An Appeal to Honest Skeptics [Archive] - Page 2

Clancie

1st July 2003, 09:53 AM

Another lie from Claus

The following is a perfect example of your dishonest tactics in action. From this thread, this page:
Posted by CFLarsen

CFLarsen: You said yourself that if you answered one of my questions, I should answer one of yours.

Clancie: Did I, Claus? Where?

In support of this (and used to call me a liar--you have nerve!), you quoted my post on another thread totally out of context. Here is how you quoted me (above):
Posted by CFLarsen

Thread: "No general seating at John Edward Seminars"
Posted by Clancie on 05-28-2003 03:51 PM:

And, if it makes you happy to rehash them point by point, Claus, I'd be willing to respond, as long as you make each point/counterpoint into a separate post.
You intentionally, maliciously, misrepresented what I actually said. How can people here respect tactics like this?

In reality, on that thread we were talking about the cold reading at TVTalkshows. You were claiming that I couldn't explain the difference between Neil's reading and JE's (even though I listed many differences, as you know). I responded--complete context now--as follows:
The complete quote, in context now, from Clancie, inaccurately cited by CFLarsen above:

Thread: "No general seating at John Edward Seminars"
Posted by Clancie on 05-28-2003 03:51 PM:

I had forgotten how many excellent points I made about the differences between Neil's reading at TVTalk and JE's elsewhere.

And, if it makes you happy to rehash them [the points I made about Neil's reading] point by point, Claus, I'd be willing to respond, as long as you make each point/counterpoint into a separate post.
Claus, you are an unbelievable liar! You took the last sentence to make it seem I committed to answering general questions from you one at a time if you posted them separately. That was a lie and you knew it was!

To quote someone intentionally out of context in order to intentionally misrepresent what they said is despicable. Then you had the gall to add this, based on your deception:
Another lie posted by CFLarsen

You are so busted, Clancie. What a liar you are. Liar, liar, liar.
And you know you're doing it, too, because this post you took out of context to support a lie was from 5/28....You posted your long thread of "(30) Questions for Clancie" on 6/12.

I have to admit I'm a little shocked. I always gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn't know what you were doing, maybe you didn't intentionally twist and misrepresent people's statements.

Now we know differently, though, don't we?

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Now we know differently, though, don't we?
Well, Clanci, what we (you and I) know is what you wrote at 11:53. What they (everybody who wasn't looking at the thread in those 14 minutes) don't know is what a lame attempt to redefine "it" you attempted. I was in the midst of gathering the clear evidence of what "it" actually meant. You, meanwhile, were editing your post to remove your assertion. Nice work, Clancie.

Now that I've watched you in actiion, I've got to say it is charitable to refer to you as disingenuous.

Lurker

1st July 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Well, Clanci, what we (you and I) know is what you wrote at 11:53. What they (everybody who wasn't looking at the thread in those 14 minutes) don't know is what a lame attempt to redefine "it" you attempted. I was in the midst of gathering the clear evidence of what "it" actually meant. You, meanwhile, were editing your post to remove your assertion. Nice work, Clancie.

Now that I've watched you in actiion, I've got to say it is charitable to refer to you as disingenuous.

Bill, what ARE you talking about?

Lurker

Leroy

1st July 2003, 10:35 AM

I told you I didn't look at it. I just checked back to see how long you had said it was. That is obvious.
It is obvious, so why the extremely long thread about he lied/she lied? Is this necessary? It looks like baiting going on here instead of debating :confused:

Uh...did you forget something? It wasn't 18mb of mine alone. I was incorrectly assuming that, from the context. So, obviously, I hadn't opened it. Nor did I say I did. I wanted you to list two or three of my "lies" right there on the thread. Not link to an 18 mb (zipped) file from TVTalkshows.

Thanks for explaining [again] I think most of us understand, the others will probably catch up later.

I'm not going to keep going over and over these same corrections with you any more. If you continue to repeat these untruths, it will only show how intentional your misrepresentations and lies really are.

The rest of us understand the misunderstanding. If CF doesn't by now, he never will.

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Lurker

Bill, what ARE you talking about?

Lurker

Clancie's last post was edited to remove the claim that the "it" she referred to in earlier posts was actually the "No general seating" thread itself, rather than the 18MB zipped TVTalk posts. While I was composing a response, Clancie removed the claim entirely.

Cheers,

Leroy

1st July 2003, 10:43 AM

Thread: "No general seating at John Edward Seminars" And, if it makes you happy to rehash them point by point, Claus, I'd be willing to respond, as long as you make each point/counterpoint into a separate post.

Claus, you are an unbelievable liar! You took the last sentence to make it seem I committed to answering general questions from you one at a time if you posted them separately. That was a lie and you knew it was! - To quote someone intentionally out of context in order to intentionally misrepresent what they said is despicable. Then you had the gall to add this, based on your deception:

OUCH! That is misleading of CF!

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

OUCH! That is misleading of CF!

Ooooh! (squeal!) Do again, make sockpuppy talk. Do again do again.

Leroy

1st July 2003, 11:22 AM

Ooooh! (squeal!) Do again, make sockpuppy talk. Do again do again.

Do you have a question, something to say?

What I see going on is that people are focusing on personal issues, speaking about how stupid or illogical someone is, instead of focusing on the actual topic. Name calling, bashing, twisting, misleading, and a lot of immaturity.

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Leroy

Do you have a question, something to say?

What I see going on is that people are focusing on personal issues, speaking about how stupid or illogical someone is, instead of focusing on the actual topic. Name calling, bashing, twisting, misleading, and a lot of immaturity.

Oooh. Me like sockpuppy! Do again. Do again.

Leroy

1st July 2003, 11:41 AM

Nothing intellegent to say? No questions? Cool, G'Day to ya then :rolleyes:

Clancie

1st July 2003, 11:54 AM

Posted by BillHoyt

Lurker: Bill, what ARE you talking about?

BillHoyt: Clancie's last post was edited to remove the claim that the "it" she referred to in earlier posts was actually the "No general seating" thread itself, rather than the 18MB zipped TVTalk posts. While I was composing a response, Clancie removed the claim entirely.
I don't know what you're talking about either, Bill. What "claim"?

I did try to edit my posts to make them clearer to Claus, since at first I assumed he was just honestly confused.

But, whatever the clarifications in that particular post were, I certainly haven't "removed the claim" that I was referring to going back to look at his post in the "No General Seating" thread, so I could be sure how large the file was (since he wouldn't tell me). I never said I read through his 18mb zipped file from TVTalk. All I've ever said (ad nauseum) was that I checked his post on that thread.

Also, I've already said this so many times that--far from "deleting the claim"--it has become boringly repetitive. I'm sure you can find numerous examples of it on this thread, including once again, here. If you still don't get it, then....

1. No, I did not open the 18mb attachment in the "No Seating" thread. If you don't believe me, go back and look at that thread for yourself. (I think his post is around pg. 14-17, to save you some time :) ). I never made any comment about his zipped file at all there.

In fact, if I'd opened it, I definitely would have commented. I had asked Claus for specific examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy". Instead of examples, he chose to obfuscate the issue by posting 94mb (unzipped) of TVTalkshow posts and threads. What's with that? :confused: I was waiting for him to post a list of "lies", and, knowing him, I figured the attachment was a diversion not worth bothering with. Now I know what it does contain, I see that I was right. :p

Did you look at it, Bill? How do you think that 94mb file shows proof of my "lies"?

2. I consistently said I hadn't open it, here and there. I did go back to check the size he claimed it was on that thread, since he wouldn't confirm whether my memory of it was right or wrong.

That accounts for why I (inaccurately) assumed it only contained my posts from TVTalk. In the context of that thread (re: "my lies") I expected his file to be about me, not a generic file about all TVTalkshow posts. I didn't bother with it, because I wanted him to list one or two specific examples, in a thread where everyone could easily see them. That he never did.

Why do you think he's making such a big deal about it? I think its because he has no evidence I'm a "liar" at all, and now is just trying to fabricate some with this total non-issue.

3. And speaking of lying (which I, at least, did not do)...how can you not see the intentional lying in Claus's post that I quoted above? How can you excuse or justify him obviously misrepresenting what I said, and intentionally posting my sentence totally out of context, just to be deceptive?

(Then Claus had the gall to call me a liar based on his lies about what I said re: answering his questions? Such deception is, imo, inexcusable, but I guess you disagree.:( )

"Disingenuous?" Yes, whether we agree or disagree about JE, I doexpect everyone here (including you, CFL, and thaiboxerken) to value honesty. Apparently that is very disingenuous, if you think what he posted was okay.

BillHoyt

1st July 2003, 01:18 PM

Clancie,

I apologize about my comments on your post editing. I reviewed this thread and found I was confusing an earlier post with the one you were editing at the time.

Here, now, is my response to the pivotal "it" post. You claim that Claus misunderstood the referent. Here is the exchange:

Claus: 1) You looked at "it" again. "It" being 18Mb. Ergo, the zip file.
Clancie:As I said before, "it" was your post in the "No General Seating..." thread. (It wouldn't have been necessary to look it up if you had just told me I was right about the size of the file. But, no....).
Here, however, is the earlier exchange in which it is clear that was not the referent:
Clancie: How many (of my posts) did you say you have stored again, Claus? And, just curious, how much have you saved from all your "favorite" TVTalkshow posters?
CFLarsen (rather unpleasantly): I already told you that. Don't ask for evidence, if you are not going to look at it.
Clancie:Evidence of what? I wrote them all, remember?

And, okay, I looked again. It was 18 MB that you have, just of mine alone.

But still...no evidence of my "lies". No evidence of my "hypocrisy" anywhere to be found.....

Clearly, you and Claus agreed that the referent was the TVTalkShow post collection that Claus had offered as evidence to support the lies and hypocrisy claims. Claus offered it as evidence, you continued to claim you saw no such evidence. As you posted more, you were caught in the details.

Clancie, you asked for apples. Claus said, "here's your box of apples." You said, "I see no apples in that box." Now it becomes obvious you never opened the box.

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 01:22 PM

Clancie, you asked for apples. Claus said, "here's your box of apples." You said, "I see no apples in that box." Now it becomes obvious you never opened the box.

Ooops! :D

Clancie

1st July 2003, 01:34 PM

Posted by thaiboxerken

Clancie, you asked for apples. Claus said, "here's your box of apples." You said, "I see no apples in that box." Now it becomes obvious you never opened the box.
Another one who apparently doesn't mind Claus's lying (as specifically referenced in my post above). :confused:

thaiboxerken,

Did you look at his 94mb file? Well, did you? I asked him for "evidence of my lies" (which he has accused me of at JREF). He indicated he was posting a file of evidence of my lies from TVTalkshows. (The "box of apples I asked for", as you see it :rolleyes: ).

So...since you are giving the impression that you've looked at his file of "evidence", tbk, please tell me how he has showed my "lies" with it. Go on. I dare you to find even one. :p

And just in case you're missing the point...it's this: I don't appreciate people lying about me. Which reminds me...are you planning to correct your repeated misstatement (on several threads now) that I claim "paranormal abilities"...or not?

A note to you, Claus, and BillHoyt: It should not be necessary for a skeptic to resort to lying about someone in order to discredit their points. (Can you say, "ad hominem"? lol :rolleyes: )

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 01:43 PM

You have claimed to have paranormal abilities, or maybe I'm confusing you with the other wacko named Luci.

1) You looked at "it" again. "It" being 18Mb. Ergo, the zip file.
2) You claimed it was just your posts alone (It was not). Ergo, you claim to have read the 18Mb zip file.

Since you did not read it before, you must have read it in 43 minutes. Since you claim to have found no evidence, you must have read it all.

94Mb of text, in 43 minutes.

Either that, or you lied about reading it. (I think we can rule out the speed-reading option...) Considering that you claimed the posts were all yours (they were not), you simply haven't read it.

Ergo: You lied.

Your credibility has been flushed down the toilet.

Lurker

1st July 2003, 01:53 PM

Well, I won't get involved in whether Clancy lied or not I do find it pretty unfair to post a whole newsgroup as evidence that someone is lying. Sheesh, if she lies so much just find the specific instances.

So now it is ok to call someone a liar and when called on evidence that peson can post a URL to the entirity of the Randi forum? WHAT HELP IS THAT in providing evidence? Come on, show the specific lies already!

On an aside, people are too quick to throw out the name 'liar'. There can be plenty of possibilities;

1. Mistaken
2. different interpretation
3. Opinion
4. Unproven fact

You get the idea. Nobody is moving a discussion forward by so quickly accusing someone else of lying.

Lurker

neofight

1st July 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Leroy
The rest of us understand the misunderstanding. If CF doesn't by now, he never will.

BINGO! And neither will his water carriers! :D ....neo

Clancie

1st July 2003, 02:32 PM

thaiboxerken,

How interesting that the only thing you can post is a quote from Claus. :confused: Did you bother to read his 94mb file that you said contained "evidence" I'd asked for?

It certainly doesn't seem so. If you didn't, you're creating a false impression. If you did...what'd you think of his "evidence"?
Posted by thaiboxerken

You have claimed to have paranormal abilities, or maybe I'm confusing you with the other wacko named Luci.
Well, is it asking too much of you to sort that out for yourself?

You keep saying this, tbk, (5x's now, despite my correcting you over and over).

At this point, either back it up or admit you confused me with "the other wacko" (...nice...:rolleyes: ) and apologize.

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

At this point, either back it up or admit you confused me with "the other wacko" (...nice...:rolleyes: ) and apologize.

Ok, I guess I mistook you with the other fool.

;)

But, if I ever catch you claiming to have esp or anything, I'll be sure to point it out.

Clancie

1st July 2003, 02:40 PM

Posted by thaiboxerken

Ok, I guess I mistook you with the other fool.
Five times you repeated a totally false, nasty comment about me and, when you finally realize it's false, this is the best you can come up with. Sad.

How many times are you going to ignore this (2 parts, to help)?
Posted by Clancie

Did you look at his 94mb file? Well, did you? I asked him for "evidence of my lies" (which he has accused me of at JREF). He indicated he was posting a file of evidence of my lies from TVTalkshows. (The "box of apples I asked for", as you see it ).

and...

Posted by Clancie

So...since you are giving the impression that you've looked at his file of "evidence" [and accept it as such], tbk, please tell me how he has showed my "lies" with it. Go on. I dare you to find even one.
You take a lot of cheap shots at me, tbk, without backing them up. Can you back up your claims or are you just Claus's sockpuppet?

In other words, why not stop hurling the insults at me and instead"put up (the "evidence" from his 94mb files that I lie) or shut up"?

1st July 2003, 04:36 PM

I have no idea what this thread is about anymore, but I just gave it 5 stars for longevity!

neofight

1st July 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by RC
I have no idea what this thread is about anymore, but I just gave it 5 stars for longevity!

Why thank you, RC! And to think that BillHoyt said that this thread had died back on page four! lol Well, perhaps that was just wishful thinking on his part. ;)

As for what this thread is about, RC, it's what it was always about. Claus' less than admirable debating tactics, and the reluctance of some here to call him on them. :D ......neo

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 06:59 PM

As for what this thread is about, RC, it's what it was always about. Claus' less than admirable debating tactics, and the reluctance of some here to call him on them. ......neo

Actually, it's just your whining because you cannot provide real evidence for your paranormal beliefs. You call yourself skeptic, but you believe in ghosts.:rolleyes:

neofight

1st July 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by neofight
[b]As for what this thread is about, RC, it's what it was always about. Claus' less than admirable debating tactics, and the reluctance of some here to call him on them.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Actually, it's just your whining because you cannot provide real evidence for your paranormal beliefs. You call yourself skeptic, but you believe in ghosts.:rolleyes:

Speak of the devil! Here's one of those sychophants that I just mentioned who won't call Claus on his dishonest debating tactics! lol

Oh, and tbk, could you please find the quote where I called myself a skeptic? It's not that I don't consider myself a skeptic, mind you, but I've never before stated that here that I can remember, simply because I didn't feel like arguing the point with dopes like you. :p So where exactly did I call myself skeptic, if you wouldn't mind pointing that out for me. :confused: .....neo

Clancie

1st July 2003, 07:19 PM

And, thaiboxerken, as CFL would say, "There's a question waiting for you on another thread" (since you seem to be unable to answer it--asked twice already--on this one).

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Speak of the devil! Here's one of those sychophants that I just mentioned who won't call Claus on his dishonest debating tactics! lol

Oh, and tbk, could you please find the quote where I called myself a skeptic? It's not that I don't consider myself a skeptic, mind you, but I've never before stated that here that I can remember, simply because I didn't feel like arguing the point with dopes like you. :p So where exactly did I call myself skeptic, if you wouldn't mind pointing that out for me. :confused: .....neo

You just did. :rolleyes:

That was too easy.

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
And, thaiboxerken, as CFL would say, "There's a question waiting for you on another thread" (since you seem to be unable to answer it--asked twice already--on this one).

I'll answer it when I want to. Maybe after you answer all of CFL's questions towards you.

Clancie

1st July 2003, 07:41 PM

Its not a "question" in that sense, thaiboxerken, so don't try to weasel out of it with this little trick.

You made a claim at this board about me. You claim that I am a liar and that Claus's 94mb file provides evidence of that.

Apparently you don't actually have any evidence (and probably hadn't even read the file that you so eagerly cited against me).

Again, in keeping with neo's topic here, this is an example of totally dishonest skepticism.

You have a lot of nerve criticizing others for ad hominems, tbk. You've attacked my honesty, accused me of lying (which I resent), without a single fact to back it up.

"Evasion noted".

Lord Kenneth

1st July 2003, 07:44 PM

Let's settle it this way...

thaiboxerken sends me, via PM, the evidence to back up his claim, and Clancie answer the questions thai wants answered. When they are answered, thai can post them and I will tell whether or not thai's evidence is an an ad hoc explanation or not...?

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not a "question" in that sense, thaiboxerken, so don't try to weasel out of it with this little trick.

You made a claim at this board about me. You claim that I am a liar and that Claus's 94mb file provides evidence of that.

Really?

Apparently you don't actually have any evidence (and probably hadn't even read the file that you so eagerly cited against me).

Are you sure?

Again, in keeping with neo's topic here, this is an example of totally dishonest skepticism.

There is nothing dishonest about being honest. You have yet to provide any evidence for your paranormal claims, nothing that can be validated.

You have a lot of nerve criticizing others for ad hominems, tbk. You've attacked my honesty, accused me of lying (which I resent), without a single fact to back it up.

"Evasion noted".

I have lots of ad-hominem that I would like to unleash upon you, but I'll refrain.

neofight

1st July 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You just did. :rolleyes:

That was too easy.

That obviously doesn't count. Ask Claus! What are you saying here, that you are prescient? :rolleyes: ....neo

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 08:00 PM

For a person that started a thread that proclaimed himself to be a believer and a skeptic, you sure do try to avoid the fact that you made that very claim.

Oops.. I had you confused with Orb.

Clancie

1st July 2003, 09:40 PM

Lord Kenneth,

Sorry but that suggestion doesn't make any sense.

thaiboxerken, has publicly accused me of being a liar and needs to provide his proof in the same forum (if he has any).

He indicates the "proof" of my lies was included in CFLarsen's 94mb file, yet he can't post a single example.

****

thaiboxerken, you made the attack on me, and when asked to back it up, your response is evasions and more insults. Is that your idea of good skepticism?

If you had any integrity, you'd back it up with evidence of your claim...or apologize.

thaiboxerken

1st July 2003, 09:55 PM

...or apologize

I only apologize to people that I respect.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
It is obvious, so why the extremely long thread about he lied/she lied? Is this necessary? It looks like baiting going on here instead of debating :confused:

Because Clancie has accused me of lying, without being able to back it up. Now, when I show her to be a liar, she makes all kinds of dishonest attempts to conceal the fact.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Another lie from Claus

Let's see about that, shall we?

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus, you are an unbelievable liar! You took the last sentence to make it seem I committed to answering general questions from you one at a time if you posted them separately. That was a lie and you knew it was!

Ehh....excuse me, Clancie, but if I took this out of context, why did you answer questions that were not related to the Neil/JE comparison? Why would you answer a question on psychic surgery? Is this not clear evidence that you accepted to go one-for-one?

Not a lie at all.

Originally posted by Clancie
I have to admit I'm a little shocked. I always gave you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you didn't know what you were doing, maybe you didn't intentionally twist and misrepresent people's statements.

I have to admit that I am not the least shocked. You are a liar, Clancie. You erase the evidence of your lies. You have no credibility whatsoever.

Originally posted by Clancie
Now we know differently, though, don't we?

Yeah. I think the picture is, oh, so clear.

Originally posted by Clancie
I did try to edit my posts to make them clearer to Claus, since at first I assumed he was just honestly confused.

No, not to "make them clearer". To erase your lies.

Originally posted by Clancie
so I could be sure how large the file was (since he wouldn't tell me).

Oops, another lie:

Thread: "No general seating at John Edward Seminars"
Posted by CFLarsen on 06-11-2003 11:18 AM:
Here they are. Free to download. 18 Mb in all.

I did tell you, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
1. No, I did not open the 18mb attachment in the "No Seating" thread. If you don't believe me, go back and look at that thread for yourself. (I think his post is around pg. 14-17, to save you some time :) ). I never made any comment about his zipped file at all there.

Thank you for admitting that you lied. You did claim that you read the files. You didn't. No "clarification" needed.

Originally posted by Clancie
In fact, if I'd opened it, I definitely would have commented. I had asked Claus for specific examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy". Instead of examples, he chose to obfuscate the issue by posting 94mb (unzipped) of TVTalkshow posts and threads. What's with that? :confused: I was waiting for him to post a list of "lies", and, knowing him, I figured the attachment was a diversion not worth bothering with. Now I know what it does contain, I see that I was right. :p

You lied again, then. You claimed it contained "only" your posts. Now, after you were caught, you know better.

You were not "right", Clancie. You lied. Many times.

Originally posted by Clancie
Did you look at it, Bill? How do you think that 94mb file shows proof of my "lies"?

Why should Bill look at it when you refuse???

Originally posted by Clancie
2. I consistently said I hadn't open it, here and there. I did go back to check the size he claimed it was on that thread, since he wouldn't confirm whether my memory of it was right or wrong.

Why on earth should I confirm what your memory is??

Originally posted by Clancie
Why do you think he's making such a big deal about it? I think its because he has no evidence I'm a "liar" at all, and now is just trying to fabricate some with this total non-issue.

A "total non-issue"? You lie and that is a "total non-issue"?

Originally posted by Clancie
3. And speaking of lying (which I, at least, did not do)

Rrrrrrrrrright. We have seen how you do "not" lie.

Originally posted by Clancie
...how can you not see the intentional lying in Claus's post that I quoted above? How can you excuse or justify him obviously misrepresenting what I said, and intentionally posting my sentence totally out of context, just to be deceptive?

You are the one being deceptive here. You don't see me go back and edit my posts, do you?

Originally posted by Clancie
(Then Claus had the gall to call me a liar based on his lies about what I said re: answering his questions? Such deception is, imo, inexcusable, but I guess you disagree.:( )

A lie? Not at all: You answered questions unrelated to the Neill/JE-comparison. Ergo, you agreed to a point/counterpoint. Ergo, you are wrong in trying to drag Thanz into this.

Originally posted by Clancie
"Disingenuous?" Yes, whether we agree or disagree about JE, I doexpect everyone here (including you, CFL, and thaiboxerken) to value honesty. Apparently that is very disingenuous, if you think what he posted was okay.

Actually, honesty is valued very much on this board. And you can be sure that if any is detected - as in your case - it will be exposed.

Originally posted by Clancie
thaiboxerken,

Did you look at his 94mb file? Well, did you? I asked him for "evidence of my lies" (which he has accused me of at JREF). He indicated he was posting a file of evidence of my lies from TVTalkshows. (The "box of apples I asked for", as you see it :rolleyes: ).

Why should other people look at it, when you refuse???

Originally posted by Clancie
A note to you, Claus, and BillHoyt: It should not be necessary for a skeptic to resort to lying about someone in order to discredit their points. (Can you say, "ad hominem"? lol :rolleyes: ) [/B]

It isn't necessary for us to lie. You do that splendidly on your own.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, thaiboxerken, as CFL would say, "There's a question waiting for you on another thread" (since you seem to be unable to answer it--asked twice already--on this one).

So....let's see: You demand other people answer your questions, yet you refuse to answer those put to you.

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not a "question" in that sense, thaiboxerken, so don't try to weasel out of it with this little trick.

Oh, right. It's always something different, when the shoe is on the other foot. Do try to be a little more consistent, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
"Evasion noted".

Y....up.

We have established that you are a liar and that you tried to cover it up. Can we get back to some issues now?

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, these tedious, idiotic and pointless posts of yours are what turn so many people off. You deliberately go off on tangents like this to deflect the valid criticisms that people make away from you. These are pathetic arguments you are making here. You are, in essence, only attempting to muddy the waters and cloud up the real issue.

Wha...? You want to talk about "real" issues, neo?? I'm all for it.

If you think it is "tedious, idiotic and pointless" that Clancie lies, then you have my sympathy.

Originally posted by neofight
You know, you are not only a dishonest debater, but it's quite clear that you are also extremely immature as a person. Same for the Claus wannabes out there! :( .....neo

Never a post without a personal attack, eh?

Originally posted by neofight
Cheers yourself, Bill. If you can't acknowledge that Claus has a problem, then I think that might indicate that you share it.
:eek: .....neo

Are you blind, neo? Clancie told a lie. She edited her post. She now tries (in vain) to make it look as if she didn't lie. Why do you ignore this?

Originally posted by neofight
That obviously doesn't count. Ask Claus! What are you saying here, that you are prescient? :rolleyes: ....neo

Why is it that it never counts when your a55 is on the line?? Can we see a little consistency here?

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I have answered Thanz. Guess you want to chicken out, eh?

Now I am going to call YOU a liar. You have not answered my questions. Please refer to the other thread.

neofight

2nd July 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why is it that it never counts when your a55 is on the line?? Can we see a little consistency here?

Claus, don't be an imbecile! How is my @$$ on the line? You guys are such losers! :confused: Thaiboxerken keeps saying that I proclaimed myself to be a believer AND a skeptic. I stated to him that I don't remember ever making that statement, and asked him for a reference. Now, it seems from his post, (below) that he had me confused with some other person, so I guess this is as close to an apology or acknowledgment of being wrong as I am going to get from him, since he doesn't seem to know how to be gracious in defeat. :(

For a person that started a thread that proclaimed himself to be a believer and a skeptic, you sure do try to avoid the fact that you made that very claim.

Oops.. I had you confused with Orb.

I guess the "Oops" part is his apology. :rolleyes:

Leroy

2nd July 2003, 10:20 AM

So now it is ok to call someone a liar and when called on evidence that peson can post a URL to the entirity of the Randi forum? WHAT HELP IS THAT in providing evidence? Come on, show the specific lies already!

Yes please, if Clancie is a liar I don't have an interest in maintaining a conversation with her.

You just did. That was too easy.

:D I give you credit for having a good sense of humor

I'll answer it when I want to. Maybe after you answer all of CFL's questions towards you. :D That is the same excuse I give when I don't have a good answer - it must be a male thing.

Because Clancie has accused me of lying, without being able to back it up. Now, when I show her to be a liar, she makes all kinds of dishonest attempts to conceal the fact.

You haven't shown her to be a liar :confused: We are waiting in suspense for the evidence. Can you post the [quotes] here? What I've read so far doesn't show her to be a liar.

This thread is getting to be a bore.

Clancie

2nd July 2003, 10:38 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

Now, when I show her to be a liar, she makes all kinds of dishonest attempts to conceal the fact.

Clancie told a lie. She edited her post. She now tries (in vain) to make it look as if she didn't lie.

Back it up, Claus, you liar. (You're grasping at straws in accusing me of this. What is it that I "lied about and changed"? I ask you. Spit it out).

You try to smear me by innuendo. But you, on the other hand, intentionally took my post out of context just to make a phony point). Your tactics have been exposed already, Claus, no matter how much you keep calling me a liar here.

Re: editing. Even BillHoyt admitted he was wrong about his claim and had the grace to apologize, unlike you or thaiboxerken (who can't even answer a direct question about his claims either, just like you).

btw, I often re-read and edit right after posting to improve my wording or fix the code--have a look. If you have proof of what you're claiming--that I changed some important incriminating statement after the fact (again, a complete and despicable LIE from you)...then provide the evidence of it. My explanation of your trivial little point (whether I looked at your 18mb link) has been completely consistent and honest--as anyone honest himself would easily see.

You're a liar, Claus. And you wallow in it.

And, Leroy, you're right. The thread's getting to be a bore. I just don't like being lied about. But I'll give it a rest.

CFL and thaiboxerken, read my sig line. If the shoe fits....

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 10:56 AM

Clancie,

I have indeed shown you to be a liar. I know this stings, but the evidence is there. You lied, repeatedly.

Now, can we address some issues, e.g. ADC and/or psychic mediums? Anyone?

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

I have indeed shown you to be a liar. I know this stings, but the evidence is there. You lied, repeatedly.
I am going to have to ask you for evidence of this assertion as well. Please give me actual evidence, and don't point me to 94 MB of posts you saved from another board. You did not accept a link to a single thread as proof of allegations against you. I will not accept a link to text that is 36 times as long as "War and Peace" as evidence either.

Please post evidence in the form of quotes, with links to the source if you can for context. I hope that you will post enough of the quote and surrounding posts for context so that anyone reading your response will be able to determine if Clancie lied or not.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 12:05 PM

Thanz,

I have given the answers. You don't like them. Not my problem.

I have to inform you that what you are doing is equivalent to badgering. You will stop this immediately or I will report you to the moderators.

Yep...two can play that game.....

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

I have given the answers. You don't like them. Not my problem.

I have to inform you that what you are doing is equivalent to badgering. You will stop this immediately or I will report you to the moderators.

Yep...two can play that game.....
Well, you haven't answered the questions. Are you saying that you refuse to answer the questions? Isn't that the criteria you have laid out?

If you refuse to answer the questions, fine. But at least admit that you are refusing to answer. Because your insistence that you have answered them is simply a lie.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, you haven't answered the questions. Are you saying that you refuse to answer the questions? Isn't that the criteria you have laid out?

If you refuse to answer the questions, fine. But at least admit that you are refusing to answer. Because your insistence that you have answered them is simply a lie.

No, I am not "refusing" to answer, because I have answered.

What I am asking you - for the last time - is to stop posing questions which I have answered. I consider this badgering, and - according to forum rules, you have to stop.

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, I am not "refusing" to answer, because I have answered.

What I am asking you - for the last time - is to stop posing questions which I have answered. I consider this badgering, and - according to forum rules, you have to stop.
I haven't posed any questions that you have answered, so I can easily comply with your request not to do so.

Now, are you ever going to answer my original questions in the "Taken in by John Edward" thread?

Are you going to answer my questions re:lies of Clancie posed in this thread?

What is that phrase you are so fond of? Oh yeah.

Put up or shut up.

Leroy

2nd July 2003, 12:53 PM

I have indeed shown you to be a liar. I know this stings, but the evidence is there. You lied, repeatedly.

Where have you shown this? Where is this evidence?

I have given the answers. You don't like them. Not my problem

you haven't given any proof of clancies lies :confused:

I have to inform you that what you are doing is equivalent to badgering. You will stop this immediately or I will report you to the moderators.

I get it now, you badger clancie claiming she is a liar, when asked for evidence you have none, you can't back up this claim, so you are going to report Thanz for badgering :confused:, in hopes that it is dropped. Whoaaaa sir, that is pathetic.

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 01:01 PM

Leroy,

If you choose not to see Clancie's lies, then that is your privilege.

Thanz,

You already know the answers. End of discussion.

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

You already know the answers. End of discussion.
I do? Really? Do I have psychic powers? Can I get the million? Because I certainly don't know them from anything you have told me.

However, if you want me to imply answers from your silence, I would say that the answers to my questions are as follows:

Thanz:Do you think that Clancie has said that "nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings"?

Claus: Nope.

Thanz: If so, where?

Claus: Nowhere.

Thanz: Can you quote/direct me to the post?

Claus: Nope - they don't exist.

Thanz: Do you have any back up for your claim that "Believers in John Edward on the TVTalkshow-board have been fond of claiming that nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings" in the form of posts from those "Believers" that make this claim?

Claus: Nope, don't have any back-up at all. I basically made up the assertion because it was easier to refute and I wanted to parse believer responses into categories for my own amusement.

Thanz: Can you give me any evidence in the form of quotes, with links to the source if you can for context, in support of your assertion that Clancie is a liar?

Claus: Nope, can't really support this either. Now, would you please go away so I can continue to taunt the believers without actually backing up anything I say?

So, Claus, am I right? Do I get the million? Because that is how I see your answers....

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
So, Claus, am I right? Do I get the million? Because that is how I see your answers....

That may be so. That doesn't make you right.

Instig8R

2nd July 2003, 01:31 PM

Hey! What about me? I attended the seminar last May at Westbury Music Fair. I complained bitterly about JE's performance over at TVTalk. My complaints were dissed and dismissed by some believers.. . (Hi, Neo! You know who you are, LOL!).

The Westbury seminar was videotaped by JE's crew for broadcast on the Crossing Over TV show. Later, when I viewed those same readings on TV, I was appalled by the radical editing of readings. IMO, it was done solely to make mediocre readings appear better than they were. Again, my criticism was made over at TVTalk, and my criticisms were disputed.

However, it cannot be said that no one ever complained after a seminar. I complained a lot!

CFLarsen

2nd July 2003, 01:34 PM

Instig8R,

If you say so. :)

Thanz

2nd July 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

That may be so. That doesn't make you right.
Another non-answer. You said that I know the answers. The answers that I think I know are posted above.

Are they correct?

If they are incorrect, which ones are incorrect?

If they are incorrect, what are the correct answers?

Lurker

2nd July 2003, 01:49 PM

Well, I wouldn't say that I complained but I did come out of the seminar I attended still feeling that JE was a fake. But I was surprised that JE was a bit better than I had expected. Still, no special hits in my opinion.

Lurker

Leroy

2nd July 2003, 02:05 PM

If you choose not to see Clancie's lies, then that is your privilege.

It isn't a matter of choice, it is a matter of the lies not being there. If they are you have failed to present them.

Once again, WHERE did clancie lie? What post, what did she say?

I think Thanz nailed you bud ;)

CF, You are the kind of skeptic who gives the rest of us a bad name.

Lurker, Inst. I would enjoy hearing about your experience at a John Edward seminar. I don't think I could make myself sit through one.

neofight

2nd July 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R
Hey! What about me? I attended the seminar last May at Westbury Music Fair. I complained bitterly about JE's performance over at TVTalk. My complaints were dissed and dismissed by some believers.. . (Hi, Neo! You know who you are, LOL!)..............However, it cannot be said that no one ever complained after a seminar. I complained a lot!

Instig8R, you silly girl, we were referring to people who had been read by JE, and who were so unhappy with the reading he gave them that they complained. :fg: ......neo

neofight

2nd July 2003, 04:10 PM

neofight

2nd July 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Leroy

I think Thanz nailed you bud ;)

Indeed! :D

CF, You are the kind of skeptic who gives the rest of us a bad name.

Yes and no, Leroy. We are very much aware that there are honest skeptics out there, and we value them, yourself included. :) Claus is quite unique I think, thank goodness! ;)

Lurker, Inst. I would enjoy hearing about your experience at a John Edward seminar. I don't think I could make myself sit through one.

You might be very pleasantly surprised, Leroy. I think you just might enjoy the experience......neo

Instig8R

2nd July 2003, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by neofight

Instig8R, you silly girl, we were referring to people who had been read by JE, and who were so unhappy with the reading he gave them that they complained. :fg: ......neo

Hey, Neo! Have you forgotten that I have been read by JE, on numerous occasions? I have had many successful "me too" readings, right in my very own home, as I watched JE on television. However, at the seminars I attended, the readings were unsuitable for me.

The clincher for me was that the "malibu shrimp" reading didn't suit me when I saw it at Westbury, live. Thereafter, I was able to get a "me too" experience from that reading when the EDITED version of it was broadcast on TV. I guess that Deborah (the person who was read) had the same experience, because she wasn't validating very much at the seminar. The reading was more like an interrogation, for cryin' out loud!

neofight

2nd July 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by Instig8R

Hey, Neo! Have you forgotten that I have been read by JE, on numerous occasions? I have had many successful "me too" readings, right in my very own home, as I watched JE on television.

I knew that was coming! lol :rolleyes:

The clincher for me was that the "malibu shrimp" reading didn't suit me when I saw it at Westbury, live. Thereafter, I was able to get a "me too" experience from that reading when the EDITED version of it was broadcast on TV. I guess that Deborah (the person who was read) had the same experience, because she wasn't validating very much at the seminar. The reading was more like an interrogation, for cryin' out loud!

She validated plenty at the seminar, Instig8R. I strenuously disagree with your characterization of this reading, both before and after the editing. To give the impression that Deborah validated things in the edited version, that were not validated at the seminar, is just not right. :hit: ......neo

Instig8R

2nd July 2003, 10:56 PM

Oh, yeah? Sez you! :mad:

CFLarsen

3rd July 2003, 01:35 AM

Amazing.

Here we have a hard-core believer who simply denies that a person could have "me-too" readings with JE. A hard-core believer who has an invariably favorable perception of what happened at the seminar.

A classic text-book case. "Fanatic" is a term that comes to mind.

Lucianarchy

3rd July 2003, 03:26 AM

Dear Hal,

I know we have had our debates in the past over moderation issues, like my title being changed by Jeff, Ed calling me a "faggot", etc, but since Mr Randi's latest wishes that the forum be rid of taunting, un-civil behaviour and the like and your admirable action of doing your best to carry out those wishes, the forum had become a better place. Even I stopped using terms like 'pseudo-skeptic'

I am a skeptic. I think the JREF does a good job exposing the frauds and scammers who fleece people of their money. But I believe that majority of people think that there are some things beyond known science that have very compelling evidence to suggest that their extraordinary being demands more than a 'challenge' .

The JREF is the forum to discuss those things.

Not many people seriously involved in the scientific research of so-called 'paranormal' or more appropriately, parapsychology, are going to want to post to a forum where people are uncvil by calling names like "woo-woo", posting 'lists of questions' threads, etc,.

If the changes do not properly take effect, then this will become purely a 'back-slapping' forum and offer nothing in terms of rational, educational debate with people who are proponents or scientific researchers of the 'paranormal' / Parapsychology.

Sadly, it seems that no action will be taken against those who continue with the uncivil behaviour. You will note that I have been called a liar numerous times in the thread on the question of being 'civil', which is not only un-civil, it is completely defamaotory and without cause or reason.

Perhaps, the JREF is going to become the 'back slapping' cozy nest for skeptics to toast 'woo-woo's by, despite Mr Randi's open wishes and recent statement that the uncivil behaviour in this forum cease.

The tactics of the likes of Claus / TLN who go around calling people liars with impunity will eventually completely censor all open debate with proponents of parapsychology. Maybe that is, after all, what they want.

But is it what the JREF wants?

RonSceptic

3rd July 2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Dear Hal,

I know we have had our debates in the past over moderation issues, like my title being changed by Jeff, Ed calling me a "faggot", etc, but since Mr Randi's latest wishes that the forum be rid of taunting, un-civil behaviour and the like and your admirable action of doing your best to carry out those wishes, the forum had become a better place. Even I stopped using terms like 'pseudo-skeptic'

I am a skeptic. I think the JREF does a good job exposing the frauds and scammers who fleece people of their money. But I believe that majority of people think that there are some things beyond known science that have very compelling evidence to suggest that their extraordinary being demands more than a 'challenge' .

The JREF is the forum to discuss those things.

Not many people seriously involved in the scientific research of so-called 'paranormal' or more appropriately, parapsychology, are going to want to post to a forum where people are uncvil by calling names like "woo-woo", posting 'lists of questions' threads, etc,.

If the changes do not properly take effect, then this will become purely a 'back-slapping' forum and offer nothing in terms of rational, educational debate with people who are proponents or scientific researchers of the 'paranormal' / Parapsychology.

Sadly, it seems that no action will be taken against those who continue with the uncivil behaviour. You will note that I have been called a liar numerous times in the thread on the question of being 'civil', which is not only un-civil, it is completely defamaotory and without cause or reason.

Perhaps, the JREF is going to become the 'back slapping' cozy nest for skeptics to toast 'woo-woo's by, despite Mr Randi's open wishes and recent statement that the uncivil behaviour in this forum cease.

The tactics of the likes of Claus / TLN who go around calling people liars with impunity will eventually completely censor all open debate with proponents of parapsychology. Maybe that is, after all, what they want.

But is it what the JREF wants?

It's interesting that you choose to make this post in a thread that was started with the sole intention of attacking Claus. I would have thought that your comments should be directed at neofight.

You claim that you are a sceptic, but what are you sceptical of exactly? In the other thread you took exception to being called a woo-woo. In reply I asked that you confirm that you beleive in certain things. You did not respond there but chose to make your point here instead. You have obviuosly spotted a few like minded individuals on this thread.

For the record do you really believe..

Winning lottery numbers can be predicted by psychic means
That mediums can talk to the dead
That spoons can be bent by parnormal means
That Natalia can read through a blindfold by pychic means
That ESP is a real phenomenon
That Uri Geller has super powers

Answer these questions and then we can leave it other posters to decide whether you are best described as a sceptic or as a woo woo.

I consider myself to be a sceptic and take great exception to you using that term to describe youself given the views you expouse. It is a deliberate tactic designed to irritate sceptics and you know it. So if you really want to encourage civil behaviour on this board you need to look rather closer to home.

CFLarsen

3rd July 2003, 04:26 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic
For the record do you really believe..

Winning lottery numbers can be predicted by psychic means
That mediums can talk to the dead
That spoons can be bent by parnormal means
That Natalia can read through a blindfold by pychic means
That ESP is a real phenomenon
That Uri Geller has super powers

Don't forget: Dowsing works if you want it to.

neofight

3rd July 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

It's interesting that you choose to make this post in a thread that was started with the sole intention of attacking Claus. I would have thought that your comments should be directed at neofight.

RonSceptic, I did not start this thread for the purpose of "attacking" Claus. I started it to hold him accountable for all of the misrepresentations that he makes in an effort to win the debate. Several of your fellow skeptics have acknowledged that his debating tactics are less than honest. If you read through this thread, and others, you would have to agree with them. I had hoped that bringing this issue out into the open, might result in some changes around here. Changes for the better....neo

BillHoyt

3rd July 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by neofight

RonSceptic, I did not start this thread for the purpose of "attacking" Claus. I started it to hold him accountable for all of the misrepresentations that he makes in an effort to win the debate. [/B]

*ahem*
My purpose in doing this, is to demonstrate for you, even if you do not feel free to openly agree with me, that Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired.

:wink8:

Cheers,

RonSceptic

4th July 2003, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by neofight

RonSceptic, I did not start this thread for the purpose of "attacking" Claus. I started it to hold him accountable for all of the misrepresentations that he makes in an effort to win the debate. Several of your fellow skeptics have acknowledged that his debating tactics are less than honest. If you read through this thread, and others, you would have to agree with them. I had hoped that bringing this issue out into the open, might result in some changes around here. Changes for the better....neo [/B]

If Claus makes misreprentations in a debate you can challenge him on them specifically. Posters on this board are routinely called to account for things they post. You may have noticed this.

Thanz

4th July 2003, 06:00 AM

RonSceptic

4th July 2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

I have done this, and Claus steadfastly refuses to answer my questions.

Well you could always start up a 'List of questions for Claus'. :D

neofight

4th July 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

If Claus makes misreprentations in a debate you can challenge him on them specifically. Posters on this board are routinely called to account for things they post. You may have noticed this.

All well and good, RonS, if it were an occasional occurrance with Claus. Unfortunately, it's not the exception, but the norm, and no one has that kind of time to devote to this board. His record on accuracy is abominable.

I see you are not a newbie, but I don't remember seeing you post on any of the more recent threads here where we've been discussing Claus' debating tactics. If you read through this, and some of the other threads, you will see plenty examples of what it is I am referring to. regards, neo

neofight

4th July 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

*ahem*

:wink8:

Cheers,

And you're suggesting that there's some sort of a contradiction here I presume? Is this supposed to be a "gotcha" moment? :con2: .....neo

Clancie

4th July 2003, 09:59 AM

Posted by neo

His record on accuracy is abominable
Yes, neo, and correcting him always becomes a long-winded back-and-forth effort that I doubt most people take an interest in anyway.

Unfortunately, that also means the corrections of his points are often missed (as when he recently posted a comment from me out of context in order to make it mean something completely different--something I still find shockingly dishonest, even from Claus. I'm sure most people didn't notice, or probably even care, though, but at least there's a record of it here).

That's why discussion moves along so much better whenever I can discipline myself to ignore all his baiting and misstatements, avoid a "back and forth" with him about them completely, just keep him on "Ignore", and let discussion stay focused on the topics at hand instead.

Difficult to do, but it definitely improves the chances of having an actual discussion about something.

neofight

4th July 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
That's why discussion moves along so much better whenever I can discipline myself to ignore all his baiting and misstatements, avoid a "back and forth" with him about them completely, just keep him on "Ignore", and let discussion stay focused on the topics at hand instead.

Difficult to do, but it definitely improves the chances of having an actual discussion about something.

I know. That seems to be the biggest complaint about Claus, even from his fellow-skeptics, that he derails the threads off their original topics with all the bickering and nonsense that he causes. :( .....neo

CFLarsen

5th July 2003, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by neofight
His record on accuracy is abominable.

Funny how you were unable to show just one of my inaccuracies.

Originally posted by neofight
I see you are not a newbie, but I don't remember seeing you post on any of the more recent threads here where we've been discussing Claus' debating tactics. If you read through this, and some of the other threads, you will see plenty examples of what it is I am referring to. regards, neo

Yeah, just leave it to others to find evidence of your claims.

Originally posted by neofight
I know. That seems to be the biggest complaint about Claus, even from his fellow-skeptics, that he derails the threads off their original topics with all the bickering and nonsense that he causes. :( .....neo

Thanks for generalizing wildy, creating the impression that I have received a lot of complaints. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm sure most people didn't notice, or probably even care, though, but at least there's a record of it here).

Where??

Originally posted by Clancie
That's why discussion moves along so much better whenever I can discipline myself to ignore all his baiting and misstatements, avoid a "back and forth" with him about them completely, just keep him on "Ignore", and let discussion stay focused on the topics at hand instead.

Ah, back to yet another "ignore"-period from you? You know, I've lost count of how many times that has happened. Somehow, your ego always makes you break your own promise...

Originally posted by Clancie
Difficult to do, but it definitely improves the chances of having an actual discussion about something.

You want to discuss issues?? Fine with me! I have no problems leaving this personal flubber behind.

Let's see who can refrain from getting personal the longest.

neofight

5th July 2003, 06:18 AM

:dl:

neofight

7th July 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanks for generalizing wildy, creating the impression that I have received a lot of complaints. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.

Not complaints, Claus. Contructive criticism, and honest acknowledgement from your fellow-skeptics that your debating tactics are less than stellar, and at times even seemingly dishonest.

No one said that any "complaints" have been made to you, Claus. Some comments, supportive of my position, have been made both on these threads, and privately via PM to myself and to other believers who post here. Go back and re-read this thread, and you will see that what I say is true.

Furthermore, I have no desire to keep rehashing MY complaint about the way you debate, Claus. I've made my point, and I've noted the responses. The only reason I am still talking about the issue, is because you, apparently, despite the evidence right in front of you, keep denying first, that you have a chronic problem, and secondly, that I am not the only one who has acknowledged that fact.

As far as I'm concerned, my thread has served it's purpose, and unless you keep denying what I've shown to be true, I have no more to say on the subject. (unless the status quo continues in the new subjects that come up in debate) In that case, I will ask unanimous consent to address the forum as needed and to revise and extend my remarks. lol ;) ......neo

CFLarsen

8th July 2003, 04:57 AM

neo,

So, now you back down, without having been able to show just one example.

Nice going.

neofight

8th July 2003, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neo,

So, now you back down, without having been able to show just one example.

Nice going.

Surely you are not serious? :roll: Very well then! Have it your way. Keep bumping the thread so that all the newcomers can catch up to speed and see Claus......being Claus! :rolleyes: ....neo

CFLarsen

8th July 2003, 06:20 AM

Sure, neo. Let's keep this alive a little longer. Don't forget the reason for this thread:

Originally posted by neofight
But I'd like to post one of those old threads, just to give you an example of Claus' poor logic and unfair debating practices. I think I'll begin a new thread after all, so as not to mix it up with the general topic. It's rather long, but even if you just read "Page 1" it includes at least one of Claus' offending posts.

Nobody was able to point out in that old thread where I had used "poor logic and unfair debating practices".

Nor were you.

Thanz

8th July 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Nobody was able to point out in that old thread where I had used "poor logic and unfair debating practices".
I just took a quick look back, and as I see it at least 4 people pointed out problems with your postings in the other thread - Lurker, Loki, RichardR and me. And these are just from the people I would not classify as "believers". Others (LukeT was one) pointed out that your style may be too aggressive.

So, are you lying here Claus? Or do you simply refuse to accept criticism?

Leroy

8th July 2003, 07:30 AM

You might be very pleasantly surprised, Leroy. I think you just might enjoy the experience......neo

I might enjoy a seminar neofight, but maybe for different reasons that what a believer would enjoy it. :D Then again if I saw obvious fraud in JE during the seminar, I might not be able to hold my tongue!

I started it to hold him accountable for all of the misrepresentations that he makes in an effort to win the debate.

Are you talking about how he will BOMBAST, Nit-Pick, take things out of context, use the LUNATIC FRINGE, ANSWER A QUESTION WITH A QUESTION, Have SELECTIVE MEMORY, call you a LIAR without and evidence or proof? Act like he answered questions when he didn't. Avoid the subject by attacking the person?

Posted by Neofight: My purpose in doing this, is to demonstrate for you, even if you do not feel free to openly agree with me, that Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired

So, Ron you believe this is an attack on CF? So, if I steal a car, try to outrun the law, get caught with drugs in my possession, and the arresting officer tries to point this out to the judge, than that officer is attacking me?

Cousin Bill used to take credit for work I accomplished. I would mow granny's lawn and Bill would take credit for it. I would chop wood for granny and Bill would take credit for it. If I had gone to granny and said "Mammie, I hate to bother you with this, but cousin Bill is dishonest." Would this would be an outright attack on Bill?

So, what should one do if they had a legitimate complaint about another person? Ignore it?

Leroy

8th July 2003, 07:49 AM

Funny how you were unable to show just one of my inaccuracies.

G'morning to you sir. How about on the "Taken in by John Edward Thread"

You claimed that Posted by CFLarsen: - The "trend" here on JREF is that, if you ask, you get an answer.

Yet Lurker asked you specific questions and for three pages you have failed to answer them. :confused:

Yeah, just leave it to others to find evidence of your claims.

On the "Takin in" thread you claimed:

originally posted by CFLarsen: - I was criticized on TVTalkshows for not wanting to disclose my real name to Valyou.

Yet you couldn't provide one shred of evidence for this, you simply mentioned some board the evidence was supposedly on, and left it at that.

hello! posted by CFLarsen: Thanks for generalizing wildy, creating the impression that I have received a lot of complaints. Unfortunately for you, that is not the case.

[COLOR=blue] how about on the John Edward thread, there's Lurker, Thanz, Neofight, Myself, and Clancie. That isn't alot, but we five have complained about how you avoid answering questions, call posters liar without a shred of evidence, when asked for evidence fail to give it.

RonSceptic

8th July 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
So, Ron you believe this is an attack on CF? So, if I steal a car, try to outrun the law, get caught with drugs in my possession, and the arresting officer tries to point this out to the judge, than that officer is attacking me?

Cousin Bill used to take credit for work I accomplished. I would mow granny's lawn and Bill would take credit for it. I would chop wood for granny and Bill would take credit for it. If I had gone to granny and said "Mammie, I hate to bother you with this, but cousin Bill is dishonest." Would this would be an outright attack on Bill?

So, what should one do if they had a legitimate complaint about another person? Ignore it?

Well if someone had proved that you stole the car you might have a point. From what I have seen on this thread the case against Claus is not proven.

Infact Claus does a better demolition job on Clancie. But that's just my opinion. Frankly I would rather we all got down to talking about issues rather than personailities.

The point is that posters here can read, and are very capable of reaching their own conclusions.

neofight

8th July 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Well if someone had proved that you stole the car you might have a point. From what I have seen on this thread the case against Claus is not proven.

Infact Claus does a better demolition job on Clancie. But that's just my opinion. Frankly I would rather we all got down to talking about issues rather than personailities.

The point is that posters here can read, and are very capable of reaching their own conclusions.

Sorry, RonSceptic, but I have to respond to your comments. It's true, as you say, that the posters here can read these claims against Claus, and decide for themselves who is right, and who is wrong.

But it really doesn't help the cause of truth, Ron, if people like you, for instance, regardless of whether or not you agree with us that Claus' debating tactics are dishonest in general, won't at least admit that his claim that.......

Nobody was able to point out in that old thread where I had used "poor logic and unfair debating practices".

is just downright inaccurate and untruthful! If you continue to support Claus unconditionally, despite all the evidence that he is not being honest here, then I don't know what else to say. :confused: If you're not part of the solution, then imo, you are part of the problem. :( .....neo

Clancie

8th July 2003, 09:26 AM

Posted by CFLarsen

Nobody was able to point out in that old thread where I had used "poor logic and unfair debating practices".

May I help? Here are a few examples from this thread and others:

1. Not answering the direct questions from Lurker

2. Not answering the direct questions from Thanz

3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

3. Calling me a liar on the "No General Seating" thread and elsewhere and never, ever, giving a shred of evidence for it

4. Offering a 94 MB file ("36 times longer than War and Peace") as "evidence" about my posts. It contained nothing to support your claim at all.

It's true that you get a "pass" here from some, Claus, because, imo, they want to believe your claims and therefore don't demand the evidence from you to support them.

But it's also obvious that many others are fully aware of what you're doing. :rolleyes:

RonSceptic

8th July 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by neofight

Sorry, RonSceptic, but I have to respond to your comments. It's true, as you say, that the posters here can read these claims against Claus, and decide for themselves who is right, and who is wrong.

But it really doesn't help the cause of truth, Ron, if people like you, for instance, regardless of whether or not you agree with us that Claus' debating tactics are dishonest in general, won't at least admit that his claim that.......

is just downright inaccurate and untruthful! If you continue to support Claus unconditionally, despite all the evidence that he is not being honest here, then I don't know what else to say. :confused: If you're not part of the solution, then imo, you are part of the problem. :( .....neo

I've seen Claus in action on many threads over the last couple of years. I can't remember any instances where he has been deliberately dishonest. So I think it's pretty unfair of you to suggest that his debating tactics are 'dishonest in general'. It 's a sweeping comment that doesn't tally with my own experience of his posting.

However I clearly haven't seen every thread he has posted on so I am not in a position to give any unconditional support of any kind. Nor am I interested in doing so.

Sorry if my opinion makes me a problem, but there it is. It's just an opinion. I only came to this thread because I was dragged her by Luci's peculiar tactic of posting her complaint about me here rather than on the thread where the original comments were made. Frankly I think this thread has become pretty tedious.

You seem to be a pretty interesting poster, and no doubt we will debate each other in the future. Let's hope that we can do so constructively. As I said, let's talk about issues rathger than personalities.
:cool:

neofight

8th July 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by RonscepticInfact Claus does a better demolition job on Clancie. But that's just my opinion.

Originally posted by Clancie

Really? What has he demolished, Ron? How has he answered these charges he's made about my lies, and about believers. How has he responded to questions from skeptics like Lurker and Thanz?

Really, I'd like to know.

I would too! I'm sorry that got by me, Clancie. Claus' bogus accusations against you are really despicable, and it would seem that Ron's *opinion* has more than a little bit of bias behind it......neo

Clancie

8th July 2003, 09:34 AM

Thanks, neo.

I kind of gave up on that post to RonSkeptic and took it out. I decided to post a list to Claus of his lies and evasions instead, since he indicates being unaware of them. :rolleyes:

Ron seems like a nice enough person, but it's kind of depressing that someone can accept Claus's mixture of lies about me and evasions of direct questions from his fellow skeptics and interpret it somehow as "demolishing" me.

Oh well. I just hope more skeptics here than just Lurker and Thanz will start to recognize Claus's tactics and hold him accountable for them..

RonSceptic

8th July 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by neofight

I would too! I'm sorry that got by me, Clancie. Claus' bogus accusations against you are really despicable, and it would seem that Ron's *opinion* has more than a little bit of bias behind it......neo

I think that it's always possible to pick out some inconsistancy and build it into a case if you really want to. What Claus did was apply the technique to the 'did she/didn't she read the file' issue. In my opinion he was doing this to turn the tables on those who were attacking him. I think, but again it's my opinion, that he did this quite effectivly, more effectively than neo's attack on Claus. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Utimately though it's probably splitting hairs. I am not convinced by either case. They are both excercises in futility. And for the record I am not saying that Clancie is a liar, anymore than I would say that Claus is generally dishonest.

Am I biased? Probably yes. I clearly have sceptical leanings and so I can well imagine that at an unconsious level I might instinctively tend to side with a fellow sceptic under personal attack from those I perceive to be beleivers in the paranormal.

neofight

8th July 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

I've seen Claus in action on many threads over the last couple of years. I can't remember any instances where he has been deliberately dishonest. So I think it's pretty unfair of you to suggest that his debating tactics are 'dishonest in general'. It 's a sweeping comment that doesn't tally with my own experience of his posting.

Well, although it's true that a whole lot of our negative experiences with Claus/Cantata come from the past year or two over at TVTalkShows, Ron, there are also plenty of examples of Claus' dishonesty right here on this thread, and several other current threads. I guess you just missed them.

However I clearly haven't seen every thread he has posted on so I am not in a position to give any unconditional support of any kind. Nor am I interested in doing so.

I realize that, Ron, and I understand how you feel. If you were going to simply remain neutral on the issue, I wouldn't have had a problem with you at all. But if you are going to weigh in on the subject, as you did, and not only dispute the fact that Claus has made unfounded claims and avoided direct answers to direct questions, but ALSO praise the job he did of *demolishing* Clancie, :con2: when nothing could be further from the truth, then that's another story altogether.

Frankly I think this thread has become pretty tedious.

LOL Actually, even though I'm the one who started this thread, I tend to agree with you, and I even offered to stop posting here, if only Claus would stop his immature denials of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, he prefers to continue arguing the point, even though he has been nailed quite effectively. But then, you disagree with that assertion. :)

You seem to be a pretty interesting poster, and no doubt we will debate each other in the future. Let's hope that we can do so constructively. As I said, let's talk about issues rathger than personalities.:cool:

I'll look forward to it, Ron. I agree that this sort of thing is nothing but a drag, but I felt it was necessary to finally bring this thing to a head. I was foolish enough to think that Claus might be big enough to acknowledge the validity of some of our complaints, and try to address them, but alas......so such luck. :rolleyes: .......neo

Clancie

8th July 2003, 11:00 AM

RonSkeptic,

Just curious. You mentioned Claus's 18 MB file.

I know this is tedious, but surely you understand what it's like to have someone repeatedly claim you're a liar.

Since you seem to feel he's given evidence of his claim, could you please explain how the contents of the file he linked supports his claim that it shows that I'm "a liar"?

Thank you.

(btw, It's on the "No General Seating at John Edward Seminars" thread, pg 14-17--I think p. 17, but don't feel like checking again. Around there, though. No need to scroll through the whole thing).

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by neofight
I'll look forward to it, Ron. I agree that this sort of thing is nothing but a drag, but I felt it was necessary to finally bring this thing to a head. I was foolish enough to think that Claus might be big enough to acknowledge the validity of some of our complaints, and try to address them, but alas......so such luck. :rolleyes: .......neo [/B]

Neo,

I'd like to share something with you.

When I first came across you name (containing 'fight'), your avatar, and the fact that you had started a thread which looked like it had the sole intent of attacking another poster, I just assumed that you were an agressive troll looking to pick a fight. That's why the tone of some of my initial comments towards you were the way they were. Having now actually read a few of your posts I see that I was mistaken. I unreservedly apologise threfore if any of my comments were ofensive. However, I hope that you take on board, in the spirit in which it is intended, that the way you have chosen to present yourself might give off an unfortunate first impression which might color the way other posters percieve you.

As is no major suprise given mt chosen name, I regard myself as a sceptic. By that I mean to say that I am not currently persuaded by arguments for mediums, ESP, dowsing, Geller, and the paranormal in general. I guess that puts me in the majortity on this board. I do however know what it feels like to be in the monority here.

Some months ago there was a thread about legalising pot. It's not a subject on which I hold any particularly strong views. However, I though the thread was pretty one sided so I just thought I'd raise a couple of issues for discussion, namely the possible increase in drug use among children, and health risks.

Well, you'd have thought I had just shot the President! I got agressive, flipant, and ultimately abusive replies. Some posters couldn't be bothered to read what I had actually posted, preferring instead to attack views which they assumed I must hold. I was asked to defend positions I had never actually advocated, and generally castigated. At first I responded in kind. But then I realised how futile it was. The actual issue had become secondary. Now it just a case of trying to score points off the opponent.

That is so typical of so many exchanges on these boards. But it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. We all leave the room with the same prejudices that we walked in with.

On that very same thread however, there were one or two posters who presented reasoned arguments, accepted some points, conceded others and generally advanced the discussion in a constructive way. That was was so very much more interesting,informative and persuasive.

Since then I have tried to be more constructive, though I have from time to time failed. For example in the Police and Psychics thread I got so exasperated by what I though was a particularly innane response to a question that I used the term 'woo woo'. As you can imagine, it didn't advance the debate very far.

So what I am coming round to is this. Just because you disagree with a persons belief, or lack it, does not mean that you can not have a dialogue with that person and actually learn something form them. I think it would be a worthwhile excersise for sceptics and non sceptics to at least try and understand each other.

It may be difficult to do that here because speaking openly and honestly about why one thinks and feels the way one does leaves one open to sniping by the zealots on both sides. But if we can refrain from making value judgements on other people views, and be willing occasionaly to admit mistakes, this board may yet prove to have some merit.

So that's how I'll try to proceed from now on.

Sermon over.

Ron.

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
RonSkeptic,

Just curious. You mentioned Claus's 18 MB file.

I know this is tedious, but surely you understand what it's like to have someone repeatedly claim you're a liar.

Since you seem to feel he's given evidence of his claim, could you please explain how the contents of the file he linked supports his claim that it shows that I'm "a liar"?

Thank you.

(btw, It's on the "No General Seating at John Edward Seminars" thread, pg 14-17--I think p. 17, but don't feel like checking again. Around there, though. No need to scroll through the whole thing).

Yes, I can well understand that it must be very irritating to be called a Liar and for the avoidance of any doubt let me say that I am not saying that Claus has proved that you are.

To be honest I have only scanned quickly through this thread, and haven't delved deply into all the posts. It doesn't really interest me enough. So given that, my earlier comments are probably ill judged.

I therfore withdraw my comments about 'the demolition job'.

CFLarsen

9th July 2003, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by RonSceptic
Infact Claus does a better demolition job on Clancie. But that's just my opinion. Frankly I would rather we all got down to talking about issues rather than personailities.

That, unfortunately, does not seem to be the goals of the believers here. I'm all for it, but no takers, so far.

CFLarsen

9th July 2003, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
1. Not answering the direct questions from Lurker

2. Not answering the direct questions from Thanz

I will not go on answering the same questions again and again.

Originally posted by Clancie
3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

If there were no such agreement, then why did you engage in non-related (to the Neil/JE-comparison) Q&As after the agreement?

Originally posted by Clancie
3. Calling me a liar on the "No General Seating" thread and elsewhere and never, ever, giving a shred of evidence for it

I have given plenty of evidence.

Originally posted by Clancie
4. Offering a 94 MB file ("36 times longer than War and Peace") as "evidence" about my posts. It contained nothing to support your claim at all.

So, now you read the files, Clancie?? Can you make up your mind, because I'm very confused here?!?!

Originally posted by Clancie
It's true that you get a "pass" here from some, Claus, because, imo, they want to believe your claims and therefore don't demand the evidence from you to support them.

Believe me: If I screw up, they will take me to task.

Originally posted by Clancie
But it's also obvious that many others are fully aware of what you're doing. :rolleyes:

"Many" others...yes...appeal to popularity again.

thaiboxerken

9th July 2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
RonSkeptic,
Since you seem to feel he's given evidence of his claim, could you please explain how the contents of the file he linked supports his claim that it shows that I'm "a liar"?

So, how many times has CFL called you a liar?

Thanz

9th July 2003, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I will not go on answering the same questions again and again.
Just once would be fine, if you actually answered the questions. But you know that you haven't, and that the true answers would show that you were incorrect in your statements, so you just keep avoiding them.

But, I agree with RonSceptic that there should be more discussion of issues and less squabbling. You, Claus, and your confrontational posting style, are part of the noise problem that drowns out the signal in threads. You seem to be too busy trying shove people into positions so that you can catch them in a "lie" that really isn't a lie that you don't actually spend much time debating the issues.

Here is a tip - stop trying to get believers to "admit" anything with regards to your arguments. It does not matter whether or not Clancie admits that there are chances for JE to hot read. It does not make one bit of difference. Just present your arguments and let everyone make up their own minds. If you spent less time trying to get the believers to admit their mistakes and more time just pointing them out, we'd all be a lot farther ahead.

CFLarsen

9th July 2003, 06:42 AM

Thanz,

I don't like lies. And, unfortunately, a considerable part of the claims that come from woowoos are built on lies.

Uri Geller. Sylvia Browne. Peter Popoff. Steve Grenard. The list is much longer, I'm sad to say.

No, I will not stop pointing out lies, where I find them. But I am all for discussing issues, and finding some real evidence - if it is there.

Leroy

9th July 2003, 07:25 AM

Well if someone had proved that you stole the car you might have a point. From what I have seen on this thread the case against Claus is not proven.

So we shouldn't bring it up at all?

The point is that posters here can read, and are very capable of reaching their own conclusions.

Which I've done concerning C.F. after reading his very weird postings on the JE thread. I saw the same things that clancie saw from CF. He doesn't practice what he preaches, and he expects what he does not give.

[1. Not answering the direct questions from Lurker

2. Not answering the direct questions from Thanz

3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

3. Calling me a liar on the "No General Seating" thread and elsewhere and never, ever, giving a shred of evidence for it

4. Offering a 94 MB file ("36 times longer than War and Peace") as "evidence" about my posts. It contained nothing to support your claim at all.]

She is right in what she posted above - all the while CF is stating how we should answer questions, as he does, and show proof of our cliams? Is there something wrong with the man? A learning difficulty? Seriously.

Leroy

9th July 2003, 07:28 AM

I've seen Claus in action on many threads over the last couple of years. I can't remember any instances where he has been deliberately dishonest. Do you read everything? Do you not think it dishonest to:

One can outright lie, or one can take things out of context to portray something that isn't there, either way it is dishonest.

3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

CFLarsen

9th July 2003, 07:34 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

Is my assumption that the agreement is not restrained to just one subject not justified when Clancie answers questions on things unrelated to the agreement?

If the agreement was only restricted to one subject, why does she engage in one-for-one anyway??

Perhaps you are of the opinion that she can change the rules on-the-fly, change them back, and accuse me of wrong-doing?

I'm most insterested to hear your reply.

RonSceptic

9th July 2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by Leroy
Do you read everything? Do you not think it dishonest to:

One can outright lie, or one can take things out of context to portray something that isn't there, either way it is dishonest.

3. Intentionally taking a quote of mine out of context to (falsely) illustrate your point (about a Q/A "agreement" that never existed between us the way you portrayed it)

No I haven't read everything. I said so in the post which you quote from above...........

However I clearly haven't seen every thread he has posted on so I am not in a position to give any unconditional support of any kind. Nor am I interested in doing so.

I've also admited that I have not delved deeply into this thread and that I'm not really in a position to make any definitive pronouncements.

I think this is an issue you should take up directly with Claus. I'm sure he can answer for himself.

Thanz

9th July 2003, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

I don't like lies. And, unfortunately, a considerable part of the claims that come from woowoos are built on lies.
Not fond of lies myself. But the claim that you make to start the "Taken In by John Edward" thread has not been substantiated, despite my repeated requests of you to do so. This makes your thread "a claim built on lies".

You have said one thing, and then refused to back it up. Similarly with what you claim to be Clancie's "lies". This sort of behaviour is exactly what you complain of when it is done by believers.

So, either answer my questions or I will be forced to conclude that you can't, and are a liar.

Leroy

9th July 2003, 10:24 AM

I'm most insterested to hear your reply.

I'm most interested to hear your reply on the "taken in by John Edward" thread, that you seem to be avoiding :roll:

btw, you made a comment that everyone else could see where clancie lied, so I asked anyone who could see it to speak up. So far nobody has :confused: - which is a shame because I was hoping, since you couldn't point out where she lied, that they could.

I think this is an issue you should take up directly with Claus. I'm sure he can answer for himself.

Thank you for your honest response, I certainly wish CF would answer, but he seems to have difficulty with answering questions. He won't even respond on the thread he started about JE I think it has gotten too difficult for him.

Clancie

9th July 2003, 08:12 PM

Posted by CFLarsen

Is my assumption that the agreement is not restrained to just one subject not justified when Clancie answers questions on things unrelated to the agreement?

What are you talking about, Claus?

Way back, on the "No General Seating" thread, we argued about Neil's cold reading demo at TVTalkshows. I said I'd answer your questions about that topic we were discussing if you didn't bunch them all together in one post.

Several days later, unrelated to that thread, you went ahead and started another long long post to me in a thread you titled "(55) Questions for Clancie". It had questions about everything, I think, but the proverbial kitchen sink. :rolleyes:

Clearly, at that time you didn't think we had any "Q/A agreement" based on my post in the "No General Seating" thread. Neither of us thought so.

That so-called "agreement" was something you have recently made up since then, only in order to try (futilely, imo) to justify misrepresenting my post about cold reading, posting it completely out of context, and trying to turn it into some kind of general "Point Counterpoint" agreement, which it never was. (As evidenced by your long "55 Questions...." thread subsequent to it).

Why can't you be honest about what you tried to do, and just admit you got caught using my post deceptively--and that you knew it was deceptive when you did it?

Why is it so hard for you to just say, "Yes, using your post in a completely different context was wrong. I'm sorry."? :confused:

neofight

9th July 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Neo,

I'd like to share something with you.

When I first came across you name (containing 'fight'), your avatar, and the fact that you had started a thread which looked like it had the sole intent of attacking another poster, I just assumed that you were an agressive troll looking to pick a fight. That's why the tone of some of my initial comments towards you were the way they were. Having now actually read a few of your posts I see that I was mistaken. I unreservedly apologise threfore if any of my comments were ofensive.

Hello, Ron! Apology happily accepted, although I'm not sure that one was needed. :) It's sometimes a little difficult to get an immediate and accurate take on a fellow poster, which is why I usually try not to be too confrontational when first addressing someone new. Don't worry, we all mess up at times, despite the best intentions. lol

However, I hope that you take on board, in the spirit in which it is intended, that the way you have chosen to present yourself might give off an unfortunate first impression which might color the way other posters percieve you.

I suppose that is true, Ron, but as with yourself, those posters who are worth exchanging ideas with, will in time recognize that I'm not a trouble-making rabble-rouser. ;) I came up with the "fight" in neofight a few years ago, when I was new to message boards, and I was posting exclusively on an aggressive, no-nonsense political board. I spelled it that was to give a little extra edge to my username. Over at JohnEdwardFriends, where I do occasionally post, I'm the softer and gentler NEOPHYTE. lol

With regard to my avatar, I actually came close to picking out an animated gif of a flower with a butterfly. How milquetoasty can I get? lol So then I thought to myself that I should really pick out an image of something that means something to me. During the Elian Gonzales affair, I was very active on my political board, and I got very caught up, as well as extremely emotionally invested in that whole saga, so I thought it would be appropriate for me to use that photo. It was either that or the planes crashing into our WTC, and I may just use that one also, on a rotating basis with this one, just because I believe that there are some things that one should not forget, nor shy away from. :(

I do however know what it feels like to be in the monority here.......Well, you'd have thought I had just shot the President! I got agressive, flipant, and ultimately abusive replies.

Yep, I know the pattern. :D That's why not too many people here ever noticed that Claus is not the fairest of debaters. For a good many of the issues, the skeptics are all on the same side, so most of them had no occasion to butt heads with him. lol

That is so typical of so many exchanges on these boards. But it doesn't really get anyone anywhere. We all leave the room with the same prejudices that we walked in with.

Very true indeed! :)

On that very same thread however, there were one or two posters who presented reasoned arguments, accepted some points, conceded others and generally advanced the discussion in a constructive way. That was was so very much more interesting,informative and persuasive.

Absolutely, Ron! That's what debating is, a meaningful exchange of ideas. I hate it when the topic gets completely side-tracked, not even by related subject matter, but by utter nonsense. I don't think too many people appreciate when that happens.

I used the term 'woo woo'. As you can imagine, it didn't advance the debate very far.

LOL No, that is not exactly one of my favorite terms either. :roll:

So what I am coming round to is this. Just because you disagree with a persons belief, or lack it, does not mean that you can not have a dialogue with that person and actually learn something form them. I think it would be a worthwhile excersise for sceptics and non sceptics to at least try and understand each other.

That is the sort of give-and-take relationship that several of us have established both here and over at TVTalk, Ron. Although, due to that site being inaccessible for a good while, many of us have gotten out of the TVTalk habit. That was our real home. We may go back there yet if we can drum up enough interest, although I've gotten to feel much more at home here than I used to be. :)

It may be difficult to do that here because speaking openly and honestly about why one thinks and feels the way one does leaves one open to sniping by the zealots on both sides. But if we can refrain from making value judgements on other people views, and be willing occasionaly to admit mistakes, this board may yet prove to have some merit.

So that's how I'll try to proceed from now on.

Good show! Ron, I can't tell you how pleased I was when I read your post. Here's to a new beginning! Clancie and I both had the same instincts about you, and I'm happy to say that we were right. Not to brag or anything, but we do have excellent instincts and judgement where people are concerned. ;)

Anyhow, Ron, thanks again for expressing yourself in such an honest manner..........neo

neofight

9th July 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Why is it so hard for you to just say, "Yes, using your post in a completely different context was wrong. I'm sorry."? :confused:

Wouldn't that be refreshing, Clancie? Then we could all have one great big cyberhug and get on with more important issues. lol :D ....neo

RonSceptic

10th July 2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by neofight
During the Elian Gonzales affair, I was very active on my political board, and I got very caught up, as well as extremely emotionally invested in that whole saga, so I thought it would be appropriate for me to use that photo.
[/B]

Sorry to show my ignorance but can you tell me what the Eilia Gonzales affair was. I take it that it must be an assassination or terrorist outrage?

And many thanks for your comments!:)

neofight

10th July 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by RonSceptic

Sorry to show my ignorance but can you tell me what the Eilia Gonzales affair was. I take it that it must be an assassination or terrorist outrage?

And many thanks for your comments!:)

Your very welcome, Ron! :)

The Elian Gonzales affair occurred a few years ago in the Clinton Administration. A Cuban mother lost her life while trying to escape Castro's murderous regime. She had her young son with her, as well as her common-law husband and 11 other Cubans. She drowned along with the others, but Elian miraculously survived and was picked up by two cousins who were out fishing.

The mother's family had known that the escape was about to happen, and when the boy was brought ashore, he was placed under his uncle's care in Miami. Problem was that Castro wanted this kid back in Cuba, for his own selfish political reasons, and with Clinton's blessing, the Janet Reno Justice Department, turned our Constitution on it's head and ran circles around our child custody laws, to give Castro what he wanted.

The boy's biological father was in Cuba, and the Clinton Administration used the bogus excuse of father's rights to force this family to give up the child, as though a father, or anyone else for that matter, really had any rights in Communist Cuba. :rolleyes:

They refused, which was their right, since this was a custody case, and by law, should have eventually been heard and decided in a family court of law. Instead, the DOJ raided this uncle's house in the dead of night, with federal agents armed with assault rifles, and plucked this terrorfied child right out of the sanctity of his uncle's house. In fact, they grabbed him right from the closet where they were hiding when the agents forcibly broke into the house in a pre-dawn raid, the morning before Easter. My avatar shows lit