sudden??

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
He is still learning to be a skeptic, he has a looong way to go of course. He still thinks clinical denial is a recognised form of skepticism, but we're being very patient with the poor fellow.

"We"? Lucianarchy, you are very alone on this board.

But let's get back to business. Are you ready for the next question?

[KelvinG]

Anybody find it interesting that Luci has not bothered to respond to the posts that accuse her of being afraid to engage in debate or provide evidence for her claims.
Again, it's typical Lucianarcy behaviour. She knows she's caught and instead of admit it she just pretends the posts aren't there.
And she actually has the audacity to accuse others of not answering questions or backing up their claims.
So here is your chance to explain why you act the way you do Luci.
WHY DO YOU IGNORE SO MANY QUESTIONS ON THIS FORUM?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Nope, you are a paranoid fruitcake, just like Claus / Cantata.
Well, thanks for clearing that up.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Denise
Seems to be true doesn't it? Wonder what he/she is afraid of?

Oh, that's easy.

Luci knows his beliefs won't withstand real skeptical scrutiny, so he cowers and hides. Typical.

Luci, I'll just assume you're aware of the debate challenge and your refusal to answer is a forfeit.

[Martin]

For those who are trying to defend Luci - you might want to check here (http://randio.vwh.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=676) to see why (s)he isn't really taken seriously.

You want the names of scientists that John Edward refused to do a study with? That's easy. All of them.


can you back that claim up? Can you show me evidence where John refused to do a study with real scientists.

I didnt' ask if scientist refused to test him.


(cantata: First, I did not claim that JE has turned down experiments from scientists. I claimed that he did not want to be tested. There is a difference.

(Rain) Now, have you NEVER said, 'WHY DOES JE REFUSE TO BE TESTED?



(Cantata) And I showed evidence that JE does not want to be tested. So, I provided evidence for my claim.

YOu did? where is it? You call BITE ME evidence? Have you interviewed JE and asked him if he wanted to be tested? Wow, you base your evidence on so little. I hope you never go into science, they require much more proof.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen



Rain, you have just made a fool out of yourself. Granted, you couldn't have known that Lucianarchy is the poster here with the most claims that are never backed up. And Lucianarchy is "soooooo" good at avoiding the questions by typing a bunch of irrelevant things to get one off of the original topic.

But you could at least made an effort to find out about Lucianarchy (and me) before you made your move.



Then please post the quotes where I claim anyhting I have not provided evidence for ( not including the 'Psirony' experiment or the Martian worms - still under review / replication ).

You won't because I have only provided you with data, not claims. Data, IMA, that has yet to be refuted in any rational manner past innuendo or personal opinion. All you clowns do is make up silly lists of questions in a feeble attempt to divert attention from the fact, you've been busted as a pseudo-skeptic.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Then please post the quotes where I claim anyhting I have not provided evidence for ( not including the 'Psirony' experiment or the Martian worms - still under review / replication ).

You won't because I have only provided you with data, not claims. Data, IMA, that has yet to be refuted in any rational manner past innuendo or personal opinion. All you clowns do is make up silly lists of questions in a feeble attempt to divert attention from the fact, you've been busted as a pseudo-skeptic.

What scares me is I think Luci actually does believe this to be true.

[Clancie]

Martinm,

Thanks for the link, but without knowing the background, it could just be people kidding around, just as I think you suggested.

Anyway, its not about Lucianarchy, whom I don't know at all. Its about Claus repeatedly making claims that he doesn't support with any evidence.

For example, he frequently states, "JE refuses to be tested", but has never, ever, provided one example to show that this was true.

The most recent question he responded to was this:

Question:

"What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down? Please provide the names of the scientists, and if possible, JE's reasons for refusing the test."

Claus, "answering" this:

"Would there be any reason why a scientific test would show that JE really possesses the abilities he claims?

Did Schwartz' studies show any evidence that JE really possesses the abilities he claims? (Remember that Schwartz claims that all JE's readings show that JE is as "real as steel", INCLUDING the one where JE got nothing!)

Does JE give any indication that he is interested in scientific research?

What is JE's answer to his critics? 'Bite me'"

I think anyone reading this would agree that, just as in his response to Lucianarchy, he doesn't answer the question--and doesn't admit that he has no facts to support his belief. Yet I'm sure he will continue to make this claim, just as he has in the past, in spite of not having a single shred of evidence to support it.

Clancy

[Martin]

Originally posted by Clancy
I think anyone reading this would agree that, just as in his response to Lucianarchy, he doesn't answer the question--and doesn't admit that he has no facts to support his belief. Yet I'm sure he will continue to make this claim, just as he has in the past, in spite of not having a single shred of evidence to support it.



You've missed one point. You haven't yet demonstrated that Claus makes this claim at all. What you need to do is produce a quote where Claus states clearly that JE refuses to be tested by scientists. Show me that, then we'll talk.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy (Emphasis by me)



Then please post the quotes where I claim anyhting I have not provided evidence for ( not including the 'Psirony' experiment or the Martian worms - still under review / replication ).

You won't because I have only provided you with data, not claims. Data, IMA, that has yet to be refuted in any rational manner past innuendo or personal opinion. All you clowns do is make up silly lists of questions in a feeble attempt to divert attention from the fact, you've been busted as a pseudo-skeptic.

To answer your question about posting a quote from yourself where you make a claim and then provide no evidence here is a quote from one of the (many) threads you have made claims in and then not provided any evidence for your claim:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy (Emphasis by me)
Yes, it does. This is the third draw where I have correctly predicted three of the six numbers using the socio/cultural psyche analysis. I know you won't believe me, but I even predicted that 13 would be drawn this weekend and used it. I was right. And no, I'm not going to share the workings of my psyche analyisis just yet. Anyone with an open mind and a sound understanding of psychology can try the hyptohtesis for themselves, the clues and leads are there, it just needs a little savvy, and, Bingo!"


You have made claims that you have provided no evidence to support.

(Edited for formating mistake.)

[RC]

Originally posted by Yahzi

But the fact is, everyone with half a brain recognizes that JE is just doing a party trick for an entertainment show.


I continue to marvel at some associated with this board. With so many demands for evidence and information to back up claims, people just let statements like this go by.

Yahzi, how 'bout something to back up your "FACT" (your word, not mine!). Perhaps there have been studies on who believes JE is authentic, who thinks he's a fraud, and brain scans done on each group? Or is there a study I've missed that relates intelligence to belief in mediumship?

Or maybe this is just your opinion and you made a mistake by calling it a fact?

[Clancie]

Martinm:

Well, Claus is certainly not the only skeptic I have heard claim this. It seems a quite common criticism of him. Yet, although "JE doesn't want to be tested" is often stated, I have still never gotten an answer to my question, "Who has asked to test him that he has turned down?"

Here is Claus, (from his "Questions about JE" thread)

Why doesn't JE want to be tested?

and this:

He does NOT want to even answer his critics and he does NOT want to be tested (for real, that is).

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Then please post the quotes where I claim anyhting I have not provided evidence for ( not including the 'Psirony' experiment or the Martian worms - still under review / replication ).

You won't because I have only provided you with data, not claims. Data, IMA, that has yet to be refuted in any rational manner past innuendo or personal opinion. All you clowns do is make up silly lists of questions in a feeble attempt to divert attention from the fact, you've been busted as a pseudo-skeptic.

Yes, Luci, in the past you have posted a lot of data. However, you have shown absolutely no reason for us to believe you even understand the data. You post "evidence" from fringe studies that have never been subject to any sort of peer review and for the most part don't make any sense.
And when I have asked you for clarification on what some of these studies mean, you have ignored me.

Like the following: Remember the Jutts study which you cited on many occasions as being proof of the paranormal. Well, I told you I didn't understand the study and asked if you could tell me exactly what was done in this study and why it concludes evidence of psi. But of course, I received absolutely no response. I would have been perfectly happy if you had responded and said "I'm not sure what the study means." But no, you'd rather just ignore me. All I was trying to do was understand. Why would you ignore someone when you could enlighten them. If you were a professor in a university and a student asked a question, would you just ignore them. Would you just tell them "Go read the text book." If you want some allies Luci, you might start trying to build some credibility.

Here is that study. If you would like now to explain it to me, I would be very happy:

Journal of Parapsychology: Sep 2000
PK Tests in a Pre-Sleep State
By Helmut Schmidt
ABSTRACT: In an experiment with a single participant, the author, signals from a weak vibrator were presented at random time intervals to the participant, while he was ready to fall asleep at night. A pilot test of twenty 15-minute sessions indicated that this sleepy attention to the signals produced a reduction of the signal frequency (z = 2.45, p = .014), two tailed) and a bunching of the signals along the time axis (z = 1.63). The sub sequent main experiment, comprising 40 night sessions, con firmed the signal frequency reduction (z = 2.24, p = .013, one tailed) and the bunching effect (z = 2.85, p = .0022, one tailed). In parallel with the night sessions of the main experiment there were added 40 day sessions in which the participant, ex posed to the random vibrator signals, was fully awake and at tempting to visualize vivid colors. These sessions gave a smaller reduction in signal frequency (z = 1.01, ns ) and a slightly negative bunching effect (z = - 0.71, ns).

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud." - Professor J.Utts

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Then please post the quotes where I claim anyhting I have not provided evidence for ( not including the 'Psirony' experiment or the Martian worms - still under review / replication ).

You won't because I have only provided you with data, not claims. Data, IMA, that has yet to be refuted in any rational manner past innuendo or personal opinion. All you clowns do is make up silly lists of questions in a feeble attempt to divert attention from the fact, you've been busted as a pseudo-skeptic.
Happy to oblige.

If you look HERE (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2703&highlight=natalia+lulova) you will find one Lucianarchy (you), claiming that Randi’s tests on Natalia Lulova were unfair because they were not carried out in Russian:

By Lucianarchy:
I also believe that Randi genuinely *does* want to discover and see the 'supernatural', but by inhibiting the child from using her language of choice he is preventing this from being apparent.

I asked Lucianarchy this question:

By RichardR:
Luci, according to Randi’s commentary, Randi was told that the Russian girl could “read The New York Times easily, at a regular reading rate”.

Question: what language is The New York Times written in?

Lucianarchy replied:

By Lucianarchy:
Not at all. The NYT is not written in the childs' native language.

I believe she said that she was "quite good" at English, not "fluent".

You evaded the question and did not support your claim that the use of English had “inhibited” the girl.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Yes, Luci, in the past you have posted a lot of data. However, you have shown absolutely no reason for us to believe you even understand the data. You post "evidence" from fringe studies that have never been subject to any sort of peer review and for the most part don't make any sense.
And when I have asked you for clarification on what some of these studies mean, you have ignored me.

Like the following: Remember the Jutts study which you cited on many occasions as being proof of the paranormal. Well, I told you I didn't understand the study and asked if you could tell me exactly what was done in this study and why it concludes evidence of psi. But of course, I received absolutely no response. I would have been perfectly happy if you had responded and said "I'm not sure what the study means." But no, you'd rather just ignore me. All I was trying to do was understand. Why would you ignore someone when you could enlighten them. If you were a professor in a university and a student asked a question, would you just ignore them. Would you just tell them "Go read the text book." If you want some allies Luci, you might start trying to build some credibility.

Here is that study. If you would like now to explain it to me, I would be very happy:

Journal of Parapsychology: Sep 2000
PK Tests in a Pre-Sleep State
By Helmut Schmidt
ABSTRACT: In an experiment with a single participant, the author, signals from a weak vibrator were presented at random time intervals to the participant, while he was ready to fall asleep at night. A pilot test of twenty 15-minute sessions indicated that this sleepy attention to the signals produced a reduction of the signal frequency (z = 2.45, p = .014), two tailed) and a bunching of the signals along the time axis (z = 1.63). The sub sequent main experiment, comprising 40 night sessions, con firmed the signal frequency reduction (z = 2.24, p = .013, one tailed) and the bunching effect (z = 2.85, p = .0022, one tailed). In parallel with the night sessions of the main experiment there were added 40 day sessions in which the participant, ex posed to the random vibrator signals, was fully awake and at tempting to visualize vivid colors. These sessions gave a smaller reduction in signal frequency (z = 1.01, ns ) and a slightly negative bunching effect (z = - 0.71, ns).

"Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted. Effects of similar magnitude to those found in government-sponsored research at SRI and SAIC have been replicated at a number of laboratories across the world. Such consistency cannot be readily explained by claims of flaws or fraud." - Professor J.Utts

Someone try and explain to this idiot that I'm not responsible for his own comprehension of other people's work. Thanks.

[Darat]

Originally posted by RC


I continue to marvel at some associated with this board. With so many demands for evidence and information to back up claims, people just let statements like this go by.

Yahzi, how 'bout something to back up your "FACT" (your word, not mine!). Perhaps there have been studies on who believes JE is authentic, who thinks he's a fraud, and brain scans done on each group? Or is there a study I've missed that relates intelligence to belief in mediumship?

Or maybe this is just your opinion and you made a mistake by calling it a fact?

Well perhaps the "half a brain" was going to far – although it is likely that someone with half a brain wouldn't be able to read the disclaimer that is at the end of every episode of "Crossing Over". And therefore perhaps wouldn’t be able to understand that the show is a fraud (in the sense all fictional entertainment is).

The disclaimer does tell everyone that the show (in the opinion of John Edward, the producers of the show and the network) is purely a piece of entertainment.

And it must have been placed their because they didn’t want anyone to even perhaps think the show was “real” evidence of someone who could speak to the dead.

So to consider the show "proof" of anything is like trying to use the "X-files" as “evidence” that UFOs exist!

(PS - Not too sure how "tongue-in-cheek" this post is meant to be ;) )

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Someone try and explain to this idiot that I'm not responsible for his own comprehension of other people's work. Thanks.

Right, so you agree, then, that this is worthless. A single subject design with the author as subject is meaningless, sans replication.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Someone try and explain to this idiot that I'm not responsible for his own comprehension of other people's work. Thanks.
Ad hominem Luci - you've been shown up for the fraud you are and you're getting desperate.

Why don't you explain to us what this study - that you quoted - actually means?

Is it because you don't know? Pretty dumb to quote a study and then not be able to explain it, don't you think?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Someone try and explain to this idiot that I'm not responsible for his own comprehension of other people's work. Thanks.

Firstly, thanks Luci for showing you true colors yet again. I was perfectly civil in my post and you proceeded to call me an idiot. I think someone is getting a little frustrated that she is being exposed for what she really is.

Secondly, my point was that I don't believe that you comprehend the Jutts study. I think you have no idea what was done in this study, nor do you have a clue how it was done. In this sense, the author could have drawn any conclusion she wished. Based on this data, the author could have concluded that the earth is made of chocolate and you would have no way to argue because you have no comprehension of the data.

You see Luci, I'm giving you a chance to impress everyone on this board. It's your opportunity to explain to us all why the Jutts study is so incredibly impressive that you have went out of your way on many occasions to reference it. Yet you respond to this opportunity by calling me an idiot. Very intelligent.

I'm saddened that someone who seems to believe as strongly as you do in psi and the paranormal has absolutely no ability to back up anything she says, or even engage in any kind of intelligent discussion to defend these beliefs.

Good luck Luci. You're going to need it.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by RichardR



Why don't you explain to us what this study - that you quoted - actually means?



'It' "means", together with all the other evidence and replications from labs throughout the world, that the evidence for the existence of anomalous cognition is highly indicative of the state being in existence. In addition, and in context with the other data, it has *not* been rationaly refuted past personal opinion or baseless insinuation. Fact.

Now, isn't it about time you tried to drag the heat off this fact by posting Larsen's silly old list?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


'It' "means", together with all the other evidence and replications from labs throughout the world, that the evidence for the existence of anomalous cognition is highly indicative of the state being in existence. In addition, and in context with the other data, it has *not* been rationaly refuted past personal opinion or baseless insinuation. Fact.

Now, isn't it about time you tried to drag the heat off this fact by posting Larsen's silly old list?

Again, I can only interpret your evasion as further proof that you have no idea what any of these studies actually mean.

It does prove what a good scam paranormal researchers have going. Publish incoherent data that is disguised as being intelligent through the use of big words and mathematical equations and someone like Luci will eat it up. Despite the fact that she does not understand it at all.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Fact.

You're fond of saying that after completely speculative statements.

Fact.

Psi hasn't been proven and hasn't even been defined (you been asked many times to define "psi" but you just flee like the coward you are).

Fact.

You won't answer direction questions in this forum becasue you can't.

Fact.

You won't debate me in a public forum becasue one, it would reveal you for the male you are and two, you can't.

Fact.

You're a dolt.

Fact.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


'It' "means", together with all the other evidence and replications from labs throughout the world, that the evidence for the existence of anomalous cognition is highly indicative of the state being in existence. In addition, and in context with the other data, it has *not* been rationaly refuted past personal opinion or baseless insinuation. Fact.

Now, isn't it about time you tried to drag the heat off this fact by posting Larsen's silly old list?
Translation: I don't understand the study, but I'm sure it supports psi in some way. But I can't explain this specific study so I'm going to drag the heat off this fact by referring to Larsen's silly old list.

Edited to add:

Is that the best reply you could think of in the months since the question was originally asked? (Yes.)

[Fade]

Or maybe this is just your opinion and you made a mistake by calling it a fact?

Hmm.

John Edward is a cold reader. This is a fact that can be easily discerned by watching his show. Even with the heavy editing, he makes more misses then hits (I counted over three times the amount of misses as hits in one night).

Cold Readers are not psychic, or else they wouldn't need to use cold reading.

Intelligent people attempt to inform themselves before drawing conclusions.

These three facts are widely known to the world at large.


From this I can conclude that any person who believe John Edward is a psychic:

1. Is not intelligent.
2. Lives under a rock.
3. Is lying.

[Andalyn]

Lucianarchy:

I have never spoke to you, commented on your claims, put you down, etc...

I do see an opportunity for you to put at least one (1) controversy to rest. It should be very simple. Answer this question:

What is your gender?

I have seen information to support that you are both male and female.

While it is not terribly important, I would very much like to know.

Thank you in advance,

Andalyn

[Mel]

Originally posted by Fade


From this I can conclude that any person who believe John Edward is a psychic:

1. Is not intelligent.
2. Lives under a rock.
3. Is lying.

I politely disagree. Some very intelligent people can have some illogical beliefs.

Can't we say that the desire &/or need to believe is sometimes so great that it allows some people to accept things just on "faith?"

It's when believers' are challenged and they bend over backwards to explain the incongruities in their arguements that the debates start to turn "silly."

[RC]

Darat--Yes, the "half brain" comment went too far, and it is not a "fact" as Yahzi so smugly claimed. I appreciate your comment.


Fade--you may make any conclusion you'd like, but it doesn't make it a "fact". I try to ask for consistency, fairness, and the same standards for everyone on this board. Sometimes I make my own mistakes and retract or apologize. Like when Diezel was able to make me see that my claim of "double standards" around Claus' thread re: Steve G., then I retracted that statement.

I don't see how anyone can agree that it's a "fact" that most people with "half a brain" think JE is a fraud. That is an opinion, and an attack (in my opinion), and framing is as a "fact" is not becoming of a critical thinker.

Mel--I politely disagree with your comments but you know that anyway.

[Lucianarchy]

*bump*

Claus, still waiting for your example of a male Gorgon and still waiting for the names of the scientists and experiments...

Usual, evasive tactic of getting the juniors to divert attention away from this easily verifiable fact, noted.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rain
Now, have you NEVER said, 'WHY DOES JE REFUSE TO BE TESTED?

Yes.

Originally posted by Rain
(Cantata) And I showed evidence that JE does not want to be tested. So, I provided evidence for my claim.

YOu did? where is it? You call BITE ME evidence? Have you interviewed JE and asked him if he wanted to be tested? Wow, you base your evidence on so little. I hope you never go into science, they require much more proof.

Rain, you need to learn how to read. If you don't understand what it means when John Edward says "bite me" and that he doesn't feel he has anything to prove, then I - or nobody else - can help you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancy
Anyway, its not about Lucianarchy, whom I don't know at all. Its about Claus repeatedly making claims that he doesn't support with any evidence.

Clancy - or Gryphon2: You really need to read up on the backlog. You also need to understand that just because you come popping up here (because your favorite board is down) doesn't mean you set the agenda single-handedly.

If you want to take a discussion from one board to another, then fine. Just remember that most - if not all - of the references to quotes from TVTalkshows don't mean anything to most people here.

Originally posted by Clancy
For example, he frequently states, "JE refuses to be tested", but has never, ever, provided one example to show that this was true.

If you don't think that "Bite me" is a pretty straight-forward answer, then you are having trouble understanding English.

Originally posted by Clancy
The most recent question he responded to was this:

Yes, we know. We can read.

Originally posted by Clancy
I think anyone reading this would agree that, just as in his response to Lucianarchy, he doesn't answer the question--and doesn't admit that he has no facts to support his belief. Yet I'm sure he will continue to make this claim, just as he has in the past, in spite of not having a single shred of evidence to support it.

Clancy

You are sure I will continue to make "this" claim? Where did I make it? Where do I say anything about scientists?

Now, listen closely: I don't say I have never said it. I just don't remember where I said it. Let's find the actual quote first, before we can continue, shall we?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Then please post the quotes where I claim anyhting I have not provided evidence for ( not including the 'Psirony' experiment or the Martian worms - still under review / replication ).

You won't because I have only provided you with data, not claims. Data, IMA, that has yet to be refuted in any rational manner past innuendo or personal opinion. All you clowns do is make up silly lists of questions in a feeble attempt to divert attention from the fact, you've been busted as a pseudo-skeptic.

As Darat pointed out, where is the evidence that you provided data for your claim about the prediction on the lottery?

You want me to find more examples? Sure, no problem!!

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
*bump*

Sorry, was away a bit. It happens to you, too, Lucianarchy, so no need to bump.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, still waiting for your example of a male Gorgon

Ah, you are not satisfied with my list of monsters?

Well, here are some references to three male monsters who act as a group:

Hecatonchires
The Hecatonchires were born of Gaia and Uranus. They were stronger, more overbearing, and more fierce than even the mighty Cyclopes. They had 100 arms and 50 heads each. Their names were Cottus, Briareus, and Gyges. Uranus was disgusted by these children, so in a fit of outrage he cast them into Tartarus to be locked up forever. Gaia was distressed about this and asked the Titans for help in retrieving them. Only Cronus agreed to help. Cronus waited for Uranus under his bed. That night, when Uranus laid with Gaia, Cronus castrated Uranus and cast his genitals behind his head and into the sea. This caused foam in the sea and blood drops on the land. The foam was the birthplace of Aphrodite. The blood drops gave birth to the giants and nymphs.

Cyclopes
The Cyclopes were giant beings with a single, round eye in the middle of their foreheads. According to Hesiod, they were strong, stubborn, and “abrupt of emotion.” Their every action ebbed with violence and power. There are actually two generations of Cyclopes in Greek myth. The first generation consisted of three brothers, Brontes (“thunderer”), Steropes (“flasher”), and Arges (“brightener”), who came from the union of Gaia (earth) and Uranus (sky). The second generation descended from Poseidon, and the most famous of these was Polyphemus from Homer’s Odyssey.

That's just from the Greek mythology, but I thought you might want to stay in the Hellenic (under)world...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
and still waiting for the names of the scientists and experiments...

Where did I claim "scientists"?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Usual, evasive tactic of getting the juniors to divert attention away from this easily verifiable fact, noted.

It might not be wise of you to be so condescending.

[RichardR]

It struck me today that Luci has been studying The Woo Woo Credo. (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)

The following numbers are applicable:

4
12
14
22
40

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by RichardR
It struck me today that Luci has been studying The Woo Woo Credo. (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html)

The following numbers are applicable:

4
12
14
22
40

I don't think she has just been studying it, I think she probably wrote it.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by KelvinG


I don't think she has just been studying it, I think she probably wrote it.
Good point.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by KelvinG


I don't think she has just been studying it, I think she probably wrote it.

#40 was written specifically with Luci's antics in mind. The others just apply to him.

Rain, you need to learn how to read. If you don't understand what it means when John Edward says "bite me" and that he doesn't feel he has anything to prove, then I - or nobody else - can help you.


claus, bite me is evidence to you? That PROVES it to you? :D

Wow, you've done a lot of research (NOT). The bite me term was in a magazine article, I believe "People" magazine, where someone asked John about his critics, and what they have to say. NO WHERE, that I have ever seen, has John said "that he doesn't want to be tested, or that he feels he has nothing to prove, or those who wanted him to be tested could "bite me."


Now, can you answer the questions, that we've asked you for about a week now, and give resources.

You said that JE does not want to be tested.

Where does he say this, and what are your sources that confirm this?

Or, are you saying that it is only your opinion that JE does not want to be tested based on his "BITE ME" words, that had nothing to do with being tested?

[CFLarsen]

Rain,

I have given you my answer. If you don't like it, then I can't help that.

You forgot something you posted at TVTalkshows:

Please offer proof for that claim. Sources such as,

1. you spoke to JE and he told you that
2. you spoke to his wife, and she told you that
3. his mother made an appearance to you in an ADC and she told you that
4. All of the above


Do you only believe in the spoken word? The written word means nothing to you?

Does that mean I can simply claim that I could answer yes to 4., and you would believe me?

Does that mean you cannot believe anything John Edward says in his books or interviews?

Do you believe it is August 12th? How do you know this? By the calendar on the wall? That is written, not spoken.

Ergo, you cannot believe that it is August 12th.

I have given you my answer. If you don't like it, then I can't help that.

Really? than do you mind pointing it out for me?

Here is the origninal question asked by RC

1. What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down? Please provide the names of the scientists, and if possible, JE's reasons for refusing the test.

AND HERE ARE YOUR ANSWERS?

Would there be any reason why a scientific test would show that JE really possesses the abilities he claims?

(My notes: this isn't an answer, it is another question)

Did Schwartz' studies show any evidence that JE really possesses the abilities he claims? (Remember that Schwartz claims that all JE's readings show that JE is as "real as steel", INCLUDING the one where JE got nothing!)

(my notes: this isn't an answer either, it is another question)

Does JE give any indication that he is interested in scientific research?

(My notes: this isn't an answer either, it is another question)

What is JE's answer to his critics? "Bite me".

(my notes, again, this is not an answer, it is another question, so we have determined that you didn't answer the question here)

And of course RC responds with this statement:

"If you would, please answer Question #1. Not with more questions, just answer it. Please?

and your reply was this:

I have given you my answer. JE does not want to be tested, since JE does not think he has anything to prove.

source (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002816)

Now, it is clear that you did not give an answer, you simply replied to his question with questions. Anyone with half a brain can see that.

And you still respond that you answered the question. But you go further, and state (AS A FACT, NOT AS AN OPINION)

JE does not want to be tested,

and you denied ever making that claim.

So, you state that JE DOES NOT WANT TO be tested.

So, can you please answer my questions

Please offer proof for that claim. Sources such as,

1. you spoke to JE and he told you that
2. you spoke to his wife, and she told you that

etc.

I asked you this and you respond with MORE QUESTIONS!


Do you only believe in the spoken word Does that mean I can simply claim that I could answer yes to 4., and you would believe me? Does that mean you cannot believe anything John Edward says in his books or interviews? Do you believe it is August 12th? How do you know this? By the calendar on the wall? That is written, not spoken

No claus, this seems to be your way of avoiding backing up YOUR CLAIMS. you don't answer, you simply ask more questions, then you write non-sense like this, still avoiding any real answer.

Please, answer the questions. Anyone who reads this thread will soon realize that you are quilty of doing what you accuse others of (NOT answering questions) They will see through your facade as I did.

facade: a showy misrepresentation

[TLN]

Originally posted by Rain
Here is the origninal question asked by RC

1. What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down? Please provide the names of the scientists, and if possible, JE's reasons for refusing the test.

Sine the JREF Million Dollar Challenge would be conducted by independent scientists not affiliated with the JREF the answer to RC's question is the JREF Challenge.

Further, why doesn't Edward volunteer for scientific study? Beyond the Schwartz study he hasn't done so. Why?

[Clancie]

.....Since the JREF Million Dollar Challenge would be conducted by independent scientists....

TLN,

Can you provide a source for this statement? This is the first time I've ever read that the challenge "would be conducted by independent scientists".

What I've read previously (and which seemed an honest appraisal) was that Randi does not claim to be a scientist and that he does not consider the Challenge in the same light as doing genuine scientific research.

Clancy

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Clancy


TLN,

Can you provide a source for this statement? This is the first time I've ever read that the challenge "would be conducted by independent scientists".


The quote from the challenge is:

"Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."

The associates in question are mostly scientists.


What I've read previously (and which seemed an honest appraisal) was that Randi does not claim to be a scientist and that he does not consider the Challenge in the same light as doing genuine scientific research.
Clancy

Does that mean scientists cannot participate?

Show me evidence that the Randi test will be done by real scientists, and show me evidence that JE turned down the test.

But,


My posting here isn't to prove or disprove anything about JE, my point is to prove that cantata is dishonest, and that he demands from others what he refuses to give himself. He makes fact statements, and refuses to give EVIDENCE to back them up. He avoids answering, he writes paragraphs of words with NO answers, then tries to say he already answered.


He tries to lead the topic off subject, and when it doesn't work he resorts to name calling and insults, and lying about the person who is confronting him.


I hope he isn't anybody's hero.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rain
Really? than do you mind pointing it out for me?

Yes. I have done it several times, and you won't recognize them.

Originally posted by Rain
And you still respond that you answered the question. But you go further, and state (AS A FACT, NOT AS AN OPINION)

Rain, please give a very clear definition of when you think something is stated as a FACT and when something is stated as an OPINION.

You switch between these two words to fit your own agenda. It is tiresome. Please define them and give examples.

Originally posted by Rain
Please, answer the questions. Anyone who reads this thread will soon realize that you are quilty of doing what you accuse others of (NOT answering questions) They will see through your facade as I did.

Oh, yes. I am convinced that they will see through my "facade" alright.

Keep going, Rain. You're doing a great job.

Originally posted by Rain
But,

My posting here isn't to prove or disprove anything about JE, my point is to prove that cantata is dishonest, and that he demands from others what he refuses to give himself. He makes fact statements, and refuses to give EVIDENCE to back them up. He avoids answering, he writes paragraphs of words with NO answers, then tries to say he already answered.

He tries to lead the topic off subject, and when it doesn't work he resorts to name calling and insults, and lying about the person who is confronting him.

I hope he isn't anybody's hero.

So, you admit that your presence here is personal: You are on a vendetta to discredit me, whatever it takes, how many posts it takes. And how many lies it takes....

Let me remind you of a little post you made a few moments ago:

Originally posted by Rain
Now, over on tvtalk, he never failed to show up on any thread I was on. He followed my posts around and had a comment to say about most of them.

Who is following who around? Did I not show you were wrong - in fact, lied?

You have to let go of this obsession with me.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancy
Can you provide a source for this statement? This is the first time I've ever read that the challenge "would be conducted by independent scientists".

kookbreaker beat me to it. It's been mentioned many times in many commentaries. I'm looking for it now and will post the examples I find.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Rain

My posting here isn't to prove or disprove anything about JE, my point is to prove that cantata is dishonest



Then you have failed completely.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by TLN


kookbreaker beat me to it. It's been mentioned many times in many commentaries. I'm looking for it now and will post the examples I find.

One immediate example that comes to mind was the Christopher fellow who was tooting his horn and demanding that Randi dorp everythign and rush out the England so he could repeat and experiemnt that Schwartz screwed up...it turns out that he had taken the preliminary test and filed. The test had been administrated by Susan BlackMoore IIRC. I understand she has some degrees in the sciences.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Rain
Show me evidence that the Randi test will be done by real scientists, and show me evidence that JE turned down the test.

1. In order for the scientists to be selected and consulted someone has to take the test. You're asking for proof of a future event.

Also Rain, care to take a crack at my question? You wouldn't want to be an evader like mean ol' dishonest Claus, now would you?

Why doesn't Edward volunteer for research?

2. So, Edward is not aware of the JREF Challenge? Come on. He knows Randi and knows about the challenge. So, can we construe his not taking the challenge as a refusal or not?

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
2. So, Edward is not aware of the JREF Challenge? Come on. He knows Randi and knows about the challenge. So, can we construe his not taking the challenge as a refusal or not?

Never mind Rain, I got it...


Larry King Live, 3/6/2001 (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0103/06/lkl.00.html)

JAROFF: Larry, I have a question for John, if I may.

KING: Go.

JAROFF: Your nemesis, John, and the nemesis of Sylvia and Jane's is James Randy. James Randy has a standing $1 million challenge and that challenge is to anyone -- and I think he has given that challenge to all three of you, that anyone -- anyone who can -- can agree to a test with Randy, and show him in this test -- and the terms of this test would be agreeable to both parties. Show him -- prove to him that you have these abilities, you will get $1 million. And I know for a fact that the $1 million is available, and...

KING: All right, the question then, John, is, why wouldn't you automatically do this test?

EDWARD: Well, that is actually a logical thing: Would I allow myself and put the integrity of everybody that I've worked with and their experience in the hands of somebody who is a magician who gets paid to be a skeptic? Or would I do what I have done, along with a number of other mediums, go out to the University of Arizona, work with Dr. Gary Schwartz of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory, and allow myself to go through a series of three tests that are documented. And if Randy would like to make the check out, I'm sure Gary would love to cash it.

[CFLarsen]

TLN,

Thank you.

I found some more:

In this century, dead-speaker John Edward adopted this ploy as well when he was recently challenged with the JREF offer of one million dollars, which he could win if he would allow a test by us of his claimed powers. Answered his press agent: "Mr. Edward does not respond to criticism."
Source: Randi Commentary (http://www.randi.org/jr/061402.html)

[c0rbin]

I want to add to the smack down.

Lucianarchy and friends, you twits. What Yahzi has said is absoluelty correct.

All of the good that JE "gift" could be for this world and where does he take it? To TV, Larry King, to book stores, on cash hoarding grand tours, suckling at the teat of the media whore.

Site one murder solved by this charletan, one missing child located. It takes a fair amount of time to develop, write, and finalize a 300-page book, even if it is re-purposed New Age schlock, could the venerable JE have used this time to make the world a better place?

I guess not.

The "gift" JE has is in the marketing of his practised carnival act and you dorks bought it.

The associates in question are mostly scientists.

claus, I asked a question and somebody answered, (see above post)

that wasn't hard for them

Second question I asked them was show evidence that JE was asked to take the test and turned it down (I asked them, not you) I bet the come up with a real answer.

I asked you to back up your claim that JE does NOT want to be tested. Where is your answer?

Here is your latest post:

I asked you if you minded pointing your answer out to me, since you claimed to have answered and you said

Yes. I have done it several times, and you won't recognize them.

again, I say where? I read all that you posted and there was no answer, or evidence, only a bunch of misleading statements

Rain, please give a very clear definition of when you think something is stated as a FACT and when something is stated as an OPINION.

If it will help you I'd be glad to.

Here is a fact statement

(JE doesn't want to be tested)

and here is an opinion

(it is my opinion that JE does not want to be tested)

If you state an opinion you need no evidence to back it up, if you state a fact, you need evidence to back it up.

More?

(You are an *******)

that is a fact statement, It is not stated as an opinion it is stated as a fact, so whoever claims this, would need to prove that the person is an *******

(I think you are an *******)

Merely an opinion, and one doesn't need to prove what is only an opinion.

I hope that helps.

So, you admit that your presence here is personal: You are on a vendetta to discredit me,

I admit that I came over here because someone emailed me and said that my dear friend cantata was on JREF posting false things about me. So I came to take a look. While I was here I saw that you were posting questions to people (as usual) and demanding answers, and sources. Well, since I'd been asking you questions over at tvtalk, and you did not answer them, you only gave more questions, I thought I'd make a point here.

Who is following who around? Did I not show you were wrong - in fact, lied?


hehehehe, now that is funny. All one has to do is read the older posts at tvtalk, Not only did you show up and respond to most of my postings, but you made it a point to try and find out what websites I went to to get my information. You didn't start avoiding my threads until you were backed into a corner.

Then you have failed completely.

that is a matter of opinion. I've been getting emails from others who disagree with your opinion. :)


Why doesn't Edward volunteer for research?

TLN do you think I am qualified to speak for John Edward? If I answer this I could only give an opinion, since I am not John I have no right to answer for him, correct?

I don't know that John doesn't voluteer. He may volunteer and he make keep quiet about it as he did with Gary Schwartz. We didn't hear about that until after it was done. Can you prove to me that JE hasn't volunteered? If he doesn't I can only guess at why.

My opinions would be
a. maybe he feels that he doesn't have time
b. maybe he is a fraud and doesn't want to be caught
c. maybe he doesnt' trust the people who want to test him

But those would be opinions, I can't offer any fact statements or speak for John, that would be wrong.


So, Edward is not aware of the JREF Challenge? Come on. He knows Randi and knows about the challenge. So, can we construe his not taking the challenge as a refusal or not?

I hope you are not insinuating that I think JE isn't aware of the Randi challenge. I figure he is aware of it. And my opinion is that Je doesn't want to bother with Randi because Randi hasn't shown and interest in testing his claimed abilities, he has only shown an interest in debunking them. If I had the abilities JE claims to have, I wouldnt' bother with James Randi, I'd spend my time with real scientist who want to study, not debunk.

But, I can't answer for John.

Now, back to you claus. Again you have written a lot, and again you say you'd be glad to show me where you have answered my questions, but again you fail to do that.

still waiting:eek:

[headscratcher4]

From John Edwards on Larry King:

Or would I do what I have done, along with a number of other mediums, go out to the University of Arizona, work with Dr. Gary Schwartz of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory, and allow myself to go through a series of three tests that are documented. And if Randy would like to make the check out, I'm sure Gary would love to cash it.

You would think if he could do it, and prove it easilly to Gary Schwartz (a scientist without much credibility), it would be easy to duplicate under controlled conditions to meet the Randy challenge, cash the check and send it to Gary, or whatever charity he wants.

What is so pathetic here is the avoidence. JE completely fails to meet the basic conditions for creating "proof" posed by the challenge (as Schwartz is not a mutually agreeable person to oversee a test), he bobs and weaves to avoid the essense of the challenge. Even if Schwartz were credible, he alone would not be enough...replication and the ability to replicate under controlled conditions is the essence of good science.

In fact, were Schwartz credible, he would want, demand that his "findings" be duplicated and replicatable by other scientists. He, too, could easilly win the challenge by accepting it and finding a mutually agreeable set of proofs...but he flies in the face of good science and scientific method.

JE's answer to Randi is no different than Pons and Flieshman (sp?) response when pushed on cold fusion. They'd done it in the laboratory, they had nothing further to prove, the fact that no one else could replicate their results was irrelavent to their claim because they did it. It is circular and false.

JE is a complete coward and fake...

Originally posted by Rain
that is a matter of opinion. I've been getting emails from others who disagree with your opinion. :)

Ah. The ubiquitous silent emails of support. Well now, of course, you've achieved a whole boatload of credibility.

Note that the boat in question is that little two-hole boat you find in a game of Battleship.

Try again.

Here you go cantata, from the MORE QUESTIONS THREAD started by RC.

first question he asked.

from RC 1. What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down? Please provide the names of the scientists, and if possible, JE's reasons for refusing the test.

cantata's supposed answer: "Would there be any reason why a scientific test would show that JE really possesses the abilities he claims?"

Rain says: this isn't an answer it is a question

cantata "Did Schwartz' studies show any evidence that JE really possesses the abilities he claims?"

Rain says: another question, no answer

cantata "Does JE give any indication that he is interested in scientific research? What is JE's answer to his critics? "Bite me".

Rain says: again, you did not answer the question

then you throw in these irrelavant and insignifacant words claus """Do you think Santa is real? If not, why do you attach significance to the anecdotes that tell you ADC is real? How do you know that things falling over wasn't tripped by vibrations in the building?""

but still no answer

And RC says
"" Cantata, If you would, please answer Question #1. Not with more questions, just answer it. Please?""

and you respond with ""I have given you my answer.""

Rain says: WHERE? Where was your answer?

then you make this claim

cantata says:"JE does not want to be tested""

Rain says: that is a fact statement, So we ask you for proof that JE does not want to be tested and you offer the "Bite me" words for proof?

Not much critical thinking going on in your head this week?

Now, if you don't have proof that JE does not want to be tested by any scientist, you can say that you don't have proof, and say that it is only your opinion that he doens't want to be tested

still waiting

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by shanek


All I have to say about this is: If there's life after death, and if there's a way to send a sign to your beloved you've left behind, then when I die people are gonna ****in' know it! None of this vague ****, "the scent of roses," or "a little tweeting bird perched on the windowsill." My family's gettin' a ****in' giraffe in the backyard! And it'll **** all over the place so my wife'll have to clean up after me one more time and she'll know! :D

Come on, you wimpy dead guys, let's see something obvious!!!


Well said.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rain
I asked you to back up your claim that JE does NOT want to be tested. Where is your answer?

I have posted it at your favorite hangout. Go check.

Originally posted by Rain
I hope that helps.

It sure did!

Here are a few of your many statements:

I've never seen any member of this board act as though they idolize JE.

So many so called skeptics find a need to "correct" those who don't share their beliefs, and critisize us if we don't stand corrected!

I had a vision one time of a young man in a casket. In my vision he was wearing a blue suit, and had matching blue lips. He also had rings on each of his fingers. One of the rings was in the shape of a 'peace' ring. IN this vision he was in a dark casket that had a green blanket over the bottom half of it, with flowers on top.

I was not under the influence of drugs or alchohol. I was wide awake, hadn't gone to bed yet, I wasn't hallucinating, or any of the other things the skeptics have suggested to me.

One week later a friend from school fell through the ice on the river and drowned. When I went to the funeral home to see him, There was my vision. The young man in the blue suit with the blue lips (from being in icy water), and rings on all of his fingers, one was a peace ring. His casket was dark and it had the green blanket on the bottom half with the flowers on top.

None of these can - by your definition - be described as opinions - they are facts. Please provide evidence of each of these facts.

Originally posted by Rain
I've been getting emails from others who disagree with your opinion. :)

That statement is a fact. Now prove it.

Originally posted by Rain
Now, back to you claus. Again you have written a lot, and again you say you'd be glad to show me where you have answered my questions, but again you fail to do that.

still waiting:eek:

Can anyone explain to Rain? Apparently she cannot understand my English....

"You should never accept as fact anything that you read or hear from someone else. You should base your beliefs on your own experiences, and your own research."
Rain

and I agree with dogwood that

"""Cantata, JE not wishing to take million dollar challenge is not quite the same as not wanting to be tested by any scientist.""


Claus, you have been arrogant, you have called me names, accused me of lying, and in your arrogant way, you have demanded that so called believers answer your questions, and show their sources.

And here you are, avoiding giving any real answers. Posting questions and calling them answers. Adding garbage that is irrelanvant to the question in order to lure attention away from the main issue. yadda yadda.

Please don't ask of others what you refuse to give yourself.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rain
and I agree with dogwood that

"""Cantata, JE not wishing to take million dollar challenge is not quite the same as not wanting to be tested by any scientist.""

Where have I claimed that I said that JE did not want to be tested by scientists?

Originally posted by Rain
Claus, you have been arrogant,

At times, probably.

Originally posted by Rain
you have called me names,

As you have.

Originally posted by Rain
accused me of lying,

And proved it, too!

Originally posted by Rain
and in your arrogant way, you have demanded that so called believers answer your questions, and show their sources.

That is my way. If you find it arrogant to ask for evidence then so be it.

Originally posted by Rain
And here you are, avoiding giving any real answers. Posting questions and calling them answers. Adding garbage that is irrelanvant to the question in order to lure attention away from the main issue. yadda yadda.

Please don't ask of others what you refuse to give yourself.

Rain, you are doing yourself a great disservice by ignoring the answers from me and others. You think you can bulldoze your way to a victory. You can't.

Look at the answers given to you. Stop for a second and think about them. Consider that you could be wrong.

Now, will you please provide evidence of the facts you stated? I'll make it easy for you: Concentrate on your vision. That was stated as a fact. Now, provide evidence that you had this vision.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Rain
TLN do you think I am qualified to speak for John Edward? If I answer this I could only give an opinion, since I am not John I have no right to answer for him, correct?

I don't know that John doesn't voluteer. He may volunteer and he make keep quiet about it as he did with Gary Schwartz. We didn't hear about that until after it was done. Can you prove to me that JE hasn't volunteered? If he doesn't I can only guess at why.

My opinions would be
a. maybe he feels that he doesn't have time
b. maybe he is a fraud and doesn't want to be caught
c. maybe he doesnt' trust the people who want to test him

a. Absurd. Surely he could find a few days to contribute towards the greatest discovery man would ever make.

b. Likely.

c. In any well designed experiment the bias of the researcher is rendered moot. "Trust" doesn't factor into to science. The facts should speak for themselves.

This is why the claim that Randi is "rigging" his test is also absurd.

No Rain, I don't think you're qualified to speak for Edward, but doesn't this refusal to volunteer for research disturb you even a little? As for "Can you prove to me that JE hasn't volunteered," this question is silly on it's premise. How can I prove what someone hasn't done? Can you prove what I didn't eat for breakfast this morning?

We know Edward doesn't step forward to conduct research because no such research exists. Simple. Only the Schwartz experiment exists, and as we all know, one experiment proves nothing in science (even if it were good science, which the Schwartz experiment was not).

[Ipecac]

If I had some paranormal ability that could prove life after death, I would volunteer for all the testing in the world.

If this was an actual ability, then of course it could be tested and proven. And the benefits to mankind would be staggering. Failure to volunteer to be tested, while making millions from television appearances, would be a crime against all humanity.

But that's just me . . .

[RichardR]

Question to Rain:
Originally posted by CFLarsen


Where have I claimed that I said that JE did not want to be tested by scientists?

Rain, can you please show a link to where Claus asked this question?

You have demonstrated that Claus has not proved that JE did not want to be tested by scientists. But you have not shown where Claus ever claimed this to be true. Your whole credibility now rests on whether you can demonstrate that Claus did, in fact, claim that JE has refused to be tested. You have been asked for this proof several times now.

If you can't demonstrate that Claus siad what you say he said, your whole case is blown. Please put up or shut up.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Ipecac
If I had some paranormal ability that could prove life after death, I would volunteer for all the testing in the world.

If this was an actual ability, then of course it could be tested and proven. And the benefits to mankind would be staggering. Failure to volunteer to be tested, while making millions from television appearances, would be a crime against all humanity.

But that's just me . . .

And apparently, that's also Edward. After all, he always says he does what he does to help people, right?

Right?