Questions for Cantata [Archive]

CFLarsen

8th August 2002, 03:06 PM

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

8th August 2002, 03:32 PM

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

8th August 2002, 04:14 PM

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

CFLarsen

8th August 2002, 04:25 PM

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

8th August 2002, 04:49 PM

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

8th August 2002, 04:53 PM

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

8th August 2002, 07:07 PM

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

8th August 2002, 07:28 PM

aerosolben,

Remember that Lucianarchy is in the UK.

aerosolben

8th August 2002, 08:44 PM

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

8th August 2002, 09:33 PM

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

8th August 2002, 10:53 PM

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

9th August 2002, 05:24 AM

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

9th August 2002, 07:30 AM

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

9th August 2002, 08:31 AM

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

9th August 2002, 09:25 AM

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

9th August 2002, 06:22 PM

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

9th August 2002, 06:28 PM

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

9th August 2002, 07:26 PM

RichardR

Do we really sound that much alike?

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

Clancy

RichardR

9th August 2002, 07:41 PM

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

9th August 2002, 07:58 PM

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

9th August 2002, 09:21 PM

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 ;)

9th August 2002, 09:37 PM

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

9th August 2002, 10:02 PM

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

9th August 2002, 10:08 PM

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

9th August 2002, 10:09 PM

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

9th August 2002, 10:27 PM

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

10th August 2002, 12:12 AM

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

10th August 2002, 01:05 AM

Lucianarchy

10th August 2002, 01:08 AM

Originally posted by RichardR

Luci, is this you again? Be honest now.

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

TLN

10th August 2002, 01:10 AM

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

10th August 2002, 01:50 AM

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.

10th August 2002, 03:26 AM

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

10th August 2002, 03:35 AM

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.

10th August 2002, 03:47 AM

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

10th August 2002, 07:24 AM

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

10th August 2002, 07:26 AM

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

10th August 2002, 07:27 AM

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

10th August 2002, 07:29 AM

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

10th August 2002, 08:06 AM

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

10th August 2002, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

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

TLN

10th August 2002, 08:52 AM

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

10th August 2002, 09:35 AM

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.

10th August 2002, 10:17 AM

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

10th August 2002, 10:18 AM

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

10th August 2002, 10:32 AM

Clancie

10th August 2002, 10:39 AM

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

10th August 2002, 10:43 AM

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

10th August 2002, 10:47 AM

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.)

10th August 2002, 10:51 AM

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

10th August 2002, 11:20 AM

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

10th August 2002, 11:57 AM

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

10th August 2002, 12:02 PM

Lucianarchy

10th August 2002, 12:39 PM

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

10th August 2002, 12:46 PM

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 ;) )

10th August 2002, 12:50 PM

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

10th August 2002, 01:03 PM

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

10th August 2002, 02:09 PM

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

10th August 2002, 02:31 PM

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

10th August 2002, 02:51 PM

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

10th August 2002, 03:01 PM

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

10th August 2002, 03:13 PM

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

10th August 2002, 03:28 PM

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

10th August 2002, 03:31 PM

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

10th August 2002, 03:57 PM

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."

10th August 2002, 08:22 PM

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

11th August 2002, 12:18 AM

*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

11th August 2002, 04:51 AM

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

11th August 2002, 04:55 AM

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

11th August 2002, 04:56 AM

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

11th August 2002, 10:21 AM

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

11th August 2002, 10:48 AM

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

11th August 2002, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

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

kookbreaker

11th August 2002, 10:37 PM

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.

12th August 2002, 06:34 AM

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

12th August 2002, 06:46 AM

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.

12th August 2002, 09:41 AM

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

12th August 2002, 09:48 AM

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

12th August 2002, 10:02 AM

.....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

12th August 2002, 10:10 AM

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?

12th August 2002, 10:22 AM

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

12th August 2002, 10:43 AM

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

12th August 2002, 10:44 AM

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

12th August 2002, 10:47 AM

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

12th August 2002, 10:50 AM

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

12th August 2002, 10:50 AM

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

12th August 2002, 11:09 AM

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

12th August 2002, 11:15 AM

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

12th August 2002, 11:23 AM

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.

12th August 2002, 11:29 AM

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

12th August 2002, 11:36 AM

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...

12th August 2002, 11:41 AM

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.

12th August 2002, 12:08 PM

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

12th August 2002, 12:14 PM

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

12th August 2002, 12:17 PM

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

12th August 2002, 12:27 PM

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

12th August 2002, 12:38 PM

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

12th August 2002, 12:38 PM

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

12th August 2002, 12:43 PM

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

12th August 2002, 12:49 PM

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

12th August 2002, 12:51 PM

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?

12th August 2002, 01:25 PM

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

here we go again

RC asked you:
from RC 1. What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down?

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

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

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

See it now? or do I need to spell it out for you, we were talking about scientific testing.

I have posted it at your favorite hangout. Go check

no you didn't TLN's post from here and called that your answer.

Now you say you proved that I lied, which I have never done, I abhor lying, so please offer evidence of that claim and I will be here to refute it.

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

No, what I find arrogant is that you ask for this from others, but fail to give it yourself.
Rain, you are doing yourself a great disservice by ignoring the answers from me and others

I have not avoided any of your postings that you claimed were answers. I've posted them here for all to see, and I have not seen any answers in them. You write a lot, but you fail to answer the questions. Look at the answers given to you. Stop for a second and think about them. Consider that you could be wrong.

*LOL* cantata, you made the claim that JE does not want to be tested, you have offered no real evidence to back up that claim. YOu have offerend an OPINION, does that qualify as evidence to prove something? I dont' think so.

Now, I see that you are trying to divert this conversation over to me. It isn't working

You made a claim that JE DOES NOT WANT to be tested, you have offered no proof of that claim. Do you think opinion qualifies as proof?

headscratcher4

12th August 2002, 01:33 PM

The argument being made is over words and quotes and not facts.

The bottem line is whether JE "refuses" to be tested, or merely hasn't been tested, and whether it is an opinon that he "refuses" to be tested, or a fact ... JE HAS NOT BEEN RELIABLY TESTED.

Come on, get to the point. Stop making excuses for JE, or Sylvia or any of them. They've not been reliably tested, under controlled conditions, by anyone with real scientific credibility, nor have they been tested in a way that will stand the necessary scientific test of repeatability.

In the end, you may not think Randi credible or the challenge for real. However, the "scientists" alleged to have tested Edwards have no credibility...because they don't do work that can be indipendently verified. In short, they are perpetrating a scientific fraud.

John Edwards being tested by Gary Schwartz is, at last, the scientific equivelent of Enron engaging Arthur Anderson to certify that its accounting and business is sound.

The guy's a fake and a hack who is taking money from little old ladies in perpetration of a fraud.

12th August 2002, 01:36 PM

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?

but do we know for sure that he has refused to volunteer for research, just because he hasn't taken the randi challenge doesn't mean he hasn't volunteered for research, does it?

If I were him, and I had time between my tv show, books, and family, I'd allow scientist to study what I did, but these scientist would have to be open minded, and interested in studying, not debunking. I would hope that JE feels the same. But again, we don't have any proof that he refuses to be tested.

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?

just as I can't prove that he hasnt' volunteered to be tested, nor can I prove that he wants to, or that he doesn't want to.

We know Edward doesn't step forward to conduct research because no such research exists

Ed and I already covered this subject, and I have found that this research is being done, it does exist, and would be glad to give you a list of very qualified scientists, and their training, who are studying this stuff.

12th August 2002, 01:42 PM

Richard, I hope I answered your question. RC, cantata aka claus and I were talking about JE being scientifically tested, as you can see.

TLN

12th August 2002, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Rain
just as I can't prove that he hasnt' volunteered to be tested, nor can I prove that he wants to, or that he doesn't want to.

C'mon Rain, the logic on this one isn't very difficult to follow.

If Edward really wanted to be tested then where's the research?

And again, your comment on researching and not debunking is faulty. A sound experiment removes these biases.

Ipecac

12th August 2002, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by TLN

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

Right?

Yep. He's helped his own family, his agent, his accountant, several bankers, his publisher, the Sci-Fi channel . . .

CFLarsen

12th August 2002, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Rain
See it now? or do I need to spell it out for you, we were talking about scientific testing.

Ah, but haven't I specifically and many times asked you where I said "scientific"? That you cannot seem to find.

So now, you have to "spell it out". No you don't. You changed it, and now you are retreating.

Originally posted by Rain
no you didn't TLN's post from here and called that your answer.

So, it has to come from me personally? You really are on a vendetta here....

Originally posted by Rain
Now you say you proved that I lied, which I have never done, I abhor lying, so please offer evidence of that claim and I will be here to refute it.

Good!

I posted this in the "warning - TVTalkshows is closed" thread, but you - kinda - didn't respond to it. Maybe you didn't see it.

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.

To which I posted:

That is an outright lie. Caught in a lie again, Rain! Liar, liar, liar.....

(You know what? It's extremely easy for me to catch you lying, so why don't you simply stop?)

Here's a list of threads that Rain has posted on at TVTalk, and I have not:

http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/boar...c;f=11;t=002811
http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/boar...c;f=11;t=002840
http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/boar...c;f=11;t=002838
http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/boar...c;f=11;t=002826
http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/boar...c;f=11;t=002829
http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/boar...c;f=11;t=002833

That's the among the most recent 15 threads, Rain. That's 40%.

Go ahead. Refute that.

Originally posted by Rain
I have not avoided any of your postings that you claimed were answers. I've posted them here for all to see, and I have not seen any answers in them. You write a lot, but you fail to answer the questions.

Rain, just because you don't (want to) see any answer in them does not mean the answers are not there. Or are you the sole arbiter of what is an answer and what is not?

Originally posted by Rain
*LOL* cantata, you made the claim that JE does not want to be tested, you have offered no real evidence to back up that claim. YOu have offerend an OPINION, does that qualify as evidence to prove something? I dont' think so.

Where did I claim JE refused to be tested by scientists?

Originally posted by Rain
You made a claim that JE DOES NOT WANT to be tested, you have offered no proof of that claim. Do you think opinion qualifies as proof?

No. Do you?

Here are a few of your many statements (posted before, ignored by Rain):

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.

(sound of crickets)

CFLarsen

12th August 2002, 02:12 PM

Here is what Rain posted on TVTalkshows, after I had reposted TLN's and my own proof that JE doesn't want to be tested:

(Rain) 209.239.133.81 August 12, 2002 03:38 PM

cantata, you posted a quote that somebody over at jref originally posted, but even their post did not PROVE THAT JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED

will you please provide the proof for your original claim that he doesn't, or admit that it is only your opinion that he doesn't want to be tested?

Emphasis is mine.

Rain simply won't admit when she is beat.

RichardR

12th August 2002, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Rain
Richard, I hope I answered your question. RC, cantata aka claus and I were talking about JE being scientifically tested, as you can see.
No. you have merely posted what you claim Claus said. Please post the url to where Claus/Cantana actually posted it. Can you do that?

12th August 2002, 03:16 PM

No. you have merely posted what you claim Claus said. Please post the url to where Claus/Cantana actually posted it. Can you do that?

Sure thing. I would have posted it earlier, but as I was typing my boss told me to lock up and head home.

Here is is: sorry for not having it earlier
link (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002816)

it is on the MORE QUESTIONS thread at tvtalk, posted by RC

CFLarsen

12th August 2002, 03:26 PM

Rain,

On TVTalkshows, you just once again denied that JE had declined to participate in tests.

In what seems to be a desperate attempt to save face, you demand to know:

Show me where John Edward said "I DON"T WANT TO BE TESTED"

This demand comes because you refuse to understand the meaning of what JE said on LKL. So you go "literal". If JE didn't say these exact words, then he cannot possible have refused to be tested.

Very well.

I'll turn the tables on you now, Rain. I have done it before, and you have not liked it one bit ever.

Show me where I said "John Edward does not want to be tested by scientists."

Mel

12th August 2002, 03:31 PM

You two really should consider hiring a personal assistant to research all these "tell me where I said" posts.

How about if you start from the BEGINNING and pretend neither of you ever asked any questions before this moment?

Otherwise, I can't shake the feeling that..... we'll all need a good psychic reader to learn the final outcome!

RichardR

12th August 2002, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Rain

Sure thing. I would have posted it earlier, but as I was typing my boss told me to lock up and head home.

Here is is: sorry for not having it earlier
link (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002816)

it is on the MORE QUESTIONS thread at tvtalk, posted by RC
Maybe I'm misreading the linked thread, but it looks to me like RC is asking "What are the scientific tests that John Edward has turned down?"

Further down, RC asks Cantana "I ask it because many skeptics (can't remember if you're one of them) keep accusing JE of refusing to be scientifically tested ... " which would seem to indicate that RC doesn't know if Cantana ever stated that JE has turned down scientific tests.

I cannot see anywhere on your linked thread where Cantana states that John Edward has turned down scientific tests. The closest I can get is where he said:

"JE does not want to be tested, since JE does not think he has anything to prove."

This is not the same as: "John Edward has turned down scientific tests".

So, please, can you link to where Cantana said "John Edward has turned down scientific tests"? Thanks.

12th August 2002, 04:38 PM

still you are not being honest cantata, and I believe Ray just called you on it over there, and you turned around and in my opinion tried to kiss up to him, funny I believe that had he been a woman, you would have jumped him royally, but that is just my opinion.

Now, you said:

On TVTalkshows, you just once again denied that JE had declined to participate in tests.

No I didn't, prove that I said it. I said:

from Rain, I did not see any words by JE that said he did not want to be tested. I saw somebody post that JE has repeatedly made clear that he won't respond to either criticism nor participate in experiments he does not control. I didn't see JE post that, I've never heard him say that. Show me where John Edward said "I DON"T WANT TO BE TESTED"

than I posted this paragraph, which you used as your proof that JE does not want to be tested:

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

and I added Now, show me in this paragraph where John Edward says he does not want to be tested.

Now, you made another claim larson that I denied that JE had declined to participate in tests, please show me where I denied that, or please admit that you once again lied?

link (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002771;p=7)

CFLarsen

12th August 2002, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Rain
still you are not being honest cantata, and I believe Ray just called you on it over there, and you turned around and in my opinion tried to kiss up to him, funny I believe that had he been a woman, you would have jumped him royally, but that is just my opinion.

Of course it is. Isn't everything you say "opinion"?

Rain, do go on posting these silly posts. I could not do a better job in describing how you really are.

RichardR

12th August 2002, 04:51 PM

Rain:

Is there some reason why you are unable to answer my question:

Please, can you link to where Cantana said "John Edward has turned down scientific tests"?

If you don't understand the question please let me know which part you don't understand and I'll try to re-phrase.

12th August 2002, 04:59 PM

So, please, can you link to where Cantana said "John Edward has turned down scientific tests"? Thanks.

No I can't, claus said that JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED,

and he was talking about being scientifically tested, as you can see by these post from the MORE QUESTIONS thread over at tvtalk

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

than cantata aka claus post this on the same thread in reply
Would there be any reason why a scientific test would show that JE really possesses the abilities he claims

as you can see cantata shows in this post that he is well aware that we are talking about scientific test.

Again he asked in the same thread Does JE give any indication that he is interested in scientific research?

is it clear to you that cantata, aka claus knows that we are talking about scientific testing?

It's all here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002816)

and in the same thread RC said to cantata: If you would, please answer Question #1. Not with more questions, just answer it. Please? I ask it because many skeptics (can't remember if you're one of them) keep accusing JE of refusing to be scientifically tested and I am looking for some kind of *evidence* behind that claim. If there is none, then I want to put that myth to bed.

and cantata, aka claus responds with I have given you my answer. JE does not want to be tested, since JE does not think he has anything to prove

Now, is there any doubt that cantata knew that we were talking about JE being scientifically tested?

HE made the claim that JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED, which is what I keep posting. And he knew we were talking about JE being scientifically tested.

Now, to get back to what you said Richard This is not the same as: "John Edward has turned down scientific tests

I agree, and I did not say that cantata said JOHN Edward has turned down scientific test. I have simply asked claus to provide evidence for his claim that JE does not want to be tested. He made the claim, he needs to provide the evidence for that claim, or admit that he has no real evidence that can prove the claim and change it to, his opinion.

12th August 2002, 05:05 PM

Richard can you please show me where I said that cantata said "John Edward has turned down scientific tests"?

Please show me where I said that because If I did, I need to apologize. What cantata said was "JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED"

But you said "Please, can you link to where Cantana said "John Edward has turned down scientific tests"?

so, you must have seen a post where I said that, and If I said that I would need to apologize (and I will) and make it clear that what cantata said was that JE does not want to be tested.

12th August 2002, 05:09 PM

I will be back, I have to go to town and pick up my son

And if you find the thread where I said that cantata said John Edward has turned down scientific tests? I will apologize for it

:)

RichardR

12th August 2002, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Rain 8.12.02 9.41am (Pacific Time)

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.

There have been numerous posts, by you, complaining that Cantana did not answer that question. I also agreed that he had not answered that question. However, for him to be obliged to answer that question you would need to show that he had originally claimed that John Edward has turned down scientific tests. So I asked you: can you link to where Cantana said "John Edward has turned down scientific tests"? This is your reply:

Originally posted by Rain

No I can't, claus said that JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED,

and he was talking about being scientifically tested, as you can see by these post from the MORE QUESTIONS thread over at tvtalk

So you agree that Claus never said that JE has turned down scientific tests. Good. Can you please then stop complaining that he has not answered 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.

Is that clear?

CFLarsen

12th August 2002, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Rain
No I can't, claus said that JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED,

Yes, Rain. I did not say that JE had said, verbatim: "I do not want to be tested". Do you understand the difference?

Originally posted by Rain
and he was talking about being scientifically tested, as you can see by these post from the MORE QUESTIONS thread over at tvtalk

No, I was not. That is your claim, which you seem to have a very hard time finding evidence for.

Originally posted by Rain
as you can see cantata shows in this post that he is well aware that we are talking about scientific test.

No, we were also talking about scientific tests. You, however, still need to provide evidence that I claimed JE had turned down scientific tests.

Originally posted by Rain
Now, is there any doubt that cantata knew that we were talking about JE being scientifically tested?

Apparently, since you yourself cannot find that damned quote of mine, right?

Originally posted by Rain
HE made the claim that JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED, which is what I keep posting. And he knew we were talking about JE being scientifically tested.

Not true. You have not proven that. It is your opinion that I knew.

Originally posted by Rain
I agree, and I did not say that cantata said JOHN Edward has turned down scientific test.

Rain, I will now show you why you should not engage in debate with me. I remember.

08-10-2002 12:37 AM, this thread:

Originally posted by Rain
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.

(cough)

Originally posted by Rain
And if you find the thread where I said that cantata said John Edward has turned down scientific tests? I will apologize for it :)

Time to apologize.

12th August 2002, 06:21 PM

There have been numerous posts, by you, complaining that Cantana did not answer that question

Richard, you need to understand the rest of the story. The original questions started on the 'questions about JE' thread, started by cantata here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002802) Mel had suggested that we do a thread where skeptic and believer could ask each other questions.

Cantata asked ten questions, the first one being "Why won't JE be tested?"

several of us answered his questions. Then RC opened another thread called "MORE QUESTIONS, and only asked two questions, the first being
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.

I don't think he accused cantata of making that claim, he asked because there have been skeptics on board who claimed that JE turned down scientific tests.

I am not trying to get cantata to answer that question. I am trying to get him to answer another question that branched from that one, which was, his claim, on the same thread

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

that JE does not want to be tested, since JE does not think he has anything to prove.

see, in cantata's thread he asked Why won't JE be tested?" and in RC' s thread he states that JE does not want to be tested.

Anyone who knows cantata, aka cflarson, knows that if someone claims something claus will ask them for proof of that claim and for sources. And he will usually be relentless with them.

So, I simply asked of him, what he asks of others. My first reply to cantata's claim was Than you admit that you can't provide any evidence that JE has turned down any real scientific tests? Am I correct in assuming this? found on the same thread.

I then said 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 I admit that this question was inappropriate since he did not say JE refused to be tested, he said that JE does not want to be tested.

Anyway, cantata did not answer the original question by RC, nor did he answer me when I asked him for proof that JE did not want to be tested as he claimed.

I admit, I have gone on and on about this, but I wanted him to realize that he is guilty of what he accuses others of.

I also agreed that he had not answered that question

THANK YOU! I appreciate very much that you said that.

However, for him to be obliged to answer that question you would need to show that he had originally claimed that John Edward has turned down scientific tests.

Yes, you are right, if he didn't make the claim that John Edward refused to be tested by scientist, than he was not obligated to answer, but he asked us questions that we couldn't possibly answer, unless we answered with opinions, or simply said We did not know, and we answered him, mostly with opinions. Where we couldn't anwer

I am not trying to get him to answer RC's question. I am trying to get him to answer his claim that JE does not want to be tested. I wanted to see PROOF of that claim, and sources. And I have been like cantata and been relentless in trying to get him to offer that proof, or admit that it is only his opinion that JE doesn't want to be tested.

cantata asked us many questions
Why won't JE be tested Who are the "real mediums Who are not "real mediums"? Which criminal cases has JE helped solve?

we could only answer with opinions. And the last one, which criminal cases has JE helped solve, we didn't claim that JE helped solve them, but we answered anyway, I told him that he would have to ask JE that question. I certainly didn't know if he did or didn't help.

The point is. I wanted cantata to do what he expects others to do. Show evidence of his claim.

Did I get carried away? YES, but It was to make a point about cantata.

If he isn't going to back up his claims with evidence than he should not expect others to do the same, and get arrogant and cocky when they don't. And I wish, just once that he could admit that he could be wrong. I wish he could say "I can't proof that Je does not want to be tested, but it is my opinion based on what I have read, that he doesn't want to be tested.

I think (my opinion) cantata thinks the rules only apply to others and he is above them.

So you agree that Claus never said that JE has turned down scientific tests. Good. Can you please then stop complaining that he has not answered this question:

I never said that cantata made that claim to begin with did I?

Cantata said JE does not want to be tested, shouldn't he back up that claim as he expects others to back their claims up?

12th August 2002, 06:27 PM

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

:D

I thought it was a moose as they have naturally very long faces, sorry to blow the joke for those still wondering what it was about. Do you have moose (NOT meese) where any of you are? Not that I really care. But they are native to Canada. I have never hit one, but I bet Cantata would ask me to prove it!:rolleyes:

TLN

12th August 2002, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Rain
Cantata said JE does not want to be tested, shouldn't he back up that claim as he expects others to back their claims up?

Rain,

If Edward wanted to be tested then why isn't he? I addressed your points, perhaps you'd take a whack at mine.

12th August 2002, 06:38 PM

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

Wow, did I say that? Than I am big enough to apologize, YOu claimed that JE does not want to be tested. My mistake here.

Now, to continue:

I did not say that JE had said, verbatim: "I do not want to be tested". Do you understand the difference?
*LOL*
and I never said that you said that JE said word for word that he does not want to be tested, did I

I said that you said "JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED"

You made that claim. Don't try to twist the words here. YOu were not accused of saying that JE had said verbatim, I do not want to be tested, you were accused of saying "JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED" Okay, am I right? Yes I am, the proof is here

here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002816) the eleventh post on the board.

from Rain: and he was talking about being scientifically tested, as you can see by these post from the MORE QUESTIONS thread over at tvtalk

Yes, cantata, RC was talking about being scientifically tested as you were here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002816) RC in post one, you in post three

Not true. You have not proven that. It is your opinion that I knew.

*LOL* so when RC said What are the scientific tests[ that John Edward has turned down and you said Would there be any reason why a scientific test would show that JE really possesses the abilities he claims and you added Does JE give any indication that he is interested in [COLOR=red]scientific research[/COLOR}

That you didn't realize we were talking about scientific tests? :D

I'm sorry, I guess I gave you more credit than you deserved, I assumed since you mentioned scientific test in those post that you knew we were talking about JE being scientifically tested. Guess you aren't as bright as you like to portray yourself.

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

Now can you be big enough to admit that your claim that JE DOES NOT WANT TO BE TESTED is only your opinion? If not, than can you please provide evidence for your claim

;)

12th August 2002, 06:51 PM

Rain, If Edward wanted to be tested then why isn't he? I addressed your points, perhaps you'd take a whack at mine.

Do you want me to answer for Edward? I am not his neighbor, relative, or even friend, so I cannot answer for him. He has never confided in me as to whether or not he wanted or didn't want to be tested. I have no idea if he is being tested, if he is I feel sure there will be another book giving details. If he isn't, than I don't know why.

Now, I can give opinions, if you want. Assuming that he wants to be tested, and assuming that he isn't being tested, if he wants to, than why isn't he?

well, If I were him, and I wanted to be tested, but wasn't being tested, my reasons might be

1. I don't have time
2. I haven't met a scientist, or scientists that I trust
3. I haven't met any scientist whose schedules fit into mine
4. I am afraid I will be found to be a fraud

Of course I don't have a clue as to what JE does, or doesn't do, anything I say is guesswork.

Now, once again in the above post Claus claimed over at tvtalk that John Edward refused to be tested by a real scientist

I sincerely apologize for saying that.

Now, cantata can you please either show evidence (PROOF) of your claim that JE does not want to be tested, or admit that it is only your opinion?

12th August 2002, 06:53 PM

Mel *LOL* I almost missed your post!

would you like a job being a personal assistant? :D

RichardR

12th August 2002, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by Rain

blah blah blah blah blah….

Rain: you’re way trying too hard to justify your position. And failing.

We can all see that you DID post that Cantana had claimed that JE had refused to be tested by a scientist. You have now agreed that Claus did not claim this. You have apologized as you promised – thank you.

From what I have seen, Claus/Cantana has answered all relevant questions (ie: relating to things he actually said), about these discussions, which means that the whole premise of the last 3 pages of this thread is false. Please give it up and let this dead horse rest. OK? Your credibility on this is running pretty low right now.

Nasarius

12th August 2002, 07:01 PM

Rain - As I believe someone mentioned on this forum before: if Edward can really communicate with the dead, it's Nobel prize winning stuff. If his abilities were verified (much less understood), it would be an enormous scientific breakthrough. This guy would go down in history as the first person who verified the existence of an afterlife. And yet all he has is a TV show with a cult following. It's baffling that he isn't actively seeking to be tested. Well actually, it's not.

CFLarsen

12th August 2002, 07:12 PM

This is getting boring real fast.

Rain, you have to be a lot faster on JREF than on TVTalkshows. Here, claims are backed by evidence.

I suspect you will disappear from this board real soon.

12th August 2002, 07:21 PM

From what I have seen, Claus/Cantana has answered all relevant questions

sorry, I disagree

The original idea was that cantata got to ask us questions and we got to ask him questions.

cantata asked us questions such as:

Why won't JE be tested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are the "real mediums
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which criminal cases has JE helped solve

Now, we didn't make a claim that JE wouldn't be tested, but we answered his question, we didn't make a claim that JE helped solve criminal cases, but we answered his questions

When it was cantata's turn to answer questions, he was asked what are the scientific test JE turned down.

Now, cantata didn't claim that JE turned down test, just as we didn't claim that he solved criminal cases.

We didn't make the claims but he expected us to answer his questions anyway, here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002802)

He accused me of NOT answering after I answered all of his questions.

Now, since he asked questions that we had not claimed such as Which criminal cases has JE helped solve and we answered, shouldn't he have done the same? Or at least said I don't know? YES

Even after I answered his questions he said, six times No answer from Rain on this one.

Than he does NOT answer our questions.

Nope, bud, he should have answered us, as he expected us to answer him. We didnt' make the claim that JE didn't help solve crimes, but we answered his question about it, mainly with opinions, but we answered.

I think cantata should give back what he EXPECTS from others, don't you?

And I think he should answer to his claim that JE does not want to be tested, or admit that it was merely his opinion

Or do you believe he is above such things as he expects from others?

12th August 2002, 07:25 PM

Rain, you have to be a lot faster on JREF than on TVTalkshows. Here, claims are backed by evidence

ROTFLMAO

thank you thank you thank you! I've not laughed that hard in a long time! :D

Okay, you say that here claims are backed up with evidence

I am waiting..........

You claimed that JE does not want to be tested

Please back that claim up with evidence :)

Or do the rules only apply to others?

12th August 2002, 07:39 PM

I'd like to ask you all a question. Do the rules on this board only apply to outsiders?

On the link I provided here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002802) cantata asked us ten questions. I had not made any claims that JE didn't want to be tested, but I was expected to answer the question anyway. I did not claim that JE helped solve crimes, yet I was expected to answer the questions. And I did.

Even after I answered cantata, accused me of NOT answering.

So, he expected answers to questions that we had not made claims to, should we not have expected him to answer questions even though he had not made claims to them?

He could have done as we did and said that he didn't know, or gave opinions, instead he did not answer, he asked more questions instead.

Should we have expected the same from him as he expected from us?

And, If we make claims, cantata expects us to back those claims up with evidence, should he not be expected to do the same? Or do the rules only apply to outsiders and JREF members are immuned to them?

Can anybody give me an honest opinion or answer to this?

12th August 2002, 07:44 PM

I will check in tomorrow. I need sleep.

and by the way, cantata asked some good questions, one was, Does JE allow tape recorders at readings? Why/Why not?

excellant question that I didn't know the answer to. I didnt' know if he allowed them or not and was hoping for answers from others. And I agreed that It was suspicious that JE did not allow them.

but the point is cantata expected us to answer, even the ones we had not claimed. So it is natural that we would expect the same courtesy from him. Am I right?

IF he expects claims to be backed up with evidence, shouldn't we expect the same from him?

Do the rules only apply to us, or do they apply to everyone?

goodnight :)

RichardR

12th August 2002, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Rain

sorry, I disagree

The original idea was that cantata got to ask us questions and we got to ask him questions.

cantata asked us questions such as:

Why won't JE be tested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are the "real mediums
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which criminal cases has JE helped solve

Now, we didn't make a claim that JE wouldn't be tested, but we answered his question, we didn't make a claim that JE helped solve criminal cases, but we answered his questions

When it was cantata's turn to answer questions, he was asked what are the scientific test JE turned down.

Now, cantata didn't claim that JE turned down test, just as we didn't claim that he solved criminal cases.

We didn't make the claims but he expected us to answer his questions anyway, here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002802)

He accused me of NOT answering after I answered all of his questions.

Now, since he asked questions that we had not claimed such as and we answered, shouldn't he have done the same? Or at least said I don't know? YES

Even after I answered his questions he said, six times

Than he does NOT answer our questions.

Nope, bud, he should have answered us, as he expected us to answer him. We didnt' make the claim that JE didn't help solve crimes, but we answered his question about it, mainly with opinions, but we answered.

I think cantata should give back what he EXPECTS from others, don't you?

And I think he should answer to his claim that JE does not want to be tested, or admit that it was merely his opinion

Or do you believe he is above such things as he expects from others?
(Chews carrot.) What a maroon. :rolleyes:

TLN

12th August 2002, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by Rain
well, If I were him, and I wanted to be tested, but wasn't being tested, my reasons might be

1. I don't have time
2. I haven't met a scientist, or scientists that I trust
3. I haven't met any scientist whose schedules fit into mine
4. I am afraid I will be found to be a fraud

We've been over these and it's not guesswork.

1 and 3 are the same and silly, as I said. Surely he could find the time for the most important discovery ever.

I addressed 2 as well. Here it is again:

Trust is irrelevant in science.

Get it? I can explain if necessary.

Leaving 4 as the only probable explanation. Or can you think of any others?

12th August 2002, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by RichardR

(Chews carrot.) What a maroon. :rolleyes:

Why? Because Cantata is creating a circle of crap that is like a perpetual question machine? He has never seemed to acknowledge answers which have been OBVIOUSLY given at many fora. Countless references have been laughed off as easily as can be done by an individual with a personal agenda to stay ignorant to what has been offered. If not stay ignorant to, than simply IGNORE. Cantata will believe what he believes. He is obtusely absorbed with his belief and will not consider evidence. He will not argue the evidence, he will keep asking ad nauseum. What a lame way to conduct an "argument!" So why is someone a "maroon" for stating the obvious? Your statement is as simple, blatant and indicative of an individual lost for argumentative ammunition as are Cantata's.

RichardR

12th August 2002, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Pscott

Why? Because Cantata is creating a circle of crap that is like a perpetual question machine? He has never seemed to acknowledge answers which have been OBVIOUSLY given at many forum. Countless references have been laughed off as easily as can be done by an individual with a personal agenda to stay ignorant to what has been offered. If not stay ignorant to, than simply IGNORE. Cantata will believe what he believes. He is obtusely absorbed with his belief and will not consider evidence. He will not argue the evidence, he will keep asking ad nauseum. What a lame way to conduct an "argument!" So why is someone a "maroon" for stating the obvious? Your statement is as simple, blatant and indicative of an individual lost for argumentative ammunition as are Cantata's.
I think you need to take a chill pill.

12th August 2002, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by RichardR

I think you need to take a chill pill.

Maybe:cool: I have something on my mind which I will address shortly at a new thread. STAY AWAKE:eek:

12th August 2002, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Trust is irrelevant in science.

Get it? I can explain if necessary.

Indulge me! And be CERTAIN with your convictions because it is a very very silly statement! The issue, as stated in the post you quoted, had to do with trusting the scientist, not trusting honest and properly conducted experiments which in turn could offer erroneous or biased results if not conducted by trustworthy scientists. Restate your statement or explain yourself; and well! The way you squirmed around this to come up with your conclusion is indicative of poorly conducted arguing. I have seen this a lot with so called "skeptics" who are misusing the word to cover for their extremely dogmatic belief system. I am frankly quite sick of it. A skeptic is supposed to be open, but skeptical.

TLN

12th August 2002, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by Pscott

Indulge me! And be CERTAIN with your convictions because it is a very very silly statement! The issue, as stated in the post you quoted, had to do with trusting the scientist, not trusting honest and properly conducted experiments which in turn could offer erroneous or biased results if not conducted by trustworthy scientists. Restate your statement or explain yourself; and well! The way you squirmed around this to come up with your conclusion is indicative of poorly conducted arguing. I have seen this a lot with so called "skeptics" who are misusing the word to cover for their extremely dogmatic belief system. I am frankly quite sick of it. A skeptic is supposed to be open, but skeptical.

I've done no "squirming." You've just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

In any properly designed and conducted experiment the bias of the scientists is removed through the experiment's controls. Any experiment that requires judging (leaving interpertation in the hands of either believers or skeptics) opens itself up to bias contamination.

If you design an experiment with simple yes no responses, right or wrong answers, the beliefs, biases and trustworthiness of the scientists in question is rendered moot.

I have no dogmatic belief system. It's astonishing how quickly you chose to pigeonhole me simply because I disagree with your belief systems.

I have no beliefs. You do. I have evidence.

TLN

12th August 2002, 10:19 PM

You might also try reading this. (http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~urban/docs/baloney.html)

It's a great view of the scientific method in a nutshell. Here's a small excerpt:

Often the experiment must be done "double-blind," so that those hoping for a certain finding are not in the potentially compromising position of evaluating the results. In testing a new medicine, for example, you might want the physicians who determine which patients' symptoms are relieved not to know which patients have been given the new drug. The knowledge might influence their decision, even if only unconsciously. Instead the list of those who experienced remission of symptoms can be compared with the list of those who got the new drug, each independently ascertained. Then you can determine what correlation exists. Or in conducting a police lineup or photo identification, the officer in charge should not know who the prime suspect is, so as not consciously or unconsciously to influence the witness.

The goal of any good experiment is to remove bias and render trustworthiness moot.

12th August 2002, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by TLN

I've done no "squirming." You've just demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Oh really. You twisted what someone said into a different statement. Rain was talking about scientists you twisted it to exclusively refer to the -- or a -- scientific method itself.

In any properly designed and conducted experiment the bias of the scientists is removed through the experiment's controls. Any experiment that requires judging (leaving interpertation in the hands of either believers or skeptics) opens itself up to bias contamination

Where is the argument for what you said here? It is very close to what Rain was offering. That a scientist, before, during and after the experiment, must be unbiased, and proven to be, hence trusted!

If you design an experiment with simple yes no responses, right or wrong answers, the beliefs, biases and trustworthiness of the scientists in question is rendered moot.

Not necessarily "is" but "should be." The experiment would have to be conducted and created by someone, or some group. The protocols could be slanted if it were conducted by a biased group and thus trust is required.

I have no dogmatic belief system. It's astonishing how quickly you chose to pigeonhole me simply because I disagree with your belief systems.

Perhaps I am judging you by other posts, thus not a quick conclusion. It has nothing to do with my belief system. My belief system was not offered or in question here. It was all about your offering to prove that "trust is irrelevant in science".

I have no beliefs. You do. I have evidence.

Oh really :rolleyes: Have you read your OWN signature lately? :eek:
And... one more time now :eek: That quote, aka signature, does not allude to some sort of belief or even blatantly flaunt it? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

TLN

12th August 2002, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Pscott
Oh really. You twisted what someone said into a different statement. Rain was talking about scientists you twisted it to exclusively refer to the -- or a -- scientific method itself.

The statement was on the trustworthiness of scientists and how it factors into Edward submitting himself for testing. I tried to show that this is moot. There was no "twisting."

Originally posted by Pscott
Where is the argument for what you said here? It is very close to what Rain was offering. That a scientist, before, during and after the experiment, must be unbiased, and proven to be, hence trusted!

Wrong again. You review the experiment. If judging is required and bias can seep in you revise it until the room for bias has been removed. Again, the trustworthiness of the scientist is irrelevant. The experiment either requires judging or it does. What part of this can't you follow?

Originally posted by Pscott
Not necessarily "is" but "should be." The experiment would have to be conducted and created by someone, or some group. The protocols could be slanted if it were conducted by a biased group and thus trust is required.

See above. If the experiment is created correctly, which anyone could plainly see, trust is removed from the equation. Any time trust is required you've moved outside science.

Originally posted by Pscott
Oh really Have you read your OWN signature lately?
And... one more time now That quote, aka signature, does not allude to some sort of belief or even blatantly flaunt it?

That quote's not mine, it's Bender's. (http://www.gotfuturama.com) I just think it's funny.

Oh, and you haven't read this (http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~urban/docs/baloney.html) yet, have you?

13th August 2002, 12:14 AM

(Chews carrot.) What a maroon

Wow! Brilliant response! :D No wonder I don't see 'critical thinker below your name

TLN, your post is suppose to prove what?

Do any of you know the difference between (Opinion) and (Fact)?

Pscott, thank you, I can now say that I've met someone here who actually pays attention to what is being posted, looks over the evidence, and isn't afraid to speak his/her mind.

I guess when I asked you all if the rules only apply to outsiders, and not to JREF members, the answer must have been yes.

Yes, cantata aka claus can harass people endlessly.

He can call very intellegent people air-heads because they had the nerve to point out his dishonesties.

He can call people liars because they caught him in a lie.

He can ask endless useless questions and hound someone to answer. And then when he is asked something, he can type a lot of words that have no meaning, answer nothing, but fool quite a few of you!

If someone makes a claim he can demand evidence for that claim, evidence to prove it. Yet refuse to back up his own claims with evidence

He can take a sentence like this one "cantata please provide evidence for your claim that JE does not want to be tested, and twist it around, or sneak in another word to change the meaning completely, and then say I did not say that JE had said, verbatim: "I do not want to be tested". Do you understand the difference?

a pathetic try at deliberatly trying to misinterpret that statement. As though someone accused him of saying that he say, John said.

He can write many words and paragraphs with fancy letters, and fail to ever answer a question in them, yet fool many of you into believing that he really did answer.

And after making a claim that he has provided NO proof of, he can say something like this: Rain, you have to be a lot faster on JREF than on TVTalkshows. Here, claims are backed by evidence. which is priceless to me :D

and he can play innocent as though he wasn't aware that we were talking about scientific tests, even though they were his words.

And what is most amazing, is that some of you don't seem to have anything between your ears to recognize that he is blabbering a lot of bullcrap.

And you call me a moron! Well actually you called me a maroon

So, I take this to mean, YES, outsiders are expected to follow the rules, but JREFers are not required to do this same. If I am wrong, you can prove it.

TLN

13th August 2002, 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Rain
TLN, your post is suppose to prove what?

That trust isn't required in science and hence your hypothetical objections to Edward not submitting himself to testing are false.

It's also an attempt to move this conversation away from the "he said/she said" playground nonsense that you and Claus are engaged in and into a more thoughtful arena. I'm sorry you don't wish to join me.

13th August 2002, 12:51 AM

That trust isn't required in science and hence your hypothetical objections to Edward not submitting himself to testing are false.

again, I say this is suppose to mean what to me? I am not here to prove or disprove whether or not JE wants to be tested. I am not his judge.

I am here because cantata has spent months over at tvtalk dishing out crap, demanding answers to his questions, demanding PROOF to any claims being made, and making false accusations about posters there.

So, cantata was asked questions that he didn't answer, he made claims that HE DID NOT back up with evidence, and then he tried to squirm out of answering with a lot of jibberish, twisting of words, and excuses.

If cantata can harass people to back up their claims with evidence, than I can harass him to do what he expects others to do.

My visit here has nothing to do with you, or with proving what JE does or does not want to do. If I want to know what JE does or does not want to do, I will ask JE, not someone else.

I want cantata to do what he demands of others, simply back up his claim with evidence, or admit that his claim was an opinion and not a fact. He would be hounding anyone else endlessly if we made a claim and didn't back it up.

simple enough for you? Cantata has dished crap out over at tvtalk for months, now I am giving him back what he has given. That is my only motive for being here. I am sorry if you confused me with someone who was here to argue about John Edward.

Darat

13th August 2002, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Rain
I'd like to ask you all a question. Do the rules on this board only apply to outsiders?

On the link I provided here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002802) cantata asked us ten questions. I had not made any claims that JE didn't want to be tested, but I was expected to answer the question anyway. I did not claim that JE helped solve crimes, yet I was expected to answer the questions. And I did.

Even after I answered cantata, accused me of NOT answering.

So, he expected answers to questions that we had not made claims to, should we not have expected him to answer questions even though he had not made claims to them?

He could have done as we did and said that he didn't know, or gave opinions, instead he did not answer, he asked more questions instead.

Should we have expected the same from him as he expected from us?

And, If we make claims, cantata expects us to back those claims up with evidence, should he not be expected to do the same? Or do the rules only apply to outsiders and JREF members are immuned to them?

Can anybody give me an honest opinion or answer to this?

Who do you call "outsiders" - as far as I am aware there is only one definition of an "outsider" that can apply to this forum and that is someone who has not registered and tehrefore can only read and not post.

My posts, Claus's posts, even our two non JREF employed "moderators" D & Ed all have exactly the same weight and credence as anybody else.

So who are these "we" you are referring to?

There is also no distinction made on this board between people who are members of the JREF (by paying a donation to the JREF) and people who aren't.

13th August 2002, 05:41 AM

Thanks for clearing that up.

Than I shall rephrase, do the rules only apply to those who are new posters, and not to the regulars?

or, do the rules apply to everyone except claus?

I would think that if he expects others to back up their claims, he should be expected to back up his, instead of hiding behind you all ;)

You really shouldn't mind me though, I just came over to return the crap that claus left over at the JE board. I'm just passing through, don't mean to bother anyone but him.

I just felt that it was time that someone made him abide by his own rules, the rules that he arrogantly makes for others.

Of course realistically, getting C to live by the rules he expects of others, will be as easy as getting him to admit he is wrong about anything, it's not going to be an easy job.

:eek:

Hannibal

13th August 2002, 05:48 AM

To my mind the fact that he hasn't gone for the $1million challenge is enough.

JE is in it for the money. If he is genuine, and I don't believe he is by the wya, then he has no qualms about using his "gift" to earn money. Fair enough, but why turn down the chance at $1million? Seem like a pretty good payout for doing what you say you are able to do.

He can get the money and carry on as before - probably making MORE than before because he has been "proved real" by winning the challenge.

The reason he doesn't? In MY OPINION (my emphasis) he is a fraud and will therefore not wish to do anything to prove he is selling spiritual snake oil.

This is just my twopeneth but I was getting kinda pissed with the name-calling going on. LikeTLN I'm trying to get things back on track.

Hannibal

13th August 2002, 05:54 AM

The Fool

13th August 2002, 06:50 AM

Holy Crap folks....I just read this entire thread (thats 15mins of my life i'll never get back) I think I'm starting to believe in Deja Vu....JE this...JE that. you won't answer my question, I won't answer yours, can anyone remember the question?

Lets get this back to basics. If it looks like a Duck and Quacks like a Duck...its a Duck. JE looks like a cold reader and sounds like a cold reader.....The Guys a Fraud, not even a good Fraud. Even my dog can see he's a fraud..If he was fat and ugly he never would have got the TV job. They would have got someone else (Anyone can cold read) Once the current TV craze for this crap passes he will pass out of site....he's not going to go cold reading in community halls for 500 bucks! he's earned too much already. No, my dear JE fans, once his TV show is cut he will suddenly stop talking to the dead...there will be no more money in it. Who will you turn to then? Maybe Oprah will take up cold reading and rescue you from a cruel separation from your deaduns.

13th August 2002, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
No, my dear JE fans, once his TV show is cut he will suddenly stop talking to the dead...there will be no more money in it. Who will you turn to then? Maybe Oprah will take up cold reading and rescue you from a cruel separation from your deaduns.

Nope, JE was doing huge seminars before the show and I'm sure he'll continue doing them after.

I do agree with you on one point: JE's looks and charisma helped get him the show. I personally don't find him handsome at all, but have come to realize that many do. I'd prefer to see one of the two mediums I've had readings with, Karen Lundegaard or Brian Hurst.

RichardR

13th August 2002, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Pscott
Oh really. You twisted what someone said into a different statement. Rain was talking about scientists you twisted it to exclusively refer to the -- or a -- scientific method itself.

I wasn't going to bother with replying to this thread anymore, but I just had to comment on this.

If you want to see someone "twisting what someone said into a different statement", just read Rain twisting Cantana's words into "JE has refused to be tested by scientists". The justification for this was that "everyone knew we were talking about scientific testing", or something.

You're a hypocrite.

RichardR

13th August 2002, 08:13 AM

Rain:

You twisted Cantana's words into something he didn't say, then demanded that he provide evidence for the thing he didn't say, then you were then found out. But you continue to post vast amounts of self-serving whining gibberish. No one cares. (Well, maybe Pscott does.) Give it up, you're just wasting bandwidth. You lose.

CFLarsen

13th August 2002, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Rain
I'd like to ask you all a question. Do the rules on this board only apply to outsiders?

We are all outsiders here. There is no need to paint yourself as such. You are not a victim of anything else but your own ignorance.

Originally posted by Rain
On the link I provided here (http://tvtalkshows.com/cgi-bin/board/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=002802) cantata asked us ten questions. I had not made any claims that JE didn't want to be tested, but I was expected to answer the question anyway. I did not claim that JE helped solve crimes, yet I was expected to answer the questions. And I did.

Whoa!! Who forced you to answer the questions? I did not expect answers from you in particular. Show me where I said "I expect Rain to answer these questions".

Originally posted by Rain
Even after I answered cantata, accused me of NOT answering.

An example of a question, and your answer:

Q01) Why won't JE be tested?

Rain: first of all, I don't know that he won't. Do you mean, why won't he be tested by any scientist, or do you mean, why won't he be tested by James Randi? Second, since I've never met JE, and I have never asked him why, than I can't give you a reason. JE would have to answer that one himself.

That is not an answer, Rain. That is saying you don't know the answer. You answer the question with questions. Something you accuse me of doing.

See why I call you a hypocrite?

But, if that's what you consider an answer, I can easily come up with something equally flaccid.

Don't forget to notice who brings up the subject of scientists. Not me, Rain. You.

Originally posted by Rain
So, he expected answers to questions that we had not made claims to, should we not have expected him to answer questions even though he had not made claims to them?

Where did I expect answers from anyone? It was an open thread, anyone could pitch in. As I believe I made clear...

Originally posted by Rain
Do any of you know the difference between (Opinion) and (Fact)?

Rain, now you are being silly. This is skeptics board, remember?

We have seen your definition of these two concepts. Now, please provide evidence for your own statements, presented as facts.

Why don't you do that? Why do you ignore those?

Originally posted by Rain
Pscott, thank you, I can now say that I've met someone here who actually pays attention to what is being posted, looks over the evidence, and isn't afraid to speak his/her mind.

Yeah, we are so afraid of you and Pscott here, we are trembling!!

Originally posted by Rain
He can call very intellegent people air-heads because they had the nerve to point out his dishonesties.

He can call people liars because they caught him in a lie.

Please show evidence that I have lied.

Originally posted by Rain
He can ask endless useless questions and hound someone to answer. And then when he is asked something, he can type a lot of words that have no meaning, answer nothing, but fool quite a few of you!

Oh...I thought that description fitted you! Isn't that quaint...?

Originally posted by Rain
If someone makes a claim he can demand evidence for that claim, evidence to prove it. Yet refuse to back up his own claims with evidence

Stop whining and provide some evidence yourself.

Originally posted by Rain
a pathetic try at deliberatly trying to misinterpret that statement. As though someone accused him of saying that he say, John said.

But that's exactly what you are trying to do! See why I call you "stupid"?

Guess not.

Originally posted by Rain
He can write many words and paragraphs with fancy letters, and fail to ever answer a question in them, yet fool many of you into believing that he really did answer.

Oh, thanks for praising my English. I am always happy to hear I am making progress.

Originally posted by Rain
which is priceless to me

You should cherish it alright.

Originally posted by Rain
and he can play innocent as though he wasn't aware that we were talking about scientific tests, even though they were his words.

It is your opinion that I played innocent. You have not provided evidence of anything.

Originally posted by Rain
And what is most amazing, is that some of you don't seem to have anything between your ears to recognize that he is blabbering a lot of bullcrap.

Oh, I dunno about that....I find very intelligent(!) people here, from all parts of the world, each with their own mind.

Originally posted by Rain
And you call me a moron! Well actually you called me a maroon

Yeah, get your facts straight.

Originally posted by Rain
So, I take this to mean, YES, outsiders are expected to follow the rules, but JREFers are not required to do this same. If I am wrong, you can prove it.

You are wrong. Can you tell the difference between an "outsider" and a JREF'er? You are a JREF'er, Rain.

See how open-minded we are here..? :D

Originally posted by Rain
I am here because cantata has spent months over at tvtalk dishing out crap, demanding answers to his questions, demanding PROOF to any claims being made, and making false accusations about posters there.

I still don't see any evidence of any of your claims.

Originally posted by Rain
So, cantata was asked questions that he didn't answer, he made claims that HE DID NOT back up with evidence, and then he tried to squirm out of answering with a lot of jibberish, twisting of words, and excuses.

Yeah, I must be one hell of a clever guy!

Originally posted by Rain
If cantata can harass people to back up their claims with evidence, than I can harass him to do what he expects others to do.

So, we're back to behaving like a schoolgirl again?

Originally posted by Rain
My visit here has nothing to do with you, or with proving what JE does or does not want to do. If I want to know what JE does or does not want to do, I will ask JE, not someone else.

So the written word means nothing to you after all. You really don't trust anyone, do you?

Originally posted by Rain
I want cantata to do what he demands of others, simply back up his claim with evidence, or admit that his claim was an opinion and not a fact. He would be hounding anyone else endlessly if we made a claim and didn't back it up.

You will have to provide evidence for your claims first. So far, I have seen zilch.

Originally posted by Rain
simple enough for you? Cantata has dished crap out over at tvtalk for months, now I am giving him back what he has given. That is my only motive for being here. I am sorry if you confused me with someone who was here to argue about John Edward.

Why do you spend so much time and energy on me? Most of the times, you act incredibly vindictive against me, at other times you coo at me like a love-sick dove.

It must be my irresistible charm....

Originally posted by Rain
Than I shall rephrase, do the rules only apply to those who are new posters, and not to the regulars?

No.

Originally posted by Rain
or, do the rules apply to everyone except claus?

No. If I **** up, there are plenty to point it out. As I point out when they **** up.

Originally posted by Rain
I would think that if he expects others to back up their claims, he should be expected to back up his, instead of hiding behind you all

I am hiding behind others?? I am right here, Rain!

Originally posted by Rain
You really shouldn't mind me though, I just came over to return the crap that claus left over at the JE board. I'm just passing through, don't mean to bother anyone but him.

You do not control who answers your posts. You seem happy enough to engage in discussion with other posters than me, so don't ask other people to stay out.

Originally posted by Rain
I just felt that it was time that someone made him abide by his own rules, the rules that he arrogantly makes for others.

I do not make any rules for others.

Originally posted by Rain
Of course realistically, getting C to live by the rules he expects of others, will be as easy as getting him to admit he is wrong about anything, it's not going to be an easy job.

Not if you can't provide the evidence. That's not an easy job, I agree!

13th August 2002, 08:49 AM

Actually the only way we can find out for sure is to ASK him. But that isn't going to happen really is it? My understanding of Claus saying "JE doesn't want to be tested" is that he BELIEVES this to be so by looking at things AS THEY SEEM to him. Possibly along the same lines as my post above..I don't know.

that isn't the point hannibal. The point is, our dear little claus is proving himself to be a hypocrite. He will ask questions, many many questions. He will expect answers, and if you make a claim, he demands that you back that claim up with evidence.

An opinion is an opinion, such as "I doubt that JE wants to be tested" an fact statement is "JE does not want to be tested"

Now, on my board if I were to say "James Randi is a con man" claus would DEMAND that I prove that. He would ask me to list my sources, and PROVE that James is a con man.

Yet, clause does NOT live by the things that he demands of others. I couldn't care less if JE did or did not want to be tested. I am trying to make a point to cantata,

1. that cantata, aka claus aka larsen demands answers to his questions, and nit pics if he doesn't think someone answered appropriately. Yet claus does not give answers in many cases, instead he writes a lot of irrellavant things and asks more questions, and then apparantly he thinks he has fooled others into believing he answered.

2. claus does not allow someone on my board to make a claim without him demanding they prove their claim, offer their sources, back it up with evidence, yadda yadda.

3. Claus is arrogant, and claus will twist the words of others in order to squirm out of something, or try and make the other look bad (I can give examples if need be)

4. Claus cannot, or will not admit to fault, error, wrong doing etc.

5. claus cannot, or will not apoligize for his nasty behavior or his lies and misrepresentations when he is caught.

6. Claus expects others to admit when they do not have evidence to back up claims, yet he refuses to do the same

So, I am pretending to be claus and giving him back the crap the he dishes out.

All I want from him is

1. to either back up his claim that JE does not want to be tested
or
2. Admit that his claim is only an opinion that he cannot prove

I am not asking anything of him, that he doesn't demand from others.

:)

anyway claus and I go way back and I've gotten tired of his arrogance, and his demands, his misleading statements, his dishonesties, and his attitude the he is ABOVE doing the things he demands of others.

Anyway, nice to meet you hannibal!

13th August 2002, 08:59 AM

just read Rain twisting Cantana's words into "JE has refused to be tested by scientists". The justification for this was that "everyone knew we were talking about scientific testing", or something.

Really, I take it that you are brain dead too then.

shall I repeat AGAIN what cantata said?

RC asked:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

than cantata aka claus post this on the same thread in reply

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

Gee, claus seems to know that we are talking about JE being scientifically tested HERE :rolleyes:

Then cantata aka larsen says on the same page in the same thread

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

Now, do you really think that he didn't know that we were talking about JE not wanting to be scientifically tested?

hun, if my truthful postings bother you so much, why don't you go away

:)

RichardR

13th August 2002, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Rain

Really, I take it that you are brain dead too then.

shall I repeat AGAIN what cantata said?

RC asked:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

than cantata aka claus post this on the same thread in reply

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

Gee, claus seems to know that we are talking about JE being scientifically tested HERE :rolleyes:

Then cantata aka larsen says on the same page in the same thread

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

Now, do you really think that he didn't know that we were talking about JE not wanting to be scientifically tested?

hun, if my truthful postings bother you so much, why don't you go away

:)
God, you are boring.

13th August 2002, 09:16 AM

Whoa!! Who forced you to answer the questions? I did not expect answers from you in particular. Show me where I said "I expect Rain to answer these questions".

after you show me the PROOF that JE does not want to be tested, fair is fair.

An example of a question, and your answer:

after I get your evidence the JE does not want to be tested, or a statement from you that you really don't know for a fact that he doesn't.

Here you are making demands again, when you haven't followed through on backing up your claim. Typical of you.

That is not an answer, Rain. That is saying you don't know the answer

*applause* yeah! you are getting it. Yes it is an answer. the answer was 'I dont' know'. You can't even bring yourself to say those words. That you don't know if JE does not want to be tested, can you?

I didn't just answer with questions, as you did, I made it clear that I do not know, and that since I'd never met him, I didn't know the answer. That is an answer. Can you say that? can you say "I dont' know if JE wants to be tested or not? It seems difficult for you.

See why I call you a hypocrite?

You call me a hypocrite for the same reason you call me stupid woman, because I stand up to you and I dont' allow you to get away with being manipulative, or dishonest.

Again claus, you are trying to lead this off topic. You made a claim, you also said that on the JREF board, when someone made a claim that had to back it up with evidence. YET you made a claim, and you have NOT backed it up with evidence, you have avoided it, tried to change to subject, tried to turn this on me, etc.

Now, Where is your proof that JE does not want to be tested? or, do you admit that you don't know that he doesn't want to be tested, and that your statement was only an opinion?

Don't ask others for evidence of anything UNTIL you have given evidence of your claims. Here you go, saying PROVIDE evidence, when you have YET to accomplish such a thing.

YOu write a lot of words, with no meaning to try and get the topic off of your claim. It doesn't work with me.

and claus there is a difference between being clever and being dishonest, you should try being clever

as we can see with your last post claus, you are full of hot air, very winded, and will go on and on and on, in order to avoid what you expect of others, BACKING UP YOUR CLAIM
It is very simply Please provide evidence that JE does not want to be tested:rolleyes:

CFLarsen

13th August 2002, 09:24 AM

It's gonna be one of those days....

Originally posted by Rain
that isn't the point hannibal. The point is, our dear little claus is proving himself to be a hypocrite. He will ask questions, many many questions. He will expect answers, and if you make a claim, he demands that you back that claim up with evidence.

Do I "expect" answers? That is your opinion.

Please provide evidence of all your claims.

Originally posted by Rain
An opinion is an opinion, such as "I doubt that JE wants to be tested" an fact statement is "JE does not want to be tested"

So why don't you provide evidence of all those fact statements you have made?

Originally posted by Rain
Now, on my board if I were to say "James Randi is a con man" claus would DEMAND that I prove that. He would ask me to list my sources, and PROVE that James is a con man.

"Your" board??

Sure I would. Just as I ask you to list your sources and prove all those fact statements you have made.

Originally posted by Rain
Yet, clause does NOT live by the things that he demands of others. I couldn't care less if JE did or did not want to be tested. I am trying to make a point to cantata,

Oh, you care plenty, Rain. Why else would you spend so much time on this???

Originally posted by Rain
1. that cantata, aka claus aka larsen demands answers to his questions, and nit pics if he doesn't think someone answered appropriately. Yet claus does not give answers in many cases, instead he writes a lot of irrellavant things and asks more questions, and then apparantly he thinks he has fooled others into believing he answered.

I do not "demand" answers. I just think it would a good idea.

I do, however, point out if I don't feel I have gotten a proper answer.

All this, and not one single "I think that..", "I believe that..." or similar. Which means you have made a claim. OK, then: Provide evidence.

Originally posted by Rain
2. claus does not allow someone on my board to make a claim without him demanding they prove their claim, offer their sources, back it up with evidence, yadda yadda.

"Your" board?? Since when did you become owner of TVTalkshows??? Do I need to add "megalomaniac" to the list of insults?

Originally posted by Rain
3. Claus is arrogant, and claus will twist the words of others in order to squirm out of something, or try and make the other look bad (I can give examples if need be)

Don't you mean to say "I believe Claus is arrogant.."? No, I don't think you did, because then you would have written it, wouldn't you?

Provide evidence that I am all what you claim I am.

Originally posted by Rain
4. Claus cannot, or will not admit to fault, error, wrong doing etc.

Please provide evidence of this claim.

Originally posted by Rain
5. claus cannot, or will not apoligize for his nasty behavior or his lies and misrepresentations when he is caught.

Please provide evidence of this claim.

I would especially like to see your evidence that I lied.

Originally posted by Rain
6. Claus expects others to admit when they do not have evidence to back up claims, yet he refuses to do the same

Please provide evidence of this claim.

Originally posted by Rain
So, I am pretending to be claus and giving him back the crap the he dishes out.

Sorry, Rain, it would be a poor performance. You have shown no evidence, and there is no sign that it will ever materialize.

Originally posted by Rain
All I want from him is

1. to either back up his claim that JE does not want to be tested
or
2. Admit that his claim is only an opinion that he cannot prove

Please provide evidence that I said "JE has said that he does not want to be tested". Because that's what I must have said, right?

Originally posted by Rain
I am not asking anything of him, that he doesn't demand from others.

I do not "demand" it, Rain.

Originally posted by Rain
anyway claus and I go way back and I've gotten tired of his arrogance, and his demands, his misleading statements, his dishonesties, and his attitude the he is ABOVE doing the things he demands of others.

Rain, I have been on JREF for much longer than I have been on TVTalkshows. We do not "go way back", because that would indicate a special intimate relationship. There is no such thing.

You clearly don't like me. I don't like you much either. The difference between you and me is that I provide evidence of my claims.

You merely rant and rave.

Originally posted by Rain
Really, I take it that you are brain dead too then.

Oh, but this cannot be true? Rain is starting to throw insults at people?? Woowoo!! :D

Originally posted by Rain
hun, if my truthful postings bother you so much, why don't you go away

You don't decide who answers your posts, Rain. It seems I will have to add "megalomaniac" to the list after all...

Bore.

Darat

13th August 2002, 09:28 AM

By Rain

2. claus does not allow someone on my board to make a claim without him demanding they prove their claim, offer their sources, back it up with evidence, yadda yadda.

Can you provide me a link to your board? - Thanks

13th August 2002, 09:46 AM

So... what does the invisible chorus of e-mail well wishers have to say now? Hrm?

Clancie

13th August 2002, 11:36 AM

Claus,

Over at TVTalk you've recently written, "...and complete silence from neo and Gryphon2 on JREF. They must be embarrassed even knowing you right now, Rain..."

Well, I don't appreciate you attributing thoughts to me, Claus, and actually the truth is quite to the contrary. First of all, as you know, neo never has been involved in this discussion here (in spite of your insults to her in your posts). And, as for myself, I really do think Rain is much to be commended for her determination to show how you demand evidence of others for their claims, but don't hold yourself to the same standards. I just stopped posting because I'd provided the quotes I felt were needed and it appeared that all of the important points were being well covered by several people already, definitely including Rain. The evidence is clearly here now, for any who wish to see it.

And, just one little further point, since you said at this board on the “TvTalkshows Are Open” thread that neo, Rain and I have told you that, "the reason I was still a doubter was because I hadn't seen enough of these shows....When I asked just how many shows it takes, I never got a clear answer."

Since, in one condescending post to Rain here, you also said that at JREF people "don't make" claims without having evidence for them, please provide the quotes that show we have ever said you "were a doubter because you hadn't seen enough of the shows."

But then, I know you won't be providing any evidence for this at all, will you? Because none of us ever really made that claim, did we?

Clancy

CFLarsen

13th August 2002, 12:27 PM

Clancy/Gryphon2,

Gryphon: Most "believers" here had to watch him for quite a while before we started to think it might not all be a trick. Personally, I don't think a couple of shows are enough.
TVTalkshows, "JE, et al_ And lousey research"

neo: No one is raising any bar, BTW, we are just trying to reconcile your statement that you "watch the show" to your utter lack of knowledge OF the show. Something doesn't jive, and to come up with a quote from ONE show and then say that is proof that you actually "watch" the show, (which implies that you do so with some regularity) does not make your case.
TVTalkshows, "John Edward on CNN this morning (5-10)"

neo: To follow up on what HARPER just said about watching three shows and declaring JE a fake, I just want to once again make the point that I think that this is quite typical of what most "skeptics" do. They watch a few shows with as open a mind as they are capable of, and then declare, "Yep, it's just what I thought! He's cold-reading!" I mean really, how much of a sense can you get after watching only three shows? It's just not enough of a sampling. I know if I had made up my own mind after such limited exposure to the show, I very much doubt that I would be on this side of the debate. I read "One Last Time", researched cold-reading, and watched the show for months before I even came close to concluding that John might really be doing what he says he is doing. I think this explains why it's so difficult to debate with some of the skeptics who post here. They don't understand many of the references from having observed them first hand, but instead depend upon what they have heard others say.....neo
TVTalkshows, "Cranky Psychic"

Cantata: neo, So, how much DO we need to watch JE, before we are convinced? You must be able to quantify this, since three shows are apparently not enugh. How many, exactly? I have watched more shows than I have taped, but it sure is more than three shows.
TVTalkshows, "Cranky Psychic"
This was never answered, despite my repeated asking for an answer.

You have the chance now: Just how many shows does it take before one is convinced that JE is real?

I see that even in the throes of defeat, you don't give up on your fellow Gorgon. Loyalty of that character is usually highly commendable, were it not for the fact (yes, fact!) that neither Rain or you have not provided one shred of evidence for her many claims. Not just about what I supposedly have said, but also about her other claims.

That you don't see it this way is in no way a surprise to me. You three are fanatical about John Edward.

You know how I know this? You say yourself that the worst-case scenario would be that John Edward turns out to be self-deluded. The possibility that he is a crook hasn't entered your mind.

Or maybe you don't think that John Edward is a crook is worse than John Edward being deluded?

Lurker

13th August 2002, 02:05 PM

Cantata:

I think I am done with TVtalkshows myself. Too many crazies and illogical people for me to continue banging my head against the wall. Some are ok, but for the most part it is debate for kiddies. Count me out.

Lurker

CFLarsen

13th August 2002, 02:14 PM

Lurker,

Yeah, I know what you mean. It gets a little tedious dealing with the same few hard-core believers who will never budge an inch, no matter what evidence is brought before them.

Let's see how long I want to do it... :)

TLN

13th August 2002, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Let's see how long I want to do it... :)

I’m consistently astonished that you’re still at it!

Keep it up.

Clancie

13th August 2002, 02:30 PM

Claus,

Gryphon: Most "believers" here had to watch him for quite a while before we started to think it might not all be a trick. Personally, I don't think a couple of shows are enough.
TVTalkshows, "JE, et al_ And lousey research"

In reality, Claus, I don't think this quote from me shows at all what you claimed I said: that I think YOU will change your mind and believe in JE by watching more shows. If you read the quote more carefully, I merely say that most believers at TVT had to watch him quite a bit before concluding that it wasn't cold reading. A couple of shows weren't enough to convince any of us. That was my point. Maybe you could watch a hundred of them and not change one bit. I really never claimed how it would affect you one way or the other.

The second quote also doesn't show what you intend it to either--that NEO feels you will believe in JE by watching more of the show. She says:

neo: No one is raising any bar, BTW, we are just trying to reconcile your statement that you "watch the show" to your utter lack of knowledge OF the show.

Nor does this next quote of yours, from Neo again:

I mean really, how much of a sense can you get after watching only three shows? It's just not enough of a sampling. I know if I had made up my own mind after such limited exposure to the show, I very much doubt that I would be on this side of the debate.I think this explains why it's so difficult to debate with some of the skeptics who post here. They don't understand many of the references from having observed them first hand, but instead depend upon what they have heard others say.

She is simply saying you should show some knowledge of the shows when you debate them. That was certainly a fair expectation.

Claus, in your post above you also called me a "fanatic" about John Edward and then added, "You know how I know this? You say yourself that the worst-case scenario would be that John Edward turns out to be self-deluded. The possibility that he is a crook hasn't entered your mind."

Actually, as you know, Claus, I started two new discussion threads at the same time, "Is JE Self-Deluded?" and "Is There Any Evidence That JE is a Con-Artist?". I think I made it extremely clear in both threads that I'd examined the possibilities of both possibilities. I'm personally satisfied that on the off-chance JE is ever proven NOT to be a medium, it will be because of self-delusion, not intentional fraud. But I'm not going to keep that argument with you going on two boards, if you don't mind (somehow, I'm sure no one else will).

Clancy

Clancie

13th August 2002, 02:47 PM

Claus,

As you know, I only posted here to add a bit to what Lucianarchy had posted about the discussion at TvTalks. I really never intended to continue our "vigorous" debate at two boards. You're very quick with the responses, and I don't have the time to reply in two different places every day.

I like this board, but as I'm sure you've already seen when you looked up my previous posts, I usually read here, but post very seldom. Since this is turning into a JE discussion thread, it really seems better to just continue "business as usual" with you over at TVTalkshows. I would imagine this constant back and forth seems a little boring to those who don't share our fascination with JE, CO, ADC, and related issues.

As I said over there, I've become very weary of the animosity between us and the distraction it creates from whatever topic is at hand. I suggested at TVTalk that you and I call a truce, which you agreed to--with one proviso, that I would post the details here as well.

Well, I kind of doubt that anyone is terrifically interested in our agreement, but in the hope it can be adhered to, I am meeting your condition. Here is what I wrote:

Gryphon2: Cantata, Glad you agreed to (a truce) here and as far as JREF goes, I think we've kind of wrapped it up over there. (I can't post on two boards due to time constraints and, as this is my favorite and I think the topic there is already well covered, here is where I'll be). Anyway, I can't imagine they'd be that fascinated with the details of our new rapprochement since they've missed all of the background to it these past months.

Anyway, just to remind you though what we've agreed to, its: "Just sticking to the point of the thread, meaning: (1) focusing on the real discussion topic. (2) No hyperbole, (3) no baiting, (4) no insults, (5) no dragging up previous gripes and annoyances from earlier threads."

Your response was:

Claus/Cantata: I'm sorry but that's not acceptable. I post both places, and so do you.There is enough confusion as it is - I would definitely prefer to keep the "agreements" out in the open. I don't see why you can't post your offer on JREF.I'm ready once you have done your part.

Me again:

Gryphon: (Okay, but) I will have to put in the part about not having time for both boards. (Wouldn't want to disappoint anyone who is hoping to follow our fascinating dialogues in the future, right? :-)So, are we in agreement? If so, I will post.

Then you:

Cantata: I agree.

CFLarsen

13th August 2002, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Clancy
In reality, Claus, I don't think this quote from me shows at all what you claimed I said: that I think YOU will change your mind and believe in JE by watching more shows. If you read the quote more carefully, I merely say that most believers at TVT had to watch him quite a bit before concluding that it wasn't cold reading. A couple of shows weren't enough to convince any of us. That was my point. Maybe you could watch a hundred of them and not change one bit. I really never claimed how it would affect you one way or the other.

Oh, I just took one quote out of many, Clancy. ;)

If you say "Personally, I don't think a couple of shows are enough", how many do you think is enough? It must be something in between "a couple" (2-3? 4-5?) and all the shows so far.

Originally posted by Clancy
She is simply saying you should show some knowledge of the shows when you debate them. That was certainly a fair expectation.

Ah, that old warhorse. You see, because I hadn't watched exactly the same shows as you three had, then you came to the conclusion that I hadn't watched at all.

I think I showed plenty of evidence that I had - which all of you later had to acknowledge.

Originally posted by Clancy
Actually, as you know, Claus, I started two new discussion threads at the same time, "Is JE Self-Deluded?" and "Is There Any Evidence That JE is a Con-Artist?". I think I made it extremely clear in both threads that I'd examined the possibilities of both possibilities. I'm personally satisfied that on the off-chance JE is ever proven NOT to be a medium, it will be because of self-delusion, not intentional fraud. But I'm not going to keep that argument with you going on two boards, if you don't mind (somehow, I'm sure no one else will).

You don't think you are fanatic about John Edward? You refuse to acknowledge a clear-cut case of him hot-reading, you don't think it is significant that there are lots of feathers at Niagara, that Catherine supplies the information at her reading and that nobody is allowed to tape John Edward when he reads people. You have not considered one single argument against John Edward as being valid.

And the worst case is that John Edward is self-deluded. You simply cannot fathom the possibility that he is faking it.

Yup, Clancy - you're a textbook fanatic. No offense - but that's the way I see it.

Originally posted by Clancy
As you know, I only posted here to add a bit to what Lucianarchy had posted about the discussion at TvTalks. I really never intended to continue our "vigorous" debate at two boards. You're very quick with the responses, and I don't have the time to reply in two different places every day.

That's OK - you can stay here. It's such a nice place, where everybody can meet! :)

No, I don't know that you only posted here to add what Lucianarchy had posted. I cannot read your mind.

Originally posted by Clancy
I like this board, but as I'm sure you've already seen when you looked up my previous posts, I usually read here, but post very seldom. Since this is turning into a JE discussion thread, it really seems better to just continue "business as usual" with you over at TVTalkshows. I would imagine this constant back and forth seems a little boring to those who don't share our fascination with JE, CO, ADC, and related issues.

Actually, I had hoped I could lure you guys over here - after all, it is much more invigorating, and you certainly get a lot more people and subjects to discuss.

The issues of JE, Crossing Over, After Death Communication and related issues is very much of interest to a lot of people here. Remember, this is a skeptics board - we discuss paranormal phenomena, mainly from a skeptical viewpoint. It isn't every day that we get a true believer so you - and the other two....ahemn....ladies are very welcome here.

Yes, even Rain. She just has to understand that she does not get a free lunch.

Originally posted by Clancy
As I said over there, I've become very weary of the animosity between us and the distraction it creates from whatever topic is at hand. I suggested at TVTalk that you and I call a truce, which you agreed to--with one proviso, that I would post the details here as well.

Well, I kind of doubt that anyone is terrifically interested in our agreement, but in the hope it can be adhered to, I am meeting your condition.

Goodie. Truce between us two it is.

Lucianarchy

17th August 2002, 10:44 AM

"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.

Titanpoint

17th August 2002, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"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.

If JE were real, he could demonstrate things to skeptics. It would be all on videotape. It would be real and I and others would have no choice but to believe it.

If JE was a faker, then his actions in being tested by someone renowned for extremely poor experimental control, particularly of fakery, would be consistent with what he has done. Even the University of Arizona won't accept the challenge. Why? Why would a University not accept a million bucks for an authoritative test which would leave people in no doubt?

There is an equally compelling reason, which involves no paranormal powers and explains the data equally well. Cold reading.

Don't bore us with arguments about "closed-mindedness". You're the one whose closed-minded to naturalistic explanation that don't fit your prior prejudices.

TP

Clancie

17th August 2002, 11:09 AM

....his actions in being tested by someone renowned for extremely poor experimental control, particularly of fakery....

Pretty serious charge you're making against Gary Schwartz, Titanpoint. What evidence do you have to justify accusing him of "fakery"?

If you have none, you should, apologetically, retract the claiim.

Clancy

Titanpoint

17th August 2002, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Clancy

Pretty serious charge you're making against Gary Schwartz, Titanpoint. What evidence do you have to justify accusing him of "fakery"?

If you have none, you should, apologetically, retract the claiim.

Clancy

No. I'm not accusing Dr Gary Schwartz of fakery, but of poor experimental controls to prevent fakery by his subjects.

I apologise for the ambiguity.

TP

17th August 2002, 12:00 PM

Sorry I am late.

Oh, yeah, he is a fake.

Why? look at all the crap that Rain posted. He should know better. Period.

You cannot, simultaniously, have a noted scientist and a scientist that cannot perform as well as an undergrad. Right? Or, alternatively, does paranormal research sap brain cells?

We are talking about experimental design 101. Sorry, any "scientist" that cannot do it is a fake, fraud, or seriously sick.

Disagree? Why?

Edit to add

Oh yeah, beavis, it is serious. This is amature hour.

Lucianarchy

19th August 2002, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Titanpoint

If JE were real, he could demonstrate things to skeptics. It would be all on videotape. It would be real and I and others would have no choice but to believe it.

If JE was a faker, then his actions in being tested by someone renowned for extremely poor experimental control, particularly of fakery, would be consistent with what he has done. Even the University of Arizona won't accept the challenge. Why? Why would a University not accept a million bucks for an authoritative test which would leave people in no doubt?

There is an equally compelling reason, which involves no paranormal powers and explains the data equally well. Cold reading.

Don't bore us with arguments about "closed-mindedness". You're the one whose closed-minded to naturalistic explanation that don't fit your prior prejudices.

TP

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.

Lucianarchy

20th August 2002, 05:37 AM

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.

Lucianarchy

20th August 2002, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Ed
Sorry I am late.

[/i]

No problem, perhaps now you will be good enough to answer on behalf of Cantata:

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.

CFLarsen

20th August 2002, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
[/i]No problem, perhaps now you will be good enough to answer on behalf of Cantata:

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.

Can you please show me where I have claimed that JE has turned down scientific tests? (It is kinda crucial, because I can't provide evidence of a claim I haven't made, can I?)

Clancie

20th August 2002, 09:10 AM

Claus,

Perhaps Lucianarchy is giving someone else the opportunity to answer the question that you were asked, but which you never answered.

Clancy

KelvinG

20th August 2002, 10:13 AM

Instead of worrying about which studies JE turned down, I prefer to look at the studies he's actually participated in.
Let's see, there's the ******** Schwartz studies, and...
and...
Oh yah, that's it.

So, who gives a **** whether he's turned down studies or not. The man obviously has no ambition to benefit the world of science by enlightening us of his so called "powers." Instead he prefers to milk trailer park trash of their money by demonstrating his K-mart brand of cold reading on a lame ass syndicated TV show.

For **** sakes people, the guy's an entertainer, and not even that good of one. He's the equivalent of a sideshow circus act and should be afforded the same respect.
So who gives a **** whether he's turned down studies or not. If he had any nuts at all he would be participating in as many studies as he could so he could advance the world of science and help us all understand psi and the paranormal.

Put it to you this way. 50 years from now John Edward will be mentioned in the same breath as Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake. That's right, this amazing man who defies the laws of science and talks to the dead won't be remembered as anything more than a tabloid trickster who offended sane people's sensibilities with his ******** antics.

Unless of course he does finally participate in some legitimate studies and become a ground breaker in the world of science.
Hmmm, for some reason I don't see that happening.

Ipecac

20th August 2002, 11:01 AM

Well said, KelvinG.

If JE is real, he should do all humanity a favor and PROVE it. At the same time he would be PROVING life after death.

It absolutely astounds me the casual way in which believers treat his powers. If this guy is real, we should have a statue of him in every town square. He can PROVE life after death for goodness sake!

But rather than being tested at every possible venue in every possible way to prove life after death, he will only go to one non-skeptical believer "scientist" who apparently can't even design a proper scientific experiment to prove these revolutionary powers. I wonder why that is?

CFLarsen

20th August 2002, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Clancy
Claus,

Perhaps Lucianarchy is giving someone else the opportunity to answer the question that you were asked, but which you never answered.

Clancy

The point is, I didn't make that claim, did I? So why do I have an obligation to show evidence for it?

Lucianarchy said "on behalf of Cantata". I asked Lucianarchy to point out where I made that claim, then.

Should I think you have an obligation to answer to each and every question ever put, even though you never made any claim at all?

Be fair, now.

headscratcher4

20th August 2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Ipecac
Well said, KelvinG.

If JE is real, he should do all humanity a favor and PROVE it. At the same time he would be PROVING life after death.

It absolutely astounds me the casual way in which believers treat his powers. If this guy is real, we should have a statue of him in every town square. He can PROVE life after death for goodness sake!

But rather than being tested at every possible venue in every possible way to prove life after death, he will only go to one non-skeptical believer "scientist" who apparently can't even design a proper scientific experiment to prove these revolutionary powers. I wonder why that is?

Ipecac:

The thing that continually astounds me is exactly something that you've pointed out: the casual way in which believers approach the problems presented by the presence of someone who "can talk to the dead."

As has been pointed out countless times on this forum, the alleged ability to tap into the world of the dead is a earth-shaking claim. Proof would dramatically change much of science as it is currently understood...biology would have to change, physics would have to change, chemistry would change, etc. Why? Because the existence of these powers would inevitably change the very understanding of many of these basic sciences.

Believers, often casually, will say that because the power isn't understood today, doesn't mean that it won't be accepted and understood in the future. Indeed, they suggest it is just something to find like radiation or radio waves or the structure of DNA and that it will just be one more piece of an accepted model of how the universe works.

However, each discovery and theory that has become part of the model for how the universe works, has dramatically changed not only the model but science itself.

The theory of relativeity changed physics forever. Our understanding of DNA has Changed biology. Knowing that the sun is not at the center of the universe changed our basic understanding of nature itself.

Tapping into undetectable currents and vibrations that enable one to communicate with spirits, demonstrating it and proving it, radically alters the universe.

In this sense, John Edwards, Uri Geller and their like are potentially the most important people who have ever lived. Their responsibility to not just to science by to humanity to be tested and tried on their assertions and by a wide variety of scientists and researchers is vast.

Let me put it this way, what if the inventor of the wheel had just stashed it in his cave, showed it to a couple of close friends and family members and told the rest of the world: "trust me, I've this really important, revolutionary invention, but I don't have to show it to anyone -- especially those guys over there, cause' they don't belive me..."

The fact that Edwards is not so astonished by his own claimed powers as to demand complete testing and vindication by many, many researchers, it seems to me, makes his "talents' incredibly suspect. He is not a free agent here, as he holds himself out to have these powers. He needs to satisfy not just Schwartz but the Nobel Prize Committee...indeed, it would seem to me that Schwartz should be a candidate for a noble prize in Physics if he can demonstrate this power in his lab. I don't see him arguing that he deserves one.

Anyway, my end point is that there is nothing casual about this power. If it exists, than the rules by which we design and engineer much of our technology has to be re-evaluated and re-explained.

If you really believe this stuff, I'd be careful getting on an airplane till it is fully accepted and verified by the mainstream scientific community, cause' I don't think it is possible that many assumptions -- like the physics behind how we currently understand flight -- might very well be meaningless in the face of the powers claimed by JE and others.

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Can you please show me where I have claimed that JE has turned down scientific tests? (It is kinda crucial, because I can't provide evidence of a claim I haven't made, can I?)

OK, so you can't answer the question. No problem. Just try to be a little less zealous in the future about *demanding* others answer *your* questions. Thanks.

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Should I think you have an obligation to answer to each and every question ever put, even though you never made any claim at all?

Be fair, now.

Indeed. So, apart from the Martian Worms and the Psirony stuff ( still under personal evaluation :cool: ) what claims have *I* made which I haven't given an answer for? Please be specific and provide quotes. Thanks in advance.

(Please place your 'quoted claim' questions under the QFL thread, in the interests of good house-keeping.)

Hannibal

21st August 2002, 05:27 AM

You have claimed that I am a liar for one - and you still haven't answered MY questions.

You also claim that the British Police use psychics to solve crimes. That too is a lie.

CFLarsen

21st August 2002, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK, so you can't answer the question. No problem. Just try to be a little less zealous in the future about *demanding* others answer *your* questions. Thanks.

I do not demand others answer my questions, if the questions aren't a direct consequence of their claims.

All my questions to you, for instance, comes from your own claims. Please answer them.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Indeed. So, apart from the Martian Worms and the Psirony stuff ( still under personal evaluation :cool: ) what claims have *I* made which I haven't given an answer for? Please be specific and provide quotes. Thanks in advance.

(Please place your 'quoted claim' questions under the QFL thread, in the interests of good house-keeping.)

What about your claim about your ability to predict the lottery numbers? Care to answer that one? :)

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I do not demand others answer my questions, if the questions aren't a direct consequence of their claims.

All my questions to you, for instance, comes from your own claims. Please answer them.

What about your claim about your ability to predict the lottery numbers? Care to answer that one? :)

No can do on that one, old sport, it comes under the Psirony theory ( how Psi effects manifests under conditions with an 'ironic' or synchronistic - often symbolic - nature to them ), still being tested, I've explained before that one's a personal quest.

Now, with respect to any others you may *claim* exist, please provide your evidence by supplying the quotes where I claim anything which has not been answered satisfactorily. I put it to to you that you are inventing things in your imagination, just like a 'true-believer' ... Pah!

KelvinG

21st August 2002, 10:08 AM

Luci, one question.
In your mind, are you winning?

CFLarsen

21st August 2002, 10:13 AM

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Oh, well...

Hmm, in respect of the hypocritical demands that other posters answer whole *lists* of questions which the listee has never made a claim for, I guess that's the closest thing to an apology you could get from Larsen. Oh, well, apology accepted.

"Should I think you have an obligation to answer to each and every question ever put, even though you never made any claim at all?

Be fair, now." - CFLarsen

CFLarsen

21st August 2002, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Hmm, in respect of the hypocritical demands that other posters answer whole *lists* of questions which the listee has never made a claim for, I guess that's the closest thing to an apology you could get from Larsen. Oh, well, apology accepted.

"Should I think you have an obligation to answer to each and every question ever put, even though you never made any claim at all?

Be fair, now." - CFLarsen

It wasn't an apology.

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It wasn't an apology.

It's taken as one, how else could you not have given one after stating the following?:

"Should I think you have an obligation to answer to each and every question ever put, even though you never made any claim at all?

Be fair, now." - CFLarsen

Apply your standards to me as well, or be a hypocrite, it's your choice. You provide the quotes if you want to attribute any claim to me.

CFLarsen

21st August 2002, 01:16 PM

Lucianarchy,

Whatever.

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

Whatever.

No problem. You could at least have the decency to delete your QFL thread, now that you've set your own standards against which you can be measured.

"Should I think you have an obligation to answer to each and every question ever put, even though you never made any claim at all?

Be fair, now." - CFLarsen

(NB. This very honourable thing will also help free up valuable system resources which are needed right now. )

CFLarsen

21st August 2002, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No problem. You could at least have the decency to delete your QFL thread, now that you've set your own standards against which you can be measured.

So that's what's been pissing you off, eh? You'd love that, wouldn't you??? :D

Nope, Lucianarchy, the thread stays. I will personally bump it whenever I feel like it.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
(NB. This very honourable thing will also help free up valuable system resources which are needed right now. )

Deleting one thread won't do much good. Maybe you have other threads you would like to get rid of?

(Don't worry, I've saved yours, ready to be reposted)

TLN

21st August 2002, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(Don't worry, I've saved yours, ready to be reposted)

Perhaps a retrospective of all the claims he "hasn't" made? :D

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So that's what's been pissing you off, eh? You'd love that, wouldn't you??? :D

Nope, Lucianarchy, the thread stays. I will personally bump it whenever I feel like it.

The you are a bold-faced hypocrite.

Thread Deletion is the only honourable thing left for you to do.

You have set your standards:

"Should I think you have an obligation to answer to each and every question ever put, even though you never made any claim at all?

Be fair, now." - CFLarsen

Apply them. Either provide quotes where I claim anything not already not satisfactorily answered or be exposed for what you are - a pseudo-skeptic hypocrite devoid of any honour whatsoever.

TLN

21st August 2002, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Apply them. Either provide quotes where I claim anything not already not satisfactorily answered or be exposed for what you are - a pseudo-skeptic hypocrite devoid of any honour whatsoever.

Here's your claim:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...when evidently, there is *is* a measurable and recordable 'psi' effect which fits the mundane experience of mundane people throughout history. It's time for some skeptics to 'fess up and deal with the fact the 'paranormal' exists and get on with understanding the mechanism and application for the benefit of earth-kind.

Now, care to answer some questions about this claim or continue your trolling? Either way...

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Here's your claim:

Now, care to answer some questions about this claim or continue your trolling? Either way...

The evidence for that claim is below:

If this has been debunked, then provide *evidence* of error, not opinion and insult. Get honest, grow up, and try deal with it in a rational manner:

Subject: Psi-chology - anomalous cognition replicated.
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal, sci.psychology.consciousness, alt.consciousness, sci.psychology.research

The CIA commissioned a review of the US Govt sponsored
research into anomalous cognition undertaken between 1973-1993 (SRI 1973-1988, SAIC 1989-1993 - Stanford Research Institute and Science Applications International Corporation). This review was undertaken in 1995 and Professor Jessica Utts (U of California, Davis) and Ray Hyman (U of Origon and well known CSICOP activist) were contracted to undertake this review.

In 1996, Ray Hyman wrote for the Journal of Scientific Exploration (10) an article entitled "Evaluation of a program on anomalous mental phenomena."

The article was about the review undertaken jointly by Utts and Hyman for the CIA. Hyman writes:

"I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes reported in the
SAIC experiments and in the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed as due to chance. Nor do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing, filedrawer distortions, inappropriate statistical testing, or other misuse of statistical inference."

"So, I accept Professor Utts assertion that the statistical results of
the SAIC and other parapsychologists experiments are "far
beyond what is expected by chance." "

"The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators
have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous
parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable
candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present."

Indeed. Of course, it is impossible to say that *any* scientific
experiment is completely free from possible flaws. Yet here Hyman
admits that not one single *potential* "candidate" for flaw has been identified.

One of the more interesting aspect of the these kinds of experiments is the fact that 'belief' in what the participant is undertaking, actually affects the outcome ( of course, this is also true in athletics, sports and various other human endeavours), yet with these experiments we have controlled studies which positively support the 'belief' hypothesis ( known as the 'Sheep/Goat effect - Schmeidler 1988 'Parapsychology
and Psychology'). The S/G studies have people fill out questionnaires probing beliefs and experiences in ESP/psi and the 'paranormal' type topics. The 'sheep' are the believers and the 'goats' are the skeptics. Following is an example of how the S/G effect has been analysed:

"In 1993, psychologist Tony Lawrence from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, reported a meta-analysis of all sheep-goat forced-choice experiments conducted between 1943 and 1993. Lawrence found seventy-three published reports by thirty-seven different investigators, involving more than 685,000 guesses produced by 4,500 participants. The overall results were strongly in favor of the sheep-goat effect, with believers performing better than disbelieves with odds greater than a trillion to one. Analysis of the file-drawer problem showed that it would require some 1,726 unpublished nonsignificant studies for each published
study to eradicate this effect. Thus, the file-crawer problem cannot
explain this results. Nor did Lawrence find that the results could be explained by variations in the quality of the studies, or by the presence of a few studies with exceptionally large outcomes." (Radin Conscious Universe, 1997 Ref: Lawrence,T 'Bringing in the sheep: a meta-analysis of sheep/goat experiments. P.A 1993)

So what now? It is evident that both sides of the debate have taken a rational review of some of the most significant parapsychology experiments in modern history and both sides agreed that an anomalous phenomena is being replicated, time after time. The skeptical extremes of the argument would contend that that does not necessarily mean that anomalous cognition is occurring. Yet when we take the replications
also undertaken by the PEAR Labs since 1978 - current, we see the patternis repeated, the replications continue to replicated. When we look at the analysis of psychologist Milton (Edinburgh U.) on experiments, which analysed 78 studies, she only found two potential design flaws, yet the overall results effect recorded odds against chance of 10m : 1. (see Milton.J.'Ordinary state
ESP meta-analysis' 1993 . - P.A. Ed Schlitz.MA) Other experiments which also support the existence of an anomalous cognition transfer are included at the end of this article.

What is clear is that scientists are beginning to see a signal in the noise. What this signal is, they aren't 100% sure, but it certainly fits the hypothesis of anomalous cognition, and if this comes to application, as most scientific discoveries of small effect overwhelmingly do go on to do, then we truly are on the cusp of the biggest paradigm shift in human consciousness. As scientist are starting to believe what commonpeople have known about since prehistory, just imagine what the future brings. We'll leave the final word here with Radin:

"After a century of slowly accumulating scientific evidence, we now know that some aspects of psychic phenomena are real. The importance of this discovery lies somewhere between an interesting oddity and an earth-shattering revolution. At a minimum, genuine psi suggests that what science presently
knows about the nature of the universe is seriously incomplete, that the capabilities and limitations of human potential have been vastly underestimated, that beliefs about the strict separation of objective ad subjective are almost certainly incorrect, and that some 'miracles' previously attributed to religious or supernatural
sources may instead be caused by extraordinary capabilities of human consciousness."

Further references and soucres:

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,
confirmed 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 attempting
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 aresoundly 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
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

Bem, Daryl J. and Charles Honorton (1994). "Does psi exist? Replicable evidence
for an anomalous process of information transfer,"
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 4-18.

Bierman, Dick J. (1995). "The Amsterdam Ganzfeld Series III & IV: Target clip
emotionality, effect sizes and openness," Proceedings
of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention, 27-37.

Broughton, Richard and Cheryl Alexander (1995). "Autoganzfeld II: The first
100 sessions," Proceedings of the 38th Annual
Parapsychological Association Convention, 53-61.

May, Edwin C. (1995). "AC Technical trials: Inspiration for the target
entropy concept," May 26, 1995, SAIC Technical Report.

May, Edwin C., Nevin D. Lantz and Tom Piantineda (1994). "Feedback
Considerations in Anomalous Cognition Experiments," Technical
Report, 29 November 1994.

May, Edwin C., J.M. Utts, V.V. Trask, W.W. Luke, T.J. Frivold and
B.S. Humphrey (1988). "Review of the psychoenergetic research
conducted at SRI International (1973-1988)" SRI International Technical
Report, March 1989.

Morris, Robert L., Kathy Dalton, Deborah Delanoy and Caroline Watt
(1995). "Comparison of the sender/no sender condition in the
Ganzfeld," Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association
Convention, 244-259.

Puthoff, Harold E. and Russell Targ (1975). "Perceptual Augmentation
Techniques: Part Two--Research Report," Stanford Research
Institute Final Report, Dec. 1, 1975.

Author - Lucianarchy (c)2002-02-07

TLN

21st August 2002, 02:28 PM

Ready when you are:

http://randio.vwh.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2931&pagenumber=2

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by TLN
Ready when you are:

http://randio.vwh.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2931&pagenumber=2

Where are any quotes of mine in which you believe I make a claim? I keep telling you, wake up, you are making up a whole fantasy about me.

TLN

21st August 2002, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Where are any quotes of mine in which you believe I make a claim? I keep telling you, wake up, you are making up a whole fantasy about me.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...when evidently, there is *is* a measurable and recordable 'psi' effect which fits the mundane experience of mundane people throughout history. It's time for some skeptics to 'fess up and deal with the fact the 'paranormal' exists and get on with understanding the mechanism and application for the benefit of earth-kind.

Keep evading the issues Luci, it's all you have...

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Keep evading the issues Luci, it's all you have...

The SAIC experiments have been replicated. The 'psi' effect is recorded and measured in labs accross the world. There is currently no rational, mundane explanation for an effect which fits the experiences of mundane people, throughout history.

Why are these experiments evasion? What is wrong with the data?

TLN

21st August 2002, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The SAIC experiments have been replicated. The 'psi' effect is recorded and measured in labs accross the world. There is currently no rational, mundane explanation for an effect which fits the experiences of mundane people, throughout history.

Why are these experiments evasion? What is wrong with the data?

Stick to one thread, I'm waiting:

http://randio.vwh.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2931&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Lucianarchy

21st August 2002, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Stick to one thread, I'm waiting:

http://randio.vwh.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2931&perpage=40&pagenumber=2

Quotes, please. You are beginning to look like a Larsen, backing away from providing evidence. Come on, get on with it.

Lucianarchy

22nd August 2002, 01:51 AM

Yep, thought so....

Darat

22nd August 2002, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

No can do on that one, old sport, it comes under the Psirony theory ( how Psi effects manifests under conditions with an 'ironic' or synchronistic - often symbolic - nature to them ), still being tested, I've explained before that one's a personal quest.

Now, with respect to any others you may *claim* exist, please provide your evidence by supplying the quotes where I claim anything which has not been answered satisfactorily. I put it to to you that you are inventing things in your imagination, just like a 'true-believer' ... Pah!

A quick reminder to anyone reading this thread, you need to keep in mind the fact that the Big L is a proven liar.

Time and time again in these threads it has been caught out in lies and claims it can't substantiate.

As for the latest "it comes under the Psirony theory". LOL - It's took it months to come up with this excuse.

From the evidence in the threads I can re-state the "psirony theory" as

"The Big L tells lies".

Let’s see how this fits into one of the statements quoted above. The first paragraph can be, by using the psirony theory, re-stated as:

“No can do on that one, old sport, because I lied.”

This statement now fits all the evidence from this thread (and other threads) the Big L has “contributed” to.

In fact go through most of the Big L’s posts (not all) and substitute the “The Big L tells lies” , sorry “psirony theory” approach and they suddenly make a lot more sense.

(Edited for " this thread".)

Lucianarchy

22nd August 2002, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Darat

A quick reminder to anyone reading this thread, you need to keep in mind the fact that the Big L is a proven liar.

Time and time again in these threads it has been caught out in lies and claims it can't substantiate.

As for the latest "it comes under the Psirony theory". LOL - It's took it months to come up with this excuse.

From the evidence in the threads I can re-state the "psirony theory" as

"The Big L tells lies".

Let’s see how this fits into one of the statements quoted above. The first paragraph can be, by using the psirony theory, re-stated as:

“No can do on that one, old sport, because I lied.”

This statement now fits all the evidence from this thread (and other threads) the Big L has “contributed” to.

In fact go through most of the Big L’s posts (not all) and substitute the “The Big L tells lies” , sorry “psirony theory” approach and they suddenly make a lot more sense.

(Edited for " this thread".)

'Psirony' only refers to the method of deducing possible outcomes in respect of my exp with the NLMD. This was explained at the time, it does not reate to anything else I have discussed.

If, like Larsen and TLN you are going to make excuses for failing to provide quotes for anything you *beleive* I have claimed, then at least use honest excuses.

Try being honest, Darat, you never know, it might suit you.

Hannibal

22nd August 2002, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Hannibal
You have claimed that I am a liar for one - and you still haven't answered MY questions.

You also claim that the British Police use psychics to solve crimes. That too is a lie.

Response awaited.....see other thread too...

TLN

22nd August 2002, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If, like Larsen and TLN you are going to make excuses for failing to provide quotes for anything you *beleive* I have claimed, then at least use honest excuses.

I provided the quote... three times.

See you in a few hours.

TLN

22nd August 2002, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by TLN
I provided the quote... three times.

See you in a few hours.

Ready when you are, but please, stick to one thread. (http://randio.vwh.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=151235#post151235)

Lucianarchy

22nd August 2002, 12:15 PM

"Although there is a wide range of skill and ability in the field of research parapsychology, even the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)—a self-appointed skeptics group, as represented by Professor Ray Hyman feels that parapsychology researchers are among the best methodologists. (A comment Hyman made at the 20th Congress of CSICOP.)

Now to the issue whether PSI exists. The problem here is a definitional one. ESP, for example, is what happens when nothing else should (or did). Or at least there is an operational definition--if you do this procedure what you get we call ESP. The very best one can do here (given the negative definition) is to observe an anomaly with the best methodology possible. So based upon the data in our lab and elsewhere there is incontrovertible evidence for a statistically-based information transfer anomaly. At this point, most researchers and informed skeptics are in agreement. When Utts suggested at the 20th CSICOP Congress that we must reject the null hypothesis and that researchers should invest their resources in determining what is going on, Professor Ray Hyman said he agreed.

Since then, the most compelling evidence for an anomaly is the highly significant correlations of anomalous cognition with: the gradient of Shannon entropy of the target photographs, the local sidereal time of the trial and the geomagnetic field fluctuations (Ap index). The latter two correlates come from the data from 1,000’s of trials over 20 years from research groups around the planet. The full story concerning these correlations is too long for this posting.

Now back to the Schlitz staring work. The staring experiments, themselves, are replications of a broader class of studies called distant mental interaction on living systems (DMILS). In a recent review of these studies, Delanoy constructed a mini-meta analysis the summary of which is shown below.

This analysis covers 8 different protocols (including the staring protocol), 37 different studies and 655 individual sessions. A formal meta-analysis is needed to address issues of quality of methodology and file-drawer (i.e., studies that are unreported and not significant, that is p <= 0.05). If we take this data as a given for the time being, there is an important question. Do agents (i.e., experimental subjects) use their mind to influence the remote biological system? An alternative is that people, subjects and/or experimenters, use their anomalous cognition or ESP ability to “sort” conditions to mimic PK.

The following graph shows the 8 different protocols and their respective mean effect sizes and 1-standard errors. Six of the 8 protocols show independent significant deviations from mean chance expectation.

Fortunately there is a model/methodological approach that can distinguish between these two hypotheses.

This model is called Decision Augmentation Theory and holds that people can use their ESP ability to systematically bias decisions toward favorable outcomes. When applied to the vast literature of random number generator experiments where subjects are asked to use their minds to alter the statistical outputs, the analysis strongly favors the ESP over the influence model. In short, these subjects are PSI-mediated statistical opportunists in that the initiate runs to capture locally deviant subsequences form larger unperturbed and unbiased binary sequences. Similar techniques may be applied to future DMILS data.

May, E.C., Utts, J.M., & Spottiswoode, S.J.P. (1995). Decision augmentation theory: Toward a model of anomalous mental phenomena. Journal of Parapsychology, 59, 195-220.

May, E.C., Spottiswoode, S.J.P., Utts, J.M., & James, C.L. (1995). Applications of decision augmentation theory. Journal of Parapsychology, 59, 221-250. " - Dr E.May Apr. 2001

RichardR

22nd August 2002, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

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,
confirmed 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 attempting
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 aresoundly 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
http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

I love the way you quote this study that you clearly don't understand.

Did you see KelvinG's critique of this study? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=151795#post151795) Any response? (No.)