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. I said if Neo never used Voula as proof of JE's ability that question should be stricken ( Me- telling Claus he is wrong- imagine that!). Claus provides evidence that Neo indeed has used it as proof of JE's ability and, upon request he provided a lengthy quote about Neo's explaining how JE got this special hit. I think his request for the transcript is valid. I believe if Neo simply wrote " I do not have the transcript, but I have the tape and intend to make the transcript in the next 6 months" the issue would be done with. There really is no need for the avoidance of the simplest questions.




JVP issue:
On the Neo thread I asked on 6/12
Finally, if Neo thinks a medium is fake (JVP) how would she go about showing it to someone who things JVP is real?
This was based on a prior conversation with Clancie who said JVP is a fake. I asked the same question of Clancie, as I was interested to know how a believer would explain to another believer a particular medium is a fraud. At that point I did not know Neo's opinion of JVP

On 6/12 Claus said Interestingly enough, neo thinks JVP is a fake

Later the same day, Clancie posted renata, I don't remember neo saying she thinks JVP is a fake. Has she?
I then answered I do not know. Claus said she did, I was responding to him.

Perhaps neo can answer? If she believes he is fake, then my previous question stands, and if she believes he is real- how would you tell her you think he is a fraud?

Neo does not answer for two days. Note that I immediately withdrew the previous assertion and asked Neo to answer one way or the other depending on her belief.

Two days later, 6/14 RC posts
Somebody please provide some evidence that Neo said she thinks JVP is a fake. In my long experience with Neo, she has been one of the few believers who has stated that she thinks JVP is probably a real medium.
He then posted, in reply to me saying I was responding to Claus With all due respect, renata, that is a problem on this board. You shouldn't just take Claus' word for something, you should look for some evidence.

I answered I did not just take his word, but I did phrase a question to which neither neo nor Clancie responded. When the claim is about someone's belief the only evidence acceptable is that person's account- not sure how I was supposed to look for evidence other than have Neo comment. If Neo had answered my post, I would know one way or the other. Furthermore, Clancie really IS someone who believes in JE and not JVP, so my questions apply to her as well, as I indicated.

If Claus is wrong, and Neo believes in both JVP and JE, whereas Clancie does not believe in JVP, I would love to have my second set of questions about belief inconsistencies answered- see my prior comments.

Neo first replies to the thread 6/14
Liar, liar, pants on fire! I have never in my life stated that I thought that JVP is a fake. I want you to show me my quote, Claus, because I maintain that I've never said that. This is one of the reasons I cannot take you seriously. This is not the first time that I've corrected this misstatement of yours.

Claus responds Liar? Not at all! Hey, if I am wrong, please show me! I have no problems being shown wrong, I just need to know.

Do you consider JVP a fake or a real medium? (Oops, one more!)

Neo's response Nice try, pal! You and your freakin' double standard again! YOU made the claim! You do the work and find the quote!

And stop your excuses and your back-pedaling! I won't allow you to turn this around on me. If you had the "notion" that I didn't believe that JVP was a real medium, but a fake, then you have to have gotten that "notion" from reading something that I wrote, true? Find it! ..........neo

Claus Sheeesh...I have made it abundantly clear that I had the impression that you thought JVP was fake. I may be wrong, sure.

Just tell me that I am wrong. It's that simple.

No double standards. No need for you to be the drama queen.

Do you consider JVP a fake or a real medium? Yes or no.

I respond Neo,
If I was wrong for understanding you though JVP was a cold reader I apologize.

Can you and Clancie explain to me why you think both JE and JVP are real, and she thinks JE is real, but JVP is a fraud? Do you think JE and JVP do the same thing? How can Clancie show you otherwise, if she chose to? If you decide JVP is a fraud, would you still think JE is real?

Do you see any difference between how JE and JVP perform?

Thanks in advance

No answer from Neo

RC posts He is also a hypocrite. Time and time again he tells people to go and find proof that someone said something on another thread. Yet, when he is told that Neo never said that she thinks JVP is a fake, not only does he not go back to find evidence, but he demands that she provide evidence to provide him wrong. I mean come on, does anyone here really fall for that crap?




Claus I have said repeatedly that I was under the impression that neo thought JVP was fake.

I have also asked to be corrected.

Is that "crap"? Is that being a "hypocrite"? No, it's f*cking skepticism.


This is even simpler. ALL Neo had to say was: I think JVP is real. She refused to say that. I do not know why- perhaps because it would lead to my questions about disagreements between believers and different standards each believer has.

Here, once again we see that both Claus and I are readily willing to admit our mistake- all we need is a simple clarification. We do not get it. I do not consider this being "burned" by Claus.

Now I answered the outstanding questions to me about Claus' list of questions. Perhaps we can see that analysis, Neo? It is not that difficult, just show the evidence.




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.


Technically, those were questions directed at me, and I asked them of you. Alas, I do not qualify for a Larsen list. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
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.

Not "only". Absence of evidence (in the form of people agreeing with me) is not evidence of absence.

I'm sorry, but that's the way I understand "guessed" and "made a guess".

Originally posted by Thanz
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.

No, no....get it right: "Lurker" says this - and only this - about changing the reading:

This IS a JE transcript with certain items altered so as to be unrecognizable but still maintain the original meaning. (See Transcript1 many pages back posted by Mysticfire)

For example, in the original the man was a cop, in this one he was in the Army. In the original the mother brewed beer, in this one made wine. You get the picture.

Lurker does not change "signature JE lines", but merely alters some items.

Neo's statement:

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.

Is an "item" like "Army" an "expression"? Me thinks not. I cannot imagine that JE has never met an Army soul.

Originally posted by Thanz
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.

Not "phrases". "Items": "Cop" changes to "Army". "Beer" changes to "Wine".

[CFLarsen]

renata,

Nice work! :)

Now, we will wait for neo's response.

[Thanz]

Claus -

The tvt link is not working ofr me right now, so I'll have to get back to it. I think that there is something in there about the phrase "the spirits are leaving" rather than "the energies are pulling back" which was changed by Lurker.

[RC]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
We are the skeptics, our positions is "I doubt it". Yet, they want us to provide evidence for our position?



Ah, this is the heart of the problem.

Actually, the position of skeptics may very well be "I doubt it", but many do not express that opinion. Instead, they say "JE is a fraud", or "JE is cold reading" or "Mentalists can replicate the work of JE". That is very different than expressing doubt. So, of course if you express a definitive statement you are going to be asked for evidence.

I've heard skeptics say that if a believer just said "I believe in mediumship because I want to believe" then they would be left alone. It is when they claim evidence that they are questioned.

Same holds true for skeptics. If they would say "I doubt it is real" and leave it at that then there would be nothing to discuss, right?
But if a skeptic offers a strong claim to backup a statement like "JE is a fraud", then of course they should provide some evidence. Some do, many don't.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

You're probably thinking about this one, from neo:

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.

Problem is, neo says this in this thread.

Not once does neo bring that up in the TVTalkshow-thread. Post-hoc reasoning.



RC,

The onus is on the original claimant. JE says he can talk to dead people? JE has to prove it. You say ADC is real? You prove it.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

You're probably thinking about this one, from neo:



Problem is, neo says this in this thread.

Not once does neo bring that up in the TVTalkshow-thread. Post-hoc reasoning.

That may be what I am thinking of, but I will wait until I can see the other thread. Also, I am less concerned with where she says it than I am with whether it is true.

Do you accept that if lurker did change signature JE lines to other phrases, the fact that neo points out she doesn't remember a couple of phrases is not indicative of a faulty memory, but rather an accurate memory?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by 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.I agree. It seemed to me that neo had figured it out. Claus, you're just playing semantics here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by RichardR
I agree. It seemed to me that neo had figured it out. Claus, you're just playing semantics here.

Hmmm.....I don't. But hey, English is difficult... :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Adieu.

Enjoy.

Let's see.

Clancie comes "on board" to discuss JE.

She does not like personal attacks.

She posts almost nothing else but personal attacks herself, after putting me on ignore.

(Which she doesn't, because she refers to what I post...)

She defends her actions and accusations, without ever coming up with a single piece of evidence.

She is condescending, patronizing, rigid and arrogant. All those things she hates "here".

So, after a thorough walk-through by renata, Clancie realizes she is "spinning her wheels".

And leaves.

Hm.

[renata]

I want to make it clear that I NEVER asked, implied, intended or wanted to have Clancie leave the board. I just wanted to have a fair debate, and I did not think her tactics were fair.

It distresses me that she left because of my post. I can not help but feel responsible for it.


PS: Claus- I called Clancie on the carpet for taking potshots at you. Don't make me call you on the carpet for taking potshots at her.

[neofight]

Hello, renata. (deep breath) It's a new day, so although I don't have the energy or the time at this moment to respond in the same painstakingly and time-consuming manner in which you just did, I will work with you, and try to resolve this whole matter to our mutual satisfaction.

May I first reiterate that my main problem is with Claus, ergo, the purpose of starting this thread. You are correct that I didn't give any indication of wanting to respond to your questions about JVP. Actually, had this whole issue not gotten sidetracked by Claus' nonsense and unreliable assertions, I think I would have gotten to your questions within a reasonable time period. Alas, I admit that Claus' irresponsible misstatement, (see below) set me off........

(Claus)
Interestingly enough, neo thinks JVP is a fake. Brian Hurst, she would go to "in a heartbeat".

Yet, Brian Hurst thinks JVP is real. Neo has no problems with this.

Amazing, this double-thinking of believers....

Now, you and others may think that I overreacted, but again, that is the purpose of this thread, to demonstrate the frustration that I, and others, feel when dealing with Claus. If you've read the above exchange regarding the question of whether or not I "guessed" that Lurker's transcript was of a JE reading, then you will have an inkling of what it is we constantly deal with.

And just for the record, I am not a vindictive or unfair person, but I will have to be perfectly honest. I'm only human, and as I read that above exchange amongst Thanz, alfaniner and Claus, I was grinning ear to ear, :D because it is just one small teensy weensy example of the type of flawed reasoning that I was attempting to demonstrate, and Claus, predictably, came through and made my case for me. lol Ya gotta love it! Thanks, Claus! :D

Thaiboxerken, on the other hand, it the ideal Claus disciple, and shows that he is either not an honest skeptic, or that he is simply clueless. :confused:

Anyhow, to continue with my response to you, I still may have gotten around to answering the questions that you put to me, had Claus not once again, rubbed salt in the wound and set me off even more, by saying this.........

(Claus)
I really would wish that you would not be so blatantly dishonest. I never claimed it was a quote. I just had the notion that you did not believe that JVP was a real medium, but a fake.

Tell us what you think: Is he real or a fake?

(I could ask you why you take time to reply this way, without ever answering just one question. But I won't. For now.)

And the reason that I got so angry with him here, is because as I stated earlier, this was not even the first time that the subject of JVP had been brought up over at TVTalk, and also not the first time that I refused to join in with some of my other friends, in declaring JVP a fake, simply because I am not at all sure that he is. In fact, I lean entirely the other way. So Claus has never read anything I ever posted.....anywhere.....to give him the impression that I said that I believed that JVP was not authentic. And yet, you can see, with what authority, he declared that I did, in fact, do just that.

I realize that you could not have known this, renata, but Claus should have. It's very sloppy and inexcusable of him to state such a blatant lie, and then cavalierly say to me that he simply had the "notion" that is what I believed, as though his complete misrepresentation of my stance was no BFD. I feel it was! From where, exactly, did he get this "notion" may I ask, if I never said anything that even slightly resembles that statement?

So that is why I got derailed with my discussion with you, rentata. I was too POed to see straight.

A short answer to your question, and we can get into it further at another time, is that I have not seen as much of JVP's readings as I have of JE. I believe that he does appear, imo, to have some mediumship abilities. I'm not sure that he is as strong or as accurate in his interpretation as is JE, but then at times, it seems that he whacks one out of the park.

As others have mentioned, we tend not to like his show's format, which at times allows him to have a certain amount of pre-existing knowledge of the sitter and the spirit energy with whom they wish to connect, and we feel that puts him, rightly or wrongly, in a negative, or at least a questionable light.

In the old "Crossing Over" shows, JE used to show a little video clip before the actual reading aired, which was called "Great Expectations" or some such thing. It was only used on the one-on-one private sittings that JE used to do on the show, and the purpose was to let the audience know in advance, what the sitter hoped to get from their reading with JE. It was stated that JE never got to see or hear that clip beforehand, and I don't believe that he did, but we felt that simply knowing that tape was available prior to the reading, didn't look good for JE, and we were glad when they discontinued that whole segment.

I'll be glad to respond to any other questions that you have for me, renata, but I do want to limit my time here, since at times, this on-line time does interfere with my real life, and that is not a good thing, as I'm sure you'll agree. ;)

BTW, I'd be happy to do a transcript of the "Voula" reading one day, but I am being perfectly honest when I tell you that I used to simply throw tapes in my VCR and tape every single "CO" show that was aired. But unfortunately, that's all I did. Tape them. I have hundreds of JE readings on tape. I regret never having catalogued them because it could conceivably take me weeks of straight viewing just to find a particular tape, and that I cannot afford to do. :eek: And that is the ONLY reason that I have not made the transcript, since I would be happy to oblige because so many people have asked me for it. :(

What I do intend to do, gradually, is to go through them one at a time, over time, and make a few notes so that I can identify what readings are on what tapes, for the purpose of locating specific readings, but don't hold your breath for this to get done any time soon, okay? ;) ......neo

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by RC


Ah, this is the heart of the problem.

Actually, the position of skeptics may very well be "I doubt it", but many do not express that opinion. Instead, they say "JE is a fraud", or "JE is cold reading" or "Mentalists can replicate the work of JE". That is very different than expressing doubt. So, of course if you express a definitive statement you are going to be asked for evidence.

I've heard skeptics say that if a believer just said "I believe in mediumship because I want to believe" then they would be left alone. It is when they claim evidence that they are questioned.

Same holds true for skeptics. If they would say "I doubt it is real" and leave it at that then there would be nothing to discuss, right?
But if a skeptic offers a strong claim to backup a statement like "JE is a fraud", then of course they should provide some evidence. Some do, many don't.

Hey, RC, how the heck are you? :D

To RC and to those who believe in things paranormal over at tvtalkshows:

I think the sum total of the discussion and investigation that has taken place here and at tvtalkshows provides strong indications that "JE is a fraud." I certainly hold that opinion.

In light of the fact that it is JE who is making the claims of paranormal ability, the onus of evidence falls upon him, and not the skeptics. All we skeptics can do is look at his evidence and declare whether or not it validates his claims. Upon examining the validity of these claims, a skeptic then is free to determine that if the evidence is bogus, then the claims are bogus, and thus the claimant is bogus.

The vast majority of evidence presented on JE's behalf by his fans is purely anecdotal and therefore completely worthless.

Other facts that have been determined:

1) JE knows the names and phone numbers of at least 25 percent of his audience, weeks prior to their attendance on "Crossing Over." If someone attends his Carribbean getaways, he knows their name, address, and credit card number possibly months prior to their attendance.

2) With the small samplings of transcripts and recollection of readings available, some of the information counted as "hits" by JE was found to be readily available on the internet through news agencies and even a web site of a "Crossing Over" attendee/sitter.

3) Not everything that takes place on the set of "Crossing Over" makes it to the air. IIRC, a skeptical magazine will soon be publishing differences between what they recorded during their attendance at a session of "Crossing Over" and what actually made it to the air. Should be interesting.

I do have one belief for which I can provide no evidence. But I am not attempting to profit from it. I simply believe that John Edward and JVP and Sylvia Browne all believe in the afterlife and/or God about as much as James Randi does. They may even be more closed-minded about the afterlife than Randi!

I have my own personal issues with Randi's way of doing things, and people can complain about Randi's irrascible nature, or accuse him of dishonesty all the live long day, but he will never even come close to ranking with the likes of John Edward or Slyvia Browne or JVP in that department as far as I'm concerned.

I will concede one thing to neo. Claus Larsen is very aggressive. Sometimes he stomps on people's toes really hard. And if an open-minded stranger were to walk in on the scene who had no idea of the history between the cast of characters, it probably would cast a very bad light on skeptics in general. I worry about that sometimes. Emotions run too high on both the JE fans' and the skeptics' sides quite a bit on tvtalkshows. Ce la vie!

Some JREFers make fun of what they perceive to be the "lightweight" nature of tvtalkshows, but I think it is strong testimony to the discerning nature of the people there that a real troll lasts a tiny fraction of the time over there as they do here and yet someone who may irritate like Claus is tolerated. It speaks a lot about you guys, and I seriously respect that. We could learn a lot about how to handle trolls from all of you. And I think your success at keeping them at bay is because you are incredibly tight-knit and care for each other deeply. You welcome everyone with open arms and take them in, but when a bad seed tries to invade, you close ranks and universally shun them. It is a wonder to behold. And I suspect that somewhere deep down inside you even hold a little affection for Claus. I say this because you do not shun him even though he kicks your shins. :D

Discerning. Good on ya.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by RichardR
I agree. It seemed to me that neo had figured it out. Claus, you're just playing semantics here.

English is my native language and if someone said "made a guess" or "guessed" to me I would not differentiate. And I certainly would have no idea whether one of those two statements implies whether the guess came true or not. :confused:

Lurker

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not "only". Absence of evidence (in the form of people agreeing with me) is not evidence of absence.

I'm sorry, but that's the way I understand "guessed" and "made a guess".



No, no....get it right: "Lurker" says this - and only this - about changing the reading:



Lurker does not change "signature JE lines", but merely alters some items.

Neo's statement:



Is an "item" like "Army" an "expression"? Me thinks not. I cannot imagine that JE has never met an Army soul.



Not "phrases". "Items": "Cop" changes to "Army". "Beer" changes to "Wine".

OMG, Claus! I almost feel sorry for you because you are such a rigid and literal person, that you carry your discipline to the extreme, and do not allow any common sense to prevail.....ever. :( I'm beginning to understand you a little better, I think. What really needs to happen though, is for you to begin to understand yourself as well, and realize that you cannot grow....indeed, you cannot even HEAR what another person is saying, unless you learn to be a little more flexible on an intellectual level. Is that what it means to be blinded by science? Hmmmm! I'm not sure. :confused:

In any case, Claus, I appeal to your more reasonable self, and ask that you accept that Lurker did, indeed, change some of JE's signature lines as well, just as Thanz has said he did. This fact should be abundantly apparent to someone who has watched as many "CO" shows as you have claimed to have done. ;) .....neo

[Luke T.]

I think people are failing to understand Claus' approach. I am going to be a little paradoxical here and make my own "guesses" about him.

It seems to me that Claus is a black-and-white kind of guy. Anything phrased in the form of a question or a "guess" is not a valid statement.

To Claus (again I am guessing here myself) one must make statements without any prevarication. There is a big difference between "I think that was a John Edward reading," and "That was a John Edward reading."

There is a big difference between "Is the middle card the queen?" and "the middle card is the queen."

You see what I mean? It may be semantics, sure, but semantics is a science, too. Semantics provide the loopholes for people like John Edward to drive an armored truck full of cash through.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

You're probably thinking about this one, from neo:



Problem is, neo says this in this thread.

Not once does neo bring that up in the TVTalkshow-thread. Post-hoc reasoning.

Claus, Claus, Claus! Post-hoc reasoning, my @$$! What on earth doyou think were the phrases that I mentioned in the original thread? If Lurker had included JE saying "They're pulling back" or He/she's pulling their energy back" we ALL would have realized immediately that it was JE. Use your head, man! :rolleyes: ......neo

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hmmm.....I don't. But hey, English is difficult... :) Claus, I hope this is a language issue, but it certainly looks like semantical BS.

I'm going to make a guess here: You are blonde.

I guessed that. Whether I was right or wrong, I guessed. I also made that guess.

Part of your confusion may lie in the fact that among the definitions for "guess" are two overlapping definitions:

1. To make an estimate or conjecture.
2. To estimate or conjecture correctly.

The second one seems superfluous, because a guess is a guess whether or not it is correct. Hey, that's English for you!

[CFLarsen]

neo,

Please don't start to feign that you "understand" me more, because I have done this at TVTalkshows, too. All the time.

Sorry, neo - we have to be accurate, when we discuss this, because we have seen so many times that people come up with frantic explanations. "Oh, I didn't mean it that way!".

As Luke T. correctly writes, if we are not accurate, we never get anywhere: If we can simply claim misunderstanding when the going gets tough, then we never learn anything. It's dishonest. The discussions become linguistical masturbation, with no clear goal in sight, other than exchanging sentences.

That is futile. That is a waste of time.

I have no idea what you meant by phrases, because you never told us! Don't lay it on my doorstep that you are unable (or unwilling) to express yourself in a precise manner. I am not a mind-reader, neo.

I am fed up with these waffling word-games: Say what it is you mean to say. Being careless with your words is being careless with your mind.

And it shows a profound disrespect for other people.

Edited to add:

What is wrong with me having the notion that you believed JVP was a fake, and then ask you for clarification? Does that not show that I am very willing to admit errors?

[neofight]

Luke, although there is a certain amount of truth to what you've said about what information is available on potential sitters from various sources, there are still innumerous cases in which this is simply not the case, as in general seating at seminars, etc., so I strongly disagree with the conclusions you have drawn concerning JE's authenticity. The proof of fraud is just not there, so reasonable people can continue to disagree, but hopefully in an agreeable manner. :)

Originally posted by Luke T.
......a skeptical magazine will soon be publishing differences between what they recorded during their attendance at a session of "Crossing Over" and what actually made it to the air. Should be interesting.

I agree, I'm sure it will be interesting, but I think you'll find that what is routinely cut out of "CO" in the editing process is by no means the smoking gun that skeptics think it will be. Trust me on this one. I've been at enough seminars to know this. What's edited out of readings is basically irrelevant and innocuous stuff.

I will concede one thing to neo. Claus Larsen is very aggressive. Sometimes he stomps on people's toes really hard. And if an open-minded stranger were to walk in on the scene who had no idea of the history between the cast of characters, it probably would cast a very bad light on skeptics in general. I worry about that sometimes. Emotions run too high on both the JE fans' and the skeptics' sides quite a bit on tvtalkshows. Ce la vie!

Luke, come on. Am I known, except in the mind of Cantata/Claus and a few of his subjects, to be a person who runs away from an "aggressive" skeptic? His aggression is not what I find off-putting. It's his lack of accuracy, basically, and his reluctance in admitting to it. I try to respond honestly to all questions if they are put to me in a civil manner.

Some JREFers make fun of what they perceive to be the "lightweight" nature of tvtalkshows, but I think it is strong testimony to the discerning nature of the people there that a real troll lasts a tiny fraction of the time over there as they do here and yet someone who may irritate like Claus is tolerated. It speaks a lot about you guys, and I seriously respect that. We could learn a lot about how to handle trolls from all of you. And I think your success at keeping them at bay is because you are incredibly tight-knit and care for each other deeply. You welcome everyone with open arms and take them in, but when a bad seed tries to invade, you close ranks and universally shun them. It is a wonder to behold.

Luke, that is a very nice thing for you to say. Really. :) I will admit, however, that I do go through phases where my frustration gets to the point that I don't respond to Cantata/Claus except to snipe at him in posts to others. I've enjoyed doing that on some occasions, because it gives me a chance to vent and to get over what got me mad in the first place. It's the way I cope with him. :D

Several of us over at TVTalk have gotten to that point on a couple of occasions, but I can also say that we usually end up feeling compassionate and giving Claus yet another chance to shape up, even if it doesn't last very long. lol

And I suspect that somewhere deep down inside you even hold a little affection for Claus. I say this because you do not shun him even though he kicks your shins. :D

Well, now let's not go overboard, Luke! lol Well, perhaps there's just a grain or two of truth in what you said, but that only happens when Claus allows himself to be seen in a more human and humorous light, which is not all that often. :( I would not be adverse, however, to giving the whole thing another shot, since I think that this thread has given my tolerance level a boost. I'm gratified that perhaps some of you understand a little of what I was trying to say.

I would ask that Claus re-read this thread and try to accept the constructive criticism that he has received from the various posters who have spoken frankly on this issue. They are not, for the most part, people who have a dog in this fight, so I think he might trust their objectivity.

If this thread has succeeded in making my point, and has served, perhaps, to clear the air a bit, then I am truly very pleased with the outcome, and I thank everyone who has contributed in a positive way.

That being said, I am off to the gym! Later, people! :) ......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neo,

Please don't start to feign that you "understand" me more, because I have done this at TVTalkshows, too. All the time.

Sorry, neo - we have to be accurate, when we discuss this, because we have seen so many times that people come up with frantic explanations. "Oh, I didn't mean it that way!".

As Luke T. correctly writes, if we are not accurate, we never get anywhere: If we can simply claim misunderstanding when the going gets tough, then we never learn anything. It's dishonest. The discussions become linguistical masturbation, with no clear goal in sight, other than exchanging sentences.

That is futile. That is a waste of time.

I have no idea what you meant by phrases, because you never told us! Don't lay it on my doorstep that you are unable (or unwilling) to express yourself in a precise manner. I am not a mind-reader, neo.

I am fed up with these waffling word-games: Say what it is you mean to say. Being careless with your words is being careless with your mind.

And it shows a profound disrespect for other people.

Edited to add:

What is wrong with me having the notion that you believed JVP was a fake, and then ask you for clarification? Does that not show that I am very willing to admit errors?

But then again, I'm already beginning to regret what I just wrote in my last post. (sigh) :rolleyes: I think I may have been just a wee bit premature with my good will.....ya think? :D

This time I'm really off to the gym! .......neo

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by neofight

Luke, come on. Am I known, except in the mind of Cantata/Claus and a few of his subjects, to be a person who runs away from an "aggressive" skeptic? His aggression is not what I find off-putting. It's his lack of accuracy, basically, and his reluctance in admitting to it. I try to respond honestly to all questions if they are put to me in a civil manner.



You may have misunderstood me. I know you too well, neo, to consider you as someone who runs away from a good fight. You are what my mom used to call "one tough broad." A scrapper.

As for Claus' accuracy, I think there remains a long-lasting misunderstanding of exactly where Claus is coming from. And he gets frustrated at being misunderstood. As we all do, I guess.

Just realize that in Claus' world, the second you put a question mark at the end of a statement, or inject words like "I think" or "maybe" or anything of that nature, it no longer counts as a statement to be later accepted as a "hit" should it prove to be a correct guess.

That may be because Claus had schoolteachers like I had. When we took a test, no guessing was allowed. We had to state our answers plainly and without any waffling and let the chips fall where they may.

I would rather make a statement and be told I am wrong, than make some half-measure guess and take credit for being "right" if I get lucky.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Luke T.


And I suspect that somewhere deep down inside you even hold a little affection for Claus.


Sorry to butt in here, but that's an important point. Claus, evident through the spirit in his words, is a likeable soul. Those lists of 'questions' he makes up:D :D :D

[RichardR]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hmmm.....I don't. But hey, English is difficult... :) Oh I dunno. You seem to have mastered it pretty well. ;)

[BillHoyt]

neofight:
So Claus has never read anything I ever posted.....anywhere.....to give him the impression that I said that I believed that JVP was not authentic.Ahem

"I am reserving judgement on JVP until I see a little more of him."
(o7.htm)
A bit of a skeptical position here? Let us proceed...

"Perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised with JVP when we have the opportunity to watch him as closely as we've watched JE. Based on Brian Hurst's word, I am more than willing to give him every chance."
(13.htm)
"Pleasantly surprised"? Meaning, we infer, that our expectations were that JVP might be a cold or hot reader? Nah, couldn't be.

"I've never been very impressed with JVP either, so I am curious to watch his show in the fall and to see how he does in a format similar to JE's. It will give us more to go on.....neo"
(14.htm)
Still willing to be surprised, but equally clear is the "never been very impressed with JVP."

"I don't like the idea of any information being given beforehand. I can't see the need for it and it only serves to make them look bad. Even if JVP does NOT get to see any of the information, the whole concept is problematic."
(15.htm)
Ooops. Leaning even further in the "JVP might be a f-word" direction, here, eh? Didn't she say she did no such leaning? Hmm, where is that? Oh, yeah in a recent post on this thread.

"Hi, Kuma. I think it's reasonable that a perceptive person might infer that from Brian's remarks. It's possible that there are some aspects of JVP's mediumship that he does not agree with. I'm not convinced that he has no ability whatsoever, but the jury is still out on that one..."
Hmmm. "Not convinced he has no ability." Quite a negative way to put it. Very much leaning in the direction that he is mostly an f-word, but may have some redeeming mystic powers.

"JVP I am not ready to comment on. I have seen some pretty bad readings coming from him, but since I am not a fan of the 1 to 2 minute phone reading, I will reserve judgement until I've had a chance to watch his new show in the fall."
(17.htm)

"JVP has not impressed me yet in a positive way, but I plan on watching his tv show in the fall and see what I think of him after that."
(17.htm)

"I'm in agreement with everything I've read on this thread. I thought they both came off terribly. What that means, exactly? I'm not sure. One short bad demonstration is just not enought for me to decide anything....."
(19.htm)
Now this one is particularly telling as the previous posts were almost overwhelmingly of the "JVP is a fraud" variety.

"And RC, I definitely like the word "abysmal" for JVP. He really was that. If he's authentic, and phone readings do NOT work for him, why on earth does he consent to them? Speaking about cold-reading techniques, I hated to hear him launch into "You are a very good, spiritual person" or whatever he was saying to that one woman. Flattering her by saying nice things about herself is definitely one of the aspects of cold-reading, I'm sorry to say....."
Oh, no. Now he is "abysmal" And now we are "speaking about cold-reading techniques".

Methinks the lady doth protesteth too much.

Cheers,

[neofight]

Bill, what do you have there, my FBI files? LOL Did you compile that list of quotes on your own? :)

In any case, just so you remember, Bill, what Claus said, and in a most definitive way, was that I think that JVP is a fake. It just so happens, that is not the case, and I have never said that, even when arguing the point with some of my friends who are totally convinced that he is.

I always gave him the benefit of the doubt, and after watching him on "Beyond" several times, I am even more convinced that he does have mediumship skills. Period. Is that short and sweet enough for you? :D ......neo

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by neofight
Bill, what do you have there, my FBI files? LOL Did you compile that list of quotes on your own? :)

In any case, just so you remember, Bill, what Claus said, and in a most definitive way, was that I think that JVP is a fake. It just so happens, that is not the case, and I have never said that, even when arguing the point with some of my friends who are totally convinced that he is.

I always gave him the benefit of the doubt, and after watching him on "Beyond" several times, I am even more convinced that he does have mediumship skills. Period. Is that short and sweet enough for you? :D ......neo
Sickeningly sweet, dear. So much so that one might miss the buried deflection from your claim, the slightly veiled impugning of me, and the shift in position.

Everybody can read these quotes for themselves. Claus provided a link to them days ago. This thread has been going on for some time, and I wasted a lot of my own time digging into what all the fuss is about.

That digging is what rational, skeptical, scientific people do. We put our boots on, climb down into the sewers of TVblather and search. We want to find out which claim is more believable.

You see, you started out this thread with a preconceived notion. You thought Claus was some sort of demi-god here. You thought we followed his lead or something of the sort. No, no, no. Skilled skeptics dig. We have a toolkit for analyzing the truth, based soundly on credible evidence. I know that is difficult for one so swayed by the postmodernist feint that there is no truth , there are only points of view. Those of us who understand how flawed that is also know how to find out the truth.

The truth is, neo, that, your claim that "Claus has never read anything I ever posted.....anywhere.....to give him the impression that I said that I believed that JVP was not authentic." is patently untrue. You know, had you not gone here, you might have had a case, because your comments were not clearly anti-JVP. But you made the mistake so many make. You made a universal negative assertion.

Clearly, there is much that he read that could have given Claus the distinct impression that you thought JVP was not authentic. Clear as day, neo.

Cheers,

[Loki]

Claus (and Neo),

I am fed up with these waffling word-games: Say what it is you mean to say. Being careless with your words is being careless with your mind.

Now, this is the sort of comment that goes to the heart of this thread! The whole "did Neo 'guess'" issue is nothing more than a result of Claus being ambiguous with his language. You either :

(a) thought you were using the term 'correctly', although most others would read it differently - "English is difficult", as you say
(b) were deliberately being vague in your choice of language to give you 'wiggle room'.

I think it was (a). I suspect that Neo thinks it was (b).

You're arguing that there's a difference between "guessed" and "made a guess", meaning :

1. "guessed" = "I have figured it out - it is definitely a JE transcript".
2. "made a guess" = "I may have figured it out - is it a JE transcript?"

#1 is a statement, #2 is a question (that implies a probable answer).

IMO, the vast majority of people would read the statement "Nobody [i]guessed[i] it was JE" as being an example of #2. You intended it to be an example of #1. If you'd said "nobody stated it was definitely JE" you've have been correct, and unambiguous. By choosing the word "guessed", you created ambiguity in your own statements. These seems to be a recurring event when reading the exchanges between you and the TVT posters - constant misunderstanding of subtle language nuances.

The whole "neo's option of JVP" is another instance - it's all revolving around either :

1. "Neo said she thinks JVP is fake."
2. "Neo said she thinks JVP might be fake."

Claus clearly is referring to #1. BillHoyt's quotes show clearly that Neo's position was #2. Neo's wrong - Claus offered to withdraw the assertion, if she'd just clarify her opinion. Neo refused, and insisted that Claus back up his assertion. He couldn't, because he's wrong - Neo never said "is fake". He eventually admited this was probably a misunderstanding.

And that's the point - misunderstandings, repeatedly, on subtle language issues, and on both sides.

Claus is fed up with word games.
Neo is fed up with word games.

Is there anything left to be said???

[Darat]

Originally posted by Loki


...snip...

Is there anything left to be said???

Perhaps that we all seem to, at some time or other, hold people up to a standard we ourselves couldn't possibly achieve 100% of the time?

[Girl 6]

Originally posted by Darat


Perhaps that we all seem to, at some time or other, hold people up to a standard we ourselves couldn't possibly achieve 100% of the time?

I have to love the simplicity of this statement as well as how boldly TRUE it is. :D

G6

[Fade]

Originally posted by Girl 6


I have to love the simplicity of this statement as well as how boldly TRUE it is. :D

G6

Don't forget that sometimes we, as humans, don't see ourselves as we actually are :)

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Sickeningly sweet, dear. So much so that one might miss the buried deflection from your claim, the slightly veiled impugning of me, and the shift in position.

Say what??? :confused: "Slightly veiled impugning"??? Bill, trust me. If there's something I want to say about you, I'll come right out and say it. What are you, paranoid or something? You are being too clever by half here with moronic statements like that.

Furthermore, there has been no shift whatsoever in my position, Bill. I have been, and am even now, consistent. As is very clear from reading those quotes, many of my comments were made prior to having seen JVP's show, and in response to negative comments made by others. I have consistently refused to call him a fake. I was absolutely confident that I had never said that, mainly because I do not believe that he is one, even though he had performed abysmally on LKL.

Think what you want, Bill. As you said, my comments are there for all to see. Why is it that RC and Clancie were so sure that I had never said that I thought JVP was a fraud, huh? Why is it always Claus that gets it wrong?

And the reason I got so angry with him saying what he did, is because I've corrected the record more than once. There is no excuse for him to keep getting it wrong. If he'd just pay attention to what people are saying, instead of spending all his time planning how he might next attack us, he might actually learn something about what we think and why we think it.

Clearly, there is much that he read that could have given Claus the distinct impression that you thought JVP was not authentic. Clear as day, neo.

No, Bill. Actually the most he should have inferred from reading all those quotes was that I had an open mind, unlike some others around here. :p ......neo

[BillHoyt]

If he'd just pay attention to what people are saying, instead of spending all his time planning how he might next attack us, he might actually learn something about what we think and why we think it....
I can just see this plea being played out in court, and said by a defendant (or his counsel) about the prosecutor. Do you think it would carry much when the record is already laid out? No. It is precisely your words that I have gathered together here. Do you deny them? Do your wish to maintain that a reasonable person, having read them, might come to the reasonable conclusion that you did, in fact, post something from which Claus might reasonably conclude you thought JVP might be a fraud?

Please understand me clearly. I do not know, nor do I care, what you might think about JVP, JE or any of these other half-baked entertainers. You have said, quite clearly, that you posted nothing, nowhere, from which Claus might reasonably have gotten the impression you thought JVP a fake. And here stands the record of your comments.

"I've never been impressed with JVP"

"it only serves to make them look bad."

"I'm in agreement with everything on this thread" (where the comments were overwhelmingly negative and highly suggestive of JVP being a fake)

"I definitely like the word 'abysmal' for JVP"

What wool are you trying to pull over on us? Do these look like ringing endorsements to you? Come off it. Do you really not see how a reasonable person might reasonably get the impression you thought JVP was a fake?

I don't really think you're disingenuous, neo. I am witholding judgment. I definitely like the word 'abysmal', though, for you. I think your posts here on JREF only serve to make you look bad. But, of course, I haven't yet come to any conclusions. It is true, I've never been impressed with you...

Don't answer, please, for your own sake. Just silently stew and think. How did that last paragraph strike you?

Cheers,

[RichardR]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Do you really not see how a reasonable person might reasonably get the impression you thought JVP was a fake?
Honestly Bill, reading those quotes out of context, I wasn’t quite sure what position neo was taking re JVP. In fact, the posts confused me considerably. But my overall impression was she wasn’t sure about JVP, but was keeping an open mind. Just the impression I got.

Perhaps I’m not a reasonable person. ;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by RichardR
Honestly Bill, reading those quotes out of context, I wasn’t quite sure what position neo was taking re JVP. In fact, the posts confused me considerably. But my overall impression was she wasn’t sure about JVP, but was keeping an open mind. Just the impression I got.

Perhaps I’m not a reasonable person. ;)
RichardR,

You're actually on my point, but don't realize it. This is the crux of the matter:
So Claus has never read anything I ever posted.....anywhere.....to give him the impression that I said that I believed that JVP was not authentic.

On the contrary, Richard, you are a reasonable person. I think you've simply misconstrued my point. You say the posts "confused [you] considerably", and that you weren't "quite sure what postion neo was taking". That is my point. Neo wishes to portray Claus as taking an unreasonable position. She wishes us to believe she has posted "nothing... anywhere"... that may have given him the impression JVP was not authentic. Yet you say her posts have left you confused. That is precisely my point. A reasonable interpretation of her meandering posts could reasonably have led someone to question her position.

Cheers,

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Sorry to butt in here, but that's an important point. Claus, evident through the spirit in his words, is a likeable soul. Those lists of 'questions' he makes up:D :D :D

You mean the ones you never answer?

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Don't answer, please, for your own sake. Just silently stew and think. How did that last paragraph strike you?

I never stew silently, Bill, as though you could ever get me to stew at all. :p

.....Come off it. Do you really not see how a reasonable person might reasonably get the impression you thought JVP was a fake?

No I don't. I agreed that at times he performed poorly. That is a far cry from calling him a fake. Besides which, Claus, a stickler for accuracy remember, did not say initially that he had the impression that I thought JVP was a fake. He stated it as a fact. So stick it in your ear, Bill. My posts speak for themselves, as do yours.......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by RichardR
Honestly Bill, reading those quotes out of context, I wasn’t quite sure what position neo was taking re JVP. In fact, the posts confused me considerably. But my overall impression was she wasn’t sure about JVP, but was keeping an open mind. Just the impression I got.

Perhaps I’m not a reasonable person. ;)

Hi, Richard. Another point that I would like to make is that Claus did not read those quotes out of context. He's been around for each and every discussion we've had over at TVTalk, and I've never said what he claims I did. Thats what burns me up. :mad: ....neo

[Loki]

Bill,

A reasonable interpretation of her meandering posts could reasonably have led someone to question her position.
But again, the *point* being made is a subtle language issue... as far as I can tell, Neo would agree with the following statement (she should - she said it!) :

"So Claus has never read anything I ever posted.....anywhere.....to give him the impression that I said that I believed that JVP was not authentic."

However, I assume she'd be forced by your above quotes to conceed that a statement like the following would be incorrect :

"So Claus has never read anything I ever posted.....anywhere.....to give him the impression that I said that I believed that JVP might not be authentic."

She's made plenty of statements - you've listed several of them - that essentially say "Neo says JVP might not be authentic".
But Claus (originally) presented this as "Neo says JVP is not authentic". Neo denies ever saying "is not". Neo conceeds saying "might not be". Claus seems to now accept this. Neo's whole point is that Claus (on more than one occasion) read "might not be", but repeated it back as "is not".

Does it really matter? Well, Claus has just expressed his frustration with 'word games', and called upon Neo to "say what she means". Her point seems to be that at least on some occasions she *does* say what she means, but Claus doesn't accurately repeat it. This entire pendantic exchange seems to show that Claus is at least *sometimes* capable of committing the errors that Neo is raising.

I just feel the need to repeat Darat's last comment here :

"Perhaps that we all seem to, at some time or other, hold people up to a standard we ourselves couldn't possibly achieve 100% of the time?"

[neofight]

Loki, you are a voice of reason, and I DO concede all the points you've made here, and I agree with Darat's wise comment as well. Are we having fun yet? :D .....neo

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Loki
However, I assume she'd be forced by your above quotes to conceed that a statement like the following would be incorrect :

"So Claus has never read anything I ever posted.....anywhere.....to give him the impression that I said that I believed that JVP might not be authentic."
Loki,

I now make only two points here:
1. Yes, I would also assume that, in light of her own quotes, she would concede the incorrectness of her above-quoted statement, and

2. No, she has not conceded that.

I have not made and do not make any other claims on this controversy.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Oh, yeah, consistent as the day is long.

This to me: "So stick it in your ear, Bill. My posts speak for themselves, as do yours.......neo"

And then her "concession speech" to Loki.

Anybody else get the warm, fuzzy feeling of consistency in this? Hmm?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
On the contrary, Richard, you are a reasonable person.I just wanted to quote that for posterity. :D

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Loki,

I now make only two points here:
1. Yes, I would also assume that, in light of her own quotes, she would concede the incorrectness of her above-quoted statement, and

2. No, she has not conceded that.

I have not made and do not make any other claims on this controversy.

Cheers,

That's fine with me, Bill, but first I have to take you to task for your above stated inaccuracies, since I know you would not want the last thing you said on the subject to be erroneous, now would you? :eek: Remember how important accuracy is. Claus stresses this all the time, and I'm sure it's the one point that we can all agree on. :D

Sooooo, that being said, I will take your "only two points" one at a time.......

#1. Bill, as I read Loki's post, he is not saying that he assumes, in light of my own quotes, that I would concede the incorrectness of my above-quoted statement, because the first above quoted statement is correct, and is written exactly as I said it, and I stand by it. :rolleyes:

#2. You say that I have not conceded "that". Well, the fact is, that I did concede Loki's point, viz: that had the second quote up there been worded the way Loki did when he altered it to demonstrate a point, then yes, I would have had to concede that Claus was correct. That is not the case, however, since the second quote is not what I said. Capisce? :D ......neo

[neofight]

bumped for Bill :) ......neo

[RC]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Hey, RC, how the heck are you?

I'm just fine, Luke, and it's great to hear from you! I took a couple of days off from these threads to cool off and gain some perspective.

I like your comments about TVTalkshows. I really enjoy the discussions we have over there. We might be a little lightweight at times, but we don't take ourselves too seriously. I also think we genuinely get along. I like everyone there, even Fraudpa and JR with his awful politics. The board is suffering from a horrific lack of energy following Trevor's software change and I hope it gets jumpstarted soon.

As for Claus/Cantata, I've expressed my problems with him a zillion times and it's not worth getting into again. Someone wrote to me once and said that Claus' problem is his lack of self-discipline which results in his need to respond to every single post and his obsession with having the last word.

But I would be wrong to say that I haven't learned a few things from him. When I can't answer one of his questions then it causes me to stop and think, even if I don't comment on it in writing.

[neofight]

Bttt for BillHoyt

[Leroy]

What the hell is this thread about? :confused:

[Leroy]

I understand now. It is about a persons debating skills.

My question is, why debate with this person? If you find him to be dishonest (scrolling back up to see what your other word was) and mis-representing, put him on ignore.

[thaiboxerken]

It's not really about debate skills. Neo is simply appealing to emotion and pity in this thread. Neo is tired of having the burden of evidence for his claims of the paranormal, tired of having to try and prove that mediumship is real. Clause and other skeptics have shown the fallaciousnesss of Neo's arguements both here and at TVTalk.

To the believers, it's all about faith and subjective interpretation. This is where they fail all logic and reason. Because of this, they'll not understand the position of the skeptics, the position of "I doubt it."

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy
I understand now. It is about a persons debating skills.

My question is, why debate with this person? If you find him to be dishonest (scrolling back up to see what your other word was) and mis-representing, put him on ignore.

Hi, Leroy. Actually, we do put him on ignore every so often when we just can't stand him anymore. There are several of us over at TVTalk who have ignored him on and off a good many times already over the last year or so. We've also at times, asked him nicely to just not post to us, but he totally ignores all these polite requests and continues to address us as though we never asked him not to. :rolleyes:

Did you ever meet a person that you could not insult, Leroy? Well, Claus is like that. I think we've come to accept that he will never go away, so we might as well throw him a bone every once in a while. lol I'm sure he's an affable enough sort of guy in person, or so I've heard anyhow, but he drives us nuts when he debates us, and NOT for the reasons that thaiboxerken thinks, either. Actually, thaiboxerken, if his above post is any indication, is rather clueless himself, not to mention a Claus brownnose. :D ...neo

[neofight]

A shoutout to BillHoyt! Is BillHoyt in the house? How about Dick Hertz? Is he around? Who's Dick Hertz, anyhow? lol Sorry, I couldn't resist! :o .....neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Hi, Leroy. Actually, we do put him on ignore every so often when we just can't stand him anymore. There are several of us over at TVTalk who have ignored him on and off a good many times already over the last year or so. We've also at times, asked him nicely to just not post to us, but he totally ignores all these polite requests and continues to address us as though we never asked him not to. :rolleyes:

...sigh...now, it's "every so often". Funny how you change your story.

Originally posted by neofight
Did you ever meet a person that you could not insult, Leroy? Well, Claus is like that.

Maybe you're just not very good at it... ;)

Originally posted by neofight
I think we've come to accept that he will never go away, so we might as well throw him a bone every once in a while. lol

How condescending. Oops, that's right: You are never condescending...

Originally posted by neofight
I'm sure he's an affable enough sort of guy in person, or so I've heard anyhow, but he drives us nuts when he debates us, and NOT for the reasons that thaiboxerken thinks, either. Actually, thaiboxerken, if his above post is any indication, is rather clueless himself, not to mention a Claus brownnose. :D ...neo

neo, I have no idea why you are here on this board, except for making personal attacks at anyone who dares oppose you.

You don't want to discuss issues. You don't want to show evidence of your claims. You don't want to consider any evidence that is put before you. And you certainly don't want to answer any questions (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21305) even though you demand answers from everybody else.

And you wonder why you are called a hypocrite...??

[Leroy]

Neo is simply appealing to emotion and pity in this thread. Neo is tired of having the burden of evidence for his claims of the paranormal, tired of having to try and prove that mediumship is real. Clause and other skeptics have shown the fallaciousnesss of Neo's arguements both here and at TVTalk.

I will have to disagree with you here. Maybe I missed a post but I don't see where Neo is appealing to emotion, or pity. I do see where he is frustrated at the nonsense of some of the repetitive posts. As far as having the burden of proving the paranormal - good luck to him there. If he can prove such a thing he will go down in history.

To the believers, it's all about faith and subjective interpretation. This is where they fail all logic and reason. Because of this, they'll not understand the position of the skeptics, the position of "I doubt it."

That is an ignorant statement son. From my dealings with believers it isn't about faith and interpretation. In some cases it can be, in other cases it is about first hand experience. And in many cases it is pure wannabe magical non-sense. There are dozens of reasons why believers believe in things. Because they believe it that doesn't mean that they fail all logic and reasoning.

Did you ever meet a person that you could not insult, Leroy?

I don't go around trying to insult people :eek:

[RichardR]

I don't go around trying to insult people :eek: Does it happen by accident then, son?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Leroy

That is an ignorant statement son.

Don't call me your son, I consider it an insult.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy


I will have to disagree with you here. Maybe I missed a post but I don't see where Neo is appealing to emotion, or pity.

No, Leroy. You are correct. I do not do that. If you read some of these threads in their entirety, you will quickly get the big picture, and get to know the cast of characters in no time. That will help you judge for yourself which individuals better support their arguments. BTW, neo (moi) is a she! ;)


That is an ignorant statement son. From my dealings with believers it isn't about faith and interpretation. In some cases it can be, in other cases it is about first hand experience. And in many cases it is pure wannabe magical non-sense. There are dozens of reasons why believers believe in things. Because they believe it that doesn't mean that they fail all logic and reasoning.

Thank you for that acknowledgement, Leroy. It is true that believers in JE and mediumship have come to their conclusions for any number of reasons, and that does not denote that we are devoid of reasoning skills. Some skeptics like to pretend that no believer can be a critical thinker, which in itself is an asinine stance to take, imho. :rolleyes:

I don't go around trying to insult people :eek:

Nor did I mean to suggest that you do, Leroy. I don't make it a habit either, but I do make a few exceptions, and Claus is one of them, and it's only because he makes it so easy to do, and seems to be constantly begging for it. I guess, as with children, Claus finds negative attention better than no attention at all. :D .....neo

[Leroy]

Don't call me your son, I consider it an insult.

I apologize. You sounded like my son in your post. I will try to watch that in the future.

It is true that believers in JE and mediumship have come to their conclusions for any number of reasons, and that does not denote that we are devoid of reasoning skills.

Of course it doesn't. I hope that isn't the attitude of the skeptic here.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by neofight
A shoutout to BillHoyt! Is BillHoyt in the house?
[/B]
If and when you have something of substance to discuss, I am always here. But if you simply want to quibble over the meaning of "that", "might", etc., then I'm out.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Nor did I mean to suggest that you do, Leroy. I don't make it a habit either, but I do make a few exceptions, and Claus is one of them, and it's only because he makes it so easy to do, and seems to be constantly begging for it. I guess, as with children, Claus finds negative attention better than no attention at all. :D .....neo

You know, one might think you are actually infatuated with me. You never lose a chance of mentioning my name, even when - as is the case here - I am not involved.

You spend so much time talking about me, that it borders on obsession.

Do you dream of me, too?

[neofight]

Originally posted by Leroy

Of course it doesn't. I hope that isn't the attitude of the skeptic here.

Sad to say, Leroy, but it appears that it does seem to be the case with a few of them......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

If and when you have something of substance to discuss, I am always here. But if you simply want to quibble over the meaning of "that", "might", etc., then I'm out.

No skin off my nose, Bill. And I was not quibbling. You're the one who misinterpreted my statements and drew the wrong conclusions. I just assumed that you would wish to correct your mistakes for the record, but hey! If you don't mind leaving them there for everyone to read and re-read, why should I? I won't bother you about it again. I promise! :D ....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You know, one might think you are actually infatuated with me. You never lose a chance of mentioning my name, even when - as is the case here - I am not involved.

Well, that's not exactly the case here, Claus, since this entire thread was actually devoted to you, and to people like you. :rolleyes:

Do you dream of me, too?

Not that I remember.....but then, perhaps you were not all that memorable. ;) .....neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Well, that's not exactly the case here, Claus, since this entire thread was actually devoted to you, and to people like you. :rolleyes:

Yes, let's see....it was about my "dishonesty". Which you were unable to prove.

Originally posted by neofight
Not that I remember.....but then, perhaps you were not all that memorable. ;) .....neo

Perhaps that's why you spend so much time discussing - and dissing - me. :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

Clause has not been dishonest, and if found to be mistaken he has admitted the fault.

Why does the position of doubt invoke animosity from the believers?

Why do believers feel the need to state "i was skeptical but.."?

Why does neo try to assert himself as a skeptic, while believing in ghosts?

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yes, let's see....it was about my "dishonesty". Which you were unable to prove.

No, it was about your dishonest or otherwise defective debating tactics, which you have been kind enough to demonstrate for all of us right here, on a regular basis. That is all the proof anyone needs, actually, and you provide it for me. :D Ironic, isn't it? .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Clause has not been dishonest, and if found to be mistaken he has admitted the fault.

TBK, I think it's fair to say that you have missed the whole point of this thread. :(

Why does the position of doubt invoke animosity from the believers?

Why do believers feel the need to state "i was skeptical but.."?

Why does neo try to assert himself as a skeptic, while believing in ghosts?

Get over yourself, butt-muncher! And while you're at it, stop stereotyping people. One size does not fit all. Furthermore, your arrogance is showing, and believe me, it's not a pretty sight. You are also amazingly clueless for a know-it-all. :p ......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
No, it was about your dishonest or otherwise defective debating tactics, which you have been kind enough to demonstrate for all of us right here, on a regular basis. That is all the proof anyone needs, actually, and you provide it for me. :D Ironic, isn't it? .....neo

Ironic that you cannot point out where I am dishonest. Either before or in this thread.

Your accusations seem more and more shrill, as do your incessant personal attacks. Why don't you give it up and focus on some issues instead?

E.g.: Can you provide evidence that skeptics claim that "if they did, ultimately, get proof that mediumship is real, then it would be no time at all before all of the secrets of the cosmos would be revealed to mankind, and a cure would be found for all diseases, and all abducted children would be found and reunited with their families, and so on, and so forth."?

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Ironic that you cannot point out where I am dishonest. Either before or in this thread.

Puleeeeze, Claus. I'm not going to, as Clancie so aptly put it, jump through hoops for you. All anyone would have to do, should they be interested in observing you in action, is to read through any thread where we posted to one another, and it would be quite obvious what I am talking about.

In fact, nice try in revising history, pal, but I've already succeeded in making my point, in case you've forgotten, when I posted Lurker's "Cold-reading Test" thread. Are you in denial over that? :rolleyes:

Your accusations seem more and more shrill, as do your incessant personal attacks. Why don't you give it up and focus on some issues instead?

In case you have not noticed, Mr. Lawsen, your flawed debating methods are an issue as far as I'm concerned. They irritate me! :mad: ....neo

[thaiboxerken]

In case you have not noticed, Mr. Lawsen, your flawed debating methods are an issue as far as I'm concerned. They irritate me! ....neo


I have seen no dishonesty from Clause. In fact, I see many of the logical fallacies coming from you and Clancie, Neo.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

In fact, I see many of the logical fallacies coming from you and Clancie
thaiboxerken,

Please share "many of the logical fallacies" that I've posted here.
Thank you.

[neofight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I have seen no dishonesty from Clause. In fact, I see many of the logical fallacies coming from you and Clancie, Neo.

Yeah, TBK! What Clancie said! :rolleyes: ......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Puleeeeze, Claus. I'm not going to, as Clancie so aptly put it, jump through hoops for you. All anyone would have to do, should they be interested in observing you in action, is to read through any thread where we posted to one another, and it would be quite obvious what I am talking about.

So, in other words, you cannot point out what you are so angry about, but thinks a reference to a looong thread is sufficient.

You remind me of King of the Americas, who also posts here: He humliated himself by calling Howard Stern on the radio, insisting that Stern read a lengthy piece KOA had written. When Stern asked why he should read such a long piece, KOA couldn't explain. When Stern asked if KOA could give a brief summary, KOA couldn't do it.

Pathetic.

You want to criticize me, do it with examples. Evidence. Not with these vague referrals to something you cannot tell what is. That's not only insufficient, it's also cowardly behavior. You repeat these accusations in the hope that someone will believe them. Forget the facts, just repeat the lie.

Originally posted by neofight
In fact, nice try in revising history, pal, but I've already succeeded in making my point, in case you've forgotten, when I posted Lurker's "Cold-reading Test" thread. Are you in denial over that? :rolleyes:

Back to moving the goal posts, are we? You are most welcome to post examples of my sins from that thread as well.

Originally posted by neofight
In case you have not noticed, Mr. Lawsen, your flawed debating methods are an issue as far as I'm concerned. They irritate me! :mad: ....neo

Then tell us what they are. Oh...sorry....I forgot. You can't.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Clancie

thaiboxerken,

Please share "many of the logical fallacies" that I've posted here.
Thank you. [/B]

You appeal to ignorance, you ignore the law of parsimony and you appeal to ad hominem. There are many more, but to list all of them would be simply listing all of the logical fallacies.



;)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then tell us what they are. Oh...sorry....I forgot. You can't.
How about....
Starting a thread based on a particular premise. When asked to back up that premise with an example, you post a short out of context quote. When the full context is provided, it is clear that you were wrong about the meaning of the quote. When confronted with this, you still stick to your original assertion as to its meaning, despite that interpretation being ridiculous. Then, after the original poster of the quote confirms that you are wrong, you ignore it. You continue to ignore very basic, very direct questions that go to the root of the thread that you started. You give no reason for avoiding these questions, you don't claim they are unfair, you post other responsses around them, but still don't answer the basic questions.

One is left to conclude that you were simply wrong in your basic assertion in the thread, and unwilling to admit it. Seems a little dishonest to me.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Who are you talking about???

[Thanz]

Claus, I am talking about you in the "Taken in by John Edward" thread.

[CFLarsen]

I'm sorry, Thanz, but I don't believe what Steve says. He is an habitual liar. He will stop at nothing to present his case in the best possible light - similarly, he will stop at nothing to besmirch skeptics, me included. If he sees a chance, he'll use it.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I'm sorry, Thanz, but I don't believe what Steve says. He is an habitual liar. He will stop at nothing to present his case in the best possible light - similarly, he will stop at nothing to besmirch skeptics, me included. If he sees a chance, he'll use it.
I know your feelings about Steve. But that is secondary to the point. You still haven't answered my questions or provided any backup for your claim that believers are fond of making that particular argument. If they are fond of making it, you should be able to offer more than a strained and disputed interpretation of one statement. Why are you ignoring my questions?

And isn't simply calling Steve names when he says something you disagree with a very poor devbating tactic? Ad hominem anyone?

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

It is not secondary to the point - it is pivotal to the point.

I don't consider it name-calling when I refer to Steve as an habitual liar. I consider it speaking the truth.

I am not ignoring the questions, but I have provided evidence of my claim.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

It is not secondary to the point - it is pivotal to the point.

I don't consider it name-calling when I refer to Steve as an habitual liar. I consider it speaking the truth.

I am not ignoring the questions, but I have provided evidence of my claim.
Dude, you are ignoring the questions. Show me where you have answered them. They are very direct, simple questions. Answer them.

And no, you haven't provided evidence. You have provided one quote that you have tried to twist to mean what you want it to.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

You appeal to ignorance, you ignore the law of parsimony and you appeal to ad hominem. There are many more, but to list all of them would be simply listing all of the logical fallacies.
lol. What I meant, thaiboxerken, was to list specific examples of my "many logical fallacies".

Not just a list of unsupported accusations. That doesn't show anything. So, I guess 3 examples would be a good start

1. Where I "appeal to ignorance"

2. Where I "ignore the law of parsimony"

3. Where I "appeal to ad hominem".

Please back up these (so far) unfounded accusations.
Thank you.

[thaiboxerken]

1. Where I "appeal to ignorance"

By stating that JE's "special hits" mean that there must be "something" to his mediumship. This is an appeal to ignorance, because we do not know for sure how JE cheats, you imply that there must be some reality to his talking to the dead.


2. Where I "ignore the law of parsimony"

Actually, the same example I gave of #1 applies to this as well. You prefer the paranormal explanation as compared to mundane ones.


3. Where I "appeal to ad hominem".

You attack Clause most often, others not quite as often.

[Leroy]

By stating that JE's "special hits" mean that there must be "something" to his mediumship. This is an appeal to ignorance, because we do not know for sure how JE cheats, you imply that there must be some reality to his talking to the dead.

thaiboxerken, you say that because we do not know for sure HOW JE cheats, clancie takes that to mean there must be some reality to his talking to the dead.

First of all, I can see your point, but disagree with the way you wrote it. You write as though it is proven that JE cheats. It isn't. So, we have to concluded that there is a slight possibility that he might not be cheating. If you disagree I will be happy to read anything that offers proof that JE does cheat. So, if it hasn't been proven that JE (I am assuming John Edward) cheats, than why would it be ignorant for clancie to think there might be some reality to his talking to the dead?


It is ignorant to assume that if we don't believe something to exist, it must not exist and that all who believe it does, must be ignorant.

But I understand what you are trying to say here (I think). One shouldn't assume that because JE has special hits, that makes him legit. There could be dozens of ways to get special hits.

btw, I love your quote Religious fundamentalist... sports fanatic.... what's the difference?- Rev. Boxer :D

[thaiboxerken]

thaiboxerken, you say that because we do not know for sure HOW JE cheats, clancie takes that to mean there must be some reality to his talking to the dead.

First of all, I can see your point, but disagree with the way you wrote it. You write as though it is proven that JE cheats. It isn't. So, we have to concluded that there is a slight possibility that he might not be cheating. If you disagree I will be happy to read anything that offers proof that JE does cheat. So, if it hasn't been proven that JE (I am assuming John Edward) cheats, than why would it be ignorant for clancie to think there might be some reality to his talking to the dead?

It is an appeal to ignorance and a violation of the law of parsimony to assume taht JE does really listen to the dead speak. It has been shown on numerous occasions how mediums cheat, how cold-reading is done and that to accomplish JE's "special hits" that there are many mundane methods. To conclude that JE uses some special ability without first factoring out the cheating is ignorance. It is a fallacy to default to superpowers and paranormal abilities until one shows that they are not cheating. JE hasn't been tested to satisfaction for me to believe.


It is ignorant to assume that if we don't believe something to exist, it must not exist and that all who believe it does, must be ignorant.

No, it's ignorant to default to belief over science. This is what the law of parsimony is trying to dissuade.


But I understand what you are trying to say here (I think). One shouldn't assume that because JE has special hits, that makes him legit. There could be dozens of ways to get special hits.

btw, I love your quote :D

Exactly, until we can factor out the cheats, one shouldn't believe JE is a real medium.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

Clancie: And where do I "appeal to ignorance"?

thaiboxerken: By stating that JE's "special hits" mean that there must be "something" to his mediumship.
Please provide evidence I have ever said there "must" be something to his mediumship because of special hits. My actual position is that there may be something to it. Quite different.
Posted by thaiboxerken

This is an appeal to ignorance, because we do not know for sure how JE cheats, you imply that there must be some reality to his talking to the dead.
rofl. You don't know that he cheats, yet you are willing to assume as a fact that he cheats. And you criticize the coherency of my arguments?
Posted by thaiboxerken

Clancie: And where do I "ignore the law of parsimony"?

thaiboxer ken: Actually, the same example I gave of #1 applies to this as well. You prefer the paranormal explanation as compared to mundane ones.
Nice try. Unfortunately, I've looked (and continue to look) for mundane evidence (hot reading) to explain the special hits, but so far it is sadly lacking. Therefore, unlike you, I maintain the skeptical position of doubt. Mediumship may exist and it may be explained by ADC. Or, there may yet, some day, be evidence that JE gets special hits by hot reading..or unusually clever guesswork...or some other equally mundane explanation.

Until there is mundane explanation of special hits, then...both possibilities remain, imo, on the table.
From thaiboxerken

Clancie: And where do I "appeal to ad hominem"?

thaiboxer ken: You attack Clause most often
Do I? I think I try very hard to stay focused on the subject. But it's interesting to me how often Claus resorts to the ad hominem attacks that you apparently dislike so (yet which, in his case, you never, ever, mention) Claus has no hesitation in calling Steve, neo and me liars and hypocrites. I have asked him for "evidence" of my "lying" and have received...zero examples. Don't you see that as ad hominem, tbk?

Or does it just not bother you when someone you agree with does it?:confused:

(Note to tbk, This is a clause. CFL's name is "Claus": ).
Posted by thaiboxerken
(You personally attack) others not quite as often
Please give evidence where I have made personal attacks on others at all. (I'm not even sure that I've done it with Claus although, with our history and my opinion of his debate tactics, its possible).

I dispute that I have done it at all with others.

And on the subject of "logic"
Posted by tbk

It has been shown on numerous occasions how mediums cheat
Some mediums have been shown to cheat. Logically, the existence of one (or ten) mediums who cheat does not mean, therefore, that all mediums cheat. Nor have all other mediums "special hits" been explained away through "mundane means".

[thaiboxerken]

You will not even admit that you commit the fallacies when pointed out. You lack understanding in the rules of logic and the law of parsimony. Discussion with you is utterly useless, as you obviously believe in mediumship, you believe you have superpowers and you will use any tactic to make the skeptics look like beleivers.

The reality is, JE does his mediumship "for entertainment purposes only." Why do you claim to have superpowers? Are you roleplaying?

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken to Clancie

...you believe you have superpowers and you will use any tactic to make the skeptics look like beleivers.....

Why do you claim to have superpowers?

Are you roleplaying?
rofl. This is too funny. It came last in your post to me, but I had to move it to the top, for obvious reasons, tbk. Where do you come up with this stuff? :rolleyes:
Posted by thaiboxerken

You will not even admit that you commit the fallacies when pointed out.
I guess you're unable to understand a responsive argument. Apparently all you can do is repeat some pat phrases you've memorized and wait for someone to "admit" them. Sad.
Posted by thaiboxerken

You lack understanding in the rules of logic and the law of parsimony.
...repeating your memorized phrases again, completely oblivious to what I responded. Sad.
Posted by thaiboxerken

...as you obviously believe in mediumship
Actually, thaiboxerken, you again demonstrate your lack of comprehension. I don't actually "believe in mediumship". I think that not everything has been accounted for as cold/warm/hot reading--not by a long shot. Therefore, I think there "may be something to it." Then again, you're really not interested in my argument anyway. You're comfortable with your own statements and your own preconceived ideas (like the quotes that started this post), which you like to repeat verbatim, regardless of the reply you get from someone else.

Agreement with your own assertions seems to be about all you can handle, no matter how silly your statements are (like the ones at the beginning of this post). Sad.
Posted by thaiboxerken

Discussion with you is utterly useless
Finally! We agree!:eek:

[thaiboxerken]

Therefore, I think there "may be something to it."

All of what JE does can be explained with mundane methods. Yet you insist that there "may" be something to it. Sorry, but you are appealing to the unknown here.

JE does what he does "for entertainment purposes only."

Nuff said.
:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Do I? I think I try very hard to stay focused on the subject. But it's interesting to me how often Claus resorts to the ad hominem attacks that you apparently dislike so (yet which, in his case, you never, ever, mention) Claus has no hesitation in calling Steve, neo and me liars and hypocrites. I have asked him for "evidence" of my "lying" and have received...zero examples.

A lie in itself:

TVTalkshows
Thread: "Watching the frauds"

(Gryphon2/Clancie) 207.175.243.209 09-25-2002 11:07 AM

Aside from the popular use of the phrase "double blind", I have never seen any of these proponents of testing suggest anything specific that they would actually try do in a "properly controlled setting" to measure and evaluate mediumship.

No specifics. Just complaints.

That is an outright lie. I have given examples of how such an experimental design could be designed, and others have too. You never got back on this, hoping it would go away.

It didn't.

Originally posted by Clancie
Or does it just not bother you when someone you agree with does it?:confused:

This is a personal attack in itself.

Originally posted by Clancie
Please give evidence where I have made personal attacks on others at all. (I'm not even sure that I've done it with Claus although, with our history and my opinion of his debate tactics, its possible).

Here is but one example:

TVTalkshows
Thread: "Sylvia Browne"
(Gryphon2/Clancie) 207.175.243.209 07-01-2002 01:10 PM

"What's wrong with her attitude is her ARROGANCE, RUDENESS, and CONDESCENSION. Its not too surprising, though. Those qualities really turn many people off, you know?"

I dispute that I have done it at all with others.[/B]

You have.

Originally posted by Clancie
Some mediums have been shown to cheat. Logically, the existence of one (or ten) mediums who cheat does not mean, therefore, that all mediums cheat. Nor have all other mediums "special hits" been explained away through "mundane means".

Please post your evidence that just one medium has been shown to be real.

I think you are two questions behind:

Do you think it is stupid to claim to be able to talk to dead animals?

Would you pay money to see a psychic surgeon?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Clancie: ...it's interesting to me how often Claus resorts to the ad hominem attacks that you apparently dislike so (yet which, in his case, you never, ever, mention) Claus has no hesitation in calling Steve, neo and me liars and hypocrites. I have asked him for "evidence" of my "lying" and have received...zero examples

CFLarsen: A lie in itself
What is a lie? You mean that you haven't called Steve, neo and me liars and hypocrites at this board and given no evidence of my "lies" even though I asked for it (twice) on the (inaccurately titled) "No General Seating at John Edward Seminars" thread?

Go back and check the post. I saw no examples from you of my "lies" whatsoever.

Now, you're taking my post from TVTalk that I have "never seen any of these proponents of testing suggest anything specific that they would actually try do in a "properly controlled setting" to measure and evaluate mediumship?" as an example of my "lie"? Haha. It was true. I hadn't seen such a test.
Posted by CFLarsen

That is an outright lie. I have given examples of how such an experimental design could be designed
Really? When Snowbird seemed willing to be tested, I remember you asking if anyone had ideas of how to do it.

Please share your "examples of how such an experimental design could be designed." I don't remember ever seeing that from you, even on the thread we eventually had over there about how to set up tests for mediums, a thread where various ideas were eventually floated.
Posted by CFLarsen

Clancie to thaiboxerken: Or does it just not bother you when someone you agree with (makes ad hominem attacks)?

CFLarsen: This is a personal attack in itself.
:confused: I'm pointing out tbk's inconsistency and asking him if he finds ad hominem attacks from you acceptable, but any from "believers", unacceptable and why. It's not personal at all.

P.S. I don't understand your post quoting me about Sylvia Brown. Is that your idea of a "personal attack I've made on others?" I don't see how.

Besides, tbk was accusing me within his frame of reference--i.e. of making personal attacks on others at this board. I'm asking him for evidence of those.
Posted by CFLarsen

Please post your evidence that just one medium has been shown to be real.
Please show where I have ever said that just one medium (or any medium) "has been shown" to be real?

[thaiboxerken]

I'm pointing out tbk's inconsistency and asking him if he finds ad hominem attacks from you acceptable, but any from "believers", unacceptable and why. It's not personal at all.

Ad-hominem is acceptable, and fun. However, unlike you, Clancie presents valid arguements as well. You post nothing but fallacy, the back-bone of your arguements IS ad-hominem.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

However, unlike you, Clancie presents valid arguements as well. You post nothing but fallacy, the back-bone of your arguements IS ad-hominem.
Why, thank you, thaiboxerken! I guess you went back to read my posts after all and realize that I rarely, if ever, resort to ad hominem (unlike various others who post to me).

Your recognition, however belated, of the numerous ad hominem attacks so often made against me, totally unprovoked, is certainly very welcome. :D

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm pointing out tbk's inconsistency and asking him if he finds ad hominem attacks from you acceptable, but any from "believers", unacceptable and why. It's not personal at all.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Ad-hominem is acceptable, and fun. However, unlike you, Clancie presents valid arguements as well. You post nothing but fallacy, the back-bone of your arguements IS ad-hominem.

Well, well, well! However unintended this remark was on TBK's part, (LOL) it proves one thing, and that is that even a broken clock is correct twice a day. rotflmao :D ..........neo

Uh, tbk, I think you might want to edit that post a bit! ;) lol It seems that you inadvertently got it right! ha ha ha

[Clancie]

(Shhhh, neo! Maybe he won't notice, ya know?:p I liked it so much that I'm thinking of using it for my new sig line, lol).

[neofight]

Originally posted by Clancie
(Shhhh, neo! Maybe he won't notice, ya know?:p I liked it so much that I'm thinking of using it for my new sig line, lol).


As well you should, Clancie! He wrote it about you, so you should feel free to use it. I know I sure would! lol :D .........neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
What is a lie? You mean that you haven't called Steve, neo and me liars and hypocrites at this board and given no evidence of my "lies" even though I asked for it (twice) on the (inaccurately titled) "No General Seating at John Edward Seminars" thread?

No, that's not what I wrote and you know it. You are misrepresenting what I wrote. Knowingly.

Originally posted by Clancie
Go back and check the post. I saw no examples from you of my "lies" whatsoever.

I know you didn't. You are very good at ignoring facts, Clancie, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.

Originally posted by Clancie
Now, you're taking my post from TVTalk that I have "never seen any of these proponents of testing suggest anything specific that they would actually try do in a "properly controlled setting" to measure and evaluate mediumship?" as an example of my "lie"? Haha. It was true. I hadn't seen such a test.

Of course you hadn't. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Originally posted by Clancie
Really? When Snowbird seemed willing to be tested, I remember you asking if anyone had ideas of how to do it.

Probably. Can you refer to the post? Did this happen before or after I (and others, e.g. marc) made suggestions?

Originally posted by Clancie
Please share your "examples of how such an experimental design could be designed." I don't remember ever seeing that from you, even on the thread we eventually had over there about how to set up tests for mediums, a thread where various ideas were eventually floated.

That you don't remember does not mean it didn't happen. You are very good at not remembering. Especially the things that are inconvenient.

Originally posted by Clancie
:confused: I'm pointing out tbk's inconsistency and asking him if he finds ad hominem attacks from you acceptable, but any from "believers", unacceptable and why. It's not personal at all.

P.S. I don't understand your post quoting me about Sylvia Brown. Is that your idea of a "personal attack I've made on others?" I don't see how.

No, curiously enough, you can never see when you are doing what you accuse others of. You twist and turn the words, so you (and JE) come out squeaky clean.

Originally posted by Clancie
Please show where I have ever said that just one medium (or any medium) "has been shown" to be real?

Did I claim you said this?

I know that logic is not your strongest, so I'll just take it slowly:

Originally posted by Clancie
Some mediums have been shown to cheat. Logically, the existence of one (or ten) mediums who cheat does not mean, therefore, that all mediums cheat. Nor have all other mediums "special hits" been explained away through "mundane means".

Where, in this, does it show that any medium exist?

We can even take it, bit by bit:

Originally posted by Clancie
Some mediums have been shown to cheat.

True. Robert Brown and John Edward are two of them.

Originally posted by Clancie
Logically, the existence of one (or ten) mediums who cheat does not mean, therefore, that all mediums cheat.

True. However, the opposite does not follow: That it means that one could not cheat.

Originally posted by Clancie
Nor have all other mediums "special hits" been explained away through "mundane means".

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You claim to be a skeptic, but fail to see this blatant logical fallacy.

Nothing in your paragraph shows that mediums are real. Nothing in your paragraph shows that JE is not a fake.

[Leroy]

I have a lot of catching up to do. I don't have access to internet at home so I am late responding.

To conclude that JE uses some special ability without first factoring out the cheating is ignorance. It is a fallacy to default to superpowers and paranormal abilities until one shows that they are not cheating.

That works two ways. Ignorance is commited when one educes lack of evidence as evidence against or for a premise.

You don't know that he cheats, yet you are willing to assume as a fact that he cheats. And you criticize the coherency of my arguments?

Good point. He/she concludes that because there is lack of scientific evidence - that is evidence that the man cheats.


Discussion with you is utterly useless, as you obviously believe in mediumship, you believe you have superpowers and you will use any tactic to make the skeptics look like beleivers.

Can you show me where Clancie believes she has superpowers? This post of yours if very confusing

Clancie, do you believe you have superpowers? I haven't seen anything to suggest it in your posts, but I am new here. If you do believe it, can you explain why?

[Clancie]

Hi Leroy,

No, I don't believe I have superpowers. :p I'm not sure why thaiboxerken keeps suggesting that I do. (Maybe he knows something we don't know? :rolleyes: )
Posted by CFLarsen

Clancie: Go back and check the post. I saw no examples from you of my "lies" whatsoever.

CFLarsen (still providing no examples of my "lying"): I know you didn't. You are very good at ignoring facts, Clancie, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.
For the record, you have accused me of lying here, but given no examples to support it. None.
Posted by CFLarsen

Clancie: I don't understand your post quoting me about Sylvia Brown (as example of ad hominem). Is that your idea of a "personal attack I've made on others?" I don't see how.

CFLarsen: No, curiously enough, you can never see when you are doing what you accuse others of.
So calling Sylvia Brown "arrogant" is the best example you can find (to help thaiboxerken out) about my ad hominem attacks on others? "Let him who is without guilt, cast the first stone." rofl.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Clancie - Or does it just not bother you when someone you agree with does it?


This is a personal attack in itself.

How do you mean? I don't see any attack. I see a question :confused:

Originally posted by Clancie - Some mediums have been shown to cheat. Logically, the existence of one (or ten) mediums who cheat does not mean, therefore, that all mediums cheat. Nor have all other mediums "special hits" been explained away through "mundane means".

Please post your evidence that just one medium has been shown to be real.

:confused: Did Clancie say she had evidence that a medium has been shown real? I'd like to see that post.

Clancie presents valid arguements as well.

I think she does also.

Nothing in your paragraph shows that mediums are real. Nothing in your paragraph shows that JE is not a fake.

CF is right nothing written shows that John Edwards is real, or that any medium is real. At the same time, nothing written has shown any medium to be fake. Nothing Written. It's just words. We can each have our opinions based on what is written. We can have our opinions based on our experiences with mediumship, or lack of experience.

I for one would like to see frauds exposed

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
For the record, you have accused me of lying here, but given no examples to support it. None.

For the record, I have both accused you of lying and given examples.

You can ignore reality, of course, but that doesn't make it go away.

Originally posted by Clancie
So calling Sylvia Brown "arrogant" is the best example you can find (to help thaiboxerken out) about my ad hominem attacks on others?

Heavens, no. It's just one example, Clancie. Are you going to do your usual thing and move the goal posts by saying that this wasn't a "personal attack"?

Originally posted by Clancie
"Let him who is without guilt, cast the first stone." rofl.

I'm not saying that I haven't made personal attacks. But don't deny the evidence that you have done the same.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
How do you mean? I don't see any attack. I see a question :confused:

I see an attack.

Originally posted by Leroy
:confused: Did Clancie say she had evidence that a medium has been shown real? I'd like to see that post.

Explained.

Originally posted by Leroy
CF is right nothing written shows that John Edwards is real, or that any medium is real. At the same time, nothing written has shown any medium to be fake. Nothing Written. It's just words. We can each have our opinions based on what is written. We can have our opinions based on our experiences with mediumship, or lack of experience.

If you reduce evidence - or everything in general - to "just words", then do you think that gravity stops working because somebody writes that it does?

Do you think that Peter Popoff is not proven a fake medium?

Originally posted by Leroy
I for one would like to see frauds exposed

Me too. What do you do to help this? Do you accept the evidence?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

For the record, I have both accused you of lying and given examples.
Claus, for someone with an 18 MB inventory of my posts (wasn't that what you said is stored on your CD? I forget exactly how much, but...a lot, lol), you are being unusually coy. :confused:

The accusations I'm very familiar with. Where are the examples?:confused:

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If you reduce evidence - or everything in general - to "just words", then do you think that gravity stops working because somebody writes that it does?
Ah, once again, we stare the postmodernist feint square in the face. It is all narrative. It is all opinion. Your opinion is a good as mine. There is no truth. Marvelous, isn't it, Claus? To live in the twilight where you know as truth that there is no truth. And to never have to ponder the bizarre nature of that assertion. Too bad you and I can't live there.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus, for someone with an 18mg inventory of my posts, you are being unusually coy. :confused:[/B]

18mg? Where does he keep that? In a vial?

Cheers,

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Nothing in your paragraph shows that mediums are real. Nothing in your paragraph shows that JE is not a fake.

Claus, do you even hear what you are saying here? If you are striving to be "objective", your above quote demonstrates how you are failing horribly. You are simply saying the very same thing twice, in two different ways. You should take out the word "not", and then I might agree with you!

That's like me saying..........

"Nothing in your paragraph shows that mediums are fake. Nothing in your paragraph shows that JE is not real." In reality, and in fairness, nothing shows that mediums are fake........OR real. Duh!:rolleyes: ....neo

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, do you even hear what you are saying here? If you are striving to be "objective", your above quote demonstrates how you are failing horribly. You are simply saying the very same thing twice, in two different ways. You should take out the word "not", and then I might agree with you!


neo,

Claus' first sentence is a statement about a class, namely mediums. His second sentence concerns a specific instance of that class. :rolleyes:

[Clancie]

Posted by BillHoyt

18mg? Where does he keep that? In a vial?
rofl, Bill Hoyt. I corrected that, although even with the correct measurement, I'm quoting from memory and might have the amount wrong.

Maybe its "only" 8 MB :confused: How much did you say you have stored again, Claus?

And, just curious, how much have you saved from all your "favorite" TVTalkshow posters? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus, for someone with an 18 MB inventory of my posts (wasn't that what you said is stored on your CD? I forget exactly how much, but...a lot, lol), you are being unusually coy. :confused:

So, you never looked at the evidence (the posts) I uploaded for you. Some skeptic you are.

Originally posted by Clancie
The accusations I'm very familiar with. Where are the examples?:confused:

I have shown you the evidence, Clancie. If you don't even bother to look at it, why should I bother to (re!)post it again?

Originally posted by Clancie
rofl, Bill Hoyt. I corrected that, although even with the correct measurement, I'm quoting from memory and might have the amount wrong.

What are your plans to use Hoyt's error as a signature here?

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe its "only" 8 MB :confused: How much did you say you have stored again, Claus? And, just curious, how much have you saved from all your "favorite" TVTalkshow posters? :confused:

I already told you that. Don't ask for evidence, if you are not going to look at it.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What are your plans to use Hoyt's error as a signature here?


I think that was TBK's error, IIRC.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I think that was TBK's error, IIRC.

Yep, you're right. I stand corrected.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

What are your plans to use Hoyt's (actually TBK's) error as a signature here?
I was just kidding. :rolleyes:
Posted by CFLarsen

Clancie: How many (of my posts) did you say you have stored again, Claus? And, just curious, how much have you saved from all your "favorite" TVTalkshow posters?

CFLarsen (rather unpleasantly): I already told you that. Don't ask for evidence, if you are not going to look at it.
Evidence of what? I wrote them all, remember?

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

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

(And still no answers from you to Thanz. Guess you just like to ask the questions, not provide any answers when questions are asked of you, eh?)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I was just kidding. :rolleyes:

Right.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, okay, I looked again. It was 18 MB that you have, just of mine alone. :rolleyes:

Liar. You never looked at the file. The file itself is 18Mb, zipped. It contains the posts up until Nov 18th, 2002. It actually contains 94Mb worth of posts, unzipped. Not just your posts, but all posts.

Originally posted by Clancie
But still...no evidence of my "lies". No evidence of my "hypocrisy" anywhere to be found.....

You claim to have read through 94Mb worth of posts spanning more than a year in less than 43 minutes???

OK, that does it: Either you have supernatural powers (which you say yourself you do not have), you hold the world record in speed-reading or...of course...you are a liar.

Originally posted by Clancie
(And still no answers from you to Thanz. Guess you just like to ask the questions, not provide any answers when questions are asked of you, eh?)

I have answered Thanz. Guess you want to chicken out, eh?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

You claim to have read through 94Mb worth of posts spanning more than a year in less than 43 minutes???
Okay, Claus. (deep breath) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I did not say anything remotely like what you posted above. I meant I looked up your post about it here (in between doing other things) to check how big you said the file was (since you insisted I go check rather than just tell me my memory was correct).

All of our posts (mine and everyone elses) are also still archived at TvTalkshows, remember? Your zipped 18MB file about us all (my impression from your post was that it specifically was mine--otherwise, why the reference?) is not the "only storage game in town". :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Okay, Claus. (deep breath) I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Of course the blame lies with me.

Originally posted by Clancie
I did not say anything remotely like what you posted above. I meant I looked up your post about it here (in between doing other things) to check how big you said the file was (since you insisted I go check rather than just tell me my memory was correct).

Fine. I have provided all the threads, but you have chosen not to look at them.

Originally posted by Clancie
All of our posts (mine and everyone elses) are also still archived at TvTalkshows, remember? Your zipped 18MB file about us all (my impression from your post was that it specifically was mine--otherwise, why the reference?) is not the "only storage game in town". :rolleyes:

Indeed - so what do you actually claim? That you have looked through TVTalkshows? Or are you relying on your memory as evidence?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Indeed - so what do you actually claim?
The claim is that you still haven't provided any examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy", yet you keep repeating it as if its a fact.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
The claim is that you still haven't provided any examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy", yet you keep repeating it as if its a fact.

Oh, please!!!

Why haven't you looked at the evidence I uploaded for you? Why do you even ask for it, if you are not prepared to consider it?

You are still two behind. Why not answer those, instead of letting other people fight your fights?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie

The claim is that you still haven't provided any examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy", yet you keep repeating it as if its a fact. [/B]

YOU claim to have seen no evidence in Claus' zipped up archive. You claimed the archive consisted of only your posts. You also claimed the wrong archive size.

How many more patently false assertions do you think you can make before all your credibility goes down the toilet? I've got my hand on the handle already...

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I looked it over again, and asked myself if it was my understanding of English that could have caused the misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, okay, I looked again. It was 18 MB that you have, just of mine alone. :rolleyes:

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

No. There is no misunderstanding. At least, not on my behalf. You are very clear about this:

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

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

94Mb of text, in 43 minutes.

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

Ergo: You lied.

Originally posted by Clancie
I did not say anything remotely like what you posted above.

I'm sorry. There is no other way to interpret it. You were caught in a flat-out lie, and are now desperately trying to salvage the wreckage.

How pathetic.

[BillHoyt]

http://www.baltobluegrass.com/bbggraph/monkey.gif

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Clancie,

I looked it over again, and asked myself if it was my understanding of English that could have caused the misunderstanding.
Don't keep me in suspense. What did you conclude?
Posted by CFLarsenquote:

No. There is no misunderstanding. At least, not on my behalf.
Well, that's a surprise, I must say! :rolleyes:
Posted by CFLarsen

You are very clear about this:

1) You looked at "it" again. "It" being 18Mb. Ergo, the zip file.
As I said before, "it" was your post in the "No General Seating..." thread. (It wouldn't have been necessary to look it up if you had just told me I was right about the size of the file. But, no....).

Actually, I incorrectly assumed that you were referring to only my posts saved on your file, since you cited your linked file as providing evidence of my "lies" in the context of our argument.

So, how exactly, did you think 94 mb of everyone's threads and posts at TVTalkshows gave specific examples of my lies? Why not just link me to Trevor's site? At least he has a "Search" feature. :rolleyes:

But, back to how you're twisting this...I did make an incorrect assumption you had linked to a file of my posts. I did not say I "unzipped the file and read all the posts". (And if I had "unzipped the file", why do you think I would have wanted to read them all? :confused: )

Frankly, I didn't bother to read it because I discounted it as just one of your debate tactics--and, sure enough, it was. So...when asked for proof (in that thread, I had asked for proof of my "lies" and "hypocrisy"), all you did was try to divert attention from the evidence you were asked for by providing all TVT threads, all TVT posts.
Posted by CFLarsen

Since you claim to have found no evidence, you must have read it all.

How did linking to your file that archived all the posts and threads at TVTalkshows--answer the challenge you faced of providing specific examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy"? What did you want me to do with your file, Claus? Sift through it all and see if I could find any lies myself, lol? :rolleyes:
Posted by CFLarsen

Considering that you claimed the posts were all yours (they were not), you simply haven't read it.
Now you're on to something. I read the TVT originals, at the time, at Trevor's board. Why should I sift through your duplicate files to find evidence for you to support your charge I lie and am a hypocrite? That is what you claim is the "evidence I've uploaded for you?"

It doesn't even make sense.

(And...Thanz's questions to you? Still going a-beggin'....)

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Your post is garbled. Please edit it, so I can reply.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Don't keep me in suspense. What did you conclude?

Try to read ahead.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, that's a surprise, I must say! :rolleyes:

Not a "surprise" at all. I checked, OK? Is that now all bad?

Originally posted by Clancie
As I said before, "it" was your post in the "No General Seating..." thread. (It wouldn't have been necessary to look it up if you had just told me I was right about the size of the file. But, no....).

Was it?

Let's recap:

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe its "only" 8 MB How much did you say you have stored again, Claus? And, just curious, how much have you saved from all your "favorite" TVTalkshow posters?

8 Mb? That's the file.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I already told you that. Don't ask for evidence, if you are not going to look at it.

"It", being the file.

Originally posted by Clancie
Evidence of what? I wrote them all, remember?

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

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

"It", being the file. 18Mb. That's not the thread.

Sorry, Clancie. Nowhere do you refer to a thread, but a file. The file, yes.

You claimed to have "looked" at a file of 18Mb in size, containing all your posts. Fact is, the zipped file is 18Mb in size, but 94Mb unzipped, and it contains not just your posts, but the whole JE-forum.

Pathetic.

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, I incorrectly assumed that you were referring to only my posts saved on your file, since you cited your linked file as providing evidence of my "lies" in the context of our argument.

Nowhere have I said anything that the file contained only your posts. Pure fabrication of yours.

Originally posted by Clancie
So, how exactly, did you think 94 mb of everyone's threads and posts at TVTalkshows gave specific examples of my lies? Why not just link me to Trevor's site? At least he has a "Search" feature. :rolleyes:

That is beside the point: You lied about downloading it, and you lied about reading it.

Originally posted by Clancie
But, back to how you're twisting this...I did make an incorrect assumption you had linked to a file of my posts.

I am twisting this, because you made a blunder?

Originally posted by Clancie
I did not say I "unzipped the file and read all the posts". (And if I had "unzipped the file", why do you think I would have wanted to read them all? :confused: )

Hey, that's the evidence you wanted, so don't come crying, now that you got it.

Originally posted by Clancie
Frankly, I didn't bother to read it because I discounted it as just one of your debate tactics--and, sure enough, it was. So...when asked for proof (in that thread, I had asked for proof of my "lies" and "hypocrisy"), all you did was try to divert attention from the evidence you were asked for by providing all TVT threads, all TVT posts.

Sheeesh....Clancie, will you listen to yourself? You finally admit you didn't read the evidence, and you still say I did not post evidence???

You close your eyes to any kind of evidence that JE might be a fake. You close your eyes to any kind of evidence that will prove you wrong. You even tell one lie after another.

Originally posted by Clancie
How did linking to your file that archived all the posts and threads at TVTalkshows--answer the challenge you faced of providing specific examples of my "lies" and "hypocrisy"? What did you want me to do with your file, Claus? Sift through it all and see if I could find any lies myself, lol? :rolleyes:

You asked for it, you got it. Don't complain if it is there.

Originally posted by Clancie
Now you're on to something. I read the TVT originals, at the time, at Trevor's board. Why should I sift through your duplicate files to find evidence for you to support your charge I lie and am a hypocrite? That is what you claim is the "evidence I've uploaded for you?"

Why? Because you rely on your memory. I rely on the posts. The posts you ignore.

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

Not to you. But it makes perfectly sense that you are trying desperately to wiggle out of this one.

Originally posted by Clancie
(And...Thanz's questions to you? Still going a-beggin'....)

Yes, that's right: Try to divert attention from the fact that you have chickened out.

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Clancie - Or does it just not bother you when someone you agree with does it?

Originally posted by CF - This is a personal attack in itself.

Orignially posted by Leroy - How do you mean? I don't see any attack. I see a question


Originally posted by CF - I see an attack.

I think that is probably part of the communication problem between the two of you. You are looking for fault in each others posts and finding it when it isn't really there.

If you reduce evidence - or everything in general - to "just words", then do you think that gravity stops working because somebody writes that it does?

Gravity is [not] paranormal - see the difference?

Me too. What do you do to help this? Do you accept the evidence?

What evidence?

[thaiboxerken]

Hi Leroy,

No, I don't believe I have superpowers. :p I'm not sure why thaiboxerken keeps suggesting that I do. (Maybe he knows something we don't know? :rolleyes: )


You have claimed to have paranormal ability. You have refused to take the JREF challenge to prove this.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by neofight

"Nothing in your paragraph shows that mediums are fake. Nothing in your paragraph shows that JE is not real." In reality, and in fairness, nothing shows that mediums are fake........OR real. Duh!:rolleyes: ....neo

Except for the fact that none have been shown to be real.

NONE.

Ouch, i guess reality could care less about being fair.

:D

[Darat]

Originally posted by Leroy
...snip...

CF is right nothing written shows that John Edwards is real, or that any medium is real. At the same time, nothing written has shown any medium to be fake. Nothing Written. It's just words. We can each have our opinions based on what is written. We can have our opinions based on our experiences with mediumship, or lack of experience.

I for one would like to see frauds exposed

What would you accept as proof of

1) A medium is real i.e. can communicate to the dead
2) A medium is a fraud i.e. can't communicate to the dead

?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Leroy
I think that is probably part of the communication problem between the two of you. You are looking for fault in each others posts and finding it when it isn't really there.

I have offered to start afresh so many times with Clancie. She either turns it down or breaks the "truce".

Originally posted by Leroy
Gravity is [not] paranormal - see the difference?

Ah, but the difference is that we now understand (to a degree, of course) what gravity is. Could gravity not be considered paranormal, if we did not have this knowledge?

Originally posted by Leroy
What evidence?

If there is evidence of paranormal phenomena, will you accept it?

If there is no evidence of paranormal phenomena, will you also accept it?

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

You have claimed to have paranormal ability
No, I have not. As I have told you many times before.

Yet you keep repeating this lie again and again (this is at least the fifth time, second time today).

What is your evidence that I have "claimed to have paranormal ability?"

Please provide some proof of your claim or else....Well, the operative phrase at this point is "Put up or....":mad:

[CFLarsen]

But...Clancie...you did claim you had supernatural powers, remember? You claimed to have read 94Mb of text in 43 minutes.

That's the equivalent of reading over 36000 characters a second.

That's the equivalent of reading Tolstoy's "War & Peace" 36 times in 43 minutes.

That's the equivalent of reading Tolstoy's "War & Peace", The King James Bible, The Koran and the complete works of Shakespeare almost 7 times.

If that isn't supernatural, I don't know what is.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

But...Clancie...you did claim you had supernatural powers, remember? You claimed to have read 94Mb of text in 43 minutes.

Another lie. You're getting desperate, Claus.
from page 6 of this thread

CFLarsen: 1) You looked at "it" again. "It" being 18Mb. Ergo, the zip file.

Clancie: As I said before, "it" was your post referring to the file in the "No General Seating..." thread that I read [annotated to add: not your pointless 18mb/94mg of everyone's TVTalkshow posts and threads--which you posted, intact, as if that huge assortment of discussions provided some kind of "evidence" that I was a liar, lol)
Your desperation to twist my words to be something I never said just proves to me (again) that you have no evidence to support your repeated statement I am a "hypocrite" and a "liar".

Now you're trying to turn this thread into something I've never said (and ignoring my explanation), just so you can use it as a future "example" of my "lies" when I ask you the next time around for "evidence".

Your tactics are so transparent, Claus.

But, seriously, how dishonest can you get? :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Another lie.

Not at all. Either you claimed this, or you lied about reading the 94Mb worth of files.

Which is it? Do you have supernatural powers or did you lie?

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

But...Clancie...you did claim you had supernatural powers, remember? You claimed to have read 94Mb of text in 43 minutes.

Claus, this repeated lie of yours is an excellent example of exactly what neo wanted people to learn about you when she started this thread.

With your repeated false claim that I say I "read 94mb in 43 minutes" you once again try to portray me as dishonest by your tactic of repeatedly misrepresenting and twisting my words and lying about what I have really said.

You do clear up the confusion about whether this is intentional or not, though. Obviously, since I've corrected you several times about it--and you keep repeating the falsehood--it is not just a "misunderstanding" on your part.

It is a deliberate, 100% intentional, distortion of the truth (i.e. a lie). In your case, for those of us who know your tactics all too well....how predictable.



[And I guess Thanz gave up ever getting any answers from you to his questions....:rolleyes:]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
This lie of yours is an excellent example of exactly what neo wanted people to learn about you when she started this thread.

With your repeated false claim that I say I "read 94mb in 43 minutes" you once again try to portray me as dishonest by the tactic of repeatedly misrepresenting and twisting my words and lying about what I really said.

You do clear up the confusion about whether this is intentional or not, though. Obviously, since I've corrected you several times about it--and you keep repeating the falsehood--it is not just a "misunderstanding" on your part.

It is a deliberate, 100% intentional, distortion of the truth (i.e. a lie). In your case, for those of us who know your tactics all too well....how predictable you are becoming.

O........K. So, you did not read the 94Mb worth of threads. You do not have supernatural powers, then.

It also means that you lied when you claimed this:

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

Now, since the 18Mb-file does not contain "just" your posts alone, you did not open it. Ergo, you lied, when you claimed you looked at it again. You saw "no evidence" in a file you never opened. You admitted this yourself: You couldn't be "bothered".

Originally posted by Clancie
And I guess Thanz gave up ever getting any answers from you to his questions....:rolleyes:

A(nother) lie. Thanz has gotten his answers.

You are so busted, Clancie. What a liar you are. Liar, liar, liar.

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Now, since the 18Mb-file does not contain "just" your posts alone, you did not open it. Ergo, you lied, when you claimed you looked at it again. You saw "no evidence" in a file you never opened. You admitted this yourself: You couldn't be "bothered".
I told you I didn't look at it. I just checked back to see how long you had said it was. That is obvious.

You called me a "liar" in that thread and were asked for some examples of my "lies". In response you posted 94mb of posts of various people on various subjects from TVTalk. Your "document" was totally irrelevant to the evidence you were asked for (specific evidence of my "lies", not all the threads and posts from everyone at TVTalkshows). No, I didn't open your file. I thought surely you could have listed two or three of my "lies" in your post, if you knew of any (which, obviously, you didn't). The zipped file was just a tactic, Claus. For you, just business as usual.

Talk about being "busted". Talk about being a "liar".

And, as for Thanz's questions....where does he indicate that you've answered them?

I know you've claimed you've answered him (but we know you like to repeat untruths over and over). Where does Thanz indicate you've answered him?

To me, it looks like he just finally gave up.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus, this repeated lie of yours is an excellent example of exactly what neo wanted people to learn about you when she started this thread.[/B]

Au contraire, Clancie, we have learned much about you. The picture is, shall we say, less than flattering.

Cheers,

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I told you I didn't look at it. I just checked back to see how long you had said it was. That is obvious.

What was obvious is that you lied. How do you explain this little tidbit?

Originally posted by Clancie
"It was 18 MB that you have, just of mine alone."

18Mb of yours....how can you know that, if you hadn't opened the file? Well, you didn't, so how did you know the content?

You are sinking deeper and deeper into a web of lies.

Originally posted by Clancie
You were asked for some examples of my "lies". In response you posted 94mb of posts of various people on various subjects. Your "document" was totally irrelevant to the evidence you were asked for (specific evidence of my "lies", not all the threads and posts from everyone at TVTalkshows).

Talk about being "busted". Talk about being a "liar".

Yeah. You really are.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, as for Thanz's questions....where does he indicate that you've answered them?

It is very dishonest of you to keep dragging other people into this. You said yourself that if you answered one of my questions, I should answer one of yours. Now, you want to change that. Now, it has to depend on me answering other people first.

Dishonest. Pure and simple.

Originally posted by Clancie
I know you've said it again and again (but we know you like to repeat untruths over and over). Where does Thanz indicate you've answered him?

Go back and check. That's what I do when I find out the truth.

Originally posted by Clancie
To me, it looks like he just finally gave up.

To me, it looks like you are busted.

[BillHoyt]

http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6pd/pd-t-kid/web0.gif

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

Clancie: It was 18 MB that you have, just of mine alone."

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

Now I've corrected you, but you don't appear interested in the truth. I'm not going to keep going over and over these same corrections with you any more. If you continue to repeat these untruths, it will only show how intentional your misrepresentations and lies really are.
Posted by CFLarsen

You said yourself that if you answered one of my questions, I should answer one of yours.
Did I, Claus?

Where?