An Appeal to Honest Skeptics

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


A bald-faced lie. You have not answered the questions.



Of course, I can point to where I answer the questions. Can you say the same?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
Darat,

Claus starts threads devoted to "(55) Questions for Clancie" (and similar ones for neo and Lucianarchy. I try to respond to him in the threads but I'm not going to play the "60 Questions" game. (Actually, he started a second "Questions for Clancie" thread today as well in "Community"). He bumps them up, periodically links to them, etc.--all the while still debating with me in these threads every day (though I should put him back on ignore so he stops his little games).

No one has done similar things to him. What you call "hounding" in asking him to give evidence for three statements in this thread isn't even close.

Claus made 3 accusations about me in one thread. Someone (Lurker originally, then Leroy) asked him to support them or withdraw them.

That seems a fair enough expectation when someone makes an accusation: back it up. But he continues to avoid the questions altogether, and does not withdraw the accusations either..

Maybe Leroy just has a low threshold for hypocrisy and dishonesty, because that's what tjos os, especially from someone with his own history of badgering others with whatever (60) questions happen to pop into his head that he'd like demand them to answer for him.

If he makes accusations about other people, he should be prepared to back them up or apologize and withdraw them if they are inaccurate. What's wrong with that expectation? :confused:

Nothing wrong with having expectations, but unfortunately lots of people wont live up to them so be prepared to be disappointed. :(

My point still remains - there is a group of posters here using exactly the same "tactic" against a poster they accuse of using the self same tactic, a tactic that at least some of that group complain is wrong, dishonest etc.

If someone thinks a certain tactic is wrong I cannot understand how they can either support someone else using it or using it themselves.

Two wrongs don’t make a right (in my opinion).

[Clancie]

Posted by Darat

Two wrongs don't make a right in my opinion.
Well, we agree on this at least, Darat.

Claus isn't asked much here, certainly not like believers are (with the thread he started today, plus the old one, how many questions are there "for Clancie" in one thread now? 80?)

Three questions, in a specific thread no less, seems very minimal to me. But, sure. If Claus says to Leroy, "Yes I made those accusations about Clancie, but no I'm not going to support them so please do stop asking them" and then Leroy keeps right on going, well...yes, I'd find that "hounding", too, Darat.

To not respond in any way, especially when he's asked about specific statements he's made about another poster and should have evidence for...well, that's just, hmmm....let's call it puzzling.

Bit, yes, if ever he says to Leroy, "I don't want to answer Lurker's three questions, and I won't do it...so stop asking me" I'd say that is indeed, "answer enough."

[Jeff Corey]

What's the question again?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
That would be fine, Darat, if people were consistent. Leroy is a new skeptic here, but other than him--still waiting for an answer to only 3 questions asked of Claus, not the 55 questions Claus has posted to me (in addition to the countless ones I answer from him all the time in the threads)....hardly anyone else ever mentions how Claus hounds believers on a regular, repeated basis.

That seems okay here, apparently because he's not a "believer".

It could also be because people would like to see the answers, too?

Originally posted by Clancie
I make a good effort to answer everyone's questions, btw, even his. But his list includes misstatements, inaccuracies, and things I've never claimed or said--as well as things I've already answered (often more than once).

That may be. But why are you dismissing the other questions, then? Why not simply answer those, leaving the rest as a monument to my shame?

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm not correcting his "list" because it's utterly predictable that he'll just get into a big follow up argument with me about any questions that I dispute.

Evading responsibility here. You accuse me of making misstatements, inaccuracies etc., but you cannot be bothered to point out where. Sounds like a complete cop-out to me.

Originally posted by Clancie
And I think its rude and intellectually unproductive to use such a tactic in order to create an impression, especially for those that don't follow it, that he asks the tough questions and I am chronically evasive.

Then, pray tell, how else should we approach you with these questions? You don't answer them in the context they arose, and you don't answer them when they are collated?

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm not evasive, but I won't be badgered and bullied by a tactic that obviously isn't intended to lead to productive discussion in any way whatsoever. ("55 Questions" I'd like to see anyone else around here put up with that kind of nonsense from someone who disagreed with them--and posted and participated about it daily in a variety of threads).

It leads to nothing else but answers, Clancie. Those answers you dodge.

Originally posted by Clancie
Its a tactic, pure and simple, and imo an unproductive and intellectually dishonest one. If only Leroy can see it for what it is...well, that's just sad.

Appeal to emotion. Just answer the questions when they arise, and you won't have these embarrassing threads of unanswered questions trailing you.


Originally posted by Clancie
Claus starts threads devoted to "(55) Questions for Clancie" (and similar ones for neo and Lucianarchy. I try to respond to him in the threads but I'm not going to play the "60 Questions" game. (Actually, he started a second "Questions for Clancie" thread today as well in "Community"). He bumps them up, periodically links to them, etc.--all the while still debating with me in these threads every day (though I should put him back on ignore so he stops his little games).

No, you do not try to respond, because if you did, those collating threads would not be there.

Originally posted by Clancie
No one has done similar things to him. What you call "hounding" in asking him to give evidence for three statements in this thread isn't even close.

No? At least I collate the questions, instead of posting them all over non-related threads.

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus made 3 accusations about me in one thread. Someone (Lurker originally, then Leroy) asked him to support them or withdraw them.

"Accusations"? You really are paranoid, Clancie...

Originally posted by Clancie
That seems a fair enough expectation when someone makes an accusation: back it up.

Hey, if we can agree that people should back up their claims, fine with me!

Originally posted by Clancie
But he continues to avoid the questions altogether, and does not withdraw the accusations either..

I have given my answers. You just don't like them.

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe Leroy just has a low threshold for hypocrisy and dishonesty, because that's what this is, especially from someone with Claus's own history of badgering others with whatever (60) questions happen to pop into his head that he'd like to demand them to answer for him. Yet, when it comes to his own statements...he won't answer Leroy, Lurker or Thanz about any of them.

A lie. I have answered the questions.

Originally posted by Clancie
When he makes accusations about other people, he should be prepared to back them up or apologize and withdraw the statements, admitting they are inaccurate.

It's a little difficult, since you won't even point out where in those lists of questions, I make inaccurate accusations....

Originally posted by Clancie
What's wrong with that expectation? It's just basic honesty.
:confused:

You want honesty? Try practice what you preach. And stop lying....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
I very much agree, Clancie. And it is obvious that there are those who do not read the entire threads, and so are left with that erroneous impression, which is exactly what Claus is counting on.

Absolutely not.

Originally posted by neofight
Kudos to Leroy, Thanz, and Lurker for not letting Claus get away with his deceitful claim that he has answered their very simple and forthright questions, because he certainly has not done so. If I missed anyone, I'm sorry......neo

If you find it so "deceitful" not to answer questions, why don't you answer some yourself?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
I normally try very hard not to get into discussions about individuals here but I sincerely wish Claus, Neo, Thanz. Leroy yourself et all could come to some form of "truce" because there are interesting points made by all sides that are lost in the constant "you said" "no you said" posts.

(However I suspect you and I will have to agree to disagree on this matter.)

I have tried truces before with Clancie. She always backs down from them. But I'm still willing to try again.

Clancie can set the terms, as long as they apply to all parties equally.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Of course, I can point to where I answer the questions. Can you say the same?

Yes. Where did you answer the questions?

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I have tried truces before with Clancie. She always backs down from them. But I'm still willing to try again.

Clancie can set the terms, as long as they apply to all parties equally.

Glad to see you offering an olive branch.

Clancie are you willing to take up this offer?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Of course, I can point to where I answer the questions. Can you say the same?





Yes. Where did you answer the questions?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Yes. Where did you answer the questions?

You first.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You first.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=107198

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?action=showresults&searchid=107198

That's a generic search, Lucianarchy. Please show the exact thread and post.

[Lucianarchy]

See? I answered your question and now you prevaricate and back down from your claim.

I said I can point to where I answer the questions.

I have done so.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
See? I answered your question and now you prevaricate and back down from your claim.

I said I can point to where I answer the questions.

I have done so.

By a generic search? That's like proving something by referring to Google.

Try again.

[Leroy]

Leroy that is answering the questions, it's just not answers you wanted him to give or what you would consider are good answers. (I gather that from your responses.)
No, it isn't an answer it is an evasion. If it were an answer we could all post nonsensical quotes and then say VOID to his questions, right?


I don't know what you are hoping to achieve with this "hounding". (

You mean hounding as when CF hounded me to answer questions when I first got here? And claimed that JREFers answer questions when asked, therefore I should do the same? And he didn't stop until I answered?

but because of their vagueness, evasiveness and ability to not make a claim while defending the claim.
You mean CFLarsen don't you? He is the one who evades answering questions.

CFLarsen, you call Lun a bold faced lier for saying he answered the questions, and yet you have bold faced lied about answering Lurkers questions. I suppose all Lun would have to do is quote some silly quotes and then say VOID and he/she could then say "I have answered the questions, just like you did!

[Leroy]

CFLarsen said-Of course, I can point to where I answer the questions. Can you say the same?

Then please do so, we are eagerly waiting!

Here are the questions, as you can see, the first one requires a simple YES or NO answer. ;)

My prediction is that you will not answer YES or NO

1. Has Clancie said that 'nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings' one or more times or not at all?

2. And if you don't know because you have not tallied them is it fair to assume a non-zero number?

3. If the answer to #1 is 1 or more, can you provide the reference?

[Leroy]

Well, I am not surprised that CFLarsen has avoided this thread today. Making Neofight's point for the thread "An Appeal to Honest Skeptics" clear to me.

Remember Neofight stated Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired. CFLarsen expects from others what he refuses to give himself.


Posted by CFLarsen on June 12th to Clancie- Why do you still claim that nobody has complained about JE's readings, when both Dateline and O'Neill have shown serious cheating?

This paragraph gives the impression that Clancie claimed and is STILL claiming that nobody has complained about JE's readings.

Clancie asked when she had ever said that nobody had ever complained about JE's readings, but CFLarsen Kept saying "I don't know I haven't tallied them" instead of answering Yes or No. So Lurker asked CF the question I was going to ask ... on July 2nd 2003.

From Lurker:
1. Has Clancie said that 'nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings' one or more times or not at all?

[THIS IS A simple YES or a NO QUESTION]

2. And if you don't know because you have not tallied them is it fair to assume a non-zero number?

3. If the answer to #1 is 1 or more, can you provide the reference?

To answer YES that Clancie had claimed this, CFLarsen would have to provide the evidence. To answer NO CFLarsen would have to admit that he was wrong. So, he avoided these question.

Finally when he saw that he was going to be just as accountable for answering questions as those he hounds to answer his, he posts this:

Originally posted by Clancie (reposted by CFLarsen) That's a very different claim for believers to be making (and one much easier for believers to back up than the one he keeps talking

by clancie - I expect that even "believers" (both in mediums in general and JE in particular) would have complaints about JE seminars, readings, CO. etc. from time to time. That's just, imo, part of dealing with clients and their expectations

[which shows clancie saying that she expects that believers would have complaints about seminars and readings]

After CFLarsen posted these, he writes, that all of the questions Lurker asked are VOID due to these two quotes from Clancie. :confused:

This is NOT answering quetions. CFLarsen seems to have a the upper hand with believers [and some of us skeptics] when it comes to demanding answers to his questions, yet he has avoided giving a simple YES or NO answer to the questions above, for 3 weeks.

Is this stubborness?

[Clancie]

Hi Leroy,

Yes, Claus is "stubborn" in his evasions, to say the least!

I guess the sad fact is that Claus is never going to answer Lurkers questions about his claims.

At least his own evasiveness to questions is well documented here thanks to you and Lurker--and in the "Taken in by JE" thread thanks to Thanz. It'll be nice to periodically bump them up just to remind him, "No, Claus. Remember? You[/] don't [/I]answer questions, even those asking for evidence of your own claims."

Of course, now, if he wants to start his own "Questions that Claus F Larsen will NOT Answer" thread, it would be a very welcome addition to this forum (or over in "Community", Claus, where all your numerous "Questions for Clancie" threads are, lol!)

The ironic thing, Leroy, is that Fade (who I hardly remember posting here at all) insisted yesterday in "Community" that Claus answers "all questions" that are ever asked of him!

:dl:

[Leroy]

Well, whoever said that Claus always answers questions, is not much of an observer. And yes, we can always bump this thread, or cut and paste it into a word document for further evidence for use when we see CFLarsen demanding answers from others :roll:

Of course I find it comical. For those of you who deal with CF on a daily basis, I can understand [as posted on the first page] why you get frustrated with his debating tactics. He is a sneaky one, but I find humor it in.

24 days and CFLarsen has still NOT answered 3 simple questions. Shall we put him on the opening page with Sylvia Brown? NO, but we should hold him as accountable as he does others.

[renata]

Why don't you create a list of questions for Claus? Post them here or in a separate thread and have him address them.

[Leroy]

Greetings Renata Why don't you create a list of questions for Claus? Post them here or in a separate thread and have him address them.

We have posted three that I would love to have answered. Not the answer he gave, which was "The questions are VOID" but real YES or NO answers.

CFLarsen said:
Posted by CFLarsen on June 12th to Clancie- Why do you still claim that nobody has complained about JE's readings, when both Dateline and O'Neill have shown serious cheating?

When Clancie denied making this claim, CF was asked if Clancie had indeed claimed it, CF kept stating that He didn't no he hadn't tallied them ?

Anyhow, Lurker asked him the exact questions that were on my mind, and he has avoided giving an answer since July 2nd.

Here are the questions.

1. Has Clancie said that 'nobody had ever come forward to complain about the tapings, seminars or readings' one or more times or not at all?

[THIS IS A simple YES or a NO QUESTION]

2. And if you don't know because you have not tallied them is it fair to assume a non-zero number?

3. If the answer to #1 is 1 or more, can you provide the reference?

I get a kick out of watching how CFLarsen squirms out of answering them, but I am sure that the believers get a bit annoyed at him for it, especially since they claim that he expects them to answer his questions. Hell he expected me to answer his when I first got here, so why shouldn't I expect the same from him? ;)

[renata]

Originally posted by Leroy
Greetings Renata

We have posted three that I would love to have answered. Not the answer he gave, which was "The questions are VOID" but real YES or NO answers.

{snip}

I get a kick out of watching how CFLarsen squirms out of answering them, but I am sure that the believers get a bit annoyed at him for it, especially since they claim that he expects them to answer his questions. Hell he expected me to answer his when I first got here, so why shouldn't I expect the same from him? ;)

Well, not all questions are answerable. However, it is my opinion Claus should either answer the questions, point to the place he answered them before, or explain why he will not. I have not been following this particular issue, so I cannot weigh in on the validity of the questions and whether he answered them.

[Leroy]

However, it is my opinion Claus should either answer the questions, point to the place he answered them before, or explain why he will not.

Normally I would have left this thread a long time ago, but when I first posted here, I noticed that CF (why does everyone call him Claus?) seemed hung up on getting people to answer questions that he asks them, including myself, so I was surprised to find that he was excellant at avoiding questions himself.

I am still taking bets that he won't answer, simply because to do so would mean admitting that he was wrong about Clancie. :roll:

[renata]

Originally posted by Leroy


Normally I would have left this thread a long time ago, but when I first posted here, I noticed that CF (why does everyone call him Claus?) seemed hung up on getting people to answer questions that he asks them, including myself, so I was surprised to find that he was excellant at avoiding questions himself.

I am still taking bets that he won't answer, simply because to do so would mean admitting that he was wrong about Clancie. :roll:

I happen to know that Claus (that is his name) is away for a few days. I suggest you start a thread with any outstanding questions he can address. I have seen him be wrong, admit he is wrong and make corrections when he is wrong.

[Leroy]

I happen to know that Claus (that is his name) is away for a few days. I suggest you start a thread with any outstanding questions he can address. I have seen him be wrong, admit he is wrong and make corrections when he is wrong.

Since you know him a heck of a lot better than I do, do you think that by starting a new thread with the same old questions we have been asking him here, that he will actually answer them, with the YES or NO answer that at least the first one requires, or do you think he will continue to say they are VOID, or evade them?

Cause I don't want to waste another thread if you don't think he will answer.

[renata]

Originally posted by Leroy


Since you know him a heck of a lot better than I do, do you think that by starting a new thread with the same old questions we have been asking him here, that he will actually answer them, with the YES or NO answer that at least the first one requires, or do you think he will continue to say they are VOID, or evade them?

Cause I don't want to waste another thread if you don't think he will answer.

I have never met Claus. I do not know him at all. I happen to know his name because I have been on this board for a long time, and most people here know his name. I also read his skeptic report and submitted an article there. I know he is away for a few days because he sent me a PM explaining why he is suspending our flame war match.

I would never presume to speak on anyone's behalf. I have no idea how he will answer, or what he will do. I do know, in my experience he answers the questions and admits errors. Clearly, that is not your experience. Perhaps you should send him a PM and ask him.

[Leroy]

. I know he is away for a few days because he sent me a PM explaining why he is suspending our flame war match.

I have been reposting these questions for him since July 2nd, he has had 29 days to answer but has failed to do so. That is why I feel that it would be a waste of time and space to open an entirely new thread asking the same questions.

But I thank you much for the suggestion. Perhaps I will take you up on that suggestion at a later time if I find Claus demanding answers from another poster :)

[Instig8R]

Bumped for neo, who started this thread to call attention to what she described as “dishonest debating tactics” on the part of CFLarsen.

Unfortunately, neo has recently engaged in some dishonest and egregious debating tactics and ad homs of her own. In the thread called "Process of John Edward", she claimed that I have (1) A hatred for JE that is bordering on obsessive; and (2), That other posters have commented on my "malicious language".

She has failed to provide any evidence of her claims.

When renata questioned the validity of neo's claim about these mysterious other posters who complained about my "malicious language", neo responded as follows: “Before Instig8R posted here, like many of us, she posted at TVTalkShows. Many of the posts that I referred to were from there, so you would not necessarily have been aware of them.”

When I pressed neo to provide the quotes and the identity of these other posters, her response was as follows: Originally posted by neofight


As though knowing me, you really believe that I would state publicly what someone has told me privately. :rolleyes:



I consider this to be thoroughly unethical. Neo made some serious, derogatory accusations. She has yet to document anything to back up her claims. Even worse, she has morphed the alleged public criticism of me into confidential slurs made by anonymous posters... and she rolls her eyes?

I didn’t want to hijack the other thread, so I thought I’d move the discussion over here.

I prefer to debate issues, not people. However, I cannot allow this kind of an ad hom to go unanswered. I feel that neo has engaged in some unethical debating tactics, and it seems appropriate to discuss the issue here… in a thread where neo has appealed for condemnation of dishonest debating tactics.

[renata]

Instigator ( one way I will learn how to type your name right)

I agree with you that Neo used malicious tactics to personalize the debate.

But think of it this way- when someone runs out of valid points, they can either shift their position or attack their opponent. Usually, the more soundly trounced they are, the more vicious the attack. In a way, this should be a testament to your skeptical prowess! :D

[Instig8R]

Well, renata, under those circumstances, I guess I should be very, very flattered!:D

[RC]

Wow...'g8r and Neo, you both can tell me to take a hike, but I have to say that it's totally depressing watching two of my friends, and two people that have been friends since high school, have this kind of public fight.

I do hope that you both can quickly come to some sort of resolution about this issue.

:(

[UnrepentantSinner]

Actually 'g8ter I see this as Neo's usual modus operandi. Excuse, divert, change the subject, etc. It's the same as her defense of JE's process and mediumship in general. Every medium hit is dead solid perfect, every cold reading hit is hemmed and hawed into submission. Why would a medium get a full name instead of just a letter, that's not how it works.
:rolleyes:

On the other hand, it might just be that she's too prideful to admit she was in the wrong on this.

On the foot, RC's right about the fighting. Two long time friends should be able to work things out.

[Clancie]

Posted by Unrepentent Sinner

Actually 'g8r I see this as Neo's usual modus operandi. Excuse, divert, change the subject, etc.
Unrepentent Sinner,

I suppose you won't be surprised that I disagree, but I honestly do. I think neo has a different perspective on mediumship than most at this board (obviously), but I do not think her MO is to divert from the topic, change the subject, etc. ("Excuse" is a different kind of word--so subjective that its hard to comment on. I feel it means "explain" if you think JE's work is consistent with his claims, but means "find excuses for" if you feel he's just a cold reader. Again, a matter of a different point of view, imo).

I think neo addresses questions and comments very directly. Although, in Kelvin G's immortal words, people may not like or agree with the answers, it doesn't mean "believers" are being unresponsive.
Posted by Unrepentent Sinner

It's the same as her defense of JE's process and mediumship in general. Every medium hit is dead solid perfect, every cold reading hit is hemmed and hawed into submission. Why would a medium get a full name instead of just a letter, that's not how it works.
Again, I don't think so. I do not think she (or any "believer" here) argues that "every JE hit is dead solid perfect" (After all, even JE doesn't claim that for himself).

I think believers do, obviously, look at the "process" differently from those who think its fake, and they explain what they're seeing within that context. I can see why it wouldn't seem credible to people who think JE's a fake, but if you understand the different perspective believers see his readings from, it's not just "blah, blah, blah...isn't he great!"

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Clancie


I think neo addresses questions and comments very directly as a rule, (though, in Kelvin G's immortal words, people may not like or agree with the answers).


That KelvinG is one smart dude.:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Instig8R
When renata questioned the validity of neo's claim about these mysterious other posters who complained about my "malicious language", neo responded as follows: “Before Instig8R posted here, like many of us, she posted at TVTalkShows. Many of the posts that I referred to were from there, so you would not necessarily have been aware of them.”

When I pressed neo to provide the quotes and the identity of these other posters, her response was as follows:
Originally posted by neofight
As though knowing me, you really believe that I would state publicly what someone has told me privately.


Whoa...just a second. neofight speaks about posts on TVTalkshows. Not private messages. All neo has to do is to show us those posts.

That she refers to private correspondence is, of course, not very supportive of her claim. It also makes her look like a back-stabbing gossip.

Originally posted by Instig8R
I feel that neo has engaged in some unethical debating tactics, and it seems appropriate to discuss the issue here… in a thread where neo has appealed for condemnation of dishonest debating tactics.

It's far from the first time she engages in this. At TVTalkshows, she claimed I had said something about not allowing believers into my circle of friends. I couldn't recall that I had, and asked her to show me the actual quotes. It wasn't a big deal at first, I couldn't remember, and neo was "99% sure". So, I asked for references.

Know what she replied?

"Not until you go on record as officially denying that you ever said such a thing, Cantata. If you assure me that you have never said this on these boards, then, and only then, will I go to the trouble of searching through the old threads to find the quote (singular) that I am referrring to. I do not keep files on even your more outrageous posts."

Since I couldn't do that (I can't very well "deny" I said something I can't remember I said, can I?), she then claimed to be right, and that I was wrong.

Then, she admitted she had tried to trap me. Full threads and quotes are available on request.

So, Instig8r, you shouldn't feel singled out.

"You go find the quote if it is so important to you. Or deny that you said it, and then I will feel obligated to go find the quote. I think that's quite fair, since it obviously will be a time-consuming pain in the butt to go look for it."
neo, on TVTalkshows

Yup, neo's at it again. And Clancie is seriously in denial, as usual.

[Instig8R]

I just want to reassure everyone that no friendships will end over this matter. This is merely an effort to put an end to a recurring, unsubstantiated claim that has now grown way out of proportion. It simply needs to be addressed, once and for all. Otherwise, it will continue to surface, again and again.

That being said, there are more dishonest tactics to discuss...

In response to my request for evidence of my alleged hatred and malice, neo took a few of my statements from other threads out-of-context. Even twisted out-of-context, my comments do not reach the level of evil rhetoric that she alleged. Unfortunately, neo didn’t indicate the title the thread(s), and she didn’t post a link, to enable us to view the full posts. I can only surmise that this was a deliberate effort to obfuscate the true nature of my comments. Therefore, I will search for them myself and will post them here.

In the meantime, here are the out-of-context statements that neo supplied as evidence of my hatred and malice:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post # 71 Instig8R 24.46.54.89 October 29th, 2002 08:15 PM

It seems to me that JE will say whatever suits his own selfish purposes at any given time.

As a believer, I understand that you are offended by what you perceive as undue criticism of JE, as someone you admire. As a disbeliever, I expect you to understand that I am offended by undue praise of JE, as someone I disdain.


Post # 165 Instig8R 24.46.54.89 November 26th, 2002 11:09 PM

He deflects the criticism away from himself, sometimes by undermining the intelligence of his fans, and more often by hiding behind widows and other bereaved individuals.

Post # 163 Instig8R 24.46.54.89 November 26th, 2002 09:47 PM

Hence, JE claims not to be concerned about critics/skeptics. The truth is that he is concerned about criticism, but is too cowardly to admit it. Therefore, he shifts the onus onto his fans, putting the insult and the injury on them. He then relies upon his fans to silence the critics. This is yet another reason why I consider him to be a manipulative s.o.b.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After supplying the above evidence, neo states as follows:

"You want more than that, Instig8R, you'll have to find them yourself. You know they're out there. As for me, I know for damned sure that I didn't imagine all the mean and defamatory posts that you made about JE, so if nothing else, I'm sure of what I said concerning your anti-JE bias........neo"


IMO, the reason that neo declines to post more "evidence" is because she knows that it is not "out there". If if was, she would not have had to resort to such creative editing of my posts. Perhaps there is a future for her in editing on “Crossing Over”. ;)

Also, I repeat once more: The dispute is not about bias… It is about false accusations of hatred and malice.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie

Unrepentent Sinner,

I suppose you won't be surprised that I disagree, but I honestly do. I think neo has a different perspective on mediumship than most at this board (obviously), but I do not think her MO is to divert from the topic, change the subject, etc. ("Excuse" is a different kind of word--so subjective that its hard to comment on. I feel it means "explain" if you think JE's work is consistent with his claims, but means "find excuses for" if you feel he's just a cold reader. Again, a matter of a different point of view, imo).


Hi, Clancie! I would not have brought the discussion to this thread if neo had not diverted the topic from a discussion of JE into a series of unsubstantiated claims about my supposed hatred of JE and malicious language about him. It is a pattern that seems to recur whenever she cannot refute my arguments with facts or logic. She resorts to attempts at demonizing me, commits ad homs against me, and condones the ad homs against me by others. (She refers to ad homs against me as being "justified"!) She has frequently tried to float the rumor that I have an obsessive hatred for JE, possibly in the hopes that it will marginalize the opinions that I express.


I think neo addresses questions and comments very directly. Although, in Kelvin G's immortal words, people may not like or agree with the answers, it doesn't mean "believers" are being unresponsive.

I agree that neo usually addresses questions and comments very directly… and honestly, too. However, not in this instance. Instead of backing-up her allegations, she has been very evasive.

P.S. Are you one of those TVTalk posters in neo's "Witness Protection Program"?

[RC]

It is very helpful to reread the entire "fight" on the other thread. It started when 'g8r started a sentence to someone with "Don't listen to Neo....". It is those 4 words that started this whole ordeal.

Instig8r thinks that those four words were acceptable because she followed them with specific reasons why her take on the editing was different. Neo was clearly hurt by those four words and took issue that someone was trying to dismiss her instead of just letting the poster do his/her own investigation and come to their own conclusion.

Instead of just coming to a resolution about those four words, the conversation heated up and brought in other "issues". This is just human nature as we all have pride and we all are capable of allowing our hurt feelings to take over.

Instig8r tried to clarify why she said "Don't listen to Neo". I thought it was a reasonable clarification and that Neo slightly overreacted. Neo tried to tell Instig8r that she responds differently to her posts than she does to someone like Claus because they are friends. She admitted a certain vulnerability. I thought that was rather honest and refreshing. However, neither were listening to each other as they quickly started focusing on other comments or on "past issues" from TVTalkshows.

The result is that a snippet of the conversation has been posted here as though it is somewhat representative of what truly happened, allowing others to come in and bring in their own issues with Neo.

I haven't gone far with my psychic development classes, but I don't see anything productive or positive if this conversation continues on an internet discussion board.

[voidx]

This seems to happen on a regular basis, and why I believe there to be about a dozen threads going regarding JE. It devolves into useless bickering, and so a new thread gets started, either to continue the bickering seperately, or to start fresh. Because the believers are outnumbered here, and because certain people on here have very aggressive ways of making their points, I've noticed they are often tempted into a validation, debating point war on some personal side-tracked issue not as important to the issue as a whole, and so it slows down any meaningful debate on the topic.

Now I'm not going to comment on Neo's debating skills persay but I do have a few comments. Mainly that I find it increasingly harder to take any of her comments seriously. This is based upon the fact that when the debate has turned to more scientific issues such as the nature of telepathy, she has admitted that its not her area of expertise, and while not fully acknowledging it I think, knows that there is no proof in this area to support mediumship. When pressed Steve G's trance mediums are brought up, but there's still nothing concrete there either yet. We've pointed out numerous points about the consistency of JE, supported them by analyzing his LKL transcripts, asked very hard and pointed questions, and in this particular case she has simply written off the LKL transcripts as not representive of an average JE reading. I find this extremely telling, and find it hard to debate this issue seriously with someone that willing to disregard potential evidence against some of her claims. I know she has listed why she thinks they are not representative, but I don't feel they sufficiently valid. She has also stated that while she cannot always back up these things in a scientific sense, and knows that there is little support scientifically for mediumship, that she enjoys debating it just for the fun of it. Normally this wouldn't be as much of a problem for me, but combined with the other factors listed above, I find it again, rather telling.

I personally find it frustrating that, for whatever reason, these longer threads that devolve into arguing over just who said what seem to gain much more attention than say Renata's thread which attempts to actively analyze a list of JE readings.

[CFLarsen]

RC,

Yes, it is indeed helpful to read the whole "fight".

However, I think you are downplaying the importance of this "catfight". It is a fact that Instig8r showed how neo had completely changed her account of what happened during the "Malibu Shrimp"-reading. I imagine it must not be a nice experience suddenly to realize that memory - on which neo relies so much - is shown not only faulty, but changeable.

I think that is the gist of the matter: Not that neo gets offended at Instig8r's "Don't listen to neo", but because neo realizes Instig8r is right: We cannot listen to what neo has to say, because she not only remembers wrong - she also changes her memory willingly, depending on what she sees on TV.

And then denies that she does it.

Yes, she has admitted that she is a believer, which is quite fine. Nobody should criticize neo for that. But if she recalls a reading at a seminar, then changes her story after she sees it edited to reflect something else, that leaves us with neo being a person with absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

It isn't a question of hurt egos. It isn't a question of debating skills. You may consider both parties friends. Real friends tell you when you are wrong, in no uncertain terms.

[Clancie]

Posted by Instig8r

Are you one of those TVTalk posters in neo's "Witness Protection Program?

Hi, g8r. No I am not. I am one of those TVT posters who likes both of you and would rather stay in the DMZ on this one. However....because I do like you both....


Clancie! I would not have brought the discussion to this thread if neo had not diverted the topic from a discussion of JE into a series of unsubstantiated claims about my supposed hatred of JE and malicious language about him.
Well, I'm sorry to say I kind of disagree with both of you. No, I don't think you are malicious and hateful. I think you do express righteous indignation at what you feel is JE's hypocrisy. Like I said to U.S., I think a lot of things are a matter of the different perspective that believer and skeptic bring to this. I think your negativity toward JE comes out of your feelings that he's a cold/hot reader who is knowingly lying and cheating.

Knowing neo, I'm sure she would be every bit as angry as you are if she had that perception of him, too--we all would. I think she feels the same outrage at injustice that you do; its just that, in this case, she sees JE as the aggrieved party--as an honest man who is being unfairly portrayed as fraudulent.

Do I think the "hateful and malicious" was a poor choice? Yes. Do I think "Don't listen to neo" was a poor choice? Yes. Just speaking from personal experience, I was pretty ticked off when Lord Kenneth told Bill Hoyt not to listen to me a couple of weeks ago in BH's own thread. I didn't like it either. And, g8r, honestly, I don't think you would have liked it if neo had told someone who started posting here, "Don't listen to Instig8r". And, yes, I also don't think that any of us would appreciate having our posts characterized as hateful and malicious.

Anyway, I like you both and I think you both do a very effective job in debate. I also know you are good friends for so many years, and most important of all, I agree 100% with RC--I would hate to see anything like "JE: yes or no" come between an actual friendship. You say it wouldn't happen, but in my experience, "I'm right; I'm right" followed by examples and more argument almost inevitably creates hard feelings on both sides. Really, I don't see how it can be avoided

Honestly, g8r, I'm with RC on this one. I'd love to see you two just say you were either misinterpreted or just reacted too strongly. apologize (or just call it a day), and get back to the issues and away from the personal back and forth. That debate probably can't be resolved here either, but, unlike the JE debates, it isn't even fun to watch.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I think she feels the same outrage at injustice that you do; its just that, in this case, she sees JE as the aggrieved party--as an honest man who is being unfairly portrayed as fraudulent.

Edward has no right to feel like the victim in this case. He's free to step up and volunteer for some serious scientific research that would prove conclusively his powers. Until he does so, we have every right to think he's hiding something.

If I'm running a Three-Card-Monty table and refuse to allow you to scrutinize the cards, the table, or my methods, you have every right to think I'm a crook and I have no right to feel slighted by that judgment.

[renata]

Wait a second, I am confused. I thought the whole issue stems from the Malibu Shrimp edits.

Clancie, Instig8r, did neofight change her story about the "Malibu Shrimp" reading, after she saw it on TV?

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

If I'm running a Three-Card-Monty table and refuse to allow you to scrutinize the cards, the table, or my methods, you have every right to think I'm a crook and I have no right to feel slighted by that judgment.
TLN,

Well, if you've let the one person who has ever asked to inspect your cards...the table...your methods...do so, look around all they wanted at everything, that should count for something.

Unfortunately, JE critics tend to overlook and discount that (because the "inspector" didn't do an adequate job) and instead claim, "he doesn't...he won't...he hasn't...etc. etc." Don't you think that would be frustrating, when you did let the only person who asked you come and inspect your game five times.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, if you've let the one person who has ever asked to inspect your cards...the table...your methods...do so, look around all they wanted at everything, that should count for something.

Wrong.

In science, we need replication. Once doesn't prove anything. Ever.

Where's the replication of Schwartz's experiment? Where can I view his data?

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

One researcher, TLN. Five experiments.

You're posting about this on two threads, now. I put the link on the other thread for you (and for all of the raw data you could contact Schwartz directly and see what he says). Anyway, here's the link as well:

http://www.openmindsciences.com/hbo-exp.htm

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Clancie

TLN,

Well, if you've let the one person who has ever asked to inspect your cards...the table...your methods...do so, look around all they wanted at everything, that should count for something.

Unfortunately, JE critics tend to overlook and discount that (because the "inspector" didn't do an adequate job) and instead claim, "he doesn't...he won't...he hasn't...etc. etc." Don't you think that would be frustrating, when you did let the only person who asked you come and inspect your game five times. [/B]

Poor analogy, unless you can show where JE let anyone investigate him. Last I recall, he did not let Dateline film when they came to see him. He does not allow tape recorders. He appears unwilling to be tested by skeptics. So nobody has inspected his game.

Lurker

[thaiboxerken]

No real evidence of the afterlife or mediumship yet? I thought not.

All of this character assassination and flaming doesn't change the fact that people don't have superpowers.

The JREF money is safe.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lurker


Poor analogy, unless you can show where JE let anyone investigate him. Last I recall, he did not let Dateline film when they came to see him. He does not allow tape recorders. He appears unwilling to be tested by skeptics. So nobody has inspected his game.

Lurker

Well.. this isn't really true. JE has let some believers inspect him. The believer named Schwartz, in particular, is the most well known. For some reason, JE refuses to be tested by anyone skeptical.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

For some reason, JE refuses to be tested by anyone skeptical.
Thaiboxerken,

You keep using the word "refuses". Please give a list (you've been asked for it before and come up with...nothing) of university research scientists (i.e. researchers JE has reason to feel are credible) whom he has "refused". Otherwise, please don't continue to make a false statement.

Posted by Lurker.

Poor analogy, unless you can show where JE let anyone investigate him. Last I recall, he did not let Dateline film when they came to see him. He does not allow tape recorders. He appears unwilling to be tested by skeptics. So nobody has inspected his game.
Schwartz, five times. He may indeed be a believer, but he was a stranger to JE at the time of the tests and portrayed himself as an open-minded objective scientist in proposing his testing.

JE also let Hockenberry (Dateline) attend and film one of his workshops (including the reading) and to talk freely with the participants.

Also, somehow, Shermer was backstage at CO because he writes about surreptitiously seeing the editing room. I don't know what the details are, or why he was there. But its been mentioned by him before.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
You keep using the word "refuses". Please give a list (you've been asked for it before and come up with...nothing) of university research scientists (i.e. researchers JE has reason to feel are credible) whom he has "refused". Otherwise, please don't continue to make a false statement.

Not a "false statement". You asked for researchers. Sure, now, you want them to be academic, as well as JE-approved. (Funny how you react to what I post, even though you "ignore" me. Why not stop the charade?)

Can you repeat what JE has said about being tested, Clancie?

Originally posted by Clancie
Schwartz, five times. He may indeed be a believer, but he was a stranger to JE at the time of the tests and portrayed himself as an open-minded objective scientist in proposing his testing.

An experiment is not independently replicated, if the same guy does it! And Schwartz did not perform the same experiement five times. He performed different experiments each time.

Originally posted by Clancie
JE also let Hockenberry (Dateline) attend and film one of his workshops (including the reading) and to talk freely with the participants.

And was promptly caught cheating.

Originally posted by Clancie
Also, somehow, Shermer was backstage at CO because he writes about surreptitiously seeing the editing room. I don't know what the details are, or why he was there. But its been mentioned by him before.
The ABC team was denied access backstage. Shermer only saw some raw tapes.

Please provide all the data, Clancie.

[thaiboxerken]

Thaiboxerken,

You keep using the word "refuses". Please give a list (you've been asked for it before and come up with...nothing) of university research scientists (i.e. researchers JE has reason to feel are credible) whom he has "refused". Otherwise, please don't continue to make a false statement.

Ok, how I'll change the statement to HAS NOT been tested by the scientific community. Oh, and he refuses to even acknowledge the JREF or CSICOP.


Schwartz, five times. He may indeed be a believer, but he was a stranger to JE at the time of the tests and portrayed himself as an open-minded objective scientist in proposing his testing.

Schwartz tests are not objective or scientific. He is a believer out there trying to usurp science into validating his beliefs. He can portray himself as objective, but he's not.


JE also let Hockenberry (Dateline) attend and film one of his workshops (including the reading) and to talk freely with the participants.

And.. what happened?


Also, somehow, Shermer was backstage at CO because he writes about surreptitiously seeing the editing room. I don't know what the details are, or why he was there. But its been mentioned by him before.

I think CFL has a better clue as to what happened.

[thaiboxerken]

So.. so far, JE has not been shown to have ANY mediumship ability that has been validated by the scientific community. JE has refused to try and beat the JREF challenge, and by refuse, I mean he ignores the challenges.

JE has been caught cheating.

JE has a disclaimer that states his show is for entertainment only.

JE's disclaimer says that any of his statements and readings should not be considered factual.

People still believe he has superpowers despite all of the above.

Strange.

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC
Wow...'g8r and Neo, you both can tell me to take a hike, but I have to say that it's totally depressing watching two of my friends, and two people that have been friends since high school, have this kind of public fight.

I do hope that you both can quickly come to some sort of resolution about this issue.

:(

Hey, RC! First of all, I would never tell you to take a hike. :eek: And I agree that this kind of a public fight is unfortunate between friends. However, it has indeed occurred, and has even picked up some seemingly bloodthirsty cheerleaders along the way, (and you know who you are!) so sadly, I can't assure you that it will be ending anytime soon.

In any case, it is not my own intention to let whatever may happen here to affect my real-life friendship with Instig8R. That is a separate thing that I value very much, and I'd not want to ever jeopardize it. I would hope she feels the same way, since this is more of an Instig8R VS neofight sort of thing. So I will borrow from the Las Vegas slogan, and pledge here and now, that as far as I'm concerned, what's done here, stays here! :D

I do see quite a bit of stubbornness setting in on both our parts, however, so we will have to do our best to clear the air by communicating honestly with one another and seeing where it takes us. But first, I'm getting something to eat. lol........neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R
Bumped for neo, who started this thread to call attention to what she described as “dishonest debating tactics” on the part of CFLarsen.

Unfortunately, neo has recently engaged in some dishonest and egregious debating tactics and ad homs of her own. In the thread called "Process of John Edward", she claimed that I have(1) A hatred for JE that is bordering on obsessive; and (2), That other posters have commented on my "malicious language".

She has failed to provide any evidence of her claims.

Okay, I'll begin with this post of yours, Instig8R, and follow it up with the comment that you made to Kerberos that got me ticked off in the first place. But before I do that, I would just like to say that this was not exactly the most honest way for you to begin this topic here on an entirely different thread, especially considering the name of it. You didn't even mention the fact that this whole thing started because you had said something to Kerberos that was entirely out of line.

Anyhow, I had just finished posting to Kerberos where he might find some additional transcripts of "CO" readings, and you jump in totally unprovoked and post this........

Originally posted by Instig8R

Hey, Kerberos-- Don't listen to neofight about the editing!

I've never been to the CO Gallery. However, I attended a JE seminar last year, and the readings were later broadcast on CO.

The readings were heavily edited, to make them seem better than they were. Many of the misses were edited out... and that includes missed names.

Okay. So perhaps instead of answering immediately, I should have slept on my response, but I didn't, and without a doubt, I was very offended that you would, out of the blue, post something like that to a new poster who didn't know either of us. I thought that was a most prejudicial and unfair thing for you to do.

Here's what I posted back to Kerberos.......

Hey, Kerberos! Do whatever you want to, okay? Instig8R has shown that she is by no means an objective observer with regard to John Edward. She has a hatred for him that is bordering on obsessive, and it kind of makes her rant a bit.

In any case, the transcripts over at tvtalk were mostly made right from the "CO" show. They are edited the way all "CO" readings are edited, which to Instig8R, means that black is now white, up is now down, left is now right, and yes is now no. In reality, she makes the editing process sound a hell of a lot worse than it is.

Steve has been to a "Crossing Over" taping, and has stated many times that the type of editing that Instig8R claims does not happen.

But we've argued that point here and at tvtalkshows ad nauseum already, so I'll just end with the fact that regardless of what Instig8R thinks is edited out of readings, you can see from the average transcript that there are plenty of names to add to your research. If you don't think they will improve the stats, then just disregard them. Sheeesh! .....neo

So now. Are you, Instig8R, claiming to be an objective observer when it comes to JE? Well, since you most definitely believe him to be a fake who is out there acting in an unethical and in fact, blatantly dishonest manner, taking, what you feel, is deplorable advantage of the people who go to him for readings.....no. No, I do not believe that you are being objective when talking about JE. Do you?

You then accused me of making up accusations of hatreds and biases about you. Well, I conceded to you that perhaps I may have used a bit of hyperbole when I said that you had a hatred for JE that bordered on obsessive.

originally posted by neo
And I did not make up accusations of hatred and biases about you. If you think *hate* is too strong a word to use, and perhaps you're right, it might be, then substitute *strong dislike* and/or *contempt*, and perhaps that would be more accurate.

I would not take back what I said about your having a bias, however, because I believe that is most assuredly true. I do think that I tried to keep the tone light though, but you weren't having it...........

originally posted by neofight
With regard to the bias that I think you demonstrate against JE, there we will have to agree to disagree I think, because imo, your bias is not exactly understated. Come on now! I admit to my bias, 'g8R! Please don't deny yours.

Then, after making a big deal about how I made up accusations of bias about you, you stated how in the scientific community there is an automatic presumption of bias anyhow, so then why on earth were you denying it in the first place? :rolleyes: To continue.......

originally posted by Instig8R
When renata questioned the validity of neo's claim about these mysterious other posters who complained about my "malicious language", neo responded as follows: “Before Instig8R posted here, like many of us, she posted at TVTalkShows. Many of the posts that I referred to were from there, so you would not necessarily have been aware of them.”

Okay, let's stop right there. That is a misstatement. Instig8R, you have just been dishonest yourself here. The quote you just attributed to me, that I wrote in response to your pal, renata, was not written to respond to what she said about the other posters complaining about malicious language, as you stated. It was written to respond to what she said about her not having noticed any particular hate or obsession from you. A subtle difference, to be sure, but one that matters, since you are accusing me of morphing public criticism into private criticism. I did not. There was both, public and private criticism of you from posters, and it is sufficient to cite the public posts written by myself, atmytv, and Steve Grenard. I do not need to share what private mail was sent to me, okay? Here is renata's quote with my original response, which proves that you tried to do a switcheroo.........

quote:Originally posted by renata

Instig8R, I was surprised by Neo's quite strong attack of your motives. I thought believers were upset when skeptics posted ad hominem attacks and assigned motives and would refrain from similar tactics.

I have not observed any particular "hate" or "obsession" from you- although I am not impartial!

originally posted by neofight
True, renata, you are not impartial, but then, who is? Before Instig8R posted here, like many of us, she posted at TVTalkShows. Many of the posts that I referred to were from there, so you would not necessarily have been aware of them.

So you see, I morphed nothing. I was not being dishonest. I was being forthright. You were being dishonest. She referred to my calling your posts "hateful", not to my saying that there were additional posters who had made public their distaste of your JE-bashing, and that's what I responded to when I said that she was not aware of the posts over at tvtalkshows. I was clearly referring to your posts about JE, and nothing else.

originally posted by Instig8R
I prefer to debate issues, not people. However, I cannot allow this kind of an ad hom to go unanswered. I feel that neo has engaged in some unethical debating tactics, and it seems appropriate to discuss the issue here… in a thread where neo has appealed for condemnation of dishonest debating tactics.

I prefer to debate issues as well, Instig8R. I think you totally demagoged this issue and did your best to escalate our differences, instead of trying to smooth them out. And of course, instead of other posters trying to help us work it out, like RC and Clancie did, you had your little fellow-instigators doing their best to make things worse. :(

So on that note, I'll await any response that you might care to make. I may also comment on your silly "literal" argument that you put forward on the "Process" thread, because if we're going to clear the air, we might as well do it thoroughly, and that was a specious argument if ever I heard one. ;)

I hope your electric is back on by morning. Good night everyone......neo

[neofight]

From the other thread.....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by neofight
LOL, 'g8R! Are you serious? Regardless of what you may have said afterwards, that does not alter the fact that you told
Kerberos quite directly NOT to listen to me about the editing!!!

As I said, it was not your disagreeing with me that I took exception to, it was your taking it upon yourself to instruct Kerberos to disregard my post, as though your opinion was worth considering, but mine was to be dismissed. That's all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

originally posted by Instig8R
Neo-- In the past, you have complained about other posters being too LITERAL in their interpretations. Don't you think you are being unnecessarily literal in your interpretation of my comment

Okay. You have made reference to posts in which I stated that I thought that Claus took things too literally at times, and that it may be the root of some of the disagreements between him and me.

Now, the reason I think that, is because there were times that Claus was extremely rigid in his interpretation of something I said. I'll give you one example. The subject of the "Pet Psychic" came up and I was asked what I thought of her. I replied something to the effect that I really don't watch the show, so I did not have much on which to form an opinion.

Claus then looked back among his many files and found something from a while back where I had stated that I had watched the show once, and he tried to make me out a liar. You know how excited he gets if he thinks that he actually caught a "Gorgon" in a lie, right?

Well, I in turn explained to him that yes, although he was correct, and I did tune in once when the show had just come out, I only did it to get an idea of the format and see what it was like, but that I didn't even watch the entire show, and still hadn't seen enough to have an opinion on Sonia and what she claimed to be doing. I mean, I only saw enough of the show to realize that it was of no interest to me, really, and till this day, I never tuned in again.

So, Claus was not wrong, in that I had indeed, once watched the show, even if I didn't watch it in its entirety. But that didn't change the fact that I really was not familiar enough with Sonia to further comment on the "Pet Psychic" show. That's why I said that he took me too literally.

As far as your own instruction to Kerberos not to listen to me about the editing, well, it seems your words left little room for misunderstanding, and I don't know how I could have taken it less literally and still have interpreted it correctly, Instig8R. What else could you have possibly meant by that? :confused: ....neo

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight
From the other thread.....
...snip....

As far as your own instruction to Kerberos not to listen to me about the editing, well, it seems your words left little room for misunderstanding, and I don't know how I could have taken it less literally and still have interpreted it correctly, Instig8R. What else could you have possibly meant by that? :confused: ....neo

You seem to be excusing your attack on Instig8R by saying "she started it"!. That can only matter if you subscribe to a "two wrongs make a right" code of ethics.

If what you said was wrong then there is no excuse for it, it is just wrong.

(And of course the same would be true if Instig8R has said something that was wrong.)

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat


You seem to be excusing your attack on Instig8R by saying "she started it"!. That can only matter if you subscribe to a "two wrongs make a right" code of ethics.

If what you said was wrong then there is no excuse for it, it is just wrong.

(And of course the same would be true if Instig8R has said something that was wrong.)

I'm really not excusing anything, Darat. I actually meant what I said about Instig8R being very biased against JE. I do not consider her to be objective in the least. That being said, it's also true that I probably would not have posted that here, had I not been upset with her for what she said.

I also feel that many of the things that Instig8R has said about JE were unjustified and extremely mean-spirited, and others have thought so as well. She objected to the word "hate", so I modified it and changed it to "strong dislike and disdain". :D And although it's true that she has the right to post anything she wants to post, it's also true that those of us who feel that it is over the top, have a right to express that opinion as well.

Anytime this has happened, however, Instig8R has tried to turn it around on me, and make like she is the victim and that I'm trying to censor her posts, when all I'm doing is stating what I think of them. I could turn around and make the same accusation of her, i.e. that she is trying to shut me up, and attempting to damage my credibility with the constant swipes that she makes at me suggesting that I'm a cult follower, which she has done several times already.

In any case, I come here to discuss, and not to fight. I'd rather use my time to finish the JE transcript that I am working on, as it's quite a lengthy one. Instig8R, however, has brought her complaints over here to my thread alleging that I am a dishonest debator, which is a load of crapola, and I resent her saying it......neo

[Instig8R]

O.K., my electricity is back so I'm back online.

First things first: I need to repeat, AGAIN, that this is not a dispute about bias, which we all have. Bias is not a problem on forum like this, unless one is so blinded by it that they cannot engage in a rational discussion. The issue is neo's repeated attempts to characterize me as someone affected by a bias that is way beyond the norm.

I posted the issue in this thread, because it concerns dishonest debating tactics... a topic neo cared enough about to start this thread about another poster.

Neo has failed to document her allegations, and the nature of her responses has been less than satisfactory. She needs to put-up or shut-up. There is ample documentation that can easily be located. There is no excuse for the partial, out-of-context and highly edited posts that she provided. I suspect that she abandoned her search, because it wasn't supporting her viewpoint.

Neo has launched a variety of personal attacks against me over the past year, and she has condoned and encouraged such behavior in others. She feels that my criticism of JE has been so malicious, that I deserve to be verbally abused.

The offline neo is the most honest person I have ever met in my life. However, it seems that the online neo is being dishonest -- mostly with herself -- in this situation. Thus far, she has written some elaborate rationalizations... but still no adequate documentation of her claims.

Neo claims that my history of posts about JE (here and at TVTalk) has been so hateful and malicious that other posters have even commented on it, publicly and privately... so malicious, that ad homs and personal attacks against me are justified. All she supplied was atmytv's rant... and even he admits that he was reacting to all the various criticisms of JE, and not just mine.

Neo has been asked to provide documentation of what she referred to as the gazillion offensive posts that I made, which she claims are out there. I'm still waiting for her to produce them. It appears that she ran a search over at TVTalk and came up empty, so she tried to manufacture evidence. Instead of providing the full quotes and links, she took things out of context. I mentioned this earlier, and I note that she still has not provided the full posts and their links.

Now that I am back online, I will resume the search and provide the entire posts, not just the tiny portion that neo felt supported her position.

[Instig8R]

O.K., I have located one of my entire malicious, hateful posts. The underlined part is the only part that neo bothered to include:

Post # 163 Instig8R 24.46.54.89 November 26th, 2002 09:47 PM

"Speaking of cult-like behavior, a documented sign of a cult is the intolerance for criticism of the cult leader. In the case of JE, personally, many fans become deeply offended by negative comments about him, and will vilify those who criticize JE. -- Neo, are ya reading this??? :-) -- This is the essence of cult behavior, and it seems to me that, on occasion, JE himself has encouraged this mindset. Yet, at other times, he claims not to be bothered by critics. But, there lies yet another inconsistency...

Often, when asked about critics and/or skeptics, JE's stock answer is that he doesn't worry about them, he just wants to do his work, helping people; that he doesn't have to build a belief system for someone who has none, bla-bla-bla. This boilerplate answer is so well known, that I'll not even bother to add the citations/references... unless someone challenges me on this point.

However, in an interview with Carson Daily on 3/13/02:

JOHN EDWARD: "...I think there's two things. There's the validation of the experience with the person that's having it. And one of the things when someone who's very cynical attacks this -- what they're basically doing is they're attacking the intelligence of the person that you're reading because you're saying, "you're stupid, and you don't realize that you're being duped, and you don't know your family." And number two, they're actually taking away from the integrity of the experience..."

Hence, JE claims not to be concerned about critics/skeptics. The truth is that he is concerned about criticism, but is too cowardly to admit it. Therefore, he shifts the onus onto his fans, putting the insult and the injury on them. He then relies upon his fans to silence the critics. This is yet another reason why I consider him to be a manipulative s.o.b. "

Nice editing, neo! Are you sure you don't work for CO? ;) I guess I really hit the jackpot with this excerpt, because it also addresses references to cult-like behavior, as mentioned by neo in her earlier post.

Yup, I sure am a malicious JE-hater, and this is one post that proves that I deserve those ad homs.:D

[Instig8R]

Whoa! I've hit paydirt over at the JE Inconsistencies thread at TVTalkshows.

Here's another of my malicious, hateful posts -- but remember that the only part that neo supplied was the underlined part :

Post # 71 Instig8R 24.46.54.89 October 29th, 2002 08:15 PM

“I think RC brought up a good point on the issue of JE's alternating claims about the source of psychic powers. Sometimes, JE says his psychic powers are possibly hereditary. Then, at other times he claims the powers are acquired skills. It just gets funnier and funnier.

(a) Not everybody can do what JE does...
On 4/2/00, in the NY Daily News, Susan Ferraro quotes JE as saying: "Mediums - people who touch base with the dead - are in a class of their own." JE then goes on to say that "though we may all be 'a little psychic', not everyone can communicate with the beyond..." (like the boy in "The Sixth Sense").

(b) Everybody can do what JE does...
On 11/7/20, in the Houston Chronicle, Daniel J. Vargas writing about JE, states: "He is the first to say he doesn't have a gift. He says it's an energy accessible to everyone. He just taps into it at a heightened level."

It seems to me that JE will say whatever suits his own selfish purposes at any given time."


I wonder why neo just showed us the last sentence, instead of the whole post. (After all, she was kind enough to post the entire ad hom rant by atmytv, even though it was never in dispute.) :confused:

I guess I'm just a toxic person, with all that hatred festering deep down inside of me... and I'm so lucky that people who believe in JE are able to back-up their claims to prove how malicious I get when I discuss him.

[Instig8R]

Yikes!!! Another one, and it really shows me at my most hateful-- Remember: Neo only provided the underlined portion:


"Neo, there is no proof that JE is an honest medium, or a dishonest fraud. We really don't know for sure, so we gather here to discuss the evidence.

As a believer, I understand that you are offended by what you perceive as undue criticism of JE, as someone you admire. As a disbeliever, I expect you to understand that I am offended by undue praise of JE, as someone I disdain.

Why should your feelings get more consideration than mine? If we can't discuss the possibility of JE being a fraud, than I insist that we not discuss the possibility that he is authentic.

So, what do you want to discuss? Is there anything left? :-)"


Yup, this really demonstrates that I am both hateful AND unreasonable... a deadly combination. :eek:

[CFLarsen]

Instig8R,

You make me look lazy! :)

[Instig8R]

Well, here's some more dishonesty to ponder: I asked neo to provide back-up for her claims of my hateful and malicious posts. After the few edited snippets that she provided (as detailed above), she stated the following reason for not providing more:


Original quote by neo
“Well, if they were all in one thread where I could simply post the link, it would be easy, but they're not, Instig8R. Your derogatory comments are disbursed throughout a gazillion threads.”

However, it seems that all the evidence (ahem) that she provided was taken from the JE Inconsistencies thread. So, or all you mathmeticians out there: How many threads in a gazillion? ONE!

Here is the link that neo didn't want us to see... probably because she just didn't want to call anyone's attention to JE's inconsistencies! ROFLMAO! (What a dilemma for her!)

JE Inconsistencies (http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=25250&perpage=50&highlight=Inconsistencies&pagenumber=1)

I'll not bother ferreting out any further posts. If anyone is interested in the full context, help yourself!:cool:

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Instig8R,

You make me look lazy! :)

Well, CFLarsen-- I'm probably making myself look obsessive-- but at least I am being obsessive about honesty. :)

Somehow, it is preferable to being portrayed as obsessively hateful by third-parties.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Well, CFLarsen-- I'm probably making myself look obsessive-- but at least I am being obsessive about honesty. :)

Somehow, it is preferable to being portrayed as obsessively hateful by third-parties.

Well, I think we can safely say that you have proven your point.

As for neofight? Well.... :rolleyes:

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Darat


You seem to be excusing your attack on Instig8R by saying "she started it"!. That can only matter if you subscribe to a "two wrongs make a right" code of ethics.

If what you said was wrong then there is no excuse for it, it is just wrong.

(And of course the same would be true if Instig8R has said something that was wrong.)

Hi, Darat-- It is true that "two wrongs don't make a right", but we are operating on the "three lefts make a right" code of ethics.:D

Actually, it is very clear to me (and I suspect to others) that this little dispute is not simply about my choice of words in an offhand remark, (i.e., "Don't listen to neo, etc."). Neo was trapped in a corner on the position she took in the Malibu Shrimp reading, having been impeached her own prior account of a live seminar reading (before she saw an edited version of it on TV). I feel that her claimed outrage is just a diversion to get off the main topic.

The funny thing is that, over at TVTalk, neo accused me of all manner of dishonesty -- including deliberate dishonesty -- in connection with my account of the reading. When another poster, Ersby, was counting hits and misses, for his own analysis, he stated that he wouldn't count Malibu Shrimp reading, due to the editing problem. Neo claimed that her version of the reading should cancel out my mine, so that it would be counted. Ersby declined, but only because he wanted to avoid using a reading that was so controversial.

In the most recent instance, another poster here on JREF was doing another tally of the hits/misses. As soon as I saw neo posting that he should check out those transcripts, I was merely trying to refute what neo claimed about the editing.

If neo thinks that my "don't listen to neo" comment is so powerful that people will obey me, well... What can I say? I didn't know my words commanded such attention.

Conversely, if neo recognizes the power of words, I wonder what leads her to believe that a year-long campaign of unprovoked and unjustified ad homs and personal attacks against me are harmless.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R

First things first: I need to repeat, AGAIN, that this is not a dispute about bias, which we all have. Bias is not a problem on forum like this, unless one is so blinded by it that they cannot engage in a rational discussion. The issue is neo's repeated attempts to characterize me as someone affected by a bias that is way beyond the norm.

Instig8R, if this is not a dispute about bias, then you should not have gotten all bent out of shape when I suggested that you did, indeed, have an anti-JE bias and were not all that objective when discussing him. You accused me of making it up, which was nuts.

And your bias may not be way beyond the norm, but only if you are interpreting the *norm* as what can be found here at JREF, where most skeptics are extremely unwilling to actually even consider that JE might be a true medium. You are quite the *norm* over here, I'll grant you that.

I posted the issue in this thread, because it concerns dishonest debating tactics... a topic neo cared enough about to start this thread about another poster.

Neo has failed to document her allegations, and the nature of her responses has been less than satisfactory. She needs to put-up or shut-up. There is ample documentation that can easily be located. There is no excuse for the partial, out-of-context and highly edited posts that she provided. I suspect that she abandoned her search, because it wasn't supporting her viewpoint.

Neo has launched a variety of personal attacks against me over the past year, and she has condoned and encouraged such behavior in others. She feels that my criticism of JE has been so malicious, that I deserve to be verbally abused.

Who's fooling who here, Instig8R. You brought this disagreement over here, because you want to imply that I am a hypocrite, and you are having a ball attempting to lump me together with the likes of Claus, who has shown that he can't debate honestly or fairly either with believers OR skeptics. Your intentions seem pretty clear to me.

If I've failed to come up with all of the quotes that I would have liked to, Instig8R, it's because I really do have a difficult time with searches, and everybody knows that by now. I've gotten better if I know expressly which keywords to look for, but without knowing that, it's a lot more difficult, and I flatly refuse to spend the better part of my days and nights re-reading old threads to find these comments. It's not easy.

You say that they're easily located? Then perhaps you would not mind directed me to all of these "personal attacks" you claim that I've supposedly launched against you over the past year, because it makes sense that the things that you've said that offended me, should be contained in the posts right dab smack ahead of what I've said about you. Make sense?

Concerning your accusation that I took those quotes of yours that I did find, out of context, that is neither here nor there, since with or without the rest of the post, your words still mean the same thing. They stand on their own.

As you requested, I was looking for particular quotes to demonstrate your rhetoric, so that's what I posted. I would have been just as happy not to pull them from context if I knew you would make that, too, an issue. I don't think it is, and I see nothing in the portion of your posts that I didn't quote, that changes the meaning of anything you said about JE.

The offline neo is the most honest person I have ever met in my life. However, it seems that the online neo is being dishonest -- mostly with herself -- in this situation. Thus far, she has written some elaborate rationalizations... but still no adequate documentation of her claims.

Oh, please. Honesty in either there all the time or it's not, Instig8R. I am an honest person, and I don't hang that up when I come here to post. I already conceded that my use of the phrase "hatred of JE bordering on the obsessive" was perhaps hyperbolic, and that I should not have responded to your post until I had let a little time go by, so for you to continue harping upon something to which I have already admitted, is simply being stubborn and bullyish, imo.

Neo claims that my history of posts about JE (here and at TVTalk) has been so hateful and malicious that other posters have even commented on it, publicly and privately... so malicious, that ad homs and personal attacks against me are justified. All she supplied was atmytv's rant... and even he admits that he was reacting to all the various criticisms of JE, and not just mine.

originally posted by atmytv: While you treat fellow posters with respect, perhaps you do not see how what you are saying about John can be interpreted as nasty and personal for those of us who just have a different viewpoint than yours.

Perhaps you missed that part, Instig8R. Although he apologized if you felt he somehow denigrated you, he did not by any means retract the comments he had previously made, as is quite clear from the above quote. He simply acknowledged that somewhere along the line you had become a bit more harshly anti-JE than you intially had been, and he now accepted that as the new reality. I think that's how he put it, the new reality. That is totally different from the spin that you are putting on his apology, imo.

Like atmytv, I certainly am not looking to have an acrimonious relationship with you, but honestly, to me, it looks as though you are happier than a pig in.... mud.... over this whole matter. In fact, I'll go a step further, and say that to me, you appear positively gleeful over it. :con2: But hey. Whatever floats your boat.........neo

[Instig8R]

Neo, I am not going to be drawn into a Kabuki Dance with you, as you try to evade the issues. You claimed that I have an obsessive hatred for JE, that I am extremely biased against him, and have used malicious language against him.

If you can’t back-up your claims, then do the honorable thing and retract your unfounded statements.

I don’t buy your excuse that you are not a good thread searcher. If your memory is sharp enough to recall the claimed hatred and malicious language against JE, then you can easily locate the quotes. Just enter that malicious language into the search engine over at TVTalk. Obviously, you tried and failed-- because these statements only exist in your imagination and I am not guilty of the accusations you made against me.

The honorable thing for you to do is admit that your memory was faulty, and retract your baseless claims. Instead, I note that you have also added an unprovoked dig against skeptics in general. I can’t imagine why you would want to insult a larger number of people, by alleging that over-the-top, hateful bias is the norm here at JREF. Care to offer some back-up for that claim, too? Or did you just intend to express disrespect and hostility towards people who disagree with you?

As for your Appeal to Anonymous Authority, (i.e., your private e-mails), you should know better than to try to justify such nonsense. It should be self-evident why mentioning such messages proves nothing. As a matter of fact, producing those messages proves nothing, either. What you need to produce are the posts that you claim I wrote, evidencing hateful obsession with JE and malicious language against him. Testimonials on your behalf will not suffice… Get it???

It is very simple, really: Produce documentation of your claims, or retract the claims.

Reminder: This is JREF, not Pam's Board -- and not your private e-mails either, where you and your nasty friends can trash whomever you choose without having to account for yourselves. ...Better remind them to C.A.V.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Instig8R
If you can’t back-up your claims, then do the honorable thing and retract your unfounded statements.

The whole point of my recent thread. These "drive by assertions" are really getting tiresome. Neo, produce evidence of claims or don't make them.

[CFLarsen]

Instig8R,

Fascinating to observe how believers wiggle. It's sad, too. But absolutely fascinating.

Your words command attention only because they hold up to scrutiny. Nobody will follow you because of your words - because they shouldn't, but they will listen.

People will also listen to neofight's words, but they won't attach any importance to them. She has zero credibility here. She is not just a believer, but also a thoroughly pathetic figure.

neofight will never provide evidence of her claims, because she hasn't got any. And she knows this. She's not dumb at all. She's just a sad, sad figure. Why she continues to take beating after beating is beyond me.

Sad. :(