An Appeal to Honest Skeptics

[neofight]

I've noticed, along with RC, Clancie, Steve and others, that many skeptics greatly admire Claus' *excellent* debating skills. Indeed, they would appear to be almost legendary, if one were to believe the stories. I remember when I began posting here, the first time TVTalk went down, everybody was saying things like, "Oooh! If you think we're tough, just wait till you meet Claus!

Well then, lo and behold, Claus, under the name Cantata, began posting over at TVTalk, and we got to know him pretty well indeed, and found that his debating skills were really not very good at all. He seemed to always draw incorrect conclusions, and misrepresent the other person's side of the argument, among other things. Over time, we realized that he was all bluster, and no substance.

I'm really tired of hearing that we don't respond to Claus because we are afraid of him or other such nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the mere idea that he scares us is quite risible. Simply put, we don't like to debate Claus, because it's too frustrating and time-consuming to keep correcting his misstatements and/or flawed reasoning. I know he's a bright man, so sometimes it's difficult to believe that his mistakes are unintentional, but I'll leave that for you to decide.

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. If you agree that there is something to what I say, and want to so state.....then fine. If you disagree and want to so state......that's also fine. If you agree, but find you feel intimidated, or don't want to so state, for whatever reason, that's fine too, if that's the way you want it. Believe me, we're quite used to that anyhow. Even when a skeptic PMs one of us to agree about Claus, we are asked to keep it in confidence, which trust me, is quite frustrating for us. :mad:

Now I realize that many of you skeptics have not spent much time reading threads over at TVTalk, so this might be news to you. 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. I'd be interested in getting some feedback from some of you....neo

P.S. Just to set the stage, the URL that follows is from a TVTalk thread. Lurker devised a test to see if we believers could actually tell the difference between an admitted cold-reader and a real medium.

http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25121

[UnrepentantSinner]

Please don't go all Dark Cobra on us neo..

If you're not getting enough validation, or enough of the "cool kids" to point out how cool you are on other threads...

starting a new one is highly unlikely to help...

[KelvinG]

Is it me or do certain folks seem obsessed with Claus?

I wish I was that infamous.

[neofight]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Please don't go all Dark Cobra on us neo..

If you're not getting enough validation, or enough of the "cool kids" to point out how cool you are on other threads...

starting a new one is highly unlikely to help...

lol US! What I'm trying to do is to make what I think is a most valid point, and one which is long overdue making around here.

I don't get the "Dark Cobra" reference, but I just read part of page 2, and I swear, it's worth reading for the mere entertainment value, if nothing else. It's a great thread, and well-worth the read, and more importantly, it showcases Claus' inability or unwillingness to understand at times, which, in turn, explains the problems we have with him.

I can't take this inability of some here to admit that the emperor has no clothes, when he is obviously as naked as a jaybird. :D .....neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
Simply put, we don't like to debate Claus, because it's too frustrating and time-consuming to keep correcting his misstatements and/or flawed reasoning.

Can we see some examples?

[neofight]

Wow, US, your avatar just changed right before my very eyes! Cool! :cool: lol ....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN


Can we see some examples?

Sure you can, Captain! Read the damned thread! :rolleyes: :D .....neo

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by neofight
I can't take this inability of some here to admit that the emperor has no clothes, when he is obviously as naked as a jaybird. :D .....neo Well, speaking for myself, I see him as neither an Emporer, nor naked.

In other words, he isn't the epitome of logic and reason, nor is he the buffoon you seem to paint him out to be.

My main problem with his tactics (on message boards) is that they tend to derail threads. And, get him and one of his favorite "opponents" (SGrenard comes to mind) in a thread, and you may as well have read the first two of their posts over and over and over and over and over....

I think if anyone said "If you think this is tough, wait until you meet Claus", they were talking about his persistence. Because he is nothing if not persistent.

[RichardR]

That's a lot to read. I skimmed page one.

Can you please highlight the bits where you believe Cantana was being inaccurate, or misrepresenting others’ statements, or being otherwise bad at debating?

[Fade]

Originally posted by neofight


Sure you can, Captain! Read the damned thread! :rolleyes: :D .....neo

Why don't you go line by line and tell us your problems with it. One of the biggest issues with reading an isolated thread is that it makes references to other issues that we aren't intimately familiar with.

I have never met a person that has had a reasonable problem with Claus. Those who dislike him are without exception that I can find, unreasonable. It's much like the way Luciana Nery has been the target of several attacks in the past. Luciana is one of the most genuinely kind people I have ever encountered, and some people absolutely detest that sort of good naturedness. In the exact same vein, those who are ignorant, illogical, or stupidly credulous polarize opposite of Claus. I admit to neither liking nor disliking him personally (I know nothing of him personally, nor have I engaged him in anything but the most sterile of ways), but he has always, without a single exception that I can find, debated reasonably, intelligently, and without abundant fallacies.

Screeching that he has done such and such on tvtalkshows means very little on this board. Debate him here, and if his skills are meager (I have seen little to nothing as far as debate skills come from the tvtalkshows crowd) then we'll know. If you're puffing, we'll know.

All you've given us so far is bodies of work that don't seem to say what you say they say.

Lucianarchy would be proud of you.

[neofight]

Originally posted by RSLancastr
Well, speaking for myself, I see him as neither an Emporer, nor naked.

In other words, he isn't the epitome of logic and reason, nor is he the buffoon you seem to paint him out to be.

Well how the hell am I supposed to argue with a sensible comment such as that, RSL? ;) I do not mean to suggest that the man has no strengths, but only that debating is not one of them.

Tenacious he is, I'll grant you that! But if that were the case, I would not have a problem with him. I can admire persistence, but I have a problem with obtuseness, both real and/or feigned.

I do hope that you'll at least give a look at what I think you'll find is a very interesting thread. :)....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by RichardR
That's a lot to read. I skimmed page one.

Can you please highlight the bits where you believe Cantana was being inaccurate, or misrepresenting others’ statements, or being otherwise bad at debating?

Not really, RichardR, since it's ongoing, beginning towards the bottom of page 1, and it would lose all meaning taking Cantata's remarks out of context. His misguided remarks began with the following post, so if you read the first part of the thread, you should be able to see where his deductive reasoning goes awry, especially in his remarks to Steve and myself.

Still, in a way, your experiment has worked, albeit in ways you probably wouldn't have foreseen. We saw some interesting arguments here, and I would like to dig in a little deeper.

Steve: Do you still consider this an "extremely hot-reading", based on your assumption that this reading was too good? You said: "we analyze the reading and find that no cold reader cold reading could get this kind of hot information, hence its hot, not cold". Do you still stand by that statement? And this: "Well obviously this fake is so good he should have nothing to be ashamed of by revealing his name"? You also included your experience with reading transcripts - ergo, this must tell you that JE is a fake?

Gryphon2: Why did you demand all this background information here, when you accept other people's accounts of their psychic experiences, as well as you wanted us to accept yours, with no information given either? Doesn't that imply a double-standard? Why do you question that the sitter was anonymous to the sitter, while you don't do that in JE-readings?

Clio: Why do you accept Gryphon2's reading and not Lurker's? Why did you immediately jump to the conclusion that a conspiracy was possible? Couldn't Gryphon2 have conspired as well?

neo: Since you saw "one or two little expressions" that you have never heard JE use, would you say that your memory of JE is not always perfect, and that you agree that you cannot rely on your memory in the future? Why do you also ask for background information, when you don't do the same for Gryphon2's reading? You mention that nobody can vouch for the honesty of the sitter - do you also acknowledge that nobody can vouch for the honesty of JE-sitters? Do you still think it is a matter of trust?

[Clancie]

Lol, neo! This thread came as quite a surprise! (A gutsy one, I must say, though I'll be surprised if it gets the desired results). I'll have to look over this thread again. Personally, I have so many "favorite" TVT threads with Claus ("Gryphon's Lies" comes to mind, lol), that it would be hard to settle on just one. But I've just put him on "Ignore", you know? I know he'll be disappointed, but I'm really not going to engage him in discussion any more, even on a topic like this, one that is so near and dear to my heart (his debate tactics).

Claus will be here bright and early tomorrow morning (our time) and I'm certain he'll just see this as another example of posts that he likes because they are "all about him". I'll keep a good thought, but I think probably most people won't read through the thread...and that people who agree with what you said won't post it...and that those who disagree (or want to curry favor with Claus for some reason or another) will rip into it. I hope I'm wrong! We veterans know what it's about, but it was a year-long education and I just doubt it's really possible to explain/show it to people here by reading through a single thread. (Remember even at TVT, you pretty much had to be "in the thick of it" with him, over a good amount of time, to really understand what was happening and what he was trying to do). But...great try! Very idealistic of you! I'll keep a good thought! :)

[neofight]

Originally posted by Fade


Why don't you go line by line and tell us your problems with it. One of the biggest issues with reading an isolated thread is that it makes references to other issues that we aren't intimately familiar with.

Not in this case, Fade. The thread is self-explanatory and self-contained. Besided, it's a multi-page thread. I can't go through it line by line. Anyhow, I'm just about through here for the night as it's already after 1:00 am.

I have never met a person that has had a reasonable problem with Claus. Those who dislike him are without exception that I can find, unreasonable........but he has always, without a single exception that I can find, debated reasonably, intelligently, and without abundant fallacies.

I simply don't have words to respond to those statements! :D


Screeching that he has done such and such on tvtalkshows means very little on this board. Debate him here, and if his skills are meager (I have seen little to nothing as far as debate skills come from the tvtalkshows crowd) then we'll know. If you're puffing, we'll know.

LOL But you see, Fade, the whole purpose of my starting this thread, was to demonstrate why it is that I, and others, have no interest in continuing to debate Claus, either here, or anywhere. Without reading that thread, or any number of old TVTalk threads, you will not get to see Cantata/Claus the way we got to see him, in all his convoluted glory! This was my whole point! :rolleyes: .....neo

[renata]

I read the thread.

You have made the following serious assertions in your post:
Claus' debating skills "were really not very good at all"
Claus "seemed to always draw incorrect conclusions"
Claus seemed to "misrepresent the other person's side of the argument"
Claus is "all bluster, and no substance"
He makes " misstatements and/or flawed reasoning"
Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired
Claus has "poor logic and unfair debating practices"


I reviewed the thread. Please point me to individual words that justify each of the abovementioned accusations. You made the accusations, you have to provide detailed evidence, not send us on a wild goose chase. Obviously you hold all those opinions of him, and think he exhibits these traits in the thread. Please support them, one by one and explain why each accusation is appropriate.

I would like to say that in my experience, when Claus makes the accusations, he either backs them up or retracts them. Recently, he put a Voula question on questions for Neo. When challenged, he backed up his assertion with a quote from Neo from TVtalkshows.


I look forward to reading your analysis.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie
But...great try! Very idealistic of you! I'll keep a good thought! :)

lol Thanks, Clancie. As Claus (sounding a bit like Uriah Heep) would say when told by one of his admirers to keep up the good work in fighting the good fight, etc........I try! And now it's off to bed with me! :) ......neo

[Fade]

Neo:

See Renatas post.

I read through the thread and haven't seen any of the characteristics that you happen to mention. Perhaps being correct is tantamount to be a bad debater in your eyes?

[renata]

Originally posted by neofight


Not in this case, Fade. The thread is self-explanatory and self-contained. Besided, it's a multi-page thread. I can't go through it line by line. Anyhow, I'm just about through here for the night as it's already after 1:00 am.


Missed this post.

I hope to see your analysis tomorrow. If you made the accusations, you can not expect all the readers of this board to go through the thread line by line, looking for backup of your accusations against Claus.

You made accusations, you back them up. I am confident Claus can wait until tomorrow.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Clancie
but I think probably most people won't read through the thread...

I was reading right along... until I was neck deep in "non-evidence" that folks were using to support their belief in mediums.

Forgive me but I just couldn't continue.

I'm surprised and impressed when David Blaine appears to spit part of a chewed coin back onto the whole. But being impressed isn't enough for me to believe Blaine is using supernatural powers. Awe and surprise seem to be such valid proof for some that JE is a real medium.

arg...

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
Simply put, we don't like to debate Claus, because it's too frustrating and time-consuming to keep correcting his misstatements and/or flawed reasoning.

Originally posted by neofight
Not in this case, Fade. The thread is self-explanatory and self-contained. Besided, it's a multi-page thread. I can't go through it line by line. Anyhow, I'm just about through here for the night as it's already after 1:00 am.

You don't have to go through it line by line or point by point. Just pick one point that you think demonstrates Claus' "misstatements" or "flawed reasoning" and let's discuss it. Please use Claus quotes and not anecdotes.

Oh, and whenever you get around to it, it's late here too...

[Yahzi]

neofight
Simply put, we don't like to debate Claus, because it's too frustrating and time-consuming to keep correcting his misstatements and/or flawed reasoning.
Let me get this straight:

Claus argues that John Edward is not actually talking to the dead.

You argue that John Edward is talking to dead people.

And you want us to be worried about his flawed reasoning?

:eek:

[CFLarsen]

I don't want to ruin a thread that definitely is a candidate for "Best Thread Ever".

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. I'd be interested in getting some feedback from some of you....neo

P.S. Just to set the stage, the URL that follows is from a TVTalk thread. Lurker devised a test to see if we believers could actually tell the difference between an admitted cold-reader and a real medium.

http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25121

But I do encourage readers here to go to the thread that neo posted here and read for yourselves.

Please.

[Soapy Sam]

For the uninitiated among us, (me), can someone please fill in a little background information-
Who is Claus?
What TV Talk Shows ? Are these actual television broadcasts or another web site?

Thanks.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
For the uninitiated among us, (me), can someone please fill in a little background information-
Who is Claus?
What TV Talk Shows ? Are these actual television broadcasts or another web site?

Thanks.

TVTalkShows is a board dedicated to "TV Talkshows" (Oprah and the like), there is a section that is dedicated to John Edward's show Crossing Over which can be found at http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=15 . A handful of fans and detractors post over there and have long discussions about style ( ;) ) of posts oh and an occasionally a few threads start about whether JE (and other mediums) are fake or real.

There are few regulars here who are also regulars over there, Claus (Cantana), Clancie (Gryphon), Neofight (Neo).

Claus is a poster here and there, he also set up his own (in my opinion very good) website that deals with the paranormal etc. from a questioning standpoint.

[Loki]

neofight,

First, let me say that I feel a little uncomfortable doing some sort of "analysis" of Claus, in any capacity. I'm not sure on what grounds I am entitled to much of an opinion, but since you asked a question...

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.
Well, I just finished reading the first two pages of the linked TVTalkShows thread, and two points regarding Claus/Cantata seemed clear enough to me :

1. His argument with Grenard regarding Genards (paraphrased by me) statement "If it's a mentalists reading, it must be fake. If it's a JE reading it must be genuine". Claus' point was that the reading is the same, but Grenard's opinion changed 180 degrees when told the identity of the reader. Sorry, Claus, but your wrong, and it's a major error. Grenard's right - it's clear from his comments that his position was always (right from the start) that the reading was *not* cold-reading. It follows perfectly naturally that the reading must therefore either be a fake cold-reading (so it's a hot reading, or pure fiction) or genuine. He never says "there's no way it is a valid reading". He does say, repeatedly, "there's no way it is a valid cold-reading". Claus constantly misses the point of Grenard's replies, and eventually quits the the issue, while still claiming to be correct.

2. Arguing with Gryphon2 over "moving the goalposts". This is just linguistics. The point may be technically correct (that Gryphon2 asks for a different level of 'validation' for the Lurker transcript thatn for other previous transcipts), but the differences are minor, and easily resolved. Claus and Gryphon expend a lot of energy arguing over relatively meaningless trivia.

Anyway, that's how this appears to me. And just in case anyone might be confused by my position:

1. I think JE is a fraud, pure and simple;
2. I think that Claus has proven time and again that he will pursue topics 'to the death', and he will often force people to confront the flaws in their own logic. I love watching him dismember Lucianarchy;
3. I think the linked thread shows that Claus can get it wrong;
4. I think Claus has a "take no prisoners" approach that is often his best weapon, but also makes it difficult for him to retreat if/when he finds himself on the back foot.
5. I think JE is a poor topic to debate, because there's so little real evidence to hang him with - it seems to degenerate into cheap point scoring and lots of subjective opinions.

There, my opinion of Neo's opinion of Claus' opinions. Can I go now?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
There are few regulars here who are also regulars over there, Claus (Cantana),

Cantata.

Originally posted by Darat
Claus is a poster here and there, he also set up his own (in my opinion very good) website that deals with the paranormal etc. from a questioning standpoint.

(cough) (points down) ;)

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Cantata.



(cough) (points down) ;)

Opps sorry and I think "neofight" is also "neofight" over there - I should check my facts.

[CFLarsen]

Loki,

Two points:

First, Steve does more than what you said. He specifically said:

Actually Lurker this is not a cold reading. This is an extremely hot reading. If this is not a creative work and it is real, the hits obtained by this reader could only be obtained through direct prior knowledge of the details of the sitter.

Then, Lurker reveals the truth:

This IS a JE transcript with certain items altered so as to be unrecognizable but still maintain the original meaning.

Steve then maintains that this is a hot reading, whilst still believing that JE is real. Go figure.

Second, you may think that it is of minor importance that Gryphon2/Clancie moves the goalposts, but I don't. :)

[Loki]

Claus,

Steve then maintains that this is a hot reading, whilst still believing that JE is real. Go figure.
Hmmmm ... I'm really not all that comfortable with going over old ground between you and Grenard, so I'll make one lastpoint and then leave this alone if that's okay with you.

(Grenard wrote) : If this is not a creative work and it is real...
It seems to me that this is the 'nub' of the problem. Here, Grenard says "if..it is real..." - from context, it appears perfectly clear to me that when he uses the word 'real' he is saying "if...it is a genuine transcript of a reading done by a non-medium...". In other words, *if* it's done by a non-medium, it cannot be cold reading, and must be hot reading - because the hits are too good to be explained by cold-reading. He is insisting that the reading *must* be hot reading in the context of it being a reading done by a non-medium. When Lurker then changes the context from "done by non-medium" to "done by JE", Grenard is perfectly consistent to then say "okay, then it's not hot-reading, it's genuine". In *both* contexts, Grenard is saying "the reading is too good to be cold-reading". He doesn't contradict himself. Of course, none of this sheds any light on either JE's credibility, or Grenard's consistency - which is what Lurker was testing.

I still fell you're missing his point, but if you don't see it that way then I'm not sure there's anything more I can say to explain what I see here.

Second, you may think that it is of minor importance that Gryphon2/Clancie moves the goalposts, but I don't
I agree that nailing down the goalposts is important, and something you're damn good at. But in that one thread it just seemed to me like you and Clancie/Gryphon were really discussing which was the preferred arrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic. Again, feel free to disagree!

[Clancie]

From Darat

There are few regulars here who are also regulars over there, Claus (Cantana), Clancie (Gryphon), Neofight (Neo).

Also...RC, Instig8r, mark tidwell, ersby, Crow (Jeff Corey), dharlow, Mike D, Lurker, Mel, Mandy, Cynical, and (when she can post here) Rain.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Loki
Hmmmm ... I'm really not all that comfortable with going over old ground between you and Grenard, so I'll make one lastpoint and then leave this alone if that's okay with you.

Sure. :)

Originally posted by Loki
It seems to me that this is the 'nub' of the problem. Here, Grenard says "if..it is real..." - from context, it appears perfectly clear to me that when he uses the word 'real' he is saying "if...it is a genuine transcript of a reading done by a non-medium...". In other words, *if* it's done by a non-medium, it cannot be cold reading, and must be hot reading - because the hits are too good to be explained by cold-reading. He is insisting that the reading *must* be hot reading in the context of it being a reading done by a non-medium. When Lurker then changes the context from "done by non-medium" to "done by JE", Grenard is perfectly consistent to then say "okay, then it's not hot-reading, it's genuine". In *both* contexts, Grenard is saying "the reading is too good to be cold-reading". He doesn't contradict himself. Of course, none of this sheds any light on either JE's credibility, or Grenard's consistency - which is what Lurker was testing.

I see your point. However, the problem I have with this explanation is that we exclude the possibility that JE was actually hot-reading. We don't know that for sure, I know. But Steve jumps to the conclusion that this has to be a real ADC, solely based on the knowledge that it was JE.

Steve changes his explanation, when he learns the identity of the medium. That's my main point of the thread.

Originally posted by Loki
I still fell you're missing his point, but if you don't see it that way then I'm not sure there's anything more I can say to explain what I see here.

Okies.

Originally posted by Loki
I agree that nailing down the goalposts is important, and something you're damn good at. But in that one thread it just seemed to me like you and Clancie/Gryphon were really discussing which was the preferred arrangement of deckchairs on the Titanic. Again, feel free to disagree!

I do disagree. :) Clancie/Gryphon2 was demanding much more from skeptics than from believers, and was constantly moving very important goalposts.

[Clancie]

CFLarsen (Cantata), quoted by Loki

Steve then maintains that this is a hot reading, whilst still believing that JE is real. Go figure.
Just to further clarify a couple of things, for those who didn't read neo's whole thread:

1. "JE believers" frequently say "Show us a cold reader who can do what JE does". In response to that, Lurker presented this transcript of, in his words, "a cold reader/mentalist doing what JE does" and asked us to explain some differences between that and a "real" medium.

2. However, "believers" felt that the information coming through was too good for a cold reader to be able to do. We floated different ideas why.

* neo thought it was a real medium, JE. (It was)

* I questioned that it was truly a cold reader (It wasn't).

* Steve said if it was really a mentalist, as Lurker said, then that "mentalist" had to be using information he had researched (hot read) in order to be that good.

Therefore, Steve accepted Lurker's premise as given, that it was a mentalist, but said, if so, then the reading had to be the result of prior research. A good point, as it turned out, since the reading wasn't what Lurker claimed it was.

Like the rest of us, Steve recognized a good reading, consistent with mediumship (or, if not mediumship, then with prior research--in other words, not cold reading).

And, in fact, we were all right. It wasn't a mentalist. It was a medium (JE).

The important thing was that all of the "believers" recognized it as good information that was better than what we would expect cold reading to produce--therefore, if mediumship is real, this reading had to be either (1) "not a mentalist" (neo and me) or (2) "not cold reading, but instead hot reading" (Steve).

So...Lurker's test showed, at least, that there was something that we as "believers" could all detect as "mediumship" as opposed to cold reading. That was the point of the thread--a point, I feel, that Claus (aka CFLarsen / Cantata) lost in the subsequent arguments--intentionally or not, I cannot say).

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Loki,

Two points:

First, Steve does more than what you said. He specifically said:



Then, Lurker reveals the truth:



Steve then maintains that this is a hot reading, whilst still believing that JE is real. Go figure.

Second, you may think that it is of minor importance that Gryphon2/Clancie moves the goalposts, but I don't. :)

IMO, you are way off base here. I read the thread, and you are putting words into Steve's mouth. The premise was given that the "medium" was an admitted cold reader. Steve disagreed, and said that if the guy was an admitted fake, it must have been a hot reading. When it is revealed that the medium IS NOT an admitted cold reader, of course the analysis of the transcript changes. Steve did not analyze the transcript to determine whether it was real or fake, he examined it on the assumption that it was fake. When that assumption is removed, the options change. Now, an analysis of the transcript itself would lead one to believe that it was either a hot reading or genuine mediumship or extremely lucky guesses. I don't think that it was guesses (at least not all of them) so it must be one of the others. Unless you see another alternative?

Also, a minor point - but you seem to wallow in them to call people liars. Here is a post from neofight:<neofight> 205.188.209.176 October 21st, 2002 02:27 PM

Lurker, is this just some transcript of a John Edward reading you've found? I could swear that it sounds vaguely familar. Are you referring to JE as a "mentalist" because that's what skeptics believe him to be? Come on! Let's 'fess up if that's the case. There is something not right here, and this does sound very much like a JE reading.

here is a post from you later:<Cantata> 24.90.213.22 October 22nd, 2002 04:32 AM

Gryphon2: "You were wrong."

Actually, Lurker was right. Steve saw the reading as hot-reading. Nobody guessed it was JE.

So, in the Claus style, I say: Liar! Neo did guess it was JE! :p

[Luke T.]

Well, I see the old feud at tvtalkshows has spilled over onto this forum again. :D

I read the topic you linked, neo. It reads just like the thousand other topics where we all discussed cold reading. It is practically formulaic by now. ;)

One must be familiar with the long history of the cast of characters at that site to understand what is happening here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
So, in the Claus style, I say: Liar! Neo did guess it was JE! :p

Read what neo writes: She says that it sounds like JE. She doesn't say it was JE.

Hey, I can sound like Elvis, but that doesn't make me Elvis.

Thangyaverrymuch!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
One must be familiar with the long history of the cast of characters at that site to understand what is happening here.

That might actually be the key! :D

[Girl 6]

Eh, this is so tired, people!

Claus is not perfect. End of story. Neither are the tvtalkshows people.

Claus will hunt his victims down and tear them apart until there is NOTHING left of them for any of the vultures to pick over. He is relentless. I do not envy any of the people he debates with.

I don't think it's right of us to put him on a pedestal, though. He is as fallible as the rest of us.

G6

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Read what neo writes: She says that it sounds like JE. She doesn't say it was JE.

Hey, I can sound like Elvis, but that doesn't make me Elvis.

Thangyaverrymuch!

I did read what she wrote. She directly asks lurker if it is some old JE transcript. I'm not sure how much more you would want. Even her justification guess turned out to be correct.

And as for you being Elvis - well, if Elvis is still alive, I don't know if I can think of any better disguise than pretending to be "Claus Larsen, Denmark Skeptic". So. You have now been outed, Elvis. Sing us a tune.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Loki

Of course, none of this sheds any light on either JE's credibility, or Grenard's consistency - which is what Lurker was testing.



Loki, I think Claus misinterpreted some of the comments on the TVTALK thread. He did not allow for the presupposition that it was an admitted cold reader transcript. The believers took this info and made comments based on that statement being true.

On what you wrote above, my goal had nothing to do with JE's credibility or Steve's consistency. There seemed to be a general feeling amongst some skeptics that believers would NEVER admit that a cold reader could duplicate what JE did, even if a transcript showed this. The skeptics seemed to feel that believers would always find some "out" as to why the transcript differed from JE and thus was not an example of a cold reader being able to replicate the success of JE.

My opinion is many of the believers (neo, clancy, Steve) posted comments that my bogus transcript did seem to show that this alleged cold reader was doing what JE does (style aside).

I guess Claus interprets it differently, whcih he certainly can do, but I think he is wrong.

Lurker

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Girl 6
Eh, this is so tired, people!

Claus is not perfect.

I'm not? Oh....yeah....right. OK, absolutely not! :)

Originally posted by Girl 6
End of story. Neither are the tvtalkshows people.

Nope. Do they admit errors? Hmmmm......

Originally posted by Girl 6
Claus will hunt his victims down and tear them apart until there is NOTHING left of them for any of the vultures to pick over. He is relentless. I do not envy any of the people he debates with.

Hmmm...wanna debate me over that one? :D

Originally posted by Girl 6
I don't think it's right of us to put him on a pedestal, though. He is as fallible as the rest of us.

I have no desire to be put on a pedestal, and I have many faults that most people don't know about.

What I do find interesting is that some believers seem more interested in debating people than issues....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
I did read what she wrote. She directly asks lurker if it is some old JE transcript. I'm not sure how much more you would want. Even her justification guess turned out to be correct.

Where does she say that the reading was JE's? Be accurate, always.

Originally posted by Thanz
And as for you being Elvis - well, if Elvis is still alive,

ELVIS LIVES!!! He works in a Texas Burger King....

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't know if I can think of any better disguise than pretending to be "Claus Larsen, Denmark Skeptic". So. You have now been outed, Elvis. Sing us a tune.

"If ya lookin' fah trouble...ya've come to tha right plahce...." :D

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hmmm...wanna debate me over that one? :D

Nah... I fight dirty! :D

I have no desire to be put on a pedestal, and I have many faults that most people don't know about.

What I do find interesting is that some believers seem more interested in debating people than issues....

And, some skeptics are guilty of that, as well. ;)

G6

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lurker
I guess Claus interprets it differently, whcih he certainly can do, but I think he is wrong.

Yeah, but we need evidence.... :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Girl 6


Nah... I fight dirty! :D

[B]

And, some skeptics are guilty of that, as well. ;)

G6

Could it be that both "sceptics" and "believers" are just human beings after all! :eek:

[Martin]

Well, I'm inclined to think that...oh, wait. Honest sceptics. Damn. Never mind.

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Darat


Could it be that both "sceptics" and "believers" are just human beings after all! :eek:

{extreme intake of breath, assuming official voice}

"I think we've made a ground breaking discovery here, doctor!"

:D

Chill, my people, chill...

G6

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
[B]Claus,


Hmmmm ... I'm really not all that comfortable with going over old ground between you and Grenard, so I'll make one lastpoint and then leave this alone if that's okay with you.


It seems to me that this is the 'nub' of the problem. Here, Grenard says "if..it is real..." - from context, it appears perfectly clear to me that when he uses the word 'real' he is saying "if...it is a genuine transcript of a reading done by a non-medium...". In other words, *if* it's done by a non-medium, it cannot be cold reading, and must be hot reading - because the hits are too good to be explained by cold-reading. He is insisting that the reading *must* be hot reading in the context of it being a reading done by a non-medium. When Lurker then changes the context from "done by non-medium" to "done by JE", Grenard is perfectly consistent to then say "okay, then it's not hot-reading, it's genuine". In *both* contexts, Grenard is saying "the reading is too good to be cold-reading". He doesn't contradict himself. Of course, none of this sheds any light on either JE's credibility, or Grenard's consistency - which is what Lurker was testing.



Loki,

I've also read the first 2 pages. Now this seems to be getting into a bit of a worrying habit, but I have to say I'm entirely in agreement with you.

Incidentally, I have no idea whether JE is genuine or not. I've only ever seen 15 mins from one show, so I'm scarcely in a position to say, although for what it's worth I feel he is not genuine. But even if he is a fraud this of course provides no evidence against the survival hypothesis.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But even if he is a fraud this of course provides no evidence against the survival hypothesis.

....which is....?

How do we falsify this hypothesis?

How do we design an experiment that will produce verifiable, replicable results?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I see your point. However, the problem I have with this explanation is that we exclude the possibility that JE was actually hot-reading. We don't know that for sure, I know.



Yes absolutely. Maybe he is if he is allowed the means to do so. But Clancie states:


Clancie
JE believers" frequently say "Show us a cold reader who can do what JE does".


Now that implies that Skeptics, or at least some Skeptics, declare that a cold reader could do what JE does. Do they not state this?

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Clancie

Also...RC, Instig8r, mark tidwell, ersby, Crow (Jeff Corey), dharlow, Mike D, Lurker, Mel, Mandy, Cynical, and (when she can post here) Rain. [/B]Ahem...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes absolutely. Maybe he is if he is allowed the means to do so.

Whoa...how do you "absolutely" know that JE isn't hot-reading?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now that implies that Skeptics, or at least some Skeptics, declare that a cold reader could do what JE does. Do they not state this?

Sure, some do. Me and Clancie have even gone a few rounds about comparing a cold-reading transcript to a JE-transcript. Clancie was not able to describe the difference.

Could you answer these?

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

[Clancie]

From Interesting Ian

Now that implies that Skeptics, or at least some Skeptics, declare that a cold reader could do what JE does. Do they not state this?
They do indeed, Ian. However, so far...not much supports that claim. At TVTalkshows a while back, someone named Neil tried to do a "cold reading demonstration" that Claus likes to bring up as "being like JE". It was a good try by Neil, but included attempted hot reading and various other elements (including being conducted asynchronously online--and over a period of days) that were not comparable to JE.

Nevertheless, Claus still likes to continually cite it as an example of "a cold reader like JE"--which is just a ridiculous claim, given the obvious differences.

[renata]

Clancie,
Do you agree with all of Neo's assertions below?


Claus' debating skills "were really not very good at all"
Claus "seemed to always draw incorrect conclusions"
Claus seemed to "misrepresent the other person's side of the argument"
Claus is "all bluster, and no substance"
He makes " misstatements and/or flawed reasoning"
Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired
Claus has "poor logic and unfair debating practices"

[Clancie]

Originally posted by Clancie

Other regular JREF/TVTalk posters include...RC, Instig8r, mark tidwell, ersby, Crow (Jeff Corey), dharlow, Mike D, Lurker, Mel, Mandy, Cynical, and (when she can post here) Rain.
RSL: ...Ahem...
[B]

...and RSLancaster and LukeT (also, far less frequently, Garrette, marc and others).
edited to add:

renata,

I'd just as soon let neo answer you about the points she raises, since my own priorities already keep me busy enough on this topic. :)

[Fade]

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round!

Sing with me!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Nevertheless, Claus likes to continually cite it as an example of "a cold reader like JE"--which is just a ridiculous claim, given the obvious differences.

You are most welcome to point out the differences between that reading and any of JE's.

Any. You pick one.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Clancie
:) I've pretty much stopped posting there since the webmaster went nuts with "improving" the software. It seems to have leveled out somewhat now, though. I'm sure I'll be throwing my two cents' worth in again.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes absolutely. Maybe he is if he is allowed the means to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Whoa...how do you "absolutely" know that JE isn't hot-reading?



I think you must have misinterpreted what I said. I said "absolutely" meaning that I agree with you. I said that he might be "hot reading" for all I know. I'm absolutely in no position to say.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now that implies that Skeptics, or at least some Skeptics, declare that a cold reader could do what JE does. Do they not state this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sure, some do. Me and Clancie have even gone a few rounds about comparing a cold-reading transcript to a JE-transcript. Clancie was not able to describe the difference.



But in that other forum, Neofight, Steve and Clancie stated that the supposed example of cold reading given, couldn't genuinely be cold reading. Doesn't that suggest she can tell the difference?



Could you answer these?

What is the "survival hypothesis"?



More commonly referred to as the "life after death" hypothesis.



How do we falsify this hypothesis?
How do we design an experiment that will produce verifiable, replicable results?



What need s to be done is to show that the self or consciousness has its source in the brain. Now it seems we have 2 competing hypotheses, namely the generative theory (consciousness is created by the brain) or the transmission theory. Go to this web page for an explanation. http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=9&pageid=86&pgtype=1

We then need to look at all the appropriate evidence and reason our way to deciding which hypothesis best accounts for all pertinent data. And I should stress all pertinent data, including such evidence as adumbrated here (http://www.noetic.org/Ions/publications/review_archives/32/issue32_12.html) Included in such reasoning should be a judgement as to which philosophical position regarding the mind/brain problem is the most reasonable.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie

RSL: ...Ahem...

edited to add:

renata,

I'd just as soon let neo answer you about the points she raises, since my own priorities already keep me busy enough on this topic. :) [/B]


Well, do you agree with her or not? Simple yes or no will do.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
More commonly referred to as the "life after death" hypothesis.

That doesn't really answer the question though. What does the hypothesis state, exactly?

[c0rbin]

Neofight,

I have followed the debates across many forums regarding cold reading.

Claus asks simple questions (well the first few are simple and lead to more complex, like knowledge in general).

You might gain some footing if you were able to answer them simply.

Like I said, I have followed many of these discussions across many boards, from about.com to Steve Garnard's censorship extravaganza. Clause is fastideous, you are evasive.

What do you want? Answer some questions and maybe we will all learn something.

[RC]

Originally posted by Darat


Could it be that both "sceptics" and "believers" are just human beings after all! :eek:

Darat, I'm going to nominate this one very powerful sentence for the Mercurio award or whatever it's called.

Last night as I was at a Patti Smith concert, I found myself stewing over the past few days of heated emotional exchanges on this board (which I accept responsibility for my participation), culminating with the "Ian Rowland is a nice guy" thread. Not only did I find myself preoccupied when I should have been enjoying the show more, but I even felt sick to my stomach.

After the show, I spent some time thinking about all of this as it is patently absurd for me to get physically ill because of an internet board. An in a moment of clarity, I thought the exact same thing you have posted.

It seems so simple, yet it is not recognized enough. I'm going to take some small steps to acknowledge this statement. I'm going to start by apologizing to Renata for going too far and making personal attacks on her. I have concerns with some of her posts, but I should have addressed them with substance. I have found her to be rather biased, but upon review of Darat's statement, she is human and we tend to be biased. I have my own biases. Time for me to stop trying to point out biases and focus on substance.

I realize this is a bit of thread drift, but I really want to underscore Darat and G6's comments. I'm not going to participate in the Claus debating conversation because I have already stated my concerns about his style and substance. I absolutely understand Neo and Clancie's frustration, but I don't think this thread will really go very far and will likely break down in another heated emotional exchange.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think you must have misinterpreted what I said. I said "absolutely" meaning that I agree with you. I said that he might be "hot reading" for all I know. I'm absolutely in no position to say.

Okie dokie! My fault. Gotcha! :)

(I sure hope that this does not go unnoticed by some... :D)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But in that other forum, Neofight, Steve and Clancie stated that the supposed example of cold reading given, couldn't genuinely be cold reading. Doesn't that suggest she can tell the difference?

Yes, it does. Unfortunately, she couldn't. She gave (I believe) 30 reasons, all of which I refuted.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
More commonly referred to as the "life after death" hypothesis.

Which states...?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What need s to be done is to show that the self or consciousness has its source in the brain. Now it seems we have 2 competing hypotheses, namely the generative theory (consciousness is created by the brain) or the transmission theory. Go here (http://www.esalenctr.org/display/co...eid=86&pgtype=1) for an explanation.

Ehhh....very interesting. In your own words, how do we falsify the theory (whatever it is)?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We then need to look at all the appropriate evidence and reason our way to deciding which hypothesis best accounts for all pertinent data. And I should stress all pertinent data, including such evidence as adumbrated here (http://www.noetic.org/Ions/publications/review_archives/32/issue32_12.html) Included in such reasoning should be a judgement as to which philosophical position regarding the mind/brain problem is the most reasonable.

In your own words, how do we design an experiment that will produce verifiable, replicable results?

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But in that other forum, Neofight, Steve and Clancie stated that the supposed example of cold reading given, couldn't genuinely be cold reading. Doesn't that suggest she can tell the difference?


They're referring to a completely different thread, not the one begun by Lurker (referenced earlier) in which an old JE reading was disguised.

As for the cold reading by Neil, Clancie is being unfair when she qualifies her statements with "Tried to do a cold reading demonstration". He DID do a cold reading demonstration. And as for it being "a good try", the sitter was certainly convinced of his pyschic powers before he came clean.

[Clancie]

Posted by ersby

As for the cold reading by Neil, Clancie is being unfair when she qualifies her statements with "Tried to do a cold reading demonstration". He DID do a cold reading demonstration.
The key omitted concept from that statement, ersby, is "a cold reading demonstration like JE".

I ask you...Does JE read a sitter asynchronously online, getting information from her a little at a time, stretched over a period of several days? No, he doesn't.

So, yes, Neil did a kind of cold reading. But I feel on very firm ground saying again that Neil's demonstration was not "a cold reader doing a reading like JE"--i.e. bringing through a similar quality of information to JE's under similar conditions to JE.

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by TLN
That doesn't really answer the question though. What does the hypothesis state, exactly? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that it states "There is Life After Death."

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
The key omitted concept from that statement, ersby, is "a cold reading demonstration like JE".

I ask you...Does JE read a sitter asynchronously online, getting information from her a little at a time, stretched over a period of several days? No, he doesn't.

So, yes, Neil did a kind of cold reading. But I feel on very firm ground saying again that Neil's demonstration was not "a cold reading like JE".

Yet, you agreed to compare the Neil reading with one of JE's (and did, after many evasive actions from you).

Why did you do that, if you (now) think that it was a waste of time?

You never brought up the "asynchronously online, getting information from her a little at a time, stretched over a period of several days" excuse before. Why now?

Because you are constantly moving the goalposts.

[Neko]

What I don't understand is what people found so impressive about that reading that they insisted that it had to be a hot reading rather than a cold reading. I didn't find anything impressive in it at all. I'd like them to explain exactly why they thought it must be hot.

[Bunk]

Originally posted by Neko
What I don't understand is what people found so impressive about that reading that they insisted that it had to be a hot reading rather than a cold reading. I didn't find anything impressive in it at all. I'd like them to explain exactly why they thought it must be hot.

I agree! It included a couple of good guesses at best. I guess by "honest" skeptics neofight means someone who agrees with neofight.

[RichardR]

OK, I read the first page and half the second.

It is clear to me that Steve Grenard was reading the transcript from the assumption that it was an admitted fake (ie not a genuine medium), transcript. Other JE supporters made their comments based on that assumption too. It was therefore intellectually dishonest IMO, for Claus to say that Steve Grenard, in saying this was hot reading, had admitted that JE hot reads. (I believe that was the point Claus was making.)

Bad Claus.

Regarding Gryphon2 moving the goalposts, it is hard to comment without really knowing what position Gryphon had taken before.

However, in the few debates I followed at TV Talk Shows, I also noticed believers engaging in less than straightforward behavior. Two spring to mind:

Firstly, I remember Steve Grenard putting forward an argument in favor of Zero Point energy. (I forget why.) I remember Claus and (I think) one other, repeatedly asking him (Grenard) what he believed this meant, and what the evidence was for it. Grenard repeatedly refused to explain, instead just providing a url. It appeared Grenard did not understand his own link. At the least, it seemed like a dishonest way of avoiding debating his claim.

Secondly, I remember Claus asking someone (I forget the name), to go to a different thread, and comment on a cold reading transcript that would be found on that thread. This other poster refused to go to the other thread unless a third person (anyone) would read that thread and confirm that it did, indeed, contain a transcript as Claus had described it. This argument had gone along for some time, until a third party (me, as it turned out), looked at the thread and confirmed it appeared to be as Claus had stated. It would have been easier if the believer had just looked at the thread instead of using this device to avoid the issue.

I’m sorry to say, neofight, you demonstrate some of these characteristics yourself, in this thread. Instead of making a case, you simply pointed us to a four page thread and expect us to read, analyze and comment on it. Well, I read as much as I can be bothered to read and I agree you are right on one point. Whether this is an isolated bad of Claus’ I have no idea. But I was reminded of why I rarely read the TV Talk Shows threads – they’re tedious.

Claus’ deal is to hold people accountable for what they post. To do that, he asks (mostly reasonable) questions that arise from the other person’s posts. Reasonable questions arising out of the discussion, that are avoided, show intellectual dishonesty, and show where the weakness is in a poster’s position. Occasionally, genuine answers reveal the person’s ignorance of the subject too. Both categories of answer / non-answer are instructive. So when people refuse to answer, Claus does not forget, but keeps badgering the avoider with the questions. This annoys some people, but it does not necessarily mean Claus is wrong. He went over the top on this one item. But you have not made your case that “he was all bluster, and no substance”. Not even close.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Neko
What I don't understand is what people found so impressive about that reading that they insisted that it had to be a hot reading rather than a cold reading. I didn't find anything impressive in it at all. I'd like them to explain exactly why they thought it must be hot.

I have to agree with you there. Occams razor cuts both ways and I don't see any need to presuppose hot reading when what they do can be adequately explained with cold reading.

[Loki]

RichardR,

It is clear to me that Steve Grenard was reading the transcript from the assumption that it was an admitted fake (ie not a genuine medium), transcript. Other JE supporters made their comments based on that assumption too. It was therefore intellectually dishonest IMO, for Claus to say that Steve Grenard, in saying this was hot reading, had admitted that JE hot reads. (I believe that was the point Claus was making.)

Bad Claus
Somewhat unnecessarily, I'd just like to say that the above quote is what I tried to say in 4 times as many words. Richard, are you interested at all in 'ghostwriting' my posts from now on?? I'll PM you whatever it is I want to say, and you can condense it down into a short and precise post. :D

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Loki
RichardR,

Somewhat unnecessarily, I'd just like to say that the above quote is what I tried to say in 4 times as many words. Richard, are you interested at all in 'ghostwriting' my posts from now on?? I'll PM you whatever it is I want to say, and you can condense it down into a short and precise post. :D :D That's quite an honor, thanks.

I am available for a reasonable hourly fee. ;)

[Clancie]

Posted by RichardR

Claus’ deal is to hold people accountable for what they post.
That would be fine with me, if that was what he actually did. Unfortunately, what he does is inaccurately characterize what they posted and then badger them about points they never made.
Posted by RichardR

To do that, he asks (mostly reasonable) questions that arise from the other person’s posts.
Again, my experience with him has shown otherwise. (And, since you brought it up and we are discussing debating tactics, fair and unfair elsewhere, I will add one thing.

Claus, imo, is a master of misrepresenting his opponent's view, and is positively brilliant at distorting their points to make them appear to be something that they aren't, if one really looks at them. That approach to debate--not his actual arguments--is what makes discussing anything with him ultimately so frustrating and so aggravating.
Reasonable questions arising out of the discussion, that are avoided, show intellectual dishonesty, and show where the weakness is in a poster’s position. Occasionally, genuine answers reveal the person’s ignorance of the subject too. Both categories of answer / non-answer are instructive.
On that, we agree.
So when people refuse to answer, Claus does not forget, but keeps badgering the avoider with the questions.
lol. Actually, not quite. In my experience, Claus asks a question, gets an answer, but just dismisses the answer and continues to say the person is ignoring his questions anyway.

Now, you might think...well, giving a lousy answer is like ignoring the question. I agree. However, he does it with well thought out responses, too. He frequently dismisses and discounts his opponents arguments (including any valid points they've made) exactly as if they have never been uttered at all. Correcting his misrepresentations becomes a tedious dialogue which no one pays attention to any more anyway. Yet, in the process, he manages to leave an impression that he has actually caught someone in ...a lie...a contradiction...an evasion, etc. when that is not the case at all.

In fact, in my experience, nothing stops him from continuing his badgering and baiting of "the opposition", on and on, regardless of how anyone responds to it. It's not just in the TVTalkshows threads, either. I'm sure I could find examples on this thread--or any JREF thread where he has posted to me at any length. Its just that much of a consistent pattern and, I suppose, that's part of neo's reason for bringing it up in this thread--because the tactics seem so often overlooked here otherwise.

[Jim Lennox]

This is also not a direct personal account, but a secondary one. I don't understand why we can't at least know the name of the sitter OR the name of alleged mentalist. And why no source for the written version of it either--since it is not a private reading, but done n front of a public audience and apparently published somewhere on the web? Where was the account published and who wrote it up? A reporter? The sitter? The mentalist? An observer?

Nice one Claus, you've nearly turned them in to skeptics.

I doubt the TVTalkers would have checked their sources or even thought about asking these kinds of questions before Claus came into their lives.

For this, be grateful.

[Clancie]

From Jim Lennox

Nice one Claus, you've nearly turned them in to skeptics.

I doubt the TVTalkers would have checked their sources or even thought about asking these kinds of questions before Claus came into their lives.

For this, be grateful.
:mad: It's CONDESCENDING attitudes like yours that make me feel quite discouraged--and that trying to pursue intelligent discussion with some of the people here is absolutely pointless.

Just for your information, Jim, in real life, I'm quite respected for my analytic ability--both professionally and personally. Claus has contributed absolutely nothing to that in any way whatsoever. I find your comment very presumptuous and rude, to be perfectly honest.

[renata]

I see Neofight did not get the chance to provide support for her assertions. Just in case she missed it, here is my post from earlier in the thread.

I read the thread.

You have made the following serious assertions in your post:
Claus' debating skills "were really not very good at all"
Claus "seemed to always draw incorrect conclusions"
Claus seemed to "misrepresent the other person's side of the argument"
Claus is "all bluster, and no substance"
He makes " misstatements and/or flawed reasoning"
Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired
Claus has "poor logic and unfair debating practices"


I reviewed the thread. Please point me to individual words that justify each of the abovementioned accusations. You made the accusations, you have to provide detailed evidence, not send us on a wild goose chase. Obviously you hold all those opinions of him, and think he exhibits these traits in the thread. Please support them, one by one and explain why each accusation is appropriate.

I would like to say that in my experience, when Claus makes the accusations, he either backs them up or retracts them. Recently, he put a Voula question on questions for Neo. When challenged, he backed up his assertion with a quote from Neo from TVtalkshows.


I look forward to reading your analysis.

I hope to see your analysis tomorrow. If you made the accusations, you can not expect all the readers of this board to go through the thread line by line, looking for backup of your accusations against Claus.

You made accusations, you back them up.


Now, as to Clancie. I must have missed your response to my Yes/No question as to whether you agree with Neo's assertions as quoted above.


In addition, I did a quick search. You posted your post announcing Claus is on your ignore list 6/11/03, 1:35 PM my time
You have since made 26 posts where you mention or discuss him, 12 of them talking specifically about how you ignore him. Bulk of those posts was in the last 2 days. Since you announced Claus was on your ignore list on 6/11 you made about 100 posts. A full quarter of your posts since you said you would ignore him deal with Claus.

Is that really ignoring him? It appears to me (my uniformed opinion) that you continue to take free potshots at Claus and his debating style and character, like in this very thread. If he responds, you can say you are ignoring him and claim the high moral ground. That, in my opinion is a distasteful debating technique. If you want to ignore him- ignore him.

Contrary to what you may think, this is not a Claus fanclub board. We see his tactics, and we see yours and we come to conclusions based on what we read. We probably have bias because we agree with Claus' position more than yours. However, there really is no need to educate or enlighten us on what an unfair debater he is. If he is mean and unfair, it will be evident by what he writes here, not by what you, Neo or anybody else say about what you think about his writing. Perhaps the time is better spent arguing the issues instead of the person.


Now, I am eagerly awaiting Neo's support of her original claims.

[Jim Lennox]

Jim, in real life, I'm quite respected for my analytic ability--both professionally and personally.

I have no doubt that that is the case, in real life.

[Clancie]

renata,

You are absolutely right. I never wanted to participate in this thread and yet, here I am, sucked in with only myself to blame.

Discussions with some people here, the condescending, the patronizing, the rigid, the arrogant are obviously not healthy or productive. In fact, reading between the lines of your post, I agree 100% that I am merely spinning my wheels and wasting my time.

Guess what? For the people discussing on another thread, "How do you know when you win a debate?" here's one way....

To the patronizing, the arrogant, the condescending, the insulting, the unquestioning...you win. Have it your way.

Adieu.

Enjoy.

[renata]

Originally posted by Clancie
renata,

You are absolutely right. I never wanted to participate in this thread and yet, here I am, sucked in with only myself to blame.

Discussions with some people here, the condescending, the patronizing, the rigid, the arrogant are obviously not healthy or productive. In fact, reading between the lines of your post, I agree 100% that I am merely spinning my wheels and wasting my time.

Guess what? For the people discussing on another thread, "How do you know when you win a debate?" here's one way....

To the patronizing, the arrogant, the condescending, the insulting, the unquestioning...you win. Have it your way.

Adieu.

Enjoy.


Oh my. It was not at all my intention to drive you from the board or this debate. I am not sure what you mean by reading between the lines of my post. I never meant or implied that you should leave. I do hope you come back and discuss some issues on the board. You have made one of the best posts on this board in my memory, about Simon Wiesenthal. So I do hope you reconsider.

[neofight]

Originally posted by renata


I reviewed the thread. Please point me to individual words that justify each of the abovementioned accusations. You made the accusations, you have to provide detailed evidence, not send us on a wild goose chase. Obviously you hold all those opinions of him, and think he exhibits these traits in the thread. Please support them, one by one and explain why each accusation is appropriate.

I would like to say that in my experience, when Claus makes the accusations, he either backs them up or retracts them. Recently, he put a Voula question on questions for Neo. When challenged, he backed up his assertion with a quote from Neo from TVtalkshows.

That's true, renata. Claus did indeed put up a quote from me that mentioned the name "Voula", but keep in mind that he was claiming that my quote somehow raved about how great a hit the name, Vuola, was for JE to get. So, just for the record, how exactly did that quote of mine that Claus posted do this?

To refresh your memory, here is my quote.....


So to answer your question how did he get the name Voula, he probably heard it clairaudiently.

Clearly, this quote was my response to someone who had asked me how JE could get the name "Voula", which is the question that I responded to. I've just wasted an hour trying to find the post from which this quote was taken so that I could see the context in which it was said. I believe the person may have questioning how JE could get such a hit, yet sometimes have trouble with more simple, common names, but I would have to see the post to be sure. Perhaps Claus would be so kind as to post the quote within it's complete context.

In any case, what iscertain, is that this quote in no way proves the point that Claus says it does, which is one of the things I complain about with regard to his debating techniques. Care to comment?

Also, you keep using the word "accusations" in reference to my critique of Claus' debating skills, or lack thereof. They are not accusations, renata, they are observations. Do you have to be so melo-dramatic for cripes sake?

And I'm not sending anyone on a "wild goose chase" either. If you don't mind, I'm simply giving a reference for anyone who might be interested, to actually see for themselves the type of erroneous conclusions that Claus often comes to when dealing with those of us with whom he disagrees.

You claim to have read the thread, but if that is so, then how is it that you won't acknowledge some of the flaws in Claus' argument that are perfectly obvious to some of the other skeptics who have posted?

And since you have said that Claus either backs up his claims or retracts them, perhaps you could ask him how my quote proves what he says it does, because I don't believe it does. It seems to me that you put waaaay too much trust in Claus, renata. He has burned you once already when he mistakingly stated that I believe that James Van Praagh is a fake. You accepted his word on that as well......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Fade

I read through the thread and haven't seen any of the characteristics that you happen to mention. Perhaps being correct is tantamount to be a bad debater in your eyes?

So Fade, you think that Claus was "correct"? Is it possible that you have a reading comprehension problem? :confused: ...neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by dingler44


I was reading right along... until I was neck deep in "non-evidence" that folks were using to support their belief in mediums.

Forgive me but I just couldn't continue.

Well, the point of posting that link had nothing to do with anyone's belief in mediums, but had everything to do with whether or not Claus came to logical conclusions. ;) ......neo

[renata]

Originally posted by neofight


That's true, renata. Claus did indeed put up a quote from me that mentioned the name "Voula", but keep in mind that he was claiming that my quote somehow raved about how great a hit the name, Vuola, was for JE to get. So, just for the record, how exactly did that quote of mine that Claus posted do this?

To refresh your memory, here is my quote.....


Clearly, this quote was my response to someone who had asked me how JE could get the name "Voula", which is the question that I responded to. I've just wasted an hour trying to find the post from which this quote was taken so that I could see the context in which it was said. I believe the person may have questioning how JE could get such a hit, yet sometimes have trouble with more simple, common names, but I would have to see the post to be sure. Perhaps Claus would be so kind as to post the quote within it's complete context.

In any case, what iscertain, is that this quote in no way proves the point that Claus says it does, which is one of the things I complain about with regard to his debating techniques. Care to comment?


I will comment once Claus can post the quote in context. At this point his question appears valid. If I am incorrect, I will withdraw my statement.




Also, you keep using the word "accusations" in reference to my critique of Claus' debating skills, or lack thereof. They are not accusations, renata, they are observations. Do you have to be so melo-dramatic for cripes sake?

You did not merely made observations. You posted a thread, titled it an "appeal to honest skeptics" thereby implying some of us are dishonest and attempted to provide proof of Claus' bad debating style. All my comments are either direct quotes or derivations thereof from you.

accusation

n 1: a formal charge of wrongdoing brought against a person; an imputation of blame or guilt [syn: accusal] 2: an assertion that someone is guilty of a fault or offence; "the newspaper published charges that Jones was guilty of drunken driving" [syn: charge]

Did you not mention the following

Claus' debating skills "were really not very good at all"
Claus "seemed to always draw incorrect conclusions"
Claus seemed to "misrepresent the other person's side of the argument"
Claus is "all bluster, and no substance"
He makes " misstatements and/or flawed reasoning"
Claus' debating skills at times leave much to be desired
Claus has "poor logic and unfair debating practices"

Did you not provide a link to a thread so we could observe those qualities for ourselves?

On an internet skeptical board, all we have is our writings and our thinking skills, our credibility stems from it. To impugn them is indeed an accusation.



And I'm not sending anyone on a "wild goose chase" either. If you don't mind, I'm simply giving a reference for anyone who might be interested, to actually see for themselves the type of erroneous conclusions that Claus often comes to when dealing with those of us with whom he disagrees.

You made several specific negative characterizations of Claus' behavior. You then send us on a lengthy thread to attempt to validate your charges. You made the observations/accusations in an attempt to make a point to the board. You have to provide evidence for it. Simple.



You claim to have read the thread, but if that is so, then how is it that you won't acknowledge some of the flaws in Claus' argument that are perfectly obvious to some of the other skeptics who have posted?

Because it is not my job to do your homework. You have to back up your "observations" with specific examples. If I say, for example- John Edward is a fraud who screws goats in his spare time, would you demand I show evidence of both, or would it be OK for me to give you the address of the petting zoo near his home? Of course yours were not as severe. However, when I say John Edward is a cold reader, you demand evidence- rightly so, perhaps. When you make the abovementioned "observations" you must provide evidence. What if I said- I am not accusing JE of being a cold reader, I am just observing that he is. Semantics, neo. Show us the evidence.



And since you have said that Claus either backs up his claims or retracts them, perhaps you could ask him how my quote proves what he says it does, because I don't believe it does. It seems to me that you put waaaay too much trust in Claus, renata. He has burned you once already when he mistakingly stated that I believe that James Van Praagh is a fake. You accepted his word on that as well......neo [/B]

Claus, can you show how Neo's quote proves what you say it does?

I do not believe he "burned" me. He stated something, he was mistaken. He was corrected, I withdrew my comment. Nobody ever said skeptics are infallible. If you think an easily corrected mistake means "burning" me, you are sadly mistaken. You see, I have no problems admitting when I was wrong, when I make an error or when I am ignorant. All of the above happens frequently. I come here to learn from those smarter than me, and contribute to the community.


Claus has earned my trust Neo- through deep knowledge, persistent honesty, straightforwardness and many other positive attributes from his first days on the board. But more importantly, I do not need to trust him in this matter. The evidence is right here, on this very board- he provides it. Nobody on this board gets my trust handed to them with the registration, it has to be earned. He did.

Now if you want to show that your "observations" are trustworthy, perhaps you can provide the basis for them by analyzing the thread you linked to and showing your basis for them. Unless you decline to back them up, in which case I will have to dismiss them.

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN

You don't have to go through it line by line or point by point. Just pick one point that you think demonstrates Claus' "misstatements" or "flawed reasoning" and let's discuss it. Please use Claus quotes and not anecdotes.


Hi, TLN! Well, by now you must have seen the example cited by a few of the others, where Claus has a problem understanding Steve's stance on the issue, right? Where do you stand on that one?

And here's another one! I'm surprised that no one has yet commented on the absurd criticism he makes of my own comments. Take a gander at this gem!

(neo)
This mentalist's style is almost indistinguishable from that of JE. I saw one or two little expressions that I've never heard JE use, but all in all, he is very similar.

(Lurker)
Ah, you all are such perspicacious posters. I can't put one over on you. This IS a JE transcript WITH CERTAIN ITEMS ALTERED (emphasis mine) so as to be unrecognizable but still maintain the original meaning.

(Cantata)
neo: Since you saw "one or two little expressions" that you have never heard JE use, would you say that your memory of JE is not always perfect, and that you agree that you cannot rely on your memory in the future?

Does that jump out at you at all? Lurker needed to substitute certain phrases in order to hide the fact that this was JE. For example, Lurker had the *cold-reader* say that "The spirits have left the room", where JE never says that. He might say something like "They're pulling back" instead. Cantata reads my observation and takes it to mean that my memory is faulty, and he repeats this more than once in this thread. Are you beginning to see what I mean? :rolleyes: .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Yahzi
neofight

Let me get this straight:

Claus argues that John Edward is not actually talking to the dead.

You argue that John Edward is talking to dead people.

And you want us to be worried about his flawed reasoning?

:eek:

Yep! :D ......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't want to ruin a thread that definitely is a candidate for "Best Thread Ever".

But I do encourage readers here to go to the thread that neo posted here and read for yourselves.

Please.

I second that motion! :D .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Loki

Claus constantly misses the point of Grenard's replies, and eventually quits the the issue, while still claiming to be correct.

Thank you, Loki. I appreciate your input. :)

There, my opinion of Neo's opinion of Claus' opinions. Can I go now?

Only after you sign my guest book! lol :D .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I see your point. However, the problem I have with this explanation is that we exclude the possibility that JE was actually hot-reading. We don't know that for sure, I know. But Steve jumps to the conclusion that this has to be a real ADC, solely based on the knowledge that it was JE.

Steve changes his explanation, when he learns the identity of the medium. That's my main point of the thread.

Steve was consistent in his explanation. It was you who had the trouble keeping focused. But anyhow, that is NOT what we were arguing there, Claus.

You complain about others moving the goalposts, while you go and try to change the whole discussion. For the sake of this test, we were accepting the premise that JE was a medium, and that the transcript was of a cold-reader. Nothing else was germane to the argument.......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie

The important thing was that all of the "believers" recognized it as good information that was better than what we would expect cold reading to produce--therefore, if mediumship is real, this reading had to be either (1) "not a mentalist" (neo and me) or (2) "not cold reading, but instead hot reading" (Steve).

So...Lurker's test showed, at least, that there was something that we as "believers" could all detect as "mediumship" as opposed to cold reading. That was the point of the thread--a point, I feel, that Claus (aka CFLarsen / Cantata) lost in the subsequent arguments--intentionally or not, I cannot say).

Thanks for summing it up so well, Clancie! And I, too, hope you decide to come back to post. :) ......neo

[RC]

I fail to see how the Neo's "Vuola" quote from TVTalkshows in any way backs up Claus' initial assertion. It does not demonstrate that Neo claimed it as a great hit and it doesn't back up the need for his question on the long list asking Neo for a transcript.

There has been no evidence presented that Neo has offered Vuola as a great hit, nor why she is being harassed for a transcript. I don't understand why Renata thinks Claus has backed up his assertion and will only comment after seeing the context. Seems like the context needs to be posted before anyone could possibly think that Claus' has adequately backed up this assertion.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Thanz


IMO, you are way off base here. I read the thread, and you are putting words into Steve's mouth. The premise was given that the "medium" was an admitted cold reader. Steve disagreed, and said that if the guy was an admitted fake, it must have been a hot reading. When it is revealed that the medium IS NOT an admitted cold reader, of course the analysis of the transcript changes. Steve did not analyze the transcript to determine whether it was real or fake, he examined it on the assumption that it was fake. When that assumption is removed, the options change. Now, an analysis of the transcript itself would lead one to believe that it was either a hot reading or genuine mediumship or extremely lucky guesses. I don't think that it was guesses (at least not all of them) so it must be one of the others. Unless you see another alternative?

Also, a minor point - but you seem to wallow in them to call people liars. Here is a post from neofight:

205.188.209.176 October 21st, 2002 02:27 PM

[quote][b]Lurker, is this just some transcript of a John Edward reading you've found? I could swear that it sounds vaguely familar. Are you referring to JE as a "mentalist" because that's what skeptics believe him to be? Come on! Let's 'fess up if that's the case. There is something not right here, and this does sound very much like a JE reading.

here is a post from you later:

24.90.213.22 October 22nd, 2002 04:32 AM

Gryphon2: "You were wrong."

Actually, Lurker was right. Steve saw the reading as hot-reading. Nobody guessed it was JE.


(Thanz)
So, in the Claus style, I say: Liar! Neo did guess it was JE!

Thanz, I appreciate your contribution. So far I see at least three examples of what I am attempting to show here.
__________________
"I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, I see the old feud at tvtalkshows has spilled over onto this forum again. :D

I read the topic you linked, neo. It reads just like the thousand other topics where we all discussed cold reading. It is practically formulaic by now. ;)

As are Cantata's/Claus' debating tactics. ;) How ya doin', Luke?


One must be familiar with the long history of the cast of characters at that site to understand what is happening here.

lol Perhaps so! :D Nice to see you! .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Read what neo writes: She says that it sounds like JE. She doesn't say it was JE.

:rolleyes: ......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Girl 6
Eh, this is so tired, people!

Claus is not perfect. End of story. Neither are the tvtalkshows people.

Claus will hunt his victims down and tear them apart until there is NOTHING left of them for any of the vultures to pick over. He is relentless. I do not envy any of the people he debates with.

I don't think it's right of us to put him on a pedestal, though. He is as fallible as the rest of us.

G6

Hi Girl 6. You're right, of course. None of us is perfect. I certainly am not. Still, I truly believed that this issue needed pointing out, if for no other reason than to know that it was not just those few of us over at TVTalk who saw these things, but that skeptics could recognize them as well.

Since most (all?) of the skeptics here agree with Claus most of the time, it's not often that they find themselves at odds with him, and so they do not have to constantly respond to what, at times, is nothing more than sophistry.

In any case, G6, thank you for your wise words. :) .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Lurker

My opinion is many of the believers (neo, clancy, Steve) posted comments that my bogus transcript did seem to show that this alleged cold reader was doing what JE does (style aside).

I guess Claus interprets it differently, whcih he certainly can do, but I think he is wrong.

Lurker

Thanks for weighing in, Lurker! In retrospect, I appreciate your test, and your fairness, all the more. :) .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Nope. Do they admit errors? Hmmmm......

When we make them? We most certainly do, Claus!

I have no desire to be put on a pedestal, and I have many faults that most people don't know about.

Nor do we even want to know about them, Claus. Just admit to the ones that we do know about. :p

What I do find interesting is that some believers seem more interested in debating people than issues....

At times, Claus, it's not that easy to separate them. ;) ....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Where does she say that the reading was JE's? Be accurate, always.

You're talking about a distinction without a difference here, Claus. :rolleyes: .......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
I will comment once Claus can post the quote in context. At this point his question appears valid. If I am incorrect, I will withdraw my statement.


Here it is:

(Neofight) 207.175.243.209 08-26-2002 09:49 PM
(Garrette)
"Finally, I'll ask in regard to 'Voula' what I asked in regard to the bride-to-be and pantyhose: if JE receives his information in the form of images related to his own past experiences, then how did he get Voula? Did he know a Voula? If so, then that sort of belies its uncommonness, no? If he did not, then what image could he possibly have gotten that would lead he to say 'Voula?'"

Garrette, mediums receive their information through various means. The images we've been speaking about are seen through clairvoyance, (clear vision) but there are other extra senses as well, one of which is clairaudience. (clear hearing) Most of the names and initials that JE gets, he gets through clairaudience. He hears names and/or initials in his mind's voice, the same way we hear our own thoughts. Sometimes he "hears" things more clearly than at other times.

Another way he gets names is by seeing the mage of a family member or a celebrity, and this indicates to him that he should say that particular name. So to answer your question how did he get the name Voula, he probably heard it clairaudiently. I doubt that he already knew a Voula, since from PsyQuestor's recollection of the reading, John didn't even seem to know it was a person at first, judging by his question, "What is voula?" Just for the record, I had never heard this name before either.
(TVTalkshows)

Here, neo explains in great details how JE gets his information, and how he got "Voula".

I simply asked neo if we could see the "Voula" transcript, because she has the tapes, she has done transcripts before, and that it is considered a "special hit".

Originally posted by renata
Claus, can you show how Neo's quote proves what you say it does?

Please note that I ask in the thread "Questions for neo" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21305) whether neo believes JVP is a fake or not.

Now, that was two questions from neo I have answered. I think neo should answer two of mine.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by RichardR
OK, I read the first page and half the second.

Firstly, I remember Steve Grenard putting forward an argument in favor of Zero Point energy. (I forget why.) I remember Claus and (I think) one other, repeatedly asking him (Grenard) what he believed this meant, and what the evidence was for it. Grenard repeatedly refused to explain, instead just providing a url. It appeared Grenard did not understand his own link. At the least, it seemed like a dishonest way of avoiding debating his claim.



That one was me. First off, I was intrigued about the idea of extracting energy from a system at 0 deg K, which seemed impossible. I did some quick research to find how energy could be extracted and learned a lot of interesting tidbits. Of course during the length of the debate it seemed I was the only one elucidating theory. Glad to see someone else read it since it seemed like it was just Steve and I at the time.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by neofight


Thanks for weighing in, Lurker! In retrospect, I appreciate your test, and your fairness, all the more. :) .....neo

It was just a teeny, weeny lie. :)

Lurker

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Where does she say that the reading was JE's? Be accurate, always.
I was going to let this one go, but on second thought I'll tilt once more at this windmill.

Here is the paragraph I quoted earlier: Lurker, is this just some transcript of a John Edward reading you've found? I could swear that it sounds vaguely familar. Are you referring to JE as a "mentalist" because that's what skeptics believe him to be? Come on! Let's 'fess up if that's the case. There is something not right here, and this does sound very much like a JE reading. (emphasis mine)
Are you seriously saying that this paragraph does not qualify as a guess that the reading was once done by JE? HOw else would you characterize it? She pretty much nailed exactly what was going on with Lurker. However, instead of accusing Lurker of being a liar, she asks it in the form of a question.

Certainly, I think that this paragraph shows that your statement of "Nobody guessed it was JE" was NOT accurate.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Certainly, I think that this paragraph shows that your statement of "Nobody guessed it was JE" was NOT accurate.

No, nobody guessed it was JE. Yes, neo asks if it is JE. Yes, she says that it sounds pretty much like JE.

She never guessed that it was JE. She asks if it is.

When you guess (transitive) something, then you got it right. When you make a guess (intrasitive), then you are not sure.

Big difference.

Neo - or anybody else - guessed it was JE.

[Thanz]

Claus -

It is just this kind of fine hair splitting that gets you a bad reputation. I'd say that a reasonable interpretation of what neo posted would conclude that she made a guess it was JE. Your insistence on always being "right" is maddening at times, and I don't even have a stake in the substance of what is being debated (the authenticity of JE).

Your representations of what Steve was saying in that thread were wrong. You twisted what neo said about a couple of phrases into trying to get an admission that we could never rely on her memory.

These tactics make you look like an A-1 ahole. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made against people like JE. You contribute so much "noise" that it makes it hard to see the signal. Just my opinion, from someone who has no personal stake in it.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Instead of resorting to personal attacks, please consider the difference between these two sentences:

"I made a guess that the winner was team A".

"I guessed that the winner was team A".

Big difference.

If we allow these two sentences to be interpreted as the same, then I would hurry to the next bookmaker and claim that I guessed the winner, and collect my money.

No hair-splitting. Accuracy, always.

[Thanz]

To be honest, I don't see the "big difference" between the two sentences. What is the big difference? I also don't understand your reference to a bookie.

I still say you are splitting hairs.

As for "Accuracy, always" how is it accurate to say that you can't trust neo's memory when she says that she can't remember JE using phrases that he never used?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
To be honest, I don't see the "big difference" between the two sentences. What is the big difference? I also don't understand your reference to a bookie.

Listen, if I make a guess, I don't know the outcome. Because we haven't been told the result yet, so nobody knows it.

But if I guessed it, then I know the outcome. Because we have been told the result, and we know.

Originally posted by Thanz
I still say you are splitting hairs.

No hairs splitted.

Originally posted by Thanz
As for "Accuracy, always" how is it accurate to say that you can't trust neo's memory when she says that she can't remember JE using phrases that he never used?

Huh??

[thaiboxerken]

It's amazing that the believers state that Clause isn't good at his debate because his reasoning doesn't fit within the believers' fallicious reasoning.

The believers often appeal to ignorance, and when called on it, they simply ignore the burden of proof requirements. We are the skeptics, our positions is "I doubt it". Yet, they want us to provide evidence for our position?

Unsanity in action.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No, nobody guessed it was JE. Yes, neo asks if it is JE. Yes, she says that it sounds pretty much like JE.

She never guessed that it was JE. She asks if it is.

When you guess (transitive) something, then you got it right. When you make a guess (intrasitive), then you are not sure.

Big difference.

Neo - or anybody else - guessed it was JE.

Claus, I was with you pretty much up to this point. But you don't give the credit here where it's warranted.

She suspected it could have been JE. She guessed it could have been JE. Her theory has been proven correct.

[thaiboxerken]

She guessed it could have been JE. Her theory has been proven correct.

No, because the nature of asking if it was JE leaves her a back door. It's an "out" for her to take, in case it was not JE, she could always say "Well, I didn't say it was JE."

She gave no answer, so her theory is still open.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Listen, if I make a guess, I don't know the outcome. Because we haven't been told the result yet, so nobody knows it.

But if I guessed it, then I know the outcome. Because we have been told the result, and we know.
Why are you equating "guessed" with "know"?

Look, here is an example. Let's say we have a 3 card monty player. He shuffles the cards so that he thinks no one will know which is the queen. Neo says - is it the middle card? The monty player reveals that the queen is the middle card. Then Claus makes the baffling statement that no one guessed it was the middle card. He then insists he is not splitting hairs based on some convoluted difference between "made a guess" and "guessed" that only he seems to understand.

Huh??
See Neo's post a little bit up. In the TVT thread, she posted that it looks like a JE reading, but that there are some phrases that she doesn't remember JE ever using. Then Lurker revealed that is was a JE reading, but he changed some stuff to make it less obvioius. Some of the things he changed were signature JE lines.

You then posted this:neo: Since you saw "one or two little expressions" that you have never heard JE use, would you say that your memory of JE is not always perfect, and that you agree that you cannot rely on your memory in the future?
In reality, her observation that some phrases had not been used by JE shows the reliability of her memory, as Lurker admitted he changed some phrases. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Not accurate.

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Here it is:


Here, neo explains in great details how JE gets his information, and how he got "Voula".

I simply asked neo if we could see the "Voula" transcript, because she has the tapes, she has done transcripts before, and that it is considered a "special hit".



Setting the record straight on the JVP and the Voula questions issue. I made an observation, asked Claus to provide the evidence, here is the backup for my opinion.


Voula issue:
This was the question Claus asked.

-Can you provide a transcript of the "Voula"-reading?

No answer for two days. RC posts 6/14
"Besides, many of these questions are just stupid. "Why are you patronizing"...hardly a question posed for honest debate. "Do you have the Vuola transcript"...Neo already said that she likely has the reading in her catalogue of tapes but needs to go through them at some point.

And later RC again
I'd like to know why you think this is a fair list of questions. Neo has already addressed the Vuola transcript.

Claus answered I just want to see a transcript of one of the most hailed "special hits" JE has gotten. Is that wrong, RC?

I answered I think most of them are fair, and questions that need to be asked. If the Voula transcript does not exist, then the Voula reading should not be brought as proof of a spectacular hit. So if she does not have it, and it can not be put up for examination, then it should not serve as proof.

RC 6/14 renata, I just read through that entire JE thread. Nowhere does Neo bring up Vuola as a special hit. I am the one who mentioned it and it was in response to someone who asked if JE gets unusual names. I mentioned Vuola, said I didn't have a transcript, and provided as much background as possible.

The only thing Neo said on the entire thread about the Vuola reading is this:

“Well, you know that I have that reading on one of my fifty tape cartridges! lol I just don't have the time to go through them all. My husband always got so annoyed to see me taping away without categorizing anything. He was soooooo right! lol What would it have taken?.....neo"

Given that Neo did NOT say anything about Vuola being a good hit by JE, it is utterly unfair of Claus to hound her about a transcript, would you not agree?

So now we have 2 questions (JVP and Vuola) that are based on total nonsense, plus an unnecessary one about Neo's being "patronizing". Why you are impressed with this thread is really beyond me. I think Neo is owed an apology or retraction from this amazing master of questions before we move any further.


Claus responds No, we do NOT have "total nonsense". We have a claim from TVTalkshows that the "Voula" reading is a "special hit". We do NOT see the transcript.

My response My apologies for the misunderstanding. I would not use the word hound, but if she never used the hit as proof of JE's ability, I would say that question should be stricken.
I am sure Claus would have no problem correcting any errors he may have made.

Claus responds to me She did:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Neofight) 207.175.243.209 08-26-2002 09:49 PM
So to answer your question how did he get the name Voula, he probably heard it clairaudiently.
TVTalkshows
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by renata
I am sure Claus would have no problem correcting any errors he may have made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I only need to be shown evidence. I will, however, not be "hounded" into accepting that I made errors.




Never a response from Neo on that issue. All Claus said was whether she had a transcript. RC challenged the validity of the question. I said that as long as Voula was used as a special hit, we would need to see the transcript of the show. RC said it was he, not Neo who said it was a special hit