Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

[Clancie]

Ian Rowland is on his trip out West. His website posts his itinerary and follows up with this (re-posted here in case anyone feels like taking him up on any of it):

YOU CAN GET IN TOUCH JUST TO SAY 'HI!' AND HANG OUT!

If you want to just meet up, hang out, chat (about magic or cold reading or anything else), play Tour Guide, explain baseball to me, have a drink, have dinner, or do anything else in the 'fun, interesting and legal' category, please feel free to get in touch. I'm pretty easy to get along with, fairly harmless, and I enjoy meeting just about everyone. If you can save me any money re transport or accommodation, I'd love to hear from you. Here's the email link again. My principal interests are: eating really good fajitas, magic, eating at Koo-Koo-Roo, stand-up comedy, the performing arts generally, art and galleries and cultural stuff, sightseeing, weird stuff, stunning scenery, great architecture, guitars and guitarists, famous landmarks, anything that's cool and fun and different. [/B]

[RC]

I'd be happy to show Rowland the sights of San Francisco. I'll send him an email.

[Mr. Skinny]

I've seen a few posts by Ian over at the Straight Dope Message Board.

Seems like a genuine and nice individual.

Take him to see a bluegrass band RC!

[neofight]

Yes, he sure is, Clancie! lol If RC is serious, I'd be interested to know if he would take RC up on his offer. Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo

[RC]

Hmm, maybe I could go in drag? He'll never know the difference.

[renata]

Originally posted by neofight
Yes, he sure is, Clancie! lol If RC is serious, I'd be interested to know if he would take RC up on his offer. Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo

Neo, do tell what gives you that impression? Do you know Ian Rowland? Has he hit on you? Has he hit on any woman on the board, to your knowledge? Why exactly do you assume he is looking to hook up?

[hgc]

Originally posted by RC
Hmm, maybe I could go in drag? He'll never know the difference.
Never know the difference?

[Clancie]

Lol, neo.
I think there's a bit of that in there, yes. (renata, have you visited Ian's website? Last time I did he had a "Photo Gallery" with "my friends" or something...all women, different looks, lots and lots, with captions making it clear that...yes, he likes women! Nothing wrong with that. And he also made it clear, imho, from something he posted there that he has a girl friend but is still looking and available if the right person should come along). I'm sure he would love to meet some of his attractive fans (if this means RC in drag, so be it! lol)

Also, neo and I have exchanged emails with him. He's very nice, a tiny bit flirtatious even online (in an appropriate way)--and her comment was intended as an inside joke with me, not as a dig at Ian. We both like him and, as I titled this thread, think he seems (from his writing, and online pronouncements) like--as I said--a nice guy. (And a very attractive one, too:) )

[richardm]

Originally posted by Clancie
a nice guy. (And a very attractive one, too:) )

He looks a lot like Steve Martin, in the flesh. At least, he does now that he's fixed his hair. ;)

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
Lol, neo.
I think there's a bit of that in there, yes. (renata, have you visited his website? Last time I did he had a "Photo Gallery" with "my friends" or something...all women, different looks, lots and lots, with captions making it clear that...he likes women! (And he also made it clear from something he posted there, imo, that he has a girl friend but is still looking and available if the right person should come along). I'm sure he would love to meet some of his attractive fans (if this means RC in drag, so be it! lol)

Also, neo and I have exchanged emails with him. He's very nice, a tiny bit flirtatious (in an appropriate way)--and her comment was intended as an inside joke with me, not as a dig at Ian. We both like him and, as I titled this thread, think he seems (from his writing, and online pronouncements) like--as I said--a nice guy. (And very attractive, too:) )


Well, has he tried to hook up with you, then?

You see, Clancie, you complained before about dismissive comments from posters here. This is just the kind of drive by character joke that I suspect you strenuously object to.

Reverse roles here, for a second, imagine the comment was about JE. Would you not be offended, demand evidence, claim that is character assassination?

Being friendly and flirtateous is fine, but Neo publicly suggested he is just trying to hook with females on board. I do not think it is funny, I think it is insulting.

[Clancie]

From renata

Reverse roles here, for a second, imagine the comment was about JE. Would you not be offended, demand evidence, claim that is character assassination?
Well, JE is married to start with. Ian isn't (and his website gives the impression he's available).
Being friendly and flirtateous is fine
I think so, too.
From renata
...but Neo publicly suggested he is just trying to hook with females on board. I do not think it is funny, I think it is insulting
Sure you're not still irritated with us from other topics? I don't think Ian would be offended by what neo said at all. I would be surprised if he wasn't hoping that some of the people who respond to his nice offer are attractive, available females.

He didn't, however, say, "Only contact me if you are a single, attractive female; others need not apply." Nor did neo imply that. Hence, the title of my thread, as opposed to something else. He seems like a nice, friendly guy who's not shy to make it known he's hetereosexual and available. Personally, I think his openness to meeting all kinds of new people and having random experiences with them when he travels is amazing...great, if you've got the guts for it. (Appparently he is also far from being a "control freak") Really, I think you're making too much of her comment.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
[[/B]
Sure you're not still irritated with us from other topics? I don't think Ian would be offended by what neo said at all. I would be surprised if he wasn't hoping that some of the people who respond to his nice offer are attractive, available females.

He didn't, however, say, "Only contact me if you are a single, attractive female; others need not apply." Nor did neo imply that. Hence, the title of my thread, as opposed to something else. He seems like a nice, friendly guy who's not shy to make it known he's hetereosexual and available. Personally, I think his openness to meeting all kinds of new people and having random experiences with them when he travels is amazing...great, if you've got the guts for it. (Appparently he is also far from being a "control freak") Really, I think you're making too much of her comment. [/B]

It is possible that I am irritated by your defensive implications in my Windmill thread and lack of apology for repeatedly assuming things about my posts that were far from the truth.

But that is water under the proverbial bridge.

If I wrote Ian right now and quoted what you and Neo said, what do you think he would say? Recall that neo implied RC may not meet Ian because RC is male, and that Ian is looking to "hook up" ( which I interpret have one night stand sex) with female posters.

JE is married, so why is an allegation of infidelity worse than an allegation of promiscuity? Or feigning interest in women so that he could have sex while ignoring the men? Because that logically follows from Neo's comment.

I also think it is great he wants to meet new people. The man is interesting and appears to be delightful.


You think I am making too much of Neo's comment. So do you then agree with her that Ian wants to f*** several female posters and will avoid the men?


This is a double standard, and that is why I am bringing it to your attention. I guarantee if Claus said a similar thing about JE, you would be all over it.

[Clancie]

Recall that neo implied RC may not meet Ian because RC is male, and that Ian is looking to "hook up" ( which I interpret have one night stand sex) with female posters.
"hook up" means one night stand sex? Really? I thought it meant what he says, "hang out with".
JE is married, so why is an allegation of infidelity worse than an allegation of promiscuity? Or feigning interest in women so that he could have sex while ignoring the men?
Wow, renata. We're on totally different wavelengths with this one. I didn't see neo say any of that.
Because that logically follows from Neo's comment.
Not in terms of how I took it. In no way did I think she was saying his suggestion is all about casual sex. That isn't what "hook up" means to me. (Is that a common term for it? I thought it meant "connect with" or "hang out" or even "meet and have fun".)
From renata

You think I am making too much of Neo's comment. So do you then agree with her that Ian wants to f*** several female posters and will avoid the men?
No, renata. I don't think that's what she meant at all. Maybe I'm naive (at my age that would be embarrassing), but it never even occurred to me that was what she was saying. (Uh...neo?)
From renata
This is a double standard, and that is why I am bringing it to your attention. I guarantee if Claus said a similar thing about JE, you would be all over it.
Claus? JE? How'd they get into it?
If I wrote Ian right now and quoted what you and Neo said, what do you think he would say?
Well, if you just QUOTED what we said, exactly as put forward here, the entire thread, including yours and all subsequent posts, I think he'd laugh (and probably also be very flattered to be the object of all this speculation).

neo hasn't weighed in yet, but...why not try it and see what he thinks? I'd be surprised if he'd be the least bit offended.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

"hook up" means one night stand sex? Really? I thought it meant what he says, "hang out with".



Every time I have seen it used it meant to have sex, casual one night stand.

If Neo has meant hang out, why did she thing he would want to hang out with female more than men?


Well, if you just QUOTED what we said, exactly as put forward, including yours and all subsequent posts, I think he'd laugh (and probably also be very flattered to be the object of all this speculation).

Can you point me to the place on his website where he says he is looking if something else came along? I can not locate that, and I do hope Neo or you are not revealing anything from provate correspondence.

It is possible he will laugh, of course. But did Neo ask his permission to post that assertion here? What if I said- Sure, Clancie is swell- she just wants to get some! Oh, you interpreted get some sexually? I meant get some in a friendly way, get some interesting conversation.

What Neo posted is at best ambiguous. However, if she would like to clarify what she meant, I would welcome that.

[RC]

Renata, for someone who blasted Clancie yesterday because she chose to (in your words) make a big deal out of something that you found not to be germane to the thread topic, you sure don't practice what you preach!

Get over yourself! You're a total control freak who alternates between trying to shut down and minimize those who disagree with you and then stir the pot on issues you care about. I've been reading your posts carefully this week and grow less and less impressed.

This thread is about what a neat guy Ian Rowland is and how we'd like to do something with him. Neo likes Rowland and her comments are light-hearted and based on her own interactions with him.

:rolleyes:

[renata]

Originally posted by RC
Renata, for someone who blasted Clancie yesterday because she chose to (in your words) make a big deal out of something that you found not to be germane to the thread topic, you sure don't practice what you preach!

Get over yourself! You're a total control freak who alternates between trying to shut down and minimize those who disagree with you and then stir the pot on issues you care about. I've been reading your posts carefully this week and grow less and less impressed.

This thread is about what a neat guy Ian Rowland is and how we'd like to do something with him. Neo likes Rowland and her comments are light-hearted and based on her own interactions with him.

:rolleyes:

Had to quote that for posterity

I am glad to see you write in such a warm, considerate manner. Funny how when a mirror is shown to some people, they freak out.


I am waiting for your apology on the Windmill thread, also, by the way. Or is it only OK to demand apologies from skeptics?

[Clancie]

From renata

It is possible that I am irritated by your defensive implications in my Windmill thread and lack of apology for repeatedly assuming things about my posts that were far from the truth.
Well, renata, I looked over that thread again and feel I made a perfectly valid point about what you posted (backed up by a direct quote from you). Naturally, you were free to disagree with or dispute it (as you did) however you wanted to.

I feel no apology is warranted for anything I wrote there. It was a perfectly legitimate discussion point based on something you wrote that I took exception to.

You may not like the points I made there, but I don't agree with all of yours either...Oh well.

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by neofight
Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo

Hi Neofight.

I appreciate that this comment was probably meant in a perfectly friendly and harmless way, but please don't say things like this. It can be very misleading, and it can start ugly and ill-founded rumours. It's also a little disrespectful not only to myself, although I couldn't care less, but to the many very kind, helpful and wonderful people who DO get in touch with me when I visit faraway places and whom it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to meet.

There is absolutely nothing even remotely seductive or nefarious about me, about any of the content on my website, or about the fact that when I'm setting off on my various travels I tend to announce the fact, just so that any interested parties may get in touch if they wish to do so. If anyone thinks otherwise, well, all I can offer is that sometimes these things are in the eye of the beholder.

Clancie said that there's something on my website which says I am 'looking and available if the right person comes along'. This is news to me. If anyone can help me locate this reference, I will be happy to delete it or correct it as soon as I get back home and can edit my website.

As for the phorase 'hook up with', it's just a term which I, as a Brit, have picked up from my American friends. As far as I'm aware, it means to meet, to spend time together socially, to make friends. I was not aware it had any other connotation, and it certainly doesn't when I use it.

I have faults and failings by the truck load, no doubt, but being a creepy, seductive middle-aged lounge lizard is not one of them, and the idea is entirely absurd to anyone who knows me.

Peace to you all. I just thought it might be nice to correct misunderstandings BEFORE they get out of hand, you know what I mean?

Oh, and for those of you who HAVE said assorted nice things about me in this thread or anywhere else, well, thank you. I am flattered, gratified and pleasantly surprised!

[RC]

I find it ironic that Renata found Neo's comments to be insulting, but has nothing to say about the "Gorgon" insult. Actually, no one had anything to say about that except for me. Oh...but that was Claus who said Gorgon.

Transparent, anyone?

[Clancie]

Hi Ian,

I'm glad renata got your attention, but would like to clear up any misunderstanding. As you can see, I started this thread a week ago, mainly because I was impressed and surprised by your friendly travel invitation and thought some Californians might like to take you up on it. The thread kind of sat here (I'm not sure how many JREF-ers are in California anyway), until the recent controversy.

From Ian Rowland

As for the phrase 'hook up with', it's just a term which I, as a Brit, have picked up from my American friends. As far as I'm aware, it means to meet, to spend time together socially, to make friends. I was not aware it had any other connotation, and it certainly doesn't when I use it.
That was exactly my point, and I'm sure just what neo had in mind, too. I've never seen it mean any of the things that renata mentioned and, knowing neo (who has a lot of class, imo), I know she would not say any of that about anyone.
From Ian Rowland

I have faults and failings by the truck load, no doubt, but being a creepy, seductive middle-aged lounge lizard is not one of them, and the idea is entirely absurd to anyone who knows me.
Lol, I'm sorry if the discussion sounds like that to you, but I really don't think anyone was suggesting that.

From Ian Rowland

Clancie said that there's something on my website which says I am 'looking and available if the right person comes along'. This is news to me. If anyone can help me locate this reference, I will be happy to delete it or correct it as soon as I get back home and can edit my website.
You know, I was relying on memory from looking at your site several months ago. I thought you had a resume-type thing posted for people interested in hiring you, including a category like: "Marital Status" and the answer: "Committed, but available" -- or something like that. Am I wrong? There wasn't anything ever like that posted there?

If so, I'm sorry for the misrepresentation. And thanks for taking the time to clarify it all. :)

P.S. You really didn't laugh at this discussion and really weren't flattered by it as I told renata I thought you'd be? Really? I guess my "psychic abilities" aren't that good after all. :(

[WooBot]

Next drama, please. This one's already over the top.

[Fade]

Originally posted by RC
I find it ironic that Renata found Neo's comments to be insulting, but has nothing to say about the "Gorgon" insult. Actually, no one had anything to say about that except for me. Oh...but that was Claus who said Gorgon.

Transparent, anyone?

Tired, stupid, annoying Agenda anyone?

Anyway, welcome Ian Rowland.

[renata]

Originally posted by RC
I find it ironic that Renata found Neo's comments to be insulting, but has nothing to say about the "Gorgon" insult. Actually, no one had anything to say about that except for me. Oh...but that was Claus who said Gorgon.

Transparent, anyone?


Was I on the thread in which Claus called Clancie a Gorgon? Am I supposed to follow the bickering between the two and comment on everything that happens between them?

Did you object when SteveGrenard insunuated Claus was a pedophile? No?


RC, it was pretty quick the veneer of niceness left you. I am disappointed.




On the more important point, I am sorry Ian felt he had to post what I felt was obvious from the start. I apologize to him for my role in any embarassment I caused him.

[De_Bunk]

All this over Neo's one sentence...

Oh please...

It was meant as a joke...plain and simple...

99.99% of everyone that read it realised it was a joke...

Why bother even discussing it...

A bit of common sense wouldn't have gone amiss...

DB

[WooBot]

Originally posted by renata


On the more important point, I am sorry Ian felt he had to post what I felt was obvious from the start. I apologize to him for my role in any embarassment I caused him.

And perhaps for creating a situation out of whole cloth, where there was none before?

If you hadn't made a huge issue of it, it would have passed unnoticed.

[WooBot]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland


Hi Neofight.

I appreciate that this comment was probably meant in a perfectly friendly and harmless way, but please don't say things like this. It can be very misleading, and it can start ugly and ill-founded rumours.

No disrespect intended, but it's probably a good idea to look around a bit and see where you are before making pronouncements. We tend to say what we like here.

[xouper]

WooBot: (replying to renata) If you hadn't made a huge issue of it, it would have passed unnoticed.I disagree. I too found Neo's comment offensive.

[WooBot]

Originally posted by xouper
I disagree. I too found Neo's comment offensive.

Interesting. I would expect you, if you erred, to err on the side of freedom.

[xouper]

WooBot: (replying to Ian Rowland) No disrespect intended, but it's probably a good idea to look around a bit and see where you are before making pronouncements. We tend to say what we like here.So you won't mind if I say what I like, that your reply to Ian Rowland is out of line. I appreciated his setting the record straight.

[WooBot]

Originally posted by xouper
So you won't mind if I say what I like, that your reply to Ian Rowland is out of line. I appreciated his setting the record straight.

Sorry you think so. I find I usually agree with you.

I'm not one for hero worship. I expect even God to take off his halo if He's having dinner with me.

[xouper]

WooBot: Interesting. I would expect you, if you erred, to err on the side of freedom.Just because I find certain speech offensive does not mean I am not a defender of free speech. I can defend your right to say what you want and at the same time disagree with (or be offended by) the content of your speech. No contradiction there.

[xouper]

WooBot: I'm not one for hero worship.Neither am I.

[WooBot]

Originally posted by xouper
Neither am I.

Then my reply wasn't "out of line". You are free to disagree with it.

[RC]

Fade, we have never gotten along, but rarely have you ever explained in detail your issues with me. Instead, you choose low road and insult without even taking the time to explain why.

So, I challenge you to lay it out. Explain to me what my agenda is and why you think it is "tired, stupid, and annoying".

I don't just insult and run. I've been very clear to Renata on why I have issues with her. She thinks that I've just stopped being "nice" and that's her right. She and I don't have to get along, but at least she doesn't just post every once in a while to take a shot at me like you do.

I see no real agenda in pointing out that I find hypocrisy when people defend skeptics against insults but ignore those flung at believers. I name specific examples and put it out there for discussion.

So...do let me know...what is my agenda?

[WooBot]

Hey Xouper, let's drop it and get a beer instead. You can come too, Ian.

Do you think we might have a More Interesting Ian now?

[xouper]

WooBot: Then my reply wasn't "out of line". You are free to disagree with it.I guess that means you don't see how hypocritical it is to chastise Ian Rowland for saying what he wanted on this board, when you yourself claim the right to say what you want.

I don't think it was unreasonable for Ian to post a request not to make misleading statements about him. I still maintain that your comment (implying that his request was unreasonable) is out of line. People are certainly free to ignore Ian's request, but at least we now know how he feels about it.

Hey Xouper, let's drop it and get a beer instead.OK.

[WooBot]

Originally posted by xouper
I guess that means you don't see how hypocritical it is to chastise Ian Rowland for saying what he wanted on this board, when you yourself claim the right to say what you want.

I don't think it was unreasonable for Ian to post a request not to make misleading statements about him. I still maintain that your comment (implying that his request was unreasonable) is out of line. People are certainly free to ignore Ian's request, but at least we now know how he feels about it.

OK.

Dangit, you know I'm not going to let you have the last word. :D

Ian can say what he likes, of course, don't pretend to misunderstand. In case that first beer has already taken effect and you hadn't noticed, his first post here was telling people what and what not to say. If he had waited a little longer he'd have realized that he was playing into someone's little pre-existing drama and would probably have ignored the little made-for-tv controversy.

Xouper, for someone who constantly gets told that he's being out of line, I had hoped you'd have a higher standard for what qualifies. :p

Ian, welcome welcome, in case you misinterpret me. Glad you're here.

What'll you boys drink?

[neofight]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland


Hi Neofight.

I appreciate that this comment was probably meant in a perfectly friendly and harmless way, but please don't say things like this. It can be very misleading, and it can start ugly and ill-founded rumours. It's also a little disrespectful not only to myself, although I couldn't care less, but to the many very kind, helpful and wonderful people who DO get in touch with me when I visit faraway places and whom it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to meet.

Hello, Ian. You are a hundred percent correct that I meant no harm, nor anything untoward by my remark to my good friend, RC. It most definitely was made in good humor, and it referred only to the very healthy appreciation that you obviously have for women, which is apparent to anyone who peruses your website's photo gallery. :) I could be mistaken, but it seems that most of the photos there were of women you either know or met briefly during your travels, and not of men. I meant no disrespect towards you, however, and am glad you didn't take offense. Your concerns are duly noted.

Clancie said that there's something on my website which says I am 'looking and available if the right person comes along'. This is news to me. If anyone can help me locate this reference, I will be happy to delete it or correct it as soon as I get back home and can edit my website.

I will corroborate Clancie on this particular issue, Ian, since I did read it as well, somewhere on your website. It seemed a rather off-handed comment, but since you didn't elaborate, it would be difficult for anyone to know exactly what you may have meant by that remark. I'm sure if you'd like to edit it out, it won't be too difficult to find.

As for the phorase 'hook up with', it's just a term which I, as a Brit, have picked up from my American friends. As far as I'm aware, it means to meet, to spend time together socially, to make friends. I was not aware it had any other connotation, and it certainly doesn't when I use it.

Well, that's what it means in my book as well, Ian, but it sounds as though perhaps renata's book might read a little differently, since you can see from her posts what she has accused me of saying about you. :) I plead innocent, I assure you! As you stated, some things are in the eye of the beholder. :rolleyes:

I have faults and failings by the truck load, no doubt, but being a creepy, seductive middle-aged lounge lizard is not one of them, and the idea is entirely absurd to anyone who knows me.

Nor was that my impression of you during our e-mail exchanges, and I certainly was not trying to attach any such characterization to you in my post. I found you to be very tactful, intelligent, charming, witty, and most importantly, patient with me when I plied you with all kinds of questions about cold-reading vs. mediumship. At the time, I totally enjoyed corresponding with you, and thought you were a delightful man. No CSMLL at all! Well, actually, seductive may still apply, but only in a good way. ;)

Peace to you all. I just thought it might be nice to correct misunderstandings BEFORE they get out of hand, you know what I mean?

Peace right back atcha, Ian! I appreciate your concerns, and thanks for addressing them in such a direct and honest manner. Take care! .....neo (Jackie)

[Fade]

You continue to interject your irrelevant politick into every single thread you post in, with few exceptions. Time and again people have attempted to correct your misconceptions, but you repeat the same anti-Skeptic, anti-Atheist, anti-Everythingyoubelieve in philosophies that don't have anything to do with rational thinking. Why are you here? You are obviously credulous enough to believe in obviously fake mediums (most likely because you enjoy believing in such things and it vindicates yet other portions of your belief structure), and can't stand the fact that we aren't.

You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics. You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you, and try to draw paralells that don't exist, so that you can feel like a big fat martyr.

You aren't caustic, and you are generally pleasent. That doesn't excuse your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics. I have nothing against you personally, but you are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet. You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like. You coat your words with ulterior motives. You try to make yourself feel important. You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.

You are lazy. You are a brick wall of incompetence.

That is my problem with you.

[xouper]

WooBot: In case ... you hadn't noticed, his first post here was telling people what and what not to say.Telling?? He asked, "please don't say things like this." Sounded more like a polite request to me.

Xouper, for someone who constantly gets told that he's being out of line, I had hoped you'd have a higher standard for what qualifies. :pThat's a valid point. You can have that last word.

[Fade]

Xouper:

You however are more squishy and lovable than I had thought upon first meeting you.

I think I am starting to understand you more and more.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Fade
You continue to interject your irrelevant politick into every single thread you post in, with few exceptions. Time and again people have attempted to correct your misconceptions, but you repeat the same anti-Skeptic, anti-Atheist, anti-Everythingyoubelieve in philosophies that don't have anything to do with rational thinking.

And you are talking about whom??? RC??? You think this diatribe of yours is describing RC? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Now that's pretty lame!......neo

[Fade]

Speaking of lame.

[RC]

Originally posted by Fade
You continue to interject your irrelevant politick into every single thread you post in, with few exceptions. Time and again people have attempted to correct your misconceptions, but you repeat the same anti-Skeptic, anti-Atheist, anti-Everythingyoubelieve in philosophies that don't have anything to do with rational thinking. Why are you here? You are obviously credulous enough to believe in obviously fake mediums (most likely because you enjoy believing in such things and it vindicates yet other portions of your belief structure), and can't stand the fact that we aren't.

You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics. You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you, and try to draw paralells that don't exist, so that you can feel like a big fat martyr.

You aren't caustic, and you are generally pleasent. That doesn't excuse your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics. I have nothing against you personally, but you are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet. You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like. You coat your words with ulterior motives. You try to make yourself feel important. You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.

You are lazy. You are a brick wall of incompetence.

That is my problem with you.

I appreciate this reply. I know that there is no purpose in engaging in discussion with you about this as your mind seems pretty made up. I will say, that it is clear that you don't really read many of my posts, as I have never once made an anti-atheist comment in my life. I was an atheist for 32 years and for the last two years, I'm an "I have no idea". I challenge you to find evidence to back up these claims. I demand the same from skeptics that they demand of me.

I also have changed my position on mediums and I now don't endorse any as authentic. That has been made clear since December of last year.

I'm very comfortable with my politics, but if you choose to hate people because they share different political views, like I said before, that says more about you than anything.

This forum is described as one for skeptics and believers. I came here as a believer because I enjoy discussing mediumship. I stayed because I found a lot of people that I enjoy chatting with.
I must ask who the hell are you to ask me why I'm here. You don't run the board.

I'm definitely not lazy and anyone who knows me can confirm that.

Actually, you do have something against me personally. Otherwise you simply wouldn't attack me the way you have for going on a year now. I still don't really know what it is that makes you have such a visceral and personal reaction against me, but your post does confirm to me that you just don't like me and you haven't really thought through why.

[Fade]

Originally posted by RC
Renata, for someone who blasted Clancie yesterday because she chose to (in your words) make a big deal out of something that you found not to be germane to the thread topic, you sure don't practice what you preach!
:rolleyes:

This is what I am talking about, RC.

I don't buy your guise of pleasentry. You too vociferously defend Clancie to not be indebted to it's position in some way. Clancie has shown time and again that it isn't willing to open up reasonable communications with anyone on this forum. Claus, on the other hand, has, time and again.

Why do you persist in this effort to defame Claus, Renata, and anyone else in that set?

I can only assume that you happen to agree with Clancie.

Your act doesn't fool me.

[neofight]

RC and Clancie, thank you both for taking up for me in my absence. Your support is much appreciated! Man, I go away for a few days and all hell breaks out! :)

WooBot and De_Bunk, ditto! Thank you both as well for your good common-sense remarks, and anyone else that I may have missed. :) ......neo

[WooBot]

Originally posted by neofight
RC and Clancie, thank you both for taking up for me in my absence. Your support is much appreciated! Man, I go away for a few days and all hell breaks out! :)

WooBot and De_Bunk, ditto! Thank you both as well for your good common-sense remarks, and anyone else that I may have missed. :) ......neo

Much ado about nothing, and then more ado about the ado, then several perfectly intelligent people end up wading in ado-ado.

[RC]

Well Fade, I completely disagree with your perception of Clancie's behavior on this board (who is a she by the way) and it solidifies for me that you really aren't paying much attention to a lot of these conversations.

You don't like me because I speak my mind about Claus and Renata. That's fine with me. I just wanted to understand what the insults were all about.

I clearly have no "agenda" on this board and you certainly haven't been able to describe one, let alone find any evidence of such an agenda. I came here as a believer to defend John Edward. I went away for a while and came back to tell everyone that I don't really believe in him anymore. What kind of anti-skeptic agenda is that?

[Clancie]

RC,
How typically nice of you to continue to try to engage Fade in civil conversation. For myself, I'm still laughing over the bizarre rant above:Posted by Fade

You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics.

You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you

...your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics.

You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like.

You coat your words with ulterior motives.

You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.

You are lazy.

You are a brick wall of incompetence.

LOL!

But, on a serious note, I'm just sorry, RC, that you had to put up with a rant like that just for having the temerity (sorry, Fade, that means "boldness") to mention Claus's notorious name-calling (something even he has admitted to) and gone on to raise the issue of inconsistent criticism with renata (a valid issue in general which is often raised here, by all sides, in all sorts of discussions).

Fade obviously has numerous anger issues that are completely unrelated to you, RC, or anything you've posted (now or ever). He also is obviously completely unfamiliar with your posts, your ideas, or your determination to always speak up for the truth as you see it (whether politically, on issues of mediumship, or in any issue at this board that you feel strongly about).

Fade, you seem to pride yourself on some kind of "critical thinking", but in reality, your post seems to be all about people having to see it your way or else be excoriated (that means, Fade, "verbally abused").

Fade, you could learn a lot from RC (not the least of which is how to write down your thoughts more coherently and back them up with facts rather than wild-eyed emotions). I have no idea what in the world you're trying to say with the first sentence of the following (and the second one is an outright lie):
You too vociferously defend Clancie to not be indebted to it's (sic) position in some way. Clancie has shown time and again that it isn't willing to open up reasonable communications with anyone on this forum.
And then there is this rather hilarious gem of hysterical overstatement from you, Fade:

...You are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet.

rofl!!!!
Some people just aren't worth bothering with.:rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Fade
You continue to interject your irrelevant politick into every single thread you post in, with few exceptions. Time and again people have attempted to correct your misconceptions, but you repeat the same anti-Skeptic, anti-Atheist, anti-Everythingyoubelieve in philosophies that don't have anything to do with rational thinking. Why are you here? You are obviously credulous enough to believe in obviously fake mediums (most likely because you enjoy believing in such things and it vindicates yet other portions of your belief structure), and can't stand the fact that we aren't.

You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics. You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you, and try to draw paralells that don't exist, so that you can feel like a big fat martyr.

You aren't caustic, and you are generally pleasent. That doesn't excuse your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics. I have nothing against you personally, but you are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet. You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like. You coat your words with ulterior motives. You try to make yourself feel important. You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.

You are lazy. You are a brick wall of incompetence.

That is my problem with you.

Oh give it a rest Fade. Try to be nice for once in your life.

[neofight]

Originally posted by WooBot


Much ado about nothing, and then more ado about the ado, then several perfectly intelligent people end up wading in ado-ado.

LOL That about sums it up, WooBot, and very succinctly, too I might add! :D .....neo

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


LOL That about sums it up, WooBot, and very succinctly, too I might add! :D .....neo

Neofight - I wanted to avoid getting embroiled in any of these emotional exchanges but I am surprised that you consider it "much ado about nothing".

Your comments caused Ian to make a post to correct any false impressions he believed your post could have caused! I would suggest it was anything but "much ado about nothing" for Ian.

And unless I've missed it I've yet to see a "sorry" from you to Ian.

[SteveGrenard]

Hi Ian and welcome to the board.

Some time ago I wrote you and so did Dr. Gary Schwartz to ask if you would be interested in serving as a control for cold reading in any future mediumship studies where you would be available.
I know you must get a lot of e-mail so I understand why you may not have replied.

However if you would private message or e-mail me, I would be happy to give you Gary's home telephone number so you can talk with him about the above possibility.

Thanks in advance ....

Steve Grenard

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hi Ian and welcome to the board.

Some time ago I wrote you and so did Dr. Gary Schwartz to ask if you would be interested nin serving as a control for cold reading in any future mediumship studies where you would be available.
I know you must get a lot of e-mail so I understand why you may not have replied.

Strange how you change your attitude. When Ian made a splash with his ABC performance, this - among lots of other comments - is what you had to say about Ian on the TVTalkshows board:

sgrenard 64.80.161.18 10-31-2002 11:52 AM
I didn't see it but some of the readings taped on Monday already have appeared on GMA this morning with more tonight on Primetime.

The name of the cold reader was Ian Rowland. He was one of those I wrote to to ask if he would be willing to submit his palaver to a test under lab conditions against a genuine medium. Others wimped out. They also wimped out on Schwartz. This guy never answered.

and...

sgrenard 24.168.117.31 10-31-2002 09:37 PM
PS; Thanks for comparing Rowland to JE psi. But remember...we are still waiting for one of these high profile cold readers to agree to be tested as well.

The fact is no cold reader including Rowland can get with JE gets because they are frauds and fakers using tricks. There is no use arguing. Let them put up or shut up. So far they talk a lot but don't put up.

What cold reader has ever been tested? What cold reader has stepped forward and asked researchers to pit him against a genuine medium? None. Schwartz asked 7, I asked 5. Rowland refused to even answer me.

and...

sgrenard 24.168.117.31 10-31-2002 10:21 PM
What a bunch of crap. Well if Rowland is busy, JE is fifty times busier. Get
real ... ROFL....

and...

sgrenard 24.168.117.31 11-01-2002 01:14 AM

Anyway folks, so there this huge outcry from the close minded skeptics we all know and love that Schwartz and everyone else must not fail to include controls in the form of cold readers to see if they can rate as good as the mediums being evaluated. So very politely G2 Schwartz goes out and tries to recruit some; I do likewise via e-mail. PS: I revealed before that anyone who didn't answer is no longer anonyomous and that includes Mr. Rowland. He did not answer.
Penn answered and would've remained anonymous save for the fact that he was nasty and ended up "cursing" out GS using the memory of his dead grandmother so I don't mind revealing that to the public. Like I am sure he cares. Fact is all the cold readers who could have served as controls wimped out. Thats the bottom line G2. You have seen it here with members who say they can do this as well. SO forgive me for calling them a bunch of hot air, that's what they are.


and...

sgrenard 64.80.161.18 11-01-2002 09:45 AM
I have just reviewed the article on ABC's website where Rowland's says he revealed who he was ... a fake. The next morning a number of people who were there didn't seem to know this. There is proof of this which obviously I cannot share.

Clearly this was a partial to a complete lie by IR. A number of people who were there and have reported indicate this is not true as originally reported. In addition, as information comes in, the post interviews were cut off and heavily edited as a number of people stated they didn't believe a word of it and thought he was a fake. This material was edited out based on the first hand testimony of those who made these remarks.

I personally am beginning to think that you all should not discuss this based on the few minutes you saw and on such a heavily chopped up piece. There will be repercussions from the people who were misreported by ABC and it will reflect negatively on their credibility as if what else is new?

The full threads are available here. (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/TVTalkSweep.zip)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
However if you would private message or e-mail, I would be happy to give you Gary's home telephone number so you can talk with him about the above possibility.

Thanks in advance ....

Steve Grenard

Let's do a quick recap, shall we?

"So far they (coldreaders, including Ian Rowland) talk a lot but don't put up."

"Rowland refused to even answer me."

"Fact is all the cold readers who could have served as controls wimped out. Thats the bottom line G2. You have seen it here with members who say they can do this as well. SO forgive me for calling them a bunch of hot air, that's what they are. "

"Clearly this was a partial to a complete lie by IR. "

So, Steve, you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air".

I'm sure Ian is real anxious to work with you now, Steve.

[De_Bunk]

I don't think it helps that Mr Grenard is a bit of a "fruitcake", at times...

Oh dear...

DB

[SteveGrenard]

Ian Rowland gave only a 90 second demonstration on air of cold reading, hardly enough to draw any conclusions one way or the other. I base any remarks on this demonstration on the brevity of what was shown. If he has a copy of all the of his reading then I am sure a lot of us would be interested in seeing it. However, more importantly, would be to use cold reading in a controlled situation, not on a TV show. In other words, the same sitter or sitters being read by both the purported medium and the cold reader with ratings done by the sitters and third parties as well. Now that would really be interesting. If anyone has any additional ideas on how this could be designed let's hear them here as well.

The claim has been made that purportedly genuine mediums cold read. Ian has claimed that he could do as well as these purportedly genuine mediums. Such a test would be necessary to validate that claim.


It is interesting that the spoilers here now want to quash any sincere effort to enlist him as a participant in a future study of mediumship. I wonder why that is? And by the way, he won't be working with me...he'll be working with a group including Schwartz, at the University of Arizona including a funded doctorial student there.

..... the above posts are definitely keepers. :)

PS: To set the out of context remarks straight quoted from me, the cold readers who wimped out were 7 (not Rowland but CFL neatly makes that inference) with whom Schwartz met in Los Angeles. Penn Jillette was there as well and was nasty and made derogatory remarks, effectively mimicking what you guys say above in order to prevent a sincere effort to pit cold reading against a purportedly genuine medium and settle that argument. Insofar as Ian Rowland is concerned, I already said above that contact with him was attempted and ignored and I offered a possible explanation. That hasn't changed. Inasmuch as he posted here hopefully he will read and respond to this. If not, then all I can say is ... well he failed to respond...again.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And by the way, he won't be working with me...he'll be working with a group including Schwartz, at the University of Arizona including a funded doctorial student there.

Gee, I wonder if Schwartz will let us see his testing protocol this time.

[SteveGrenard]

TLN: Gee, I wonder if Schwartz will let us see his testing protocol this time.

Better yet, I just invited you to suggest a design or contribute to one that would use the cold reader as a control. Yes, so far a lot of talk but no menaingful suggestions.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
[BYes, so far a lot of talk but no menaingful suggestions. [/B]

Well, I'm not a scientist, but would you like a meaningful suggestion?

Get Schwartz to show us his Edward experiment.

Speculate on why he won't do this.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh give it a rest Fade. Try to be nice for once in your life.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Btw, Fade, I surely do understand your frustration.

[jj]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hi Ian and welcome to the board.

Some time ago I wrote you and so did Dr. Gary Schwartz to ask if you would be interested in serving as a control for cold reading in any future mediumship studies where you would be available.
I

Hooo boy. Now that's an experimental design for ya!

Steve, are you so blind as to not see the myriad holes in what you're proposing?

[jj]

Originally posted by Clancie
Lol, neo.
I think there's a bit of that in there, yes. (renata, have you visited Ian's website? Last time I did he had a "Photo Gallery" with "my friends" or something...all women, different looks, lots and lots, with captions making it clear that...yes, he likes women! Nothing wrong with that. And he also made it clear, imho, from something he posted there that he has a girl friend but is still looking and available if the right person should come along). I'm sure he would love to meet some of his attractive fans (if this means RC in drag, so be it! lol)

Also, neo and I have exchanged emails with him. He's very nice, a tiny bit flirtatious even online (in an appropriate way)--and her comment was intended as an inside joke with me, not as a dig at Ian. We both like him and, as I titled this thread, think he seems (from his writing, and online pronouncements) like--as I said--a nice guy. (And a very attractive one, too:) )

Right, character assassination is not a dig at somebody.

Gimme a break. No, give me two. You can both go back to Wooville.

[jj]

Originally posted by RC
Renata, for someone who blasted Clancie yesterday because she chose to (in your words) make a big deal out of something that you found not to be germane to the thread topic, you sure don't practice what you preach!


Oh, here we go. Character assassination is cool, if it's only pointed at the other side.

(considers relating this to a couple of political parties and a well-known propaganda technique, but doesn't bother)

[jj]

Originally posted by WooBot


Interesting. I would expect you, if you erred, to err on the side of freedom.

Freedom implies responsibility.

[WooBot]

Originally posted by jj


Freedom implies responsibility.

Certainly it does. You're late to the party, jj. :D

It just seemed to me that these people all have some sort of history together and took one rather tame remark and made a huge deal out of it. If you re-read the "offending remark" it looks pretty tame to me. Certainly not worth all this hand-wringing which clearly results from some other source.

Here's the awful remark, in its entirety:

Yes, he sure is, Clancie! lol If RC is serious, I'd be interested to know if he would take RC up on his offer. Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo

Not much to base all this drama on IMHO.

[Fade]

Btw, Fade, I surely do understand your frustration.

Part frustration, part exasperation, part indifference.

RC is a simplistic creduloid and doesn't even understand that. I believe he described himself as "quasi-believer" at some ponit. It's a position that, while being exactly as ignorant as people like Clancie and Ian, isn't even a firm expression of ideas.

[SteveGrenard]

CFL: Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

He makes claims, refused to answer me or Schwartz when his cooperation was solicited and here's his chance to reverse that.


TLN...here is a brief description of the design for the exeriment(s) involving John Edward. Barring any additional suggestions, can we expect an agreement from Rowland to participate as a reader-froid in the same design?

The study investigated the ability of three research mediums to obtain information regarding the deceased loved ones of five research "sitters" (subjects). The mediums were kept completely blind to the identity of the sitters. The mediums sat behind a floor to ceiling screen, with their backs to the screen facing video cameras. The mediums were not allowed to ask any questions, and the sitters never spoke. Transcripts were made from the recordings. The sitters scored all initials, names, historical facts, personal descriptions, and temperament descriptions (n=528 items for 15 readings) using a -3 (definite miss) to +3 (definite hit) rating scale. When the sitters rated their own readings, the average percentage of +3 scores was 40%. When the sitters rated the readings of the other sitters (control readings), the value was 25% (p<0.03).

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The study investigated the ability of three research mediums to obtain information regarding the deceased loved ones of five research "sitters" (subjects). The mediums were kept completely blind to the identity of the sitters. The mediums sat behind a floor to ceiling screen, with their backs to the screen facing video cameras. The mediums were not allowed to ask any questions, and the sitters never spoke. Transcripts were made from the recordings. The sitters scored all initials, names, historical facts, personal descriptions, and temperament descriptions (n=528 items for 15 readings) using a -3 (definite miss) to +3 (definite hit) rating scale. When the sitters rated their own readings, the average percentage of +3 scores was 40%. When the sitters rated the readings of the other sitters (control readings), the value was 25% (p<0.03).

Where did you collect this testing protocol? From Schwartz? Where can I view it (besides here)?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He makes claims, refused to answer me or Schwartz when his cooperation was solicited and here's his chance to reverse that.

Steve, yes or no: Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

[Clancie]

Steve quoting CFLarsen

CFL: Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?
You know what puzzles me most, Steve, is why CFLarsen would apparently try to sabotage the opportunity to communicate with Ian about a scientific investigation of cold reading? Maybe, as you say, Ian never even got your email. Maybe he didn't have time to respond. So what?

I don't understand CFL's motivation for trying to discredit you to Ian here. :confused:

But then...CFL always tries to undercut you, one way or another, doesn't he? I guess there's nothing surprising in his posts to this thread after all :(.

And, in any case, what does any of Claus' animosity toward you have to do with Schwartz and his experiments?

It doesn't even make sense.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: The claim has been made that purportedly genuine mediums cold read. Ian has claimed that he could do as well as these purportedly genuine mediums. Such a test would be necessary to validate that claim.I disagree that such a test is necessary. Regardless of the outcome of that kind of test, it would not validate Schwartz's claim that JE can talk to dead people. I disagree that using cold readers as controls validates JE's alleged psychic ability.

In any case, the claim made by cold readers is a criticism of Schwartz's protocols. It is not necessary for such criticisms to be tested. It is up to Schwartz to redo his tests to address the criticisms, to tighten his protocols to preclude cold reading as a possible explanation. It is not incumbant upon cold readers to disprove Schwartz's claims.

[CFLarsen]

This is friggin' hilarious! Clancie, you "ignore" me, yet find it prudent to comment on something I posted, because someone else quoted me??

Either you don't ignore me, which renders you a liar. Or, you really do ignore me, which makes your comments willfully uninformed. At best.

This is priceless!! :D

Originally posted by Clancie
You know what puzzles me most, Steve, is why CFLarsen would apparently try to sabotage your opportunity to communicate with Ian about it now, here? Maybe, as you say, Ian never even got your email. Maybe he didn't have time to respond.

Maybe, as I said, Ian never even got his mail. Maybe, as I said, he didn't have time to respond. I made these points in the TVTalkshow thread, Steve did not. Now, it's OK to raise these points?

And you wonder why I at times have called you a hypocrite?

Originally posted by Clancie
It would seem skeptics would jump at the possibility that perhaps a cold reader would be willing to participate in a experiment about mediumship and cold reading.

Sure! I would LOVE to see Ian "compete" with John Edward! Wouldn't you??

Originally posted by Clancie
I don't understand CFL's motivation for trying to discredit you to Ian here. :confused:

I am not trying to "discredit" Steve. I am simply pointing out Steve's sudden need to suck up to Ian, whom he previously referred to as a liar. Among other things.

Originally posted by Clancie
But then...CFL always tries to undercut you, one way or another, doesn't he? I guess there's nothing surprising in his posts to this thread after all :(.

No. I don't "always" try to "undercut" Steve. I do, however, point out Steve's flaws.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, in any case, what does any of Claus' animosity toward you have to do with Schwartz and his experiments?

Nothing. Why do you say that?

Originally posted by Clancie
It doesn't even make sense.

.........(better not)

Clancy, please give up this pretense that you have put me on ignore. You are not fooling anyone.

[Darat]

Originally posted by WooBot


Certainly it does. You're late to the party, jj. :D

It just seemed to me that these people all have some sort of history together and took one rather tame remark and made a huge deal out of it. If you re-read the "offending remark" it looks pretty tame to me. Certainly not worth all this hand-wringing which clearly results from some other source.

Here's the awful remark, in its entirety:

Yes, he sure is, Clancie! lol If RC is serious, I'd be interested to know if he would take RC up on his offer. Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo

Not much to base all this drama on IMHO.



And you seem to ignore that the person the "one rather tame remark" was made about felt necessary to make his first and I believe only post to date on this forum to set the record straight!

[jj]

Originally posted by WooBot
It just seemed to me that these people all have some sort of history together and took one rather tame remark and made a huge deal out of it. If you re-read the "offending remark" it looks pretty tame to me. Certainly not worth all this hand-wringing which clearly results from some other source.

Well, WooBot, having seen the effects that whispering campaigns, etc, can have (at least temporarily) on people, I must simply differ. No malice is required, only the usual game of "telephone" and the usual gossip.

[xouper]

Clancie: I don't understand CFL's motivation for trying to discredit you to Ian here. :confused:It seems there are lots of things you don't understand, Clancie.

I for one appreciate Larsen's continuing efforts to point out the inconsistencies, contradictions, and fallacies in Grenard's position.

[jj]

Originally posted by Clancie

You know what puzzles me most, Steve, is why CFLarsen would apparently try to sabotage the opportunity to communicate with Ian about a scientific investigation of cold reading? Maybe, as you say, Ian never even got your email. Maybe he didn't have time to respond. So what?
[/B]

Unh. With the right generalities, "hits" in that kind of protocol are trivial.

I wouldn't exactly call it "rigorous".

[jj]

Originally posted by xouper
It seems there are lots of things you don't understand, Clancie.

I for one appreciate Larsen's continuing efforts to point out the inconsistencies, contradictions, and fallacies in Grenard's position.

And I admire his patience, as well, in the face of such intractable foolishness!

[Clancie]

Well, Xouper, to each his own.

I will say that I find it strange that a skeptic would purport to want to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward and then try to discredit Steve, who is trying to arrange it (and who wouldn't even be conducting the experiment himself).

At a minimum, CFL's action seems very counterproductive to shedding light on mediumship and cold reading--that is, if he sincerely wants to see such an experiment take place, which is the claim.

[renata]

Originally posted by xouper
It seems there are lots of things you don't understand, Clancie.

I for one appreciate Larsen's continuing efforts to point out the inconsistencies, contradictions, and fallacies in Grenard's position.


Xoup! I thought you were not into hero worship? ;)

I just wanted to say I agree wholeheartedly. I respect Claus precisely for the work he does in these situations. I just hope I never cross him... :D No peace nor rest for guilty souls! ( loose translation from Russian). And since we like ancient references, Claus, do you see yourself as Alecto, Megaera or Tisiphone?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I will say that I find it strange that a skeptic would purport to want to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward and then try to discredit the person who is trying to arrange it (a person who won't even be conducting the experiment himself).

Clancie, would you agree that if Steve made the statement that Claus claims he did it would be relevant towards any experiment Steve might run with Ian?

Do you even care if Steve made that statement at all?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
At a minimum, CFL's action seems very counterproductive to shedding light on mediumship and cold reading--that is, if he sincerely wants to see such an experiment take place, which is the claim.

Now, how could you possibly know - if you have me on ignore - that I have made the claim that I would want such an experiment to take place? :)

You are sooooo busted, Clancie....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
And since we like ancient references, Claus, do you see yourself as Alecto, Megaera or Tisiphone?

None of them. And I know what they are.... :)

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


None of them. And I know what they are.... :)


Hehe.. trick question- I am busted! :D

But actually, there are some similarities, don't you think? The whole dogged pursuit of unavenged crimes/unanswered questions?

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

Clancie, would you agree that if Steve made the statement that Claus claims he did it would be relevant towards any experiment Steve might run with Ian?
TLN, it's an irrelevant statement, as Steve wouldn't be running any experiment. Gary Schwartz would. (Steve isn't a scientist and doesn't even work for the U of A; he's a friend of GS who lives in New York, offers friendly ideas from time to time about the work, sometimes helps GS round up participants...that's it.).
Posted by TLN

Do you even care if Steve made that statement at all?
I would care (if it is true, which I'd have to go back to the original transcript to see).

However, true or false, it wouldn't change the fact that the only reason to bring it up now seems to be malicious--simply due to Claus' animosity toward Steve (which apparently is so deep that he would even risk sabotaging an important scientific opportunity for someone else in order to express it).

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie


However, true or false, it wouldn't change the fact that the only reason to bring it up now seems to be malicious--simply due to Claus' animosity toward Steve (which apparently is so deep that he would even risk sabotaging an important scientific opportunity for someone else in order to express it).


I highly doubt Ian Rowland, who has his own methods and ideas would be turned off this important scientific opportunity for the sole reason that Claus brought up Steve's old negative comments. I doubt he would be so petty, so if he does reject that important scientific opportunity, there is probably another reason.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by xouper
[B]I disagree that such a test is necessary. Regardless of the outcome of that kind of test, it would not validate Schwartz's claim that JE can talk to dead people. I disagree that using cold readers as controls validates JE's alleged psychic ability.



Indeed, but it would eliminate one possibility. A possibility which it seems many Skeptics currently believe is how JE and many other mediums operate. Of course the biggest problem with mediums is that even if we conclude that a given medium could only have got the information by anomalous means, what compels us to conclude that they got the information from dead people rather than general ESP?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Indeed, but it would eliminate one possibility. A possibility which it seems many Skeptics currently believe is how JE and many other mediums operate. Of course the biggest problem with mediums is that even if we conclude that a given medium could only have got the information by anomalous means, what compels us to conclude that they got the information from dead people rather than general ESP?

You really need to work on your logical fallacies....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Indeed, but it would eliminate one possibility. A possibility which it seems many Skeptics currently believe is how JE and many other mediums operate. Of course the biggest problem with mediums is that even if we conclude that a given medium could only have got the information by anomalous means, what compels us to conclude that they got the information from dead people rather than general ESP?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You really need to work on your logical fallacies...

As far as I am aware I never make any. But I confess I am puzzled since I am admitting that it would be very difficult to conclusively demonstrate that mediums are genuinely communicating with the dead. I am also puzzled at your need to insult me when I have never insulted you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As far as I am aware I never make any.

That doesn't mean you don't make any. :)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I confess I am puzzled since I am admitting that it would be very difficult to conclusively demonstrate that mediums are genuinely communicating with the dead.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I am also puzzled at your need to insult me when I have never insulted you.

No insult needed. Just go back and see if you can figure out what is wrong with your post. You almost solved it with this one.

[xouper]

Interesting Ian: Indeed, but it would eliminate one possibility.Eliminating the possibility of cold reading by JE does not require coldreaders as controls.

[De_Bunk]

Sorry about this...but i have some respect for Steve Grenard..

He may be a woowoo...but not of the first kind..

I have read some of his posts...in the past and present...

Some of it makes sense...some of it lives in the "Twilight Zone"

But i think he can hold his own regarding debating skills...

BUT,... Steve... there are people on this board who are talking you, up your own a**...and you can't see it...

And CFLarsen is doing a pretty good job at it...

Steve...you better get your "Facts straight" and your research "100% right"...

Or get slammmed...

You may think im insane...but i know when to stop...thats why im still allowed to post here...

Steve..for all your intelligence..and believe me, i know you are, i think you are gonna lose this one...

Stand down...

DB

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No insult needed. Just go back and see if you can figure out what is wrong with your post. You almost solved it with this one. [/B]

No you'll need to enlighten me. If I've made any mistake I'll admit it.

[De_Bunk]

Interesting Ian...

Show me one post where you have totally admitted you were wrong...

( You're the only poster i know that can start a flame war in a thread about "Scooby doo"..)

Thanks..

DB

[jj]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
(to Interesting Ian)

You really need to work on your logical fallacies....

Now, that's ambiguous, do you mean:

1) He needs to make better fallacies.
2) He needs to make them less obvious
3) He needs to stop making them.
4) He needs to learn what they are.

Or what?

I'll be kind (to Ian) and not presume. :)

[SteveGrenard]

X: Eliminating the possibility of cold reading by JE does not require coldreaders as controls.

and now more of the same as above. I am fascinated by earlier (and we do have a history on this subject) calls for controls using one or more cold readers by skeptics and now assertions that such controls would NOT prove a medium, any medium (we are not necessarily talking about JE here...pleez) uses cold reading.


If a cold reader rates as high or better on the hits than a purportedly genuine medium (and I am careful now and here to use "purportedly" genuine) then one is forced to conclude that the sitter and third parties doing the blind ratings cannot discern the difference and that cold reading can produce results as good or on a par with purportedly genuine medium readings. After all the argument on the other side is that they cannot. But nobody on the skeptic side can provide truly convincing evidence of this and I don't mean 90 second snippets on Dateline (with no purportedly true medium to compare it with) or on B*S which also suffered from a lack of a that kind of input.


So Xouper what you are saying (now) is that controls for cold reading using a super-star cold reader such as Ian who actually says he can out cold-read JE (as an example) doesn't prove JE or anyone(?) is not cold reading......did I get this right or can you expand and correct me if not? Talking about JE cold reading or deciding if how he conducts a reading is cold reading is fine but it is hardly as objective as pitting JE or any medium against a super cold reader like Ian.

[SteveGrenard]

DB: i think you are gonna lose this one... Stand down...

First of all I am not doing the experiment. Schwartz or others may be doing it. Secondly I personally don't respond well to premonitions. If Ian Rowland declines to contact me or make the call, you can decide who wins or who loses. To me its not about this. It's about the critics who say such experiments should include cold reading controls and input by cold readers proficient at this art. Included among these are some of the very persons or person who made this critcism or back others who have (e.g. Hyman) who now seem bent at sabotaging any attempt to do so. I can only conclude that they are afraid of something but I am not sure what it is.....

I outlined above, in response to TLNs request, a brief descriptiopn of the experiment(s) JE as well as others participated in at Arizona. I would expect a cold reader to agree to no less than this plus any further suggestions from either side to design a meaningful experiment.

TLN: the description comes straight from the published journal paper on this experiment.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You notice how all these protocols use purported mediums and various kinds of controls to try to identify a difference between mediums and normal humans? In other words, to try to scrounge some anomalous events on which we can hang our hat and claim some kind of paranormal source? Why don't we do more direct experiments, where the medium reports something that we all agree can't possibly be due to cold or warm reading?

~~ Paul

[SteveGrenard]

Paul ... the word purportedly is used advisedly since skeptics claim here are NO genuine mediums. Direct experiments, w/o controls, are not acceptable to the critical skeptics and cynics but I agree. In fact the very thing you mention has been demonstrated but such demonstrations are then critciized as anecdotal. They are certainly not replicable or repetable since one cannot use the same purported medium twice with the same sitter to get the same information. Now that would be a fallacy, albeit an illogical one.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Sorry about this...but i have some respect for Steve Grenard..

He may be a woowoo...but not of the first kind..

I have read some of his posts...in the past and present...

Some of it makes sense...some of it lives in the "Twilight Zone"

But i think he can hold his own regarding debating skills...

BUT,... Steve... there are people on this board who are talking you, up your own a**...and you can't see it...

And CFLarsen is doing a pretty good job at it...

Steve...you better get your "Facts straight" and your research "100% right"...

Or get slammmed...

You may think im insane...but i know when to stop...thats why im still allowed to post here...

Steve..for all your intelligence..and believe me, i know you are, i think you are gonna lose this one...

Stand down...

DB

Debs, Claus is certainly not "slamming" anyone here, unless you see insinuation as slamming :confused: .

If the cr's can replicate what JE does under Dr Schwartz's conditions then they prove the claims of the pseudo-skeptics that they (Dr Schwartz proc and meth) are "crap" and full of "holes". It should be easy to do if Dr S is as sloppy as Claus would have you believe. Has Claus got any suitable candidate he'd like present who could actually do it? Maybe, but if so he's keeping schtum and colluding with the "scam" he's claiming exists.

[TLN]

Put up (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21047) or shut up Luci.

Taunting us by calling us "psuedo-skeptics" is just childish and trollish.

Prove you're a skeptic. Examine your claims.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: If a cold reader rates as high or better on the hits than a purportedly genuine medium ... then one is forced to conclude that the sitter and third parties doing the blind ratings cannot discern the difference and that cold reading can produce results as good or on a par with purportedly genuine medium readings. After all the argument on the other side is that they cannot. <span style="background-color: #ffc">But nobody on the skeptic side can provide truly convincing evidence of this</span>I disagree with that last assertion, but that's not my point. What I am saying is that it doesn't matter whether coldreaders can do as well as a medium or not. The real question is whether an alleged medium can get personal information via paranormal means while protocols are in place that preclude cold reading.

So Xouper what you are saying (now) is that controls for cold reading using a super-star cold reader ... doesn't prove JE ... is not cold reading.Yes, seems like you interpreted correctly. Even if a cold reader can do better than a medium, that is not proof that the medium is cold reading. It does however, demonstrate that when testing a medium, there MUST be protocols in place to prevent cold reading by the medium.

I offer spoon bending as an analogous example. Just because Randi can bend spoons using trickery does not prove that Geller is using trickery to bend spoons. And I think Randi has said this. What Randi has shown, however, is that it is incumbent upon Geller to prove he can bend spoons while protocols are in place that preclude trickery.

Nit: I am not clear what you are saying when you use a parenthetical (now) since I don't recall that my opinion on this has changed any. I am aware that other people have called for using coldreaders as controls when testing mediums, but I disagree that this is necessary or even sufficient.

[SteveGrenard]

X: I am aware that other people have called for using coldreaders as controls when testing mediums, but I disagree that this is necessary or even sufficient.

Okay. Did you look at the brief description of the protocol and rating system I posted above? Do you think this precludes or
prevents the use of cold and/or warm reading? Even with these safeguards, properly applied, even more than a floor to ceiling screen with a crack in it, sitter silence, your cynic would then call upon generalities and guessing as the final straw even though such information might in no way be "general" and where specific information given has odds against guessing which exceed probability by a wide margin. This leaves us with the cold reading asserton and the claims of cold readers and those who back them that an experienced, highly proficient cold reader such as Ian (and by his own admission) can out-cold read a medium such as JE.

Let's dismiss hot reading for the moment based on the mutual
anonymity of sitters and mediums and the fact that the pairing was also drawn at random out of a proverbial hat.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: I outlined above, in response to TLNs request, a brief descriptiopn of the experiment(s) JE as well as others participated in at Arizona. I would expect a cold reader to agree to no less than this plus any further suggestions from either side to design a meaningful experiment.

TLN: the description comes straight from the published journal paper on this experiment.Begging your pardon, but how do we know that Schwartz's experiments actually adhered to the reported protocols? I see no reason to take his word for it.

The reason I say this is because there are plenty of examples of protocols reported by other paranormal researchers that were later discovered to be flawed descriptions of what actually occurred.

In other words, who else besides Schwartz (or you) has seen enough of the raw data and can confirm that the reported protocols are an accurate description of what really happened?

Did you look at the brief description of the protocol and rating system I posted above? Do you think this precludes or prevents the use of cold and/or warm reading?I'm going to chicken out here and defer to those who are more qualified to evaluate the validity of those protocols. I claim no expertise in designing the specific details of such protocols.

This leaves us with the cold reading asserton and the claims of cold readers and those who back them that an experienced, highly proficient cold reader such as Ian (and by his own admission) can out-cold read a medium such as JE.I would say that such assertions only serve to demonstrate why the possibility of cold reading must be precluded by properly designed protocols.

Such assertions also demonstrate why TV shows or seminars of JE doing his schtick are not proof of any paranormal ability. I know you personally are not claiming that "Crossing Over" proves paranormal ability, but let's realize that when Rowland says he can cold read better than JE, he is addressing a much wider audience than simply Schwartz's studies. He is also refuting those who mistakenly think JE's TV show proves JE can talk to the dead.

[TLN]

Originally posted by xouper
I'm going to chicken out here and defer to those who are more qualified to evaluate the validity of those protocols. I claim no expertise in designing the specific details of such protocols.

An admission of ignorance. There goes a skeptic.

Anyone paying attention here?

[BillHoyt]

The mediums sat behind a floor to ceiling screen, with their backs to the screen facing video cameras.
REALLY?
http://www.randi.org/images/03-23-01-edwardlab.jpg

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat


Neofight - I wanted to avoid getting embroiled in any of these emotional exchanges but I am surprised that you consider it "much ado about nothing".

Your comments caused Ian to make a post to correct any false impressions he believed your post could have caused! I would suggest it was anything but "much ado about nothing" for Ian.

And unless I've missed it I've yet to see a "sorry" from you to Ian.

Hi, Darat. Yes, it's true that Ian posted here to make sure that nobody had gotten the wrong impression, but I would suggest that any wrong impression would have been given more from what renata posted than from what I, myself, posted.

Here is my quote.......

Re: Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

Yes, he sure is, Clancie! lol If RC is serious, I'd be interested to know if he would take RC up on his offer. Why do I get the impression that he's looking to hook up with one, or several, of his attractive female fans? lol ....neo

And here are renata's quotes......

Recall that neo implied RC may not meet Ian because RC is male, and that Ian is looking to "hook up" ( which I interpret have one night stand sex) with female posters.

Followed by this......

JE is married, so why is an allegation of infidelity worse than an allegation of promiscuity? Or feigning interest in women so that he could have sex while ignoring the men? Because that logically follows from Neo's comment.

And as if that weren't bad enough, she dug in even deeper with this.......

You think I am making too much of Neo's comment. So do you then agree with her that Ian wants to f*** several female posters and will avoid the men?

So please, Darat, give me a break! If anyone has been offensive on this thread, it's renata. Even Ian would not have taken what I said the way that she did, as evidenced by his following quote......

As for the phrase 'hook up with', it's just a term which I, as a Brit, have picked up from my American friends. As far as I'm aware, it means to meet, to spend time together socially, to make friends. I was not aware it had any other connotation, and it certainly doesn't when I use it.

I just hope that Ian read the thread, and didn't attribute those crude comments to me, because he doesn't mention renata at all, and she is the one who misinterpreted what I said in the first place. :( .......neo

[SteveGrenard]

Hoyt: REALLY?

http://www.randi.org/images/03-23-01-edwardlab.jpg


Agreed. Thank you for this valuable input. Instead of the tall screen motif we will suggest that the medium and sitter be placed in separate, non-adjoining rooms with no possibility of any type of sensory leakage between them.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

REALLY?
http://www.randi.org/images/03-23-01-edwardlab.jpg

Yes, really. So why are you showing a picture which is not from the test :confused: ?

[SteveGrenard]

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

X: Begging your pardon, but how do we know that Schwartz's experiments actually adhered to the reported protocols? I see no reason to take his word for it.

The reason I say this is because there are plenty of examples of protocols reported by other paranormal researchers that were later discovered to be flawed descriptions of what actually occurred.

In other words, who else besides Schwartz (or you) has seen enough of the raw data and can confirm that the reported protocols are an accurate description of what really happened?


Reply: Okay, who would you trust to provide the oversight necessary to insure the integrity of the protocol?

(edited to add: this is about some future experiment and protocol involving a cold reader control and NOT any previously conducted and published research)



X: I'm going to chicken out here and defer to those who are more qualified to evaluate the validity of those protocols. I claim no expertise in designing the specific details of such protocols.

Reply: Fair enough.



X: I would say that such assertions only serve to demonstrate why the possibility of cold reading must be precluded by properly designed protocols.

Such assertions also demonstrate why TV shows or seminars of JE doing his schtick are not proof of any paranormal ability. I know you personally are not claiming that "Crossing Over" proves paranormal ability, but let's realize that when Rowland says he can cold read better than JE, he is addressing a much wider audience than simply Schwartz's studies. He is also refuting those who mistakenly think JE's TV show proves JE can talk to the dead.

Reply: I have always said this so gladly agree. You can tell nothing by debating a TV show or performance on a call in talk show. It is proof of nothing. Ditto for a 90 second snippet of cold reading on a newsmagazine show (e.g. Dateline).

Ideas for a "properly designed protocol" are welcome.

[xouper]

neofight: Yes, it's true that Ian posted here to make sure that nobody had gotten the wrong impression, but I would suggest that any wrong impression would have been given more from what renata posted than from what I, myself, posted.I disagree. I found your comment (edited to add - somewhat) offensive even before renata commented on it. To me, your comment implied that Ian might have been looking for some one night stands (sex). That's what "hooking up" can sometimes mean, depending on the context. Regardless whether my impression was justified or not, Ian needed to clarify the issue preciesly because it is too easy for someone to misinterpret what you meant.

[De_Bunk]

How do i know...I don't....i spend most nights sleeping in the open...

Dont ask me questions....Ive got enough trouble with the local cats that pi*s over me when i'm asleep...

You try buying a beer when you smell of cats pis*....

DB

( I am listening to "Mule Train" by Frankie Laine...that might explain a few things...Clippety clop...)

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: I have always said this so gladly agree. You can tell nothing about debating a TV show or performance on a call in talk show. It is proof of nothing. Ditto for a 90 second snippet of cold reading on a newsmagazine show (e.g. Dateline).Yes, I would agree that Ian's TV appearances do not prove that mediums are using cold reading. What his TV appearances do accomplish, however, is provide a valid basis for being skeptical of any claim of talking to dead people. Nothing new about that notion, though.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Yes, really. So why are you showing a picture which is not from the test :confused: ?

Oh, for cripes sake, Luci, do your freaking homework. It is right under your nose. This picture has everything to do with what we are talking about, who we are talking about and the research about which we are talking. If you wish to either gain credibility or learn something, then do your freaking homework. It has appeared in print as well. Look closely. Figure it out.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Hoyt: REALLY?

http://www.randi.org/images/03-23-01-edwardlab.jpg


Agreed. Thank you for this valuable input. Instead of the tall screen motif we will suggest that the medium and sitter be placed in separate, non-adjoining rooms with no possibility of any type of sensory leakage between them.

Apparently you also missed the import of this picture. Hint: it was not a suggestion for your muddled research suggestion. Hint II: it was a direct response to your assertion about previous research.

Hint III: when will you restract your attempt to impugn Sue Blackmore's motives?

Cheers,

[xouper]

BillHoyt: REALLY?
http://www.randi.org/images/03-23-01-edwardlab.jpgFor those who don't remember and want to follow along, this photo of John Edward is described here:
http://www.randi.org/jr/03-23-2001.html

[Baker]

Originally posted by WooBot


We tend to say what we like here

Meaning ad hominem arguments for example?

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat

And unless I've missed it I've yet to see a "sorry" from you to Ian.

I missed this comment before. Ian and I have exchanged personal e-mails, Darat, and everything is copacetic, but thanks for your concern. ;) ......neo

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


Hi, Darat. Yes, it's true that Ian posted here to make sure that nobody had gotten the wrong impression, but I would suggest that any wrong impression would have been given more from what renata posted than from what I, myself, posted.

...snip...

I just hope that Ian read the thread, and didn't attribute those crude comments to me, because he doesn't mention renata at all, and she is the one who misinterpreted what I said in the first place. :( .......neo

Neo - I believe from what I have read in this thread that it was your words that caused Ian to post. It may be that he read Renata's comments and thought "Whoa!" however it was your words that caused the "chain" of events that led to Ian posting, your words are what started any "misunderstanding", therefore the initial "fault" lies in what you wrote, just because other people may have compounded that "fault" doesn't alter that.

The straightforward way to deal with a situation like this is to make a simple apology for your choice of words and move on. However all your posts since then about this matter seem (to me) trying to justify your actions rather then admit you may have made an error of judgment.

There is no shame attached to admitting an honest mistake or fault and apologising for it, in fact I would say it shows strength of character.

I doubt you will agree with my view on this matter.

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


I missed this comment before. Ian and I have exchanged personal e-mails, Darat, and everything is copacetic, but thanks for your concern. ;) ......neo

I presume you are being sarcastic however to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll point out that I was not concerned I was making a point and criticising your subsequent mishandling of your error of judgment.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No you'll need to enlighten me. If I've made any mistake I'll admit it.

This is the one I am talking about:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course the biggest problem with mediums is that even if we conclude that a given medium could only have got the information by anomalous means, what compels us to conclude that they got the information from dead people rather than general ESP?

You commit (I hate that term, it sounds like you're doing something criminal!) the fallacy called "False Dichotomy". E.g., you do not include the possibility of fairies materializing and writing the information with invisible ink on the inside of the brain.

Am I being humorous? Not really - my example is also paranormal, as your two are. So, why not fairies?

There may be other solutions, too. How do you know it has to be either ADC or ESP?

You are also fallacious (there might be a better English term) in your thinking, since you do not include the theories behind these two ideas. What's the difference?

And now, for some of my questions: ;)


What does the "survival hypothesis" state?
How do we falsify this hypothesis?
How do we design an experiment that will produce verifiable, replicable results?

In your own words, please.

[SteveGrenard]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Luci: Yes, really. So why are you showing a picture which is not from the test ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hoyt: Oh, for cripes sake, Luci, do your freaking homework. It is right under your nose. This picture has everything to do with what we are talking about, who we are talking about and the research about which we are talking. If you wish to either gain credibility or learn something, then do your freaking homework. It has appeared in print as well. Look closely. Figure it out.


__________________



Luci is basically correct. No testing was going on at the time this scene ocurred. It is a single frame, 1/24th of a second, out of many hours of taping. However, the thrust of this discussion contrary to Hoyt's additional remarks on this , is that we are seeking to suggest design protocol changes to tighten up on the procedure in any future trials. It is agreed that sensory leakage could occur through this barrier and that separate rooms, with walls and solid doors, should be used in any future trials for this phase of the experiment which relies on anonymity and sitter silence in order to prevent warm and cold reading.

I noticed that Ian Rowland was logged onto Banter last night, reading no doubt this discussion so I am still wondering if he would be interested in participating in a future experiment?
If you're out there please PM or e-mail me via this board.....
thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Steve, yes or no: Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

[SteveGrenard]

Once again, the people who wimped out were the 7 cold readers along with Penn Jilette who met with Schwartz in Los ANgeles when he tried to enlist their cooperation in an experiment.

Once again, Ian Rowland declined or for whatever reason failed to answer requests or o/w respond to myself and Schwartz via e-mail regarding involvement in future trials. BTW I can also arrange for him to do this in the U.K. as well.

And once again, the accounts given to me and others regarding the Dateline program by people who attended (in fact the producers tried to recruit me but I didn't meet their age requirement ... too old .....YES, you had to be between certain ages -- now I wonder what that was about? ...hmm, could it have been stacking the deck?) did not agree with the on-air performance and snippets shown. In fact one person interviewed afterwards said she knew he was a fake but was very convincing. They edited the very convincing snippet so it would appear and omitted the caveat she used). Is he a liar regarding this? If he isn't, he was cast in that position by the producers of the showand the comparison between what really happened and what he and the show protrayed differed. And also, now that Ian is reading these discussions, I would like to ask him point blank: since the producers had the names and particulars on the PRE-SELECTED participants, did they share any of that with him?

Having said that, here's his chance to redeem his performance.
Will he or will he not agree to be part of some future controlled experiment under the same experimental conditions as purportedly genuine mediums and be rated against them?
After all Larsen it was you and your friends who cried the loudest about not having a cold reading control phase to such experiments. What seems to be your problem now?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
What seems to be your problem now?

That it is impossible for you to answer a straight question:

Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?

Yes or no?

[richardm]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
And also, now that Ian is reading these discussions, I would like to ask him point blank: since the producers had the names and particulars on the PRE-SELECTED participants, did they share any of that with him?


Considering you appear to be such an informed expert on the Dateline programme, I'm surprised you're not aware of this (from Ian's own comments on the programme, on his website)

3. They [the producers of the programme] were willing to take the experiment seriously, and to observe the relevant protocols. You can imagine the problems of trying to get an audience of 20 people ready, and at the same time make sure that I, while in the same building, have NO information whatsoever about any of them (not even what any of them look like).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This is the one I am talking about :


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course the biggest problem with mediums is that even if we conclude that a given medium could only have got the information by anomalous means, what compels us to conclude that they got the information from dead people rather than general ESP?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You commit (I hate that term, it sounds like you're doing something criminal!) the fallacy called "False Dichotomy". E.g., you do not include the possibility of fairies materializing and writing the information with invisible ink on the inside of the brain.



Of course I do! Would not "fairies materializing and writing the information with invisible ink on the inside of the brain" constitute getting information by anomalous means? I still think you're not understanding what I'm saying.



Am I being humorous? Not really - my example is also paranormal, as your two are. So, why not fairies?

There may be other solutions, too. How do you know it has to be either ADC or ESP?



I don't. But if it is not by ESP (which I believe would include ADC), then by definition you're not getting the information by anomalous means. Remember ESP doesn't propose any mechanism, so you're free to speculate it's fairies or whatever.




What does the "survival hypothesis" state?



Our consciousness persists after our physical bodies have ceased functioning.



How do we falsify this hypothesis?



Whether it is falsifiable or not can have no implications for its truth or falsehood.

The falsifiability criteria was introduced by Popper to try and ascertain whether a scientific theory is vacuous. The idea being that if a putative scientific theory cannot be falsified then the theory is compatible with all possible states of affiars and hence is vacuous. Popper never meant to apply it to metaphysical hypotheses. Besides which, in as much as the transmission theory is unfalsifiable, so is the generative theory. Anyway, the survival hypothesis is not compatible with all possible states of affairs because one can disprove it by dying and ceasing to exist!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Of course I do! Would not "fairies materializing and writing the information with invisible ink on the inside of the brain" constitute getting information by anomalous means? I still think you're not understanding what I'm saying.

That is a possibility. Which doorstep should we lay that one on?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't. But if it is not by ESP (which I believe would include ADC), then by definition you're not getting the information by anomalous means. Remember ESP doesn't propose any mechanism, so you're free to speculate it's fairies or whatever.

So, to you, all "anomalous" information is ESP?

Imaging that you had no idea what electricity was. Would a lightbulb constitute ESP, then? By your definition, it would.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Our consciousness persists after our physical bodies have ceased functioning.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Whether it is falsifiable or not can have no implications for its truth or falsehood.

It nevertheless tells us if it is possible to determine whether it is true or false.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The falsifiability criteria was introduced by Popper to try and ascertain whether a scientific theory is vacuous. The idea being that if a putative scientific theory cannot be falsified then the theory is compatible with all possible states of affiars and hence is vacuous.

Then it cannot be falsified.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Popper never meant to apply it to metaphysical hypotheses.

How do you know that?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Besides which, in as much as the transmission theory is unfalsifiable, so is the generative theory. Anyway, the survival hypothesis is not compatible with all possible states of affairs because one can disprove it by dying and ceasing to exist!

Aha. So you can never determine whether it is true or false. Am I to understand that the only way it can be tested is by someone dying and stop existing?

How do you test that? I don't suggest that you die, but how do you test if someone else cease to exist?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Luci is basically correct. No testing was going on at the time this scene ocurred. It is a single frame, 1/24th of a second, out of many hours of taping.
Repeated attempts to dodge the salient issue. Repeated attempts to deflect, Steve. You said:
The mediums sat behind a floor to ceiling screen, with their backs to the screen facing video cameras.

The critical import of that picture is to point out the essential information you managed to leave out from your description. Now Schartz has previously been criticized for doing the same thing. Perhaps you forgot about that. Reasonable people might, however, entertain the suspicion, based on past dialogues with you, that a certain deliberateness might be inferred here. Now to support Luci's assertion as "basically correct" tends to support this suspicion. The fact that no testing was occurring at that instant is utterly irrelevant to the question of why Schwartz, and, now, you and Luci all want us to infer from your protocol descriptions that it was impossible for JE to view the sitter. Clearly, that was not impossible. Clearly, that is not a floor-to-ceiling screen, but a floor-to-ceiling folding screen. That little, seemingly innocuous word. Oh, my, what a quibble.
However, the thrust of this discussion contrary to Hoyt's additional remarks on this , is that we are seeking to suggest design protocol changes to tighten up on the procedure in any future trials.
"Tighten up"? Are you kidding? The first order of business is for you and yours to correctly and accurately describe the protocol. The second order is to recognize the protocol flaws when they are pointed out to you, and not to dodge and deflect.

And the third order, for you alone, is to own up to and retract your attempt to impugn Susan Blackmore's motives. I am tired of waiting.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
"Tighten up"? Are you kidding? The first order of business is for you and yours to correctly and accurately describe the protocol. The second order is to recognize the protocol flaws when they are pointed out to you, and not to dodge and deflect.

And the third order, for you alone, is to own up to and retract your attempt to impugn Susan Blackmore's motives. I am tired of waiting.

Time for a "Questions for Steve Grenard"? :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Time for a "Questions for Steve Grenard"? :D

How about "Questions Steve Grenard Continues to Dodge"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
How about "Questions Steve Grenard Continues to Dodge"?

Same thing :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, to you, all "anomalous" information is ESP?

Imaging that you had no idea what electricity was. Would a lightbulb constitute ESP, then? By your definition, it would.



Anomalous cognition to be precise. Yes it is conceivable there is a physical mechanism. On the other hand, I think this is normally regarded as being somewhat unlikely. For example, research suggests something like telepathy is unaffected by distance, where as with any physical influence, the influence diminishes to the inverse square of the distance concerned.

Not that this is really relevant. My understanding is that ESP is simply defined as anomalous cognition ie a person gaining information though unknown means. ESP does not rule out some sort of physical mechanism, it's just that a physical mechanism is difficult to reconcile with the "signal" being unimpaired by distance or any shielding. Of course, if there is some unknown artifact skewing the results of parapsychological research, then this would not be ESP.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Popper never meant to apply it to metaphysical hypotheses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How do you know that?



I read it somewhere. But apart from what Popper thinks, it would be very difficult to justify that it should apply to metaphysical hypotheses. We can appreciate why scientific theories, which are unfalsifiable, might be vacuous, it is more difficult to justify this with metaphysical hypotheses. But in any case, the issue of survival is clearly not vacuous. Either we survive our bodies or we don't! There must be a definite answer to that question, even under the scenario where we lose our individuality after death.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Besides which, in as much as the transmission theory is unfalsifiable, so is the generative theory. Anyway, the survival hypothesis is not compatible with all possible states of affairs because one can disprove it by dying and ceasing to exist!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Aha. So you can never determine whether it is true or false.



Whilst we are still alive? It would be difficult although I wouldn't say impossible. Outside deductive logic, to prove something beyond all doubt is incredibly difficult. Within science, for example, "falsified" theories can most often, if not always, be saved by the introduction of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses. I think on the whole it might be useful at this time just to satisfy ourselves with weighing up the various types of evidence for each of the hypotheses (the generative hypothesis or transmission hypothesis), and thereby coming to a rational conclusion as to which hypothesis best explains all the relevant facts.

[CFLarsen]

Interesting Ian,

Stop. Right here.

Before we go any further, I would like to see the replicable experiments that show telepathy or any other ESP phenomenon.

I would also like to see your reference that Popper never meant it to apply to metaphysical hypotheses.

I also need to know how you are going to test a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

We cannot continue in a progressive manner, unless we have covered the points we build our arguments on.

We cannot continue this, unless these points are cleared up.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Clearly, that is not a floor-to-ceiling screen, but a floor-to-ceiling folding screen. That little, seemingly innocuous word. Oh, my, what a quibble.



What an idiot. You clearly don't understand the scientific method.

In any form of para / psychological test you need to at least make people comfortable whilst maintaining rational controls. In the context of the development of these tests, the controls of having JE on the other side of a screen and the sitter on the other, back to the wall, facing the video, is a perfectly appropriate protocol. ( did you get that bit, Billy? - maybe JE is a superman able to lean forward right off his chair and peek around the screen without it being caught on continuous video footage. Or maybe he can climb up on his chair and crane his neck over, surreptitiously, unseen of course) In future experiments the trust and positivity will grow and the sort of controls which skeptics have called for can be introduced. Of course, Billy, you could eventually control things by wrapping the sitter and the medium in duct tape, you know, just to make sure.
However, scientific experiments can only be done in positive co-operation with living systems, otherwise stresses skew the results.

That picture of yours was deception on your part, presumably to infer that JE was peeking around a screen. Idiot.

Now, do you know of a cold reader capable and willing to do the same tests for Dr Schwartz under the same conditions as those set for other mediums? Should be a cinch to do, Billy, what's stopping you?

[BillHoyt]

What an idiot. You clearly don't understand the scientific method.
Heh, I'm just a bouncer at a local strip joint. Now that we've exchanged pleasantries, onto the assertions?
In any form of para / psychological test you need to at least make people comfortable whilst maintaining rational controls.
If the subjects and the controls are given the same environment, then there is no need to do this, sir. The experimental conditions are precisely the same. Now, if you are asserting something special about psi-guys, then you must demonstrate this need with other research. So, cough it up.
In the context of the development of these tests, the controls of having JE on the other side of a screen and the sitter on the other, back to the wall, facing the video, is a perfectly appropriate protocol. ( did you get that bit, Billy? - maybe JE is a superman able to lean forward right off his chair and peek around the screen without it being caught on continuous video footage. Or maybe he can climb up on his chair and crane his neck over, surreptitiously, unseen of course)
Interesting that you think having the medium's back to the sitter was sufficient while Schwartz apparently thought there needed to be a screen. Was Schwartz not being rational in this? More interesting is that you missed that this screen is supposedly "floor to ceiling", yet you rant on about JE craning his neck over it. Most interesting, of course, is that Schwartz and, now Grenard, both prominently mention the "floor-to-ceiling" screen as a control, curiously omit that there are several visible gaps in said screen and that you now maintain the screen was not only gapped, but not really floor-to-ceiling. Curious that you can't seem to imagine doing this experiment in two completely separated rooms and yet maintaining your perceived need for comfort.
In future experiments the trust and positivity will grow and the sort of controls which skeptics have called for can be introduced. Of course, Billy, you could eventually control things by wrapping the sitter and the medium in duct tape, you know, just to make sure.
However, scientific experiments can only be done in positive co-operation with living systems, otherwise stresses skew the results.
Really? Explain that to the centuries of experimenters who have done otherwise. Please provide the citations for this outlandish assertion. Please also explain again why this psi is so enormously powerful that we should all drop everything we're doing to investigate it, yet so puny, lame, weak and fragile, that we must have this "feel-good" environment to measure it.
That picture of yours was deception on your part, presumably to infer that JE was peeking around a screen. Idiot.
Are you maintaining that Schwartz did not use a gapped screen, and omit this detail in his reports? Are you asserting that this has no bearing on the strength or weakness of this study?
Now, do you know of a cold reader capable and willing to do the same tests for Dr Schwartz under the same conditions as those set for other mediums? Should be a cinch to do, Billy, what's stopping you?
Red herring. Answer the questions.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

I've got to ask. Is anybody else laughing as hard as I am at this latest outburst from Luci? Wow.

[jj]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Once again, the people who wimped out were the 7 cold readers along with Penn Jilette who met with Schwartz in Los ANgeles when he tried to enlist their cooperation in an experiment.


Bullcrap. Why would anyone with any understanding agree to be in an experiment with such serious methodological flaws?

The cold readers don't have to prove anything. The people who have to prove something is the "speaker for the dead" crowd, and they have to improve their methodology first.

[jj]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


How about "Questions Steve Grenard Continues to Dodge"?

That's the title I'd go for.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Whodini
Lucianarchy,

I agree with part of what you wrote. How come skeptics, who say that something is obivous and a cold reader could duplicate it under the same conditions, etc., haven't? In fact, they seem to avoid Schwartz' challenge like the plague. (excuses abound)

-Who

Which challenge?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini
Lucianarchy,

I agree with part of what you wrote. How come skeptics, who say that something is obivous and a cold reader could duplicate it under the same conditions, etc., haven't? In fact, they seem to avoid Schwartz' challenge like the plague. (excuses abound)

-Who

"Dr. Schwartz fails to mention the reason for my refusal, which is based entirely on his insistence that I declare, in writing, that I will never share any of my observations or conclusions with anyone, in any way. I cannot operate under such onerous limitations, nor will I ever contemplate doing so. This man of science, who preaches loudly about forthrightness, openness, sharing, honesty, and evidence, will have none of it when it might damage his own cherished notions. This is not science, not in any degree."

Do you refute that Schwartz demands that the skeptical participants not share observations or conclusions with anybody? Do you not see what is wrong with that?

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

By the way, Luci, Stevie and Who,

Please tell us what a "triple blind" experiment is, and why Schwartz should considered suspect for having suggested such a thing. Please follow any claims of its existence as a protocol with five citations from peer-reviewed journals of experiments having used "triple blind" protocols.

:D

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


If the subjects and the controls are given the same environment, then there is no need to do this, sir.

Please read some basic scientific method, Billy.

Measurement of human cognition in interactive relationships fails if either of the co operators is stressed.

That's why Psychologists don't study the human mind by wrapping it up in duct tape.

Now, why can't you name even one cold reader who will operate under the conditions you are so worried about. If you think it's possible to jump over a screen without being seen in these tests, go ahead and do it, oh, you'll also need to cold read as well. My bet is that you will try to hide behind more spohistry instead of facing the challenge.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Whodini
Lucianarchy,

I agree with part of what you wrote. How come skeptics, who say that something is obivous and a cold reader could duplicate it under the same conditions, etc., haven't? In fact, they seem to avoid Schwartz' challenge like the plague. (excuses abound)

-Who

I know, weird. Lots of hyperbole and wishfull thinking but no substance to back up their beliefs. You'd think they'd be falling over themselves to provide these subjects in order to expose their alledged scam instead of colluding with it by keeping those names secret.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Please read some basic scientific method, Billy.

Measurement of human cognition in interactive relationships fails if either of the co operators is stressed.

That's why Psychologists don't study the human mind by wrapping it up in duct tape.

Now, why can't you name even one cold reader who will operate under the conditions you are so worried about. If you think it's possible to jump over a screen without being seen in these tests, go ahead and do it, oh, you'll also need to cold read as well. My bet is that you will try to hide behind more spohistry instead of facing the challenge.

Address my points, puppy. Cut the crap. The conditions are the same for subjects and controls. Basic scientific method. Cite for me, please, peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate requirement that no psychology study be done while subjects are stressed.

Your question about me naming a cold reader has been addressed. The conditions for Schwartz' study are unscientific and unacceptable. I have addressed this red herring of yours.

NOW BACK TO YOUR BULLSH. The gaps, please? The screen, please? Separate rooms, please? Address these.

Cheers,

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
My bet is that you will try to hide behind more spohistry instead of facing the challenge.

Luci, you're the most disingenuous person I have ever encountered and a complete hypocrite.

Why not face a challenge (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21047) of your own? Is it because you can't?

Yes...

[BillHoyt]

Measurement of human cognition in interactive relationships fails if either of the co operators is stressed

Milgram, Luci. Start with Milgram, you blowhard.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


"Dr. Schwartz fails to mention the reason for my refusal, which is based entirely on his insistence that I declare, in writing, that I will never share any of my observations or conclusions with anyone, in any way. I cannot operate under such onerous limitations, nor will I ever contemplate doing so. This man of science, who preaches loudly about forthrightness, openness, sharing, honesty, and evidence, will have none of it when it might damage his own cherished notions. This is not science, not in any degree."

Do you refute that Schwartz demands that the skeptical participants not share observations or conclusions with anybody? Do you not see what is wrong with that?



Who said that, Randi, in the context of his reportage, or a cold reader applicant for Dr Schwartz's research chair challenge?

If it's Randi's comments on Dr Schwart'z negotiations about the enitre lab work and confidential sitter information then that's entirely irrelevant to the CR research chair challenge. It's also extraordinarily deceptive of you, Billy. One can only wonder why you are so desperate to commit such deception.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Your question about me naming a cold reader has been addressed. The conditions for Schwartz' study are unscientific and unacceptable.

I must have missed the name of the person you believe could demonstrate this is an actual measurement, rather than a mere opinion. Forgive me for asking again. Who was it? Is it a secret?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
One can only wonder why you are so desperate to commit such deception.

You wouldn't know anything about deception, would you Luci? Posing as a woman and a skeptic, you're all about honesty, right?

And then there's this gem:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
'I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.'

No, the only person here who's desperate is you. The only person with an emotional stake in the outcome of these questions is you, hence your complete lack of objectivity and fair play.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


I must have missed the name of the person you believe could demonstrate this is an actual measurement, rather than a mere opinion. Forgive me for asking again. Who was it? Is it a secret?

Where should we begin, sir? The gapped screen? The utter lack of double-blinding? The outlandishly liberal declaration of hits, including the Schwartz claim that one apparent miss could actually be a hit if one permits it under the heading "precognition"?

Change your handle to Lucicredulity.

Cheers,

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Where should we begin, sir? The gapped screen?



Is that a 'stage name'? I'd rather you just gave the name of a cold reader.

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Please tell us what a "triple blind"
experiment is,

LOL.

A triple-blind sounds funny, but is a semi-well-known term. It means

-the experimenter is blinded and
-the experimentee is blinded AND
-the evaluator(s) is(are) blinded

Triple. Blind. This isn't just a word that Schwartz made up. The fact that you probably think it is is interesting. The fact that you feel perfectly comfortable about yapping on (sometimes rightly) about poorly designed experiments when you dont even know what a triple blind means is interesting.

By the way, regardless of anything else, if a skeptic claims that cold readers could do this and that, THAT is their claim, and they are subject to shutting up and providing evidence for it, or not.

-Who

Originally posted by TLN

Luci, you're the most disingenuous person I have ever encountered and a complete hypocrite.


We all are TLN. Why, you've been known to be the Troll Policeman, yet you post a lot to a person who you consider a troll.

Oh, but that isn't hypocritical, now is it?
;)

Next time you type the word 'hypocrite', notice that you can see the reflection of your face in your computer monitor, but only in certain lighting conditions. The question is, will you, TLN, ever purposefully seek out those lighting conditions, or willingly turn on as many lights as you can to make sure no reflections are seen?

-Who

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini

A triple-blind sounds funny, but is a semi-well-known term. It means...

My apologies for not putting those questions in the right context. I meant a triple-blind in the context of mediums and sitters. Provide citations showing protocols for that. Think about it.

Cheers,

[TLN]

Originally posted by Whodini
We all are TLN. Why, you've been known to be the Troll Policeman, yet you post a lot to a person who you consider a troll.

Oh, but that isn't hypocritical, now is it?
;)

Sure.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by TLN


You wouldn't know anything about deception, would you Luci? Posing as a woman and a skeptic, you're all about honesty, right?



Um, I may be wrong, but I don't recall Lucianarchy EVER claiming that he was a woman. That was a conclusion that a number of people here came to and STILL think.

Of course, I may be wrong on this.

G6

Originally posted by BillHoyt

My apologies for not putting those questions in the right context. I meant a triple-blind in the context of mediums and sitters. Provide citations showing protocols for that. Think about it.


LOL, moving the goal posts...

You obviously didn't know what a triple blind is, then when informed, you say 'Oh, in the context of mediums and sitters.', etc. A triple blind is a triple blind is a triple blind. The context is irrelevant.

In fact, Bill, Sir, you asked:

" Please tell us what a "triple blind" experiment is, and why Schwartz should considered suspect for having suggested such a thing. Please follow any claims of its existence as a protocol with five citations from peer-reviewed journals of experiments having used "triple blind" protocols."

Oh, and here are those "five citations" (actually, MUCH more) from peer-reviewed journals of experiments having used triple blind protocols.

Go here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=PubMed

and type in, with quotes: "triple blind"

and see what comes up.

Even places like

http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_health_library_frame.jspzQzpgzEz/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcommon zSzdorlandszSzdorlandzSzdmd_t_19zPzhtm

acknowledge the term, as does Cochrane.

If you want the SPECIFIC protocols for this SPECIFIC experiment, you OBVIOUSLY have to contact the scientists who used them. I suggest contacting Schwartz or his team and see if they can help you.

Oh, and the whole "Show me peer review!" is incredibly funny. Nothing at the JREF is ever peer reviewed in any respectable journal (of science or of anything). The only 'publishing' that goes on is Randi's weekely commentaries/Geller rants on his own webpage, or miscellaneous articles in SI or Skeptic. Hilarious. One can't even easily obtain their data to examine. Not science, not even close. So next time you ask for standards (peer review, scientific method, etc.), ask yourself those questions first.

-Who

[SteveGrenard]

It is obviously aparent by now that Mr Rowland's is not responding to a request for contact so he can serve as a
cold reading control as he's has logged on several times since I made this offer. It is his absolute privilege absolute privlege to do so just as it was when contact with him was attempted previously.

To Hoyt:
I will not apologize to Sue Blackmore for telling the truth about her work. LOLOLOL......can you read or are you one of those bumblers that selectively filters information to suit your agenda?
Susan Blackmore's bibliography including publications up to last year appear above. They answer any questions regarding Sue's
recent research interests, e.g. memes. You are impugning her by
stating otherwise. Oh, and when you read her new book on consciousness you will find that out. I suggest you, SIR, are the
deflecting one.

We have proved once again that when push comes to shove, the cool reading camp can't produce. But that's okay, we can wait.

[SteveGrenard]

A triple blind experiment in the context of mediumship involves blinding of medium, sitter and investigator. In simple terms,
the medium and sitter do not know each other, cannot see/hear each other and have no knowledge of each other; there is no feedback from sitter to medium. The investigator does not know which sitter is assigned to which medium because that pairing is randomly drawn by a fourth, uninvolved party and is only revealed after the trial and ratings (using numbers rather than names for sitter/medium) has taken place.

[SteveGrenard]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. They [the producers of the programme] were willing to take the experiment seriously, and to observe the relevant protocols. You can imagine the problems of trying to get an audience of 20 people ready, and at the same time make sure that I, while in the same building, have NO information whatsoever about any of them (not even what any of them look like).


My information comes from two sources: people in the group who were there and from watching the program. It also comes from my disucvssion with the production assistant handling the show. Sorry did not read Rowland's description of his own performance.

I asked this question because Ian addressed one of the audience members by their first name or "got" their first name. Assuming he isn't psychic, and I have no problem with him using information from the production in an effort to demonstrate hot reading fraud, I was wondering about this.

As far as how seriously they were willing to take the experiment, an independent observer was suggested to them a week before the taping and they declined having any outsider observe the set-up. For those selected, they had to be in a certain age range and had to supply a questionnaire they wanted completed as well as sign the requisite TV release forms, etc. which is SOP.
The only thing that disturbed me was the age discrimination......

[xouper]

BillHoyt: I've got to ask. Is anybody else laughing as hard as I am at this latest outburst from Luci? Wow.I have Luci in my ignore list, but from the quotes I've seen, yes, they are hysterically comical.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: We have proved once again that when push comes to shove, the cool reading camp can't produce.You have proved no such thing. I would expect better logic and/or rhetoric from you than that.

But more importantly, the "cold reading camp" as you call it, is not required to participate in any of Schwartz's experiments designed to test mediums. Especially considering the gag order in the contract.

Having coldreaders as controls is insufficient to prove that mediums can comminucate with dead people. I though we already covered that. Or do you disagree?

[xouper]

Whodini: Here is a good example of those excuses I was talking about.Well, you can call them excuses if you want, but to me they are valid objections.

jj, we don't want your theories, we want you or any cold reader who says there are flaws, that cold readers can duplicate it, etc., to shut up and do what you claim you can do. Sound familiar?Using coldreaders as controls in an experiment to test mediums is not necessary nor is it sufficient to prove that mediums can comminicate with dead people. Asking coldreaders to put up or shut up in this context is a red herring.

[jj]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It is obviously aparent by now that Mr Rowland's is not responding to a request for contact so he can serve as a
cold reading control as he's has logged on several times since I made this offer.

It's up to you to prove your claims of the paranormal. Get with it, Steve. Why would Ian want to deal with somebody like you who has been shown to say abusive things, mislead people about obligations, and in general engage in a smear campaign about anyone who doesn't explicitly support your particular hero?

I certainly wouldn't have anything to do with any experiment you run or have any relationship at all with, given your performance here.

I suspect that a great many people who actually care about their credibility feel the same way I do.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


And then there's this gem:





That, is simply not my quote. And you know it. It was made on some website by the sort of people who are unable to refute evidence and try to discredit me by deceptive means. You, are the sort of person who takes these 'net quotes and tries to perpetuate the deception still further. And you wonder why I don't bother to respond to your silly demands? :rolleyes:

Why can't you just nominate a cold reader for the research challenge? :confused:

[jj]

Originally posted by xouper
I have Luci in my ignore list, but from the quotes I've seen, yes, they are hysterically comical.

You're far too kind. Laughable, but hardly comical, I think.

[SteveGrenard]

The problem xouper, which I thought you understood, is that everyone from Hyman on down have criticized the existing control which was a control for generalization in the original studies and have literally screamed that a cold reader control should be instituted. Now I already know your position on this but your opinion holds no weight with Hyman et. al. who have called for a cold reading control. Schwartz tried to enlist just 1 or 2 out of 7 cold readers. They all declined. He wrote and I wrote to Rowlands and he never answered. Hence ...still waiting .....

I don't disagree with your point of view. However Hyman and anyone who supports that includes most of the skepticoids here,
do disagree and think such a control should be instituted.

Any cold reader who participates can negotiate any gag order
including inspecting his own ratings and those of the mediums pitted against him. I don't know of any gag order other than not to release the personal details of the sitters who are ordinary people off the street who have lost loved ones and agreed to volunteer. The cold reader, obviously, would not be in posession of such information anyway. Show me evidence for any gag order other than the above mentioned category of information?

[jj]

Originally posted by xouper
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jj, we don't want your theories, we want you or any cold reader who says there are flaws, that cold readers can duplicate it, etc., to shut up and do what you claim you can do. Sound familiar?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Using coldreaders as controls in an experiment to test mediums is not necessary nor is it sufficient to prove that mediums can comminicate with dead people. Asking coldreaders to put up or shut up in this context is a red herring.

(Quoted as reported by xouper. Whodini is second on my ignore list.)

I see that Whodini is still stalking me, and still using deliberately deceptive and illicit claims in an attempt to cause harm to my professional reputation.

I will capture the original quote so that it can not be deleted or hidden, thank you, Xouper.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
That, is simply not my quote. And you know it. It was made on some website by the sort of people who are unable to refute evidence and try to discredit me by deceptive means. You, are the sort of person who takes these 'net quotes and tries to perpetuate the deception still further.

Right, it was some other poster named Lucianarchy done well before your posting here. Of course...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
And you wonder why I don't bother to respond to your silly demands? :rolleyes:

Oh, I don't wonder; one question into any debate between us would immediately demonstrate your complete lack of evidence, and you know that.

Of course, any time you're ready to present some evidence on your many, many claims feel free to take me up on my challenge and prove me wrong. It wouldn't be the first time...

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by xouper
I have Luci in my ignore list, but from the quotes I've seen, yes, they are hysterically comical.

Hi, Xoup. :D

I find it interesting that you, like TLN, admit to suffering from hysteria when you react to some situations. Perhaps hysteria is a psychological trait of the pseudo-skeptic.

[Ian Rowland]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It is obviously aparent by now that Mr Rowland's is not responding to a request for contact so he can serve as a
cold reading control. / We have proved once again that when push comes to shove, the cool reading camp can't produce. But that's okay, we can wait.

1. Your assertion that I have 'ignored' Dr. Schwarz is incorrect. After the Prime Time piece was aired, I exchanged several emails with Dr Schwarz. As I recall, these were all perfectly polite, good-natured and mutually respectful.

2. I am on the road right now, so I can't spend much time checking my emails or replying to them, and I don't have access to all my past emails. However, I'm not sure Dr. Schwarz ever got to the point of actually making me a formal offer to participate in any of his tests. If he did, and if I'm in error over this, then I will be corrected. But to the best of my recall, as I sit here in the Vegas sunshine, this never happened.

3. Some people here seem to think you have said nasty or ignorant things about me elsewhere. I don't know if this is true, and nor do I care one iota. Peace to you. I'm don't get involved in arguments, rows or slanging matches. Never have, never will. I'm good at making friends, but never really got the hang of making enemies or getting drawn into that kind of unpleasantness. Life is too short, and the rewards of friendship too great, for that kind of nonsense to appeal to me.

4. It's true that, based on what I know of Gary Schwarz's work, I don't see any useful role that I could play in his research, nor am I interested in participating. But maybe that's because I'm not a trained scientist and can't understand these things. But this is not said with any disrespect to Dr. Schwarz, who has always been perfectly polite and approachable in his personal email to me, and I wish him and his team the very best with their research.

- Ian

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


Right, it was some other poster named Lucianarchy done well before your posting here. Of course...



Yes, of course. Please have the courtesy of apologising, and deleting your deception.

You should be lucky that I am against your suspension for violating the rules in such a blatant way. It's actually better that people read how pseudo-skeptics like you behave.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yes, of course. Please have the courtesy of apologising, and deleting your deception.

It's no deception so I see no need to apologize.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You should be lucky that I am against your suspension for violating the rules in such a blatant way. It's actually better that people read how pseudo-skeptics like you behave.

So suspend me. Or ban me.

So, you're the skeptic, avoiding evaluating your belief systems and answering direct questions, and I'm the pseudo-skeptic, who's asking you for evidence. Is this right?

Luci, you're too absurd to be taken seriously. You must be here simply to enrage people. Admit it. What other reason would a skeptic have for avoiding evaluating his belief systems? Is that skeptical of you, saying "I'm 100% right and refuse to evaluate how I got here"?

I win our debate by forfeit. You won't step up, so I'll step down. When you're done trolling and want to evaluate your claims, try me. Until then, you're just a child poking people with a stick in an effort to anger them and amuse yourself.

[Mr. Skinny]

I've been following most of the John Edward discussion here for quite a while, but one thing I don't understand is whether the two sides with dogs in this fight have ever agreed on a double blind (or triple blind, for that matter) testing procedure. If so, could someone point me to it?

I don't know much about testing, but it did occur to me that it might be nutty for Ian Rowland to volunteer here in this thread to be a cold reading control, even if he wanted to. Wouldn't that "unblind" the test? Wouldn't additional cold readers then be required in order to prevent sitters from having a 50/50 chance of picking between Ian and a medium?

Also, would the reader and sitter communicate via computer terminal? I, for one, think I could recognize JE's voice.

Anyhow, I'd rather see more discussion on what the test would be, should everyone come to a decision, rather than who would ultimately participate in it.

Just my two cents from the bleachers.

Originally posted by xouper
Asking coldreaders to put up or shut up in this context is a red herring.

So my red herring against jj's obvious excuses. Which wins?

lol

-Who

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


It's no deception so I see no need to apologize.



You presented that quote as a quote from the author of these words. It wasn't. You were deceptive in willfuly making that illusion. You used the same quote that others have used here in an attempt to discredit me through deceptive means.

Please, I am asking you politely. Edit your post to link to where you found the quote, so people can make up their own mind.

[xouper]

TLN: Luci, you're too absurd to be taken seriously.That pretty much sums it up.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Whodini


LOL, moving the goal posts...

You obviously didn't know what a triple blind is, then when informed, you say 'Oh, in the context of mediums and sitters.', etc. A triple blind is a triple blind is a triple blind. The context is irrelevant.

In fact, Bill, Sir, you asked:

" Please tell us what a "triple blind" experiment is, and why Schwartz should considered suspect for having suggested such a thing. Please follow any claims of its existence as a protocol with five citations from peer-reviewed journals of experiments having used "triple blind" protocols."
Are you in such desperation to prove the assertion that skeptics don't admit mistakes that you a) don't acknowledge that fact and b) attempt to build it into something so much more? How petty.

Let me teach you a little bit about evidence versus jumping to conclusions:
o Read the first sentence. I mangled it completely. "should be considered suspect" when clearly I meant "shouldn't be considered suspect".
o Look at the time stamps, sir. Do you honestly expect people here to believe that, within nine minutes' time, I a) read your post, b) re-read mine (since you did not quote it completely), c) looked up triple blind to educate myself on it, d) convinced myself it was real and e) post a reply to you? In nine minutes? Perhaps I should be more flattered that you think I can perform such feats while also performing my many duties at work. I should wear a red cape.

I mangled my sentence. I apologized for that. I meant to ask what a triple blind study means in this context. I did not ask you nor expect you to figure out the context of that statement, given that I mangled it. But neither do I expect you to not acknowledge that I acknowledged the error. And I certainly don't expect you to jump to conclusions, impugn the state of my knowledge and go off on rants about it after I have acknowledged an error.

Cheers,

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Please, I am asking you politely. Edit your post to link to where you found the quote, so people can make up their own mind.

It was originally uncovered by a JREF poster simply performing a Google search on "Lucianarchy." The post was from another message board. I don't know which poster made the discovery or which message board it came from as those JREF posts have been lost. Further searches don't produce this quote anymore. Perhaps the message board where is was originally posted is now out of comission, I don't know. I do remember seeing the original post at the time, as I'm sure many others do.

I guess this is a job for Claus' archives. Claus, can you tell me where this quote originally came from?

[TLN]

Originally posted by xouper
That pretty much sums it up.

I know, I know... I never claimed I was smart.

[xouper]

Mr. Skinny: Just my two cents from the bleachers. And high quality pennies they were. Excellent points.

[xouper]

Whodini: So my red herring against jj's obvious excuses. Which wins?JJ of course, since his are valid points.

"I see that Whodini is still stalking me, and still using deliberately deceptive and illicit claims in an attempt to cause harm to my professional reputation."

LOL, I post to other people on the board, including you, and you call it stalking?

Your pseudo-Even fake for Law and Order-speak needs work.

All I've said to you here is:

"jj, we don't want your theories, we want you or any cold reader who says there are flaws, that cold readers can duplicate it, etc., to shut up and do what you claim you can do.
Sound familiar?"

-In response to you posting things like:

"Why would anyone with any understanding agree to be in an experiment with such serious methodological flaws?"

That is nothing about any attempt on my part to cause harm to your professional reputation, and there never will be.

There is no "deliberately deceptive" claims. In fact, above, YOU'VE made the claim of "such serious methodological flaws", and I'm asking you to provide evidence for it. Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen any.

Expect people to post responses critical of your own when you participate on a public bulletin board. If you go around calling things "bullcrap", expect others to do similar things.

And maybe you're stalking me? In the 'mirror' thread, you posted about ME, after I made a legitimate comment, first:

"Bot, don't waste your time with Whodini. He is an expert at asking questions that imply specific, often absurd, and sometimes insulting things, without actually taking such positions, and he has yet to offer support for any of the implications he makes."

Please quit using deliberately deceptive and illicit claims in attempts to cause harm to MY professional reputation, for crying out loud.

Let's also get this thread back on track..

-Who

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Ian Rowland


1. Your assertion that I have 'ignored' Dr. Schwarz is incorrect. After the Prime Time piece was aired, I exchanged several emails with Dr Schwarz. As I recall, these were all perfectly polite, good-natured and mutually respectful.
...
- Ian

Ian,

Thank you so much for that post. It puts a great deal in persepective. I wish you a safe, happy and fruitful trip.

Cheers,

Originally posted by xouper
JJ of course, since his are valid points.

Ouch. :) Whodini got dissed. :)

I am willing to accept that his claims are valid, I just haven't seen much or any evidence.

Maybe I missed or overlooked it, I'm honestly not too sure. I'll go back and check.

-Who

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


It was originally uncovered by a JREF poster simply performing a Google search on "Lucianarchy." The post was from another message board. I don't know which poster made the discovery or which message board it came from as those JREF posts have been lost. Further searches don't produce this quote anymore. Perhaps the message board where is was originally posted is now out of comission, I don't know. I do remember seeing the original post at the time, as I'm sure many others do.

I guess this is a job for Claus' archives. Claus, can you tell me where this quote originally came from?

So you even posted it without even knowing where it came from?

Do what I have said. In the meantime, the irony of your own words, which you followed that deceptively used, unrelated quote, which you attributed to this author, will remain on page 4 of this thread, for all to see for the projection that it is.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
So you even posted it [b]without even knowing where it came from?

Hey, that's what us "pseudo-skeptics" do.

[SteveGrenard]

Ian:

Obviously if you exchanged e-mails with Schwartz, I stand corrected.

Insofar as I am aware, and I had lunch with Schwartz the other day in NYC he never had any further contact with you and I am trying to encourage that in relation to a future mediumship trial which is being designed and planned right now by Schwartz and a number of collaborators under th purview of a new doctorial student at the University of Arizona.

If you would e-mail me privately at: sgrenard@si.rr.com I would
be happy to give you Schwartz' home telephone number so you can discuss this further. I have advised him I am doing this.
If you are in Vegas you are in the same time zone as he is in
Tucson right now.

I cannot comment on your opinion that you have nothing to offer in such an experiment. The inclusion of a talented cold reader as a control has been called for by skeptics such as Hyman as well as a number who post here. On my making the above offer to you, they immediately relented in an effort to downplay this control. You may agree with Xouper that a cold reading control does not prove a medium is not also cold reading. I happen to agree it proves nothing but that hasn't stopped critics from calling for this and criticizing the control that was used. To that end one would gather statistics that under identical secure protocols and conditions, both the cold reader (e.g. yourself) and the purported medium get the same or nearly the same % of hits.

If the cold reader and the medium get a significant amount of disparity on hit rates (as determined by the sitter and a third dispassionate rater) this may validate the call by skeptics to include this control ...one way or the other. I am no expert on
what is expected or what would be statistically significant differences so won't comment further. Such numbers would, on publication, be open to scrutiny of course just as they were in the previous studies and those of Robertson and Roy in Edinburgh who may also be interested in including a cold reading control if they thought it worthwhile.

Steve Grenard

[BillHoyt]

Steve,

HOW do you propose to measure the correctness or incorrectness of a medium's assertion in the trial? Be specific. How do you know the statement is either correct or incorrect?

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Note to those who want to know how to do this: pay close attention to what is missing. This is always a critical component of critical thinking. When the commercial comes on that says, "We have exactly the same active ingredient as Brand X, but it only takes two of ours to give you the same zip as four of theirs", ask yourself: what's missing? In this case, what is the cost per pill? If two of ours costs more than four of theirs, then you've gained nothing.

In the case of Grenard's statement, you must also look for what is missing, and ask what is the deflection. Here's what it said:
I will not apologize to Sue Blackmore for telling the truth about her work. LOLOLOL......can you read or are you one of those bumblers that selectively filters information to suit your agenda?Susan Blackmore's bibliography including publications up to last year appear above. They answer any questions regarding Sue's recent research interests, e.g. memes. You are impugning her by stating otherwise
1. Note, first of all, that it elected, finally, to respond to me on this, rather than on the initial thread.
2. Note, secondly, that I asked it several times on the iniitial thread, to respond to me, and that it never answered.
3. Now, thirdly, and most importantly, note that it reframed the problem as being about its claim that her recent research focus was about memes.
4. Note now, that it actually said this:
She was still working in parapsychology when she became a CSICOP Executive Council member, however and has generally striven to debunk and disprove or provide inconclusive results in any research she did along these lines.
5. Furthermore, note that I responded with this:
I resent your efforts to impugn the motives of somebody I know and respect. Please retract that nonsense immediately.
6. Observe that it impugned her research motives, and that I clearly called it on this. Observer also that it tries to change the discussion to one about her current focus.

It has no idea what it is blathering about. When caught, it squeals and points its little head and many arms into as many directions as it can. It then produces as loud a screech as possible. It is pathetic. It is disingenuous. It is, once again, only deserving of heckling.

It is a pathetic puke. It resembles nothing more than an addle-brained ass. It seems to be a prevaricating pretender to the throne of the puny psi. A Laughable lout. A Ridiculous runt. It should go away.

Jeers,

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
I guess this is a job for Claus' archives. Claus, can you tell me where this quote originally came from?

Why, of course! :)

Robbin Roberts
I hate James Randi
Tue Nov 20 12:48:20 2001

As one of the few men involved in Wicca, I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.

- Robbin aka Lucianarchy
Source: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=220

Added:

James "The Amusing" Randi is a closed-minded twit who remains bitter regarding the whole Geller affair. As an award-winning journalist I have dedicated my life to the amazing accomplishments of Mr. Geller and I am appalled at what I have uncovered about The Amusing One. Randi gets his y-fronts twisted over Geller because he remains jealous of his success.
Source: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=224

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Why, of course! :)


Source: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=220

Added:


Source: http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=224



Thank you. Anyone can see that is not from me and can also see what sort of spurious tactics pseudo-skeptics like TLN will stoop to in order to discredit what they can't deal with in a rational manner. It wouldn't surprise me if it was TLN who planted it in the first place. :rolleyes:

Thanks.

[Lucianarchy]

Now, can anyone nominate a cold reader willing to take the challenge and provide measurable evidence to support the claims of the cr believers?

[SteveGrenard]

Oops sorry abut the inconclusive results remark .....for evidence of that see SB's study of Chris Robinson. But that was before during her phase when she dealt directly in testing people who could pick horses or, as in Robinson's case, claimed precognitive dreams. It was widely contended that her and Richard Wiseman were vying for the title of James Randi of England. But yes, she has dropped out of that race. Now she studies memes or does a lot of thinking and writing about them. As a scientist and PW fellow she is far more qualified than Randi to conduct such investigators an has he background and training to not only conduct a proper scientific study but to get it published in a peer reviewed journal such as the JSPR that deals with this subject.

In the case of Robinson while she may've made conclusions which negate his claims, the evidence she presented in the paper boded the opposite. It was a rather a strange and, to be polite, "inconclsuive" mini-study of this guy.

So I am still not apologizing about anything nice I said about Blackmore or anything I said which is the truth (see her biblio) and I am not apologiziing for the "inconclusive" remark other than to say sorry I did not cite the instance I am familiar with which has caused that opinion to be rendered.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So I am still not apologizing about anything nice I said about Blackmore or anything I said which is the truth (see her biblio) and I am not apologiziing for the "inconclusive" remark other than to say sorry I did not cite the instance I am familiar with which has caused that opinion to be rendered.
:rolleyes:

Okay, it won't respond appropriately, but prefers, instead to portray its remarks as "nice."

So how long before it responds to this one. I will make the question clearer for it:

Describe for us, please, how you would design a triple-blind study of mediums. In detail. Including how the evaluators evaluate. Stop ducking this question.

[edited to add: Please respond on the thread newly created by Claus.]

[CFLarsen]

Let us take that to a new thread:
Designing a triple-blind experiment? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21852)

[SteveGrenard]

I described the triple blind procedure in brief. A detailed description, including rating parameters, will take several pages to describe. I will start dowloading my notes and material on
this tonight. I am not ducking the question as several designs have been discussed but I wasn't sure you all wanted this kind of detail. I will be happy to provide it. AFter this is done , I would hope that it will be read and commented on (not just poo-bahed) with constructive criticisms. Thank you.

Larsen: How would you design - in detail - a triple-blind experiment of mediums? Including how the evaluators evaluate.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I described the triple blind procedure in brief. A detailed description, including rating parameters, will take several pages to describe. I will start dowloading my notes and material on
this tonight. I am not ducking the question as several designs have been discussed but I wasn't sure you all wanted this kind of detail. I will be happy to provide it. AFter this is done , I would hope that it will be read and commented on (not just poo-bahed) with constructive criticisms. Thank you.

Larsen: How would you design - in detail - a triple-blind experiment of mediums? Including how the evaluators evaluate.

Steve,

The question is very simple. It does not require great detail. It certainly does not require notes. Think about it a bit and answer generally, but focus on the evaluation portion, sir. We're all ears.

I shall cross-post this to the thread Claus created.

Cheers,

[SteveGrenard]

The non-detailed version of the triple blind protocol has been posted already. Mr. Larsen asks, and this is his word "in detail."
I will do so tonight and I will do so on the new thread established by Larsen for this purpose. Thank you for diverting attention once again, moving the goalpost forward instead of back, but I will take Larsen at his word and supply those details. It will not include a cold reading control because, as we have just seen, we still cannot recruit a highly proficient cold reader to serve as a control.

Sheesh -- can't you guys ever stop contradicting each other? Make up your minds. Detail, no detail...LOL.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Sheesh -- can't you guys ever stop contradicting each other? Make up your minds. Detail, no detail...LOL.

THANK YOU for revealing you have been on that thread but dodged it by posting here! ROTFLMAO

[cleo]

Originally posted by Clancie
And he also made it clear, imho, from something he posted there that he has a girl friend but is still looking and available if the right person should come along).



Well, let's just hope she doesn't come across this thread, then. I shouldn't imagine that would be a very nice thing to read about her chappie.

[Clancie]

Ian's following quote is such a refreshing point of view, that I just have to repeat it to be sure it isn't overlooked:
From Ian Rowland

(to Steve) . Some people here seem to think you have said nasty or ignorant things about me elsewhere. I don't know if this is true, and nor do I care one iota. Peace to you.

I don't get involved in arguments, rows or slanging matches. Never have, never will. I'm good at making friends, but never really got the hang of making enemies or getting drawn into that kind of unpleasantness.

Life is too short, and the rewards of friendship too great, for that kind of nonsense to appeal to me.
A great point of view--one, imo, definitely worth thinking more about....

[CFLarsen]

Sure, Clancie,

Let's disperse with the personal attacks (which you have been doing a lot of lately), and focus on some hard issues.

Like these:

"Questions for Clancie" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21304)

[Lucianarchy]

QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian Rowland




It's true that, based on what I know of Gary Schwarz's work, I don't see any useful role that I could play in his research, nor am I interested in participating. But maybe that's because I'm not a trained scientist and can't understand these things. But this is not said with any disrespect to Dr. Schwarz, who has always been perfectly polite and approachable in his personal email to me, and I wish him and his team the very best with their research.

- Ian [/QUOTE]

Ian, as you are an expert at your craft, you could play an extremely valuable part by acting as a control for these experiments. Only the 'mediums' like JE can do what they do under DR Schwartz's conditions, and from their description of how they get their information, it is not from a mundane medium it is literaly a paranormal medium. This surely needs research and co-operation from those who have the skills to help. Many skeptics have claimed that Cold Readers (or even hot readers) could replicate this. You are one of the best CR's, and obviously your time is precious, but if funding could be found to remunerate you for your time and expertise, would you offer your help? If there are other reasons why you wouldn't do it, that's OK, I respect you have a life outside CR ;)
Speaking of which, best wishes for your road-trip (and enjoy having as many girlfriends as you bloody well wish!)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Only the 'mediums' like JE can do what they do under DR Schwartz's conditions...

First you say no cold reader has ever been tested, then you say only the mediums can perform. Which one is it?

Another question to the large pile you can't answer.

[SteveGrenard]

While it is true that no highly proficient CR has been used as a control and this was the objective of this phase of this thread which, sadly, resulted in a refusal or declination on the part of a highly skilled CR, the conditions to which Luci refers sort of precludes the methodology of cold reading from ocurring although it would be important to find out:

1. No verbal feedback-precludes cold reading hypohesis
2. No visual feedback-precludes warm reading hypothesis
3. Sitter anonymous to reader-precludes hot reading hypothesis
4. Reader anonymous to sitter

Mediums have functioned to a high level of accuracy, even at 100%, but without condtrols, under the above circumstances.
The cynics, super skeptics and critics have called for a control
for cold reading by a proficient cold reader (Randi, Shermer,
Jaroff as well as Penn Jilette all say they are not that good;
actually Penn is not a cold reader at all. the good ones demure because they say they can't operate under the above conditions; 8 have declined Schwartz, now including Ian Rowland). There is an inescapable conclusion in here somewhere that cold readers can't duplicate a genuine medium's performance but that doesn't stop scientists and inquiring minds from wanting to see if that is true as there is two hypotheses left to test for fraudulence: guessing and generalization.

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
While it is true that no highly proficient CR has been used as a control and this was the objective of this phase of this thread which, sadly, resulted in a refusal or declination on the part of a highly skilled CR, the conditions to which Luci refers sort of precludes the methodology of cold reading from ocurring although it would be important to find out:

Explain how this protocol precludes the possibility of cold reading.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Mediums have functioned to a high level of accuracy, even at 100%, but without condtrols, under the above circumstances.

Well, if it was without controls, that 100% is worthless, no?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Where is an inescapable conclusion in here somewhere that cold readers can't duplicate a genuine medium's performance but that doesn't stop scientists and inquiring minds from wanting to see if that is true as there is two hypotheses left to test for fraudulence: guessing and generalization.

So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?

Translation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

[SteveGrenard]

TLN - it depends on how you define cold reading. Do that and I will revise my statement. Right now I define it as the game of 20 questions, requiring feedback from a sitter for it to work.

If you have some broader definition covering things I did not cover above which were:

cold
warm
hot
generalization
guessing

then please advise......

IR is an authority on this so perhaps when he gets to read this he can help us out.

[TLN]

I'm sorry, I don't see how that addressed any of my questions or points.

Explain how this protocol precludes the possibility of cold reading. Is it the lack of feedback?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Mediums have functioned to a high level of accuracy, even at 100%, but without condtrols, under the above circumstances.

But without controls, these results are worthless, correct?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There is an inescapable conclusion in here somewhere that cold readers can't duplicate a genuine medium's performance but that doesn't stop scientists and inquiring minds from wanting to see if that is true as there is two hypotheses left to test for fraudulence: guessing and generalization.

So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?

Translation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

No?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?



So far, the only people who can do it are the mediums. If you believe a cold reader can do it, please nominate one so this important issue can be resolved.

[SteveGrenard]

TLN: Explain how this protocol precludes the possibility of cold reading. Is it the lack of feedback?

Reply: Yes, but this is what I AM TOLD by people who cold read.
That phase of a fraudulent reading requires feedback......which is
the game of 20 questions.



TLN: But without controls, these results are worthless, correct?

Reply: If something cannot be done and the investigators have made a very public and strenuous effort to accomplish and still
are trying to accomplish, right up to this very moment, the results suffer from a lack of this type of control. On the other hand as Xouper has pointed out, he does not see how a control for cold reading using a cold reader would rule this out. So if its present, it should be apparent. If there is no feedback, well, then it isn't present. There are only two areas of fraudulent mediumship remaining with the design proposed that could be generated by a cold reader: generalization and, of course, guessing. Generalization can be ascertained by other means; the absence of guessing, any guessing, can be ascertained by determinng probabilities, especially probabilities for clusters of correct information.

TLN: So, since no one's done it yet it can't be done?

Reply: I am glad you phrased that as a question. You know the answer as well as anyone. Of course it can be done, but first we need someone (e.g. a proficient cold reader) to agree to do it.


TLN: Translation: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Reply: A control for cold reading is not evidence in of itself. Xouper made that argument and I agreed with him.

[Pyrrho]

A professional or amateur cold reader is not an adequate control. A proper control is someone who cannot do it at all.

Besides, the object is to show that alleged mediums do not use cold-reading to achieve their results. This goal should be attainable without having to resort to the use of a professional cold reader.

Still, I do wish one or two non-psychic cold readers would participate. Perhaps it all ought to be handled anonymously, so that nobody -- mediums included -- need fear having their names used to promote someone else's agenda. Nobody gets dissed in public, and nobody gets to brag that they've been tested in a scientific study. Of course, that means giving up some potentially valuable publicity, but what should that matter in the name of science?

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: 1. No verbal feedback-precludes cold reading hypohesisAs I understand it, guessing and generalization are aspects of cold reading, which do not require verbal feedback. If there is a problem with the definition of "cold reading" then that needs to be sorted out first.

Mediums have functioned to a high level of accuracy, even at 100%, but without condtrols, under the above circumstances.Please clarify what definition of the word "control" you are using here? Are you referring controls in the sense of tigher protocols, or are you referring to controls as additional readers who are self-professed non-mediums to compare results against?

Also, when has any alleged medium ever passed a test with protocols tight enough to preclude sensory leakage, guessing, etc?

[xouper]

xouper: As I understand it, guessing and generalization are aspects of cold reading, which do not require feedback. If there is a problem with the definition of "cold reading" then that needs to be sorted out first.Oops, I see in another post that you defined what you meant, "Right now I define it as the game of 20 questions, requiring feedback from a sitter for it to work." I think the definition of cold reading is broader than that. But I am willing to be wrong.

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: A control for cold reading is not evidence in of itself. Xouper made that argument and I agreed with him.Agreed. I am puzzled why others have called for coldreaders to be used as controls in testing mediums. When testing spoon benders, for example, it is not sufficient or necessary to use magicians as controls. It is necessary, however, to use protocols tight enough to preclude trickery, including stastitical sleight of hand. I claim no expertise in the design or evaluation of the specific details of such protocols, deferring instead to those who are more qualified.

[SteveGrenard]

P: A professional or amateur cold reader is not an adequate control. A proper control is someone who cannot do it at all.

Reply: Okay. That's interesting because that is exactrly who Schwartz originally used for the HBO experiment(s). You will
have to expand on this for me to understand why a professional or (proficient) amateur cold reader is not an adequate control.

P: Besides, the object is to show that alleged mediums do not use cold-reading to achieve their results. This goal should be attainable without having to resort to the use of a professional cold reader.

Reply: You are probably right. The absence of a cold reader as a control is Hyman and other skeptic's criticism. Cold reading can be juduciously ascertained through judging -- but wait, no judging is allowed or is it only allowed from one side of the fence?

P: Still, I do wish one or two non-psychic cold readers would participate. Perhaps it all ought to be handled anonymously, so that nobody -- mediums included -- need fear having their names used to promote someone else's agenda. Nobody gets dissed in public, and nobody gets to brag that they've been tested in a scientific study. Of course, that means giving up some potentially valuable publicity, but what should that matter in the name of science?

Reply: A lot of people share your wish including myself but try as we have we have not succeeded. I agree the issue of anonymity for the cold reader (as well as the mediums) is important but then there are some who think they should have their names revealed.
If only one cold reader participated and everyone knew that, it wouldn't be hard to guess who it was ...what are the odds for that? LOL. And the final report would have to include the results of the cold reading control. Throwing in the cold reader into the mix with a half dozen purported mediums is fine for the operational phase of the experiment but sooner or later the data attributable to the cold reader would have to be singled out and compared with the data from the mediums and identified as such: cold reader data.

Schwartz revealed the names of the sitters and the mediums but did not release the data because everyone knew who the sitters were; he also did not attribute hit rates to particular mediums.
He found after the fact he could not release the data as it was personal information that could easily be attributed to the sitters because their participation-in-name was revealed. I would suggest to him next time to keep the sitters names confidential so their data could be released and get consent to do that......
similar to any medical study. We collect data on patients, publish it but certainly don't put their names in the publication. There are a few here also that don't think we should keep this confidential either but, oh well, everyone is entitled to their two cents.

Of course some data is so personal, like names and relationships or other known factors that anyone who knows the sitter could probably identify them by some or all of the information revealed.

And if everybody was anonymous and nothing was revealed, there would be skeptics who would even doubt the existence of the exercise let alone its validity if there is validity. You can't win.

[SteveGrenard]

X: Oops, I see in another post that you defined what you meant, "Right now I define it as the game of 20 questions, requiring feedback from a sitter for it to work." I think the definition of cold reading is broader than that. But I am willing to be wrong.

Reply: It may be broader. But I have included all the alleged tricks used by frauds:

1. feedback = game of 20 questions/pigeon holing/flattery and Barnum like exchanges - I call cold reading

2. warm reading = picking up sensory cues from dress, appearance, gender, inflection of voice, mannerisms

3. hot reading = prior research based on knowledge of who sitter is

4. generalization = requires analysis

5. guessing = requires probability analysis

or any combination of the above. e.g. medium sees Italian looking woman and says there is an issue with church or who is Sal?
He uses warm reading and 20 questions (feedback).


Now if there is anything else specifically included in the definition of cold reading let me know what it is. The key issue wth any experiment is to secure against any and all of the above regardless of what you want to call it. The cold reader and the mediums must each be subject with the same measures.

If there is no feedback, verbal or visual and the subjects are
mutually anonymous, you can control for first three. The last two
require judging.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
P: A professional or amateur cold reader is not an adequate control. A proper control is someone who cannot do it at all.

Reply: Okay. That's interesting because that is exactrly who Schwartz originally used for the HBO experiment(s). You will
have to expand on this for me to understand why a professional or (proficient) amateur cold reader is not an adequate control.

The reason for a non-cold-reader is to establish a baseline. Can't do that with someone who can cold read. The cold-reader should be part of the reader pool, along with the mediums. The non-cold-reader is the control for all concerned. At least, I think so. Time for me to sit back and lurk -- I've reached the limit of my competence in this area.

[SteveGrenard]

Thanks Pyrrho. That was invaluable where establishing a baseline is concerned. Thank you.

[xouper]

Pyrrho: The reason for a non-cold-reader is to establish a baseline.May I ask, how would having a "baseline" be useful in proving whether a medium got information from a dead person?

[jj]

Originally posted by xouper
May I ask, how would having a "baseline" be useful in proving whether a medium got information from a dead person?

Well, it depends, Xoup. Maybe if your intent is to attempt to turn experimental noise into "results".... (insert sarcasm warning somewhere here)

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by xouper
May I ask, how would having a "baseline" be useful in proving whether a medium got information from a dead person?
The only reason I mention it is because there has been discussion regarding a scoring system for reponses, and there has been some talk about levels of performance. I suppose one reason for establishing a "baseline" is to determine how often a person can get "hits" without being a medium. This should fall within random chance. It also provides a means to determine bias levels -- if a non-medium is consistently scored high on the performance end, perhaps something is wrong with the process.

I could be completely wrong in my thinking, however. I freely admit that I would not know how to properly set up a protocol.

[xouper]

Pyrrho: I suppose one reason for establishing a "baseline" is to determine how often a person can get "hits" without being a medium.I am unclear how this would help. Let's consider the three main possibilities.

The coldreader scores a higher hit percentage than the medium. Does this disprove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.

The coldreader scores a similar hit percentage as the medium. Does this disprove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.

The coldreader scores a lower hit percentage than the medium. Does this prove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.What am I missing here? What is gained by having coldreaders as controls?

I suppose one reason for establishing a "baseline" is to determine how often a person can get "hits" without being a medium. <span style="background-color: #ffc">This should fall within random chance</span>.If so, then "random chance" is the baseline and you don't need a control reader to establish this.

I could be completely wrong in my thinking, however. I freely admit that I would not know how to properly set up a protocol.I claim no such expertise either.

[dharlow]

Originally posted by xouper
What is gained by having coldreaders as controls?


You're quite right. A comparision of cold readers versus mediums does not establish anything paranormal. I have read more than once, from texts by eminent magicians, that to become a great performer, one only needs to learn and "perfect" a couple of tricks. Once one has done that, you can fool almost anyone. There are very few in this world who solely devote their lives to cold reading. Mentalists' acts consists of a variety of tricks to keep their audience entertained. If cold reading were the only act, the audience would become bored. However, one can view, and should view, JVP and JE as solely cold readers (whether they really are or not). One should view them as people who have worked solely on one trick, and honed their skills very well. While they might be genuine, that is not how they should be viewed if they want their "powers" to gain scientific acceptence. If they are viewed as "masters" of cold reading, then they will surely score higher than any mentalist in such a comparison, thus rendering any significant correlation over their competitors as useless as regards paranormal powers. What such a comparision would show , assuming a positive result, is that they are vastly better at what they do than other mentalists are.

That being said, I think that those that assert cold reading need to back up their claim with actual evidence, since they themselves are indeed making a claim, rather than simply putting forth the possibility.

I should also add that "talking to the dead" is something that cannot be decided on any test. The concept of telepathy, "if" one were to come to accept it (and the evidence for it far outweighs that for survival, however one wants to judge the evidence), can override any evidence for communication with the deceased due to current lack of knowledge as to its limits.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by dharlow


You're quite right. A comparision of cold readers versus mediums does not establish anything paranormal. [...]

That being said, I think that those that assert cold reading need to back up their claim with actual evidence, since they themselves are indeed making a claim, rather than simply putting forth the possibility.



Indeed. And you are correct in your assertion that it does not establish anything 'paranormal', but it does help to preclude the 'normal' / mundane from the issue. If the claim is that water is leaking from the sealed container, then we must fill it and observe and measure. If we find that water is still getting out, but not through any known scientific means, then that is a case for the scientific community to fund and research as a matter of urgency.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by dharlow
You're quite right. A comparision of cold readers versus mediums does not establish anything paranormal.
I'm afraid nobody has asserted that it would. The test is simply to see if this "phenomenon" can be distinguished from cold reading. If the result were that it cannot be distinguished, then that tends to refute the psi claims. If the result were that it could be distinguished, then the question of the quality of cold reading ability is still open.
One should view them as people who have worked solely on one trick, and honed their skills very well. While they might be genuine, that is not how they should be viewed if they want their "powers" to gain scientific acceptence. If they are viewed as "masters" of cold reading, then they will surely score higher than any mentalist in such a comparison, thus rendering any significant correlation over their competitors as useless as regards paranormal powers. What such a comparision would show , assuming a positive result, is that they are vastly better at what they do than other mentalists are.
The many mentalists, skeptics and scientists who have commented on this nonsense are mostly agreed that the Sylvia Brownes, JVPs and others are pretty poor at it. JE is harder to pin down because his performances are so heavily edited. As for your last line, again, that is not what such a test would show.
That being said, I think that those that assert cold reading need to back up their claim with actual evidence, since they themselves are indeed making a claim, rather than simply putting forth the possibility.
This is wrong. The onus is always on the one making the extraordinary claim. Talking to the dead requires at least three violations of Occam's razor. Violation 1: The dead must still be available somehow for this conversation. There is no evidence that this is so, and all available evidence points to the opposite conclusion. Violation 2: That some people have some special sensory ability to tap phone calls from the graveyard. Violation 3: That the dead have some special sensory ability to answer the graveyard phones.

The onus is decidedly not on those who stick with what is known.

Cheers,

[xouper]

BillHoyt: The test is simply to see if this "phenomenon" can be distinguished from cold reading. If the result were that it cannot be distinguished, then that tends to refute the psi claims.If by "refute" you mean "cast strong doubt upon", then I agree. However, even Randi does not claim that his demonstrations of spoonbending are proof that Geller is not doing it via paranormal means. Why waste time with coldreaders as controls when that won't falsify the claims made by mediums?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by xouper
The coldreader scores a higher hit percentage than the medium. Does this disprove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.

The coldreader scores a similar hit percentage as the medium. Does this disprove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.

The coldreader scores a lower hit percentage than the medium. Does this prove that the medium got his hits by paranormal means? No.What am I missing here? What is gained by having coldreaders as controls?

If so, then "random chance" is the baseline and you don't need a control reader to establish this.

I claim no such expertise either.
Xouper,

When the coldreader scores higher hits then the medium that it does tend to refute the paranormal hypothesis. If you cannot distinguish between cold reading and psi, then Occam's razor says choose the simpler hypothesis. Repeated instances of similar results would put nails in the psi coffin.

If the hit rates are similar, again the two hypotheses cannot be distinguished and Occam's razor again applies.

If the coldreader scores lower than the medium, this tends to support the psi hypothesis. But only partially, because it simply says the medium's performance can be distinguished from the coldreader's. If similar tests repeatedly get the same result, we must spin other hypotheses to distinguish this purported phenomenon from something more mundane.

Cheers,

[xouper]

BillHoyt: When the coldreader scores higher hits then the medium that it does tend to refute the paranormal hypothesis. If you cannot distinguish between cold reading and psi, then Occam's razor says choose the simpler hypothesis. Repeated instances of similar results would put nails in the psi coffin.Agreed, Occam's razor says choose the simpler hypothesis, but it does not say the other hypothesis is false. Why waste time with coldreaders as controls when that won't falsify the claims made by mediums? Do we really need coldreaders acting as controls as a prerequisite to using Occam?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by xouper
Agreed, Occam's razor says choose the simpler hypothesis, but it does not say the other hypothesis is false. Why waste time with coldreaders as controls when that won't falsify the claims made by mediums? Do we really need coldreaders acting as controls as a prerequisite to using Occam?
Do we need coldreaders for this testing? No. Do we need to test this at all? Hardly, except that the woo-flies keep screaming their fool heads off that it is a real phenomenon. Could we design a test based on chance? Yes, but very carefully. The coldreader thing was brought up because of the first bumbling Schwartz test that pitted grad students versus mediums. The grad students were given no training in probability and practice in what to guess and how. Surpise, surprise, the Schartz test showed grad students were as good at pulling the wool over sitters eyes as mediums.

Can we eliminate medium controls altogether? Probably. Randi's protocol for Sylvia seems very good, so long as my clarification (or something comparable) is inserted. (I do not know that Randi does not already have this provision in there, of course, I simply haven't yet seen it.) The design is similar to some very good astrology tests that were done, wherein the "reading" was given to many subjects to whom it didn't apply, and said subjects said it did.

But even this gives the psi guys wiggle room. "You only proved subjects can't tell what's good and what's bad." Etc.

Cheers,

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt (to Steve Grenard)


THANK YOU for revealing you have been on that thread but dodged it by posting here! ROTFLMAO

Which reminds me, Bill, when you get a chance, could you please tidy up the loose ends that you left on the "An Appeal to Honest Skeptics" thread? Thanks! ;) .......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Which reminds me, Bill, when you get a chance, could you please tidy up the loose ends that you left on the "An Appeal to Honest Skeptics" thread? Thanks! ;) .......neo


Which reminds me, neofight, when you get a chance, could you please tidy up the loose ends that you left on the ""Questions for neo" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21305)" thread? Thanks! ;) .......Claus

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by neofight


Which reminds me, Bill, when you get a chance, could you please tidy up the loose ends that you left on the "An Appeal to Honest Skeptics" thread? Thanks! ;) .......neo

In case you hadn't noticed, neo, that thread died an agonizing death some days ago, except for you bumping it. Do you really feel it is necessary to belabor the quibbles over the meaning of "that", and "might"?

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


In case you hadn't noticed, neo, that thread died an agonizing death some days ago, except for you bumping it. Do you really feel it is necessary to belabor the quibbles over the meaning of "that", and "might"?

Well, actually, I thought it was an excellent thread, with some very excellent points that were made by your fellow skeptics, Bill, most of whom agreed with me, and not with you and Claus, BTW. My appeal to honest skeptics thread was quite reassuring and gratifying to me, since it proved to me what I already knew, and that is that there are many posters here who fit the description of "honest skeptics", and a few others........who do not! :p

Of course, if you'd prefer not to address my last post before the two bumps, where I pointed out exactly how you had totally distorted what Loki was saying, then I understand your reluctance to own up to your erroneous conclusions. I can only guess that it's just too embarrassing for you to acknowledge being wrong, or else you would have corrected your errors immediately, the way most adults would have done. :rolleyes: ......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Of course, if you'd prefer not to address my last post before the two bumps, where I pointed out exactly how you had totally distorted what Loki was saying, then I understand your reluctance to own up to your erroneous conclusions. I can only guess that it's just too embarrassing for you to acknowledge being wrong, or else you would have corrected your errors immediately, the way most adults would have done. :rolleyes: ......neo

Do you think you could be an adult long enough to answer some questions? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21305)

[thaiboxerken]

Well, actually, I thought it was an excellent thread, with some very excellent points that were made by your fellow skeptics, Bill, most of whom agreed with me, and not with you and Claus, BTW. My appeal to honest skeptics thread was quite reassuring and gratifying to me, since it proved to me what I already knew, and that is that there are many posters here who fit the description of "honest skeptics", and a few others........who do not! :p

Yea, but we already have a word that applies to your definition of "honest skeptic" and that word is "believer".

Why do you insist on calling believers skeptics and skeptics dishonest skeptics? Are you ashamed that you are a believer? Ok, we'll compromise definitions here and call you a pseudoskeptic, how's that?