Questions for Lucianarchy

[CFLarsen]

Questions for Lucianarchy


This is the old list of of questions previously avoided by Lucianarchy in the threads she has participated in. It got lost during a clean-up, so I am reposting it for reference.

I have concentrated mostly on my own questions. There were more than I expected...

So, Lucianarchy - are you up for it?

Looking for psi.
WHAT are you actually looking for?
How do you define it, how do you discover it, measure it, discern it from other phenomena? HOW would you construct a set of coherent experiments that would show the existance/nonexistance of this? WHO would you accept to perform these tests? What lab, group or organization?
It wouldn't be difficult at all to find a lab that could do these tests unbiased: That's how double-blind tests work. The ones who actually performs the experiment doesn't know what we are looking for. WHY would a negative result not convince you?
Even PEAR and SRI come up with negative results sometimes, yet you don't weigh these as important as the positive ones. Are the few experiments you constantly point to as proof of psi done from a positive theory or a negative theory? Can you actually form a positive theory and construct an experiment that would prove the existence of psi, instead of relying on negative theories ("We found something, we don't know what it is, it can't be anything we know of today, so it must be psi!")?


Psi, general
Why is it so important to you to prove to this board that psi has been found? Why can't you explain - in layman's terms - the abstract from Helmut Schmidt's "PK Tests in a Pre-Sleep State" you posted? Is that too complicated for you or do you simply refuse?
Answer: Refused. What does the hypothesis for "psi" state? Which parapsychologists use this hypothesis in their work? Is it the accepted all-round hypothesis for "psi", or are there others? Could you, in your own words, describe what "psi" is? How to test for it, what protocols to use? Do you consider paranormal research a victim of the suppression of mainstream science?
If yes, how do you reconcile this with the prominent exposure of paranormal issues in media, like spiritual shows, communicating-with-the-dead programs, paranormal stories, shows, etc.?

If no, why don't we see more mainstream science take paranormal issues seriously? Why is it not a problem for you that we still don't see evidence of paranormal phenomena, if you claim the evidence exist, yet cannot show it?


Unlucky 13
How can you determine that Brits are more fearful of 13 than Danes, if you cannot quantify this? Why does the Danish lotto numbers (with more data points) show 13 placed smack in the middle? Danes are "afraid" of 13 as well. Why is 38 more lucky than 13 is unlucky?
Answer:"38, is the most frequently drawn ball in the UKNLMD. Its frequency goes way over what you can rationaly expect from chance after so many runs. Using my hypothesis, based on socio/cultural group consciousness, it would represent the projection of the most desired outcome based on the holistic S/C value." Is it not true that you came up with "pre-Christian/pagan" fear of 13 in the UK after I pointed out that similar Danish data showed other results than yours? Is it not true, that you have not been able to show this British pagan fear of 13, but that all your references point to a Christian one? Isn't it true that in many cases, 13 was considered a lucky number? Have you looked at other lotteries than the UK one? If yes, which? If no, why not? If 13 is so unlucky in UK lotteries, why is it played so much? Why do you rule out the most obvious reason for 13 coming in last: Faulty equipment? Isn't that the first we should check, if we get weird results? Do you believe that the lottery are never tested for just this? Will you accept that your theory is wrong, when 13 doesn't end up last at any point in the future? Why can you only predict 3 numbers in the UK lottery? Why not 4 or 5? Why don't you consider PGP a strong encryption method? What are your qualifications for arguing this? Why can't you make the numbers known (and encrypted!) beforehand? Will an encrypted posting be influenced? How so? What do you base your critique of PGP on in the Czech document? You said you couldn't read the language? Why did you refuse to use PGP after finding a Czech reference to PGP, when you were later shown a document in English about the same subject? Why isn't a FedEx delivery by monday good enough? Is the FedEx involved in the Great Conspiracy too? How does your predictions in the UK lottery go? Are you more successful or less successful?
Answer:Four wins in a row. Refused to provide evidence.

SAIC, Hyman, Utts, Sheldrake
What is more probable? Hyman being wrong or you? Does Hyman agree with Utts on her conclusions of the experiments? Do you agree that "blips" in scientific experiments happen all the time? If yes, why isn't the SAIC experiment a "blip"? Is an experiment more valid because it has been funded by a government agency, e.g. the CIA? Are you a spokesman for SAIC? Are the SAIC experiments proof of "psi"? Is any "blip" proof of psi? If yes, why? If no, when is it proof, and when is it not? Has all possible error-sources been eliminated in the SAIC experiments? Does Hyman claim this? Does Utts claim this? If the SAIC experiments show proof of psi, what other experiments repeat these? Is there a free, open access to the experiments made by SRI, SAIC and PEAR? Does Hyman speak exclusively about the SAIC experiments in his conclusion or does he include other experiments? Does Utts speak exclusively about the SAIC experiments in her conclusion or does she include other experiments? Does Hyman include earlier SRI experiments in his conclusion? Does Utts include earlier SRI experiments in her conclusion? If Hyman and Utts include different experiments in their conclusions, wouldn't you agree that they do not agree on the conclusions of the SAIC experiments? Do you find that Hyman is a well-respected scientist that should be taken seriously? Do you agree with Hyman that effect size in itself is in no way an indication of a paranormal phenomenon? Have you tried to replicated the SAIC experiments? If no, why do you insist we do it? If yes, can we see the results, methodology, full data set, etc.? Do you agree that in half the observations published by Sheldrake on his site, the dog goes to the window even though the owner isn't on her way home?


Targ and Geller
Why didn't Targ ask Hebard, builder of the magnetometer Swann "manipulated", if there could be any explanation? Why would Randi mention that Geller is a magician, and not mention if Targ is? Can you find an independent reference to Targ being anything else but an amateur magician? Why is it incomprehensible that Geller can fool Targ? Did Targ believe in Geller's abilities before they met? If Geller has been caught cheating, why do you still consider him "real"? Why would Geller resort to cheating, if his powers are real? Why won't Geller perform in front of conjurers? Why can't Geller bend a spoon without touching it? Why is David Blaine's opinion much more important than Randi's, Copperfield etc.?



Natalia Lulova
Are there any indications in the article that the girl doesn't speak English sufficiently to perform the test?
Status: The girl "excelled" in English. She was given the choice of answering in either language. There was a Russian interpreter present. Who is actually referred to as speaking Russian?
Status: Void. Why does the coach speak only occasionally to the girl in Russian?
Status: Void. Doesn't this indicate that the girl indeed understands English?
Status: Void. Is it possible to give the girl secret instructions in Russian?
Status: Void. Is it possible at all that the girl produced openings in the first blindfold? Why did the girl fail, when she couldn't rub or pull on her face? Where in the Challenge does it say that the results would have to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, in order for the test to be passed?
Status: Nowhere. Where in the Challenge does it say that the test must be based on scientific principles?
Status: Nowhere. If it is shown that the girl understands English well enough to give her answers in English, will you admit defeat? How would you have designed and carried out the test?


Science
Do you understand the basics of science? Do you consider it a scientifically sound method to have the presenter of a hypothesis perform the test and judge the results? Would you consider yourself unbiased towards the mainstream scientific establishment? Why do you need to have the basics of science explained to you, if you claim scientific proof of psi? Do you understand that witness testimony is utterly irrelevant in science?


Skepticism, etc.
Why do you refer to yourself as a skeptic, when you don't follow the rules of skepticism (following the scientific method, etc.)? Don't you find that the replicated personal connections between the sources you present are problematic? Are character flaws an indication of the validity of a person's findings? Can we see any psi experiment replicated with similar results published in a peer-reviewed journal, not devoted to parapsychology? Can we even see the same experiment replicated with similar results performed at any of your own listed organizations? What is the difference between an amateur and a professional? Have you considered any other theory other than your own? If so, which did you consider, and why did you abandon them? Do you want to see a list of the references I use? Do you consider Occam's Razor a good tool to investigate paranormal claims?
If yes, isn't the probability of Geller cheating and/or using simply trickey much more probable than Geller having paranormal powers?

If no, why isn't it applicable in this case? What other cases do you find Occam's Razor a wrong tool to use? What scientists are we talking about, when you talk about "Considering the evidence from so many credible people, scientists..."? Have these scientists published their findings in peer-reviewed journals, not devoted to parapsychology? Why have you switched tactics? You don't argue or show that your data is evidence, now we are all a bunch of morons in denial.


Randi/Magic
Why hasn't Dr. Gary Schwartz applied for the Randi Challenge? Why haven't SAIC applied for the Randi Challenge? Why hasn't Uri Geller applied for the Randi Challenge? Why haven't you (and your team) applied for the Randi Challenge? Have you read the terms for the Randi Challenge?
Answer:"I have read the terms of the Challenge." Do you understand the terms for the Randi Challenge?
If yes, why do you continue to refer to the test as a "grant" and not a "challenge/test"? Do you realize that the posters here are not JREF staff, except Randi, Andrew and Linda? Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?
'I take great exception to James "The Amusing" Randi dismissing my faith. He is a right bastard and I urge you to help me shut his hate site down.'
Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."
Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs. Why do you want to oppress and silence those who criticise your beliefs, e.g. James Randi's website? Do you think it is possible that you could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that someone who has been in a spaceship or who worked for a huge, bureaucratic government agency could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that David Blaine could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that parapsychologists could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that Jane Katra was doing a trick, when the bowl in her hand rolled up 180 degrees? If not, why not? Do you think it would be in Jane Katra's interest (financially and emotionally) to act scared, in order to heighten the believability of a trick? If not, why not? How does the "sawed-through lady" trick work? What about the "disappearing dove in a cage" trick?


Misc
Why do you consider a public plea for clarifying your point worthy of only a private email? Why can't the rest of us know what you think? Is there anything secret about that information? Would you consider "read the book!" a fair answer to a question put to you to clarify your own personal views on a subject? What are your thoughts on the random number generator using static sound? Why do you keep on posting the same links to the same reports made by the same small group of people, if you claim there are many, many reports that confirm the existence of psi? Why do you describe me as a "spoiled child", when I ask you for those reports, experiments and proof you speak of, instead of at least showing where I can find them? Why do you - after I have clarified that Hyman does not agree with Utts on the conclusions of the SAIC evaluations, and you have acknowledged this clarification - continue to claim that I said otherwise? Why do you claim that you "corrected" me on this, when I myself clarified it? When did you "correct" me on this? Who are you and your research team? Are you a professional journalist? What awards have you won and what pieces were they for and what publications were they in? Do you have data to back up your claim that you are one of the few men involved in Wicca?


And the final one:

What kind of evidence will you accept that show you are wrong?

Note: This post will be updated as Lucianarchy sloooooowly answers each question. We're in for the long haul here, it seems...

[TLN]

*cough*

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes to all except for #4, 5, 16 and 31.

I'll take shots at some of these questions (considering this is a public board):

"What is more probable? Hyman being wrong or you?"

Irrelevant. If someone is wrong, they are wrong. Probability doesn't really play a role here, since we are not guessing if someone is wrong or not, we are investigating it critically.

"Do you find that Hyman is a well-respected scientist that should be taken seriously?"

Do you find that Utts is?

"Do you agree with Hyman that effect size in itself is in no way an indication of a paranormal phenomenon?"

It is an indication that there is something that needs to be explored further, so it *could* be. It is *a* possibility.

"Where in the Challenge does it say that the test must be based on scientific principles?"

Good point. ;)

"Do you understand that witness testimony is utterly irrelevant in science?"

I wouldn't say "utterly irrelevant". It certainly is not any deciding factor, but it quite frequently does lead to more exploration, which is certainly part of science. Don't confuse the topics of science with the process of science.

"Why do you refer to yourself as a skeptic, when you don't follow the rules of skepticism (following the scientific method, etc.)?"

Many here do. I'd like to take you to task for confusing science with skepticism, and trying to relate the two. A skeptic is not one who 'follows the scientific method'. Above you hint (at least my reading of it) that the Challenge is not based on scientific principles. So apparently Randi is not a skeptic, or his test is not skeptical. My interpretation is that a skeptic simply desires evidence to examine before tentatively accepting something.

"What is the difference between an amateur and a professional?"

Several thousand dollars and a better office usually.

"Have these scientists published their findings in peer-reviewed journals,"

Has Randi? Has anyone as CSICOP? At Skeptic?

"Why hasn't Dr. Gary Schwartz applied for the Randi Challenge?"

Why hasn't Randi or any cold reader applied for Schwartz's challenge? Are skeptics immune from similar challenges?

-Who

[TLN]

Pardon me...

Originally posted by TLN
Pardon me...

Did you do something wrong?

-Who

[TLN]

Originally posted by Whodini
Did you do something wrong?

I accidentally collided with this thread.

Paging Doctor Cowardice, Doctor Cowardice…

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy has declined to answer these questions for the following reason:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am merely, quite reasonably, pointing out that 'lists' in the context of a whole thread title which contain reams and reams of questions are both irrational and unreasonable and as such become tantamount to the sort of "taunting" and "un-civil" behaviour which Mr Randi wants rid of here.

Questions that arise from Lucianarchy's own claims can hardly be called "irrational" or "unreasonable". It must be up to the reader to decide who is "irrational" and/or "unreasonable".

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If I make a claim, feel free to ask a question on that specific claim under the thread it was raised and I will do my best to give you a reasonable and rational answer.

This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. However, let's see what happens.

[Lucianarchy]

Who is actually referred to as speaking Russian?

Karl Marx.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Karl Marx.

From the test putz.

[renata]

And...errr.. Karl Marx was not Russian. As far as I know he did not speak Russian either. Surely Lucy was kidding...

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by renata
And...errr.. Karl Marx was not Russian. As far as I know he did not speak Russian either. Surely Lucy was kidding...

Luci's not very good at making jokes.

[CFLarsen]

Bumped for non-pruning.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."
Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs.

Provide your evidence, or validate my statement above by not doing so.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Provide your evidence, or validate my statement above by not doing so.

Why not answer the questions?

[T'ai Chi]

After 2 more months of forum non-interest, remember to bump the thread again.

[Ed]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
After 2 more months of forum non-interest, remember to bump the thread again.

You don't think that silly contentions should be challenged? Particularly when those silly contentions represent the corpus of a posters activity?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ed

You don't think that silly contentions should be challenged? Particularly when those silly contentions represent the corpus of a posters activity?

Again, you shift things to me, but all I did was point out the obvious general forum non-interest.

[apoger]

There is interest, however how much can be said about a persons *lack* of reply.

I'd be glad to comment if there was an attempt to answer the questions. Then there would be something to discuss.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by apoger
There is interest, however how much can be said about a persons *lack* of reply.

I'd be glad to comment if there was an attempt to answer the questions. Then there would be something to discuss.

Ditto.

[CFLarsen]

Bump. Lucianarchy is back for the umpteenth time.

[Cynical]

What happened, CF, did you get tired of harassing Clancie? :D

Well, I must admit that it will probably be easier to bully the less-threatening and less bright Lucianarchy. Clancie was the steel hand behind the velvet glove. It's about time you surrendered.

So now you have new victim. Bottoms up!:rr:

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Cynical
What happened, CF, did you get tired of harassing Clancie? :D

Well, I must admit that it will probably be easier to bully the less-threatening and less bright Lucianarchy. Clancie was the steel hand behind the velvet glove. It's about time you surrendered.

So now you have new victim. Bottoms up!:rr:

:dl:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Cynical
What happened, CF, did you get tired of harassing Clancie? :D


LOL. It's easy to "harrass" several creduloids at the same time. There is no substance inside of the velvet glove.

[Cynical]

Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me, Boxer.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cynical
Sounds like a case of sour grapes to me, Boxer.

Thanks for bumping my threads!! You are a great help to skepticism.

[Cynical]

I don't give a rat's rear about your obsession with skepticism, CF. Promote it 'till the cows come home. But what's it getting you, besides anger and impatience - and probably ulcers?

The people who believe in psychics are ALWAYS going to believe. There are more cases of skeptics-turned-believers than vice-versa, because there are miracle cases that have no logical explanation. Skeptics CANNOT prove skepticism. They can only assert that there is no "proof" in the paranormal.

So WHY are you so passionate about this? Don't you have any other interests that you can put your energies into? I mean, ANYTHING?? You're like a cat chasing his tail.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by Cynical
The people who believe in psychics are ALWAYS going to believe.

This is clearly wrong. Are you suggesting that all believers are indefinitely closed-minded? If so, you are not only way off the mark (many have changed their minds), but also asserting that all believers are idiots. Way to go.

There are more cases of skeptics-turned-believers than vice-versa, because there are miracle cases that have no logical explanation. Skeptics CANNOT prove skepticism.

I'm going to call you on this one--I am fairly sure that you have no clue which event has happened more.

Besides, it doesn't matter: your statement has the assumption that there are atleast *some* believers turned skeptics ("vice-versa", which is odd, because that very admission completely contradicts the statement in the beginning of your post!), which means that promoting skepticism and critical thinking is not a waste of time.

Skeptics cannot "prove skepticism?" Do you actually have any idea what skepticism is, and why your statement is nonsensical?

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Cynical
The people who believe in psychics are ALWAYS going to believe. There are more cases of skeptics-turned-believers than vice-versa, because there are miracle cases that have no logical explanation. Skeptics CANNOT prove skepticism. They can only assert that there is no "proof" in the paranormal.

So WHY are you so passionate about this? Don't you have any other interests that you can put your energies into? I mean, ANYTHING?? You're like a cat chasing his tail.

You are very wrong here.
I used to believe in psychics, yet I retained enough open mindedness to learn what was wrong what what was presented to me.

You do not seem to understand the meaning of skepticism. It is not something to be proven or disproven, any more than, say, happiness, or despair. It is (for me, at least), the ability to retain a questioning mind, regardless of circumstances.

[Ladewig]

So WHY are you so passionate about this? Don't you have any other interests that you can put your energies into? I mean, ANYTHING?? You're like a cat chasing his tail.

I consider psychic surgeons to be one of the most disgusting form of con artist because they take money from people who can least afford it while convincing seriously ill people from seeking or continuing medical treatment. Edgar Cayce performing psychic diagnosis is another example of reprehensible activity. Sylvia Brown also has performed psychic diagnosing in front of credulous television hosts (Montel Williams, Larry King). I have strong beliefs in making sure the public understands that there is no valid basis for any of these particular psychic beliefs.

After-death communicators also fall into the category of preying on people who are in a vulnerable state. Wanting these people to be held accountable for their unscrupulous behavor is, in my opinion, an appropriate place "to put one's energies."

I also think it is appropriate and useful to educate reporters into the tricks that professional psychics use in taking money from people.

[Cynical]

You last three posters made some excellent points. I bumped this post up for CF's sake. Because I think he'll find SOMETHING to dispute in your posts. CF thrives on argument, not harmony.

But in any case, he needs to see what you've written, so that he can see that good points can be made without arrogance.

[Marian]

This could be added to the Natalia Lulova section.

Can see it here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870441822#post1870441822

In particular (a couple of posts up from that one here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870441786#post1870441786):OTOH, isn't it right that Randi tested a little girl, who, after she passed his prepared controls, went on to have most of her face plastered with duct tape, broke down in tears, only to be then humiliated again by having the whole debacle publicised internationaly in 'Time' magazine?
(don't worry, I'm not going to 'go off on one' about this. ;) )

As I asked in that other thread, please show where she 'broke down in tears'. Also the photographs do not show her crying, at all.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Marian
This could be added to the Natalia Lulova section.

Can see it here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870441822#post1870441822

In particular (a couple of posts up from that one here http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870441786#post1870441786):

As I asked in that other thread, please show where she 'broke down in tears'. Also the photographs do not show her crying, at all.

Oh nos! Randi made a little girl cry! What a mean man! Therefore psychics are real!

*Sigh*

(Directed at your quote, not your post, Marian. :) )

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Marian
As I asked in that other thread, please show where she 'broke down in tears'. Also the photographs do not show her crying, at all.

I think she got a lesson for life without the tears. I can only imagine the frustration that little girl must have felt when she was blindfolded for real, and only were able to throw wild guesses just to see the $1.000.000 disappear in the horizon, that she had hoped to win for her and her parents.
She of course knew it was a scam, and the adults around her didn't seem to be all that innocent either - according to their reactions to Randi's improvements of the blindfold.

The prize of being a fraud, is the embarrassment and loss of credibility that follows when the scam is exposed. It's still sad though, when children is getting dragged into such an episode because they follow the lead of the adults that surround them. The shame is not to be on this little girl, but on the ones who encouraged her to be a fraud.

/thomas

[Cynical]

Just what you folks need around here...another "scholar" from Denmark....:roll:

[Lucianarchy]

Larsen has made a distinct claim about my IP address.

He made the claim that they are "similar".

Saying it is "not resolved" is just about the most stupid thing I have seen from him to date. He either has the evidence, or he hasn't.

A claim which he uses to suggest I am responsible for writing something particulalrly unpleasant about Randi.

Such a claim without evidence is completely dispicable.

Until Larsen removes the dispicable claim and apologises, he remains in contempt and dishonest.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Larsen has made a distinct claim about my IP address.

He made the claim that they are "similar".

Saying it is "not resolved" is just about the most stupid thing I have seen from him to date. He either has the evidence, or he hasn't.

A claim which he uses to suggest I am responsible for writing something particulalrly unpleasant about Randi.

No, I do not. I make it clear that the matter is unresolved.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Until Larsen removes the dispicable claim and apologises, he remains in contempt and dishonest.

The subject stays until it is resolved.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I make it clear that the matter is unresolved.


Then what is "similar" about my IP address?

You claim it is "similar".

Please provide your evidence.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CF Larsen:

Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs.



What is is "similar" about the ISP's in your above claim?

[Lucianarchy]

What's up, Claus, cat got your tongue?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
What's up, Claus, cat got your tounge?

Have you forgotten the title of this thread?

[Lucianarchy]

OK. You've been nailed.

You are dishonest, Claus.

Dishonest, and completely devoid of integrity and humility

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
OK. You've been nailed.

You are dishonest, Claus.

Dishonest, and completely devoid of integrity and humility

Handwaving - or, in your case, wildly waving your arms, while jumping up and down - will get you nowhere.

It would be nice, though, if you could stop being such a lying hypocrite.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Handwaving - or, in your case, wildly waving your arms, while jumping up and down - will get you nowhere.

It would be nice, though, if you could stop being such a lying hypocrite.

Projection and further evasion noted.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Projection and further evasion noted.

Projection? Do share what you mean.

[Cynical]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Handwaving - or, in your case, wildly waving your arms, while jumping up and down - will get you nowhere.


Browbeating won't get you anywhere either, Claus...but you continue to do it. Don't you ever get tired of it?

Ol' man Flodin,
just keeps on ploddin' along.:rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Cynical
Browbeating won't get you anywhere either, Claus...but you continue to do it. Don't you ever get tired of it?

We could ask you the same question.

Originally posted by Cynical
Ol' man Flodin,
just keeps on ploddin' along.:rolleyes:

Please get back to us when you:


Get a life
Grow the hell up
Write a second joke

[richardm]

I'm no fan of Lucianarchy, but it does seem a bit rich for Claus to chase after him/her/it with a long list of questions he/she/it refuses to answer, but when Luci asks Claus to answer a question - more specifically, to justify an assertion he's made - the only answer is silence.

Come on Claus, you're better than that! At least point us in the direction of the original thread.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by richardm
I'm no fan of Lucianarchy, but it does seem a bit rich for Claus to chase after him/her/it with a long list of questions he/she/it refuses to answer, but when Luci asks Claus to answer a question - more specifically, to justify an assertion he's made - the only answer is silence.

Come on Claus, you're better than that! At least point us in the direction of the original thread.

It's an old story, and Lucianarchy is perfectly aware that it was discussed before. He is just trying to avoid the hard issues.

[richardm]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


It's an old story, and Lucianarchy is perfectly aware that it was discussed before. He is just trying to avoid the hard issues.

Fair enough, but many of the questions you're re-(re)-raising are old ones too...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by richardm
Fair enough, but many of the questions you're re-(re)-raising are old ones too...

But the reason I re-raise them is because they are not answered.

[Cynical]

I don't understand how Claus Flodin can have the balls to face Lucianarchy, after that brilliant poem Luci wrote.

Oh, and TLN?.....I don't act any worse than several others around here, so up YOURS, jerk.:mad:

[T'ai Chi]

While we're on the topic of evidence,

Yeah, it is kind of like Hoyt asking for evidence of claims, yet he flat out refuses (by ignoring) to provide evidence of his claim (see my link below).

Now, why is that?

(before you chime in, Claud, yes, I have asked Jr., but he is still ignoring, so no response).

And Claus, have you found any actual numbers to provide evidence for your claim of Clancie being "obsessed"? I'm not interested in your belief here, just numbers providing evidence.

Claus, do you still claim that you did not take a convenience sample? What is your evidence for this?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And Claus, have you found any actual numbers to provide evidence for your claim of Clancie being "obsessed"? I'm not interested in your belief here, just numbers providing evidence.

Claus, do you still claim that you did not take a convenience sample? What is your evidence for this?

Please stop hijacking threads.

[richardm]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


But the reason I re-raise them is because they are not answered.

Ah... okay!

[Upchurch]

This thread has been reported for harassment. Nothing in this thread, however, breaks forum rules. If anyone does not care for another poster's writing style, I highly recommend making use of the "Ignore" function.

[CFLarsen]

Nice try, Luci....

[Cynical]

Upchurch, you sure are an old busybody, aren't you? Why do you feel the need to be a tattle tale? It's very unattractive, Upchurch.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cynical
Upchurch, you sure are an old busybody, aren't you? Why do you feel the need to be a tattle tale? It's very unattractive, Upchurch.

Thanks for bumping the thread.

[Cynical]

You're welcome, CF. You should thank Upchurch too, because if it hadn't been for his being a stoolpigeon, I would have been through with it.

So now, Claus Flodin',
you can keep on ploddin' along.

[Lucianarchy]

In this thread, in 'The List', Larsen has made a distinct claim about my IP address.

He made the claim that they are "similar".

Saying it is "not resolved" is just about the most stupid thing I have seen from him to date. He either has the evidence, or he hasn't.

A claim which he uses to suggest I am responsible for writing something particulalrly unpleasant about Randi.

Such a claim without evidence is completely dispicable.

Until Larsen removes the dispicable claim and apologises, he remains in contempt and dishonest.

[Lucianarchy]

Well now! Look what Claus has said over on the 'o' moderation forum:

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I would also like to add this rule:

If Poster A does not provide evidence of claims, or answer questions regarding those, it should be required of Poster A to either admit that no such evidence exists, and/or Poster A has to state that he refuses to answer the questions.

:jaw:

Now, this should be easy:

Claus, where is your evidence about "very similar ISP's" ?

[Timble]

LA, talking to yourself is the first sign of madness.

[CFLarsen]

In "The moderation of O development thread", you had this to say:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
In respect of 'Question Lists', I'd say it's fair to ask questions on something someone has claimed. As an example, the 'List' directed at me doesn't actually carry any claims of mine at all.

You really believe that?

[Cleopatra]

originally posted by Claus Larsen

Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?

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


Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."


Claus, do you claim that the poster that posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy posted the quote above somewhere?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Claus, do you claim that the poster that posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy posted the quote above somewhere?

I asked the question, I got an answer, I am still looking into it.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I asked the question, I got an answer, I am still looking into it.

Do you mind if I ask you the question? Why should you so I repeat it because you did not answer me.

Do you claim that the poster that posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy posted the quote above somewhere?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do you mind if I ask you the question? Why should you so I repeat it because you did not answer me.

Do you claim that the poster that posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy posted the quote above somewhere?

I have nothing further to add.

[Cleopatra]

In your list(great job BTW) I see a claim. I want a clarification. I want to know if what you really claim is that the poster who posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy has posted the quote above somewhere else.

It is a simple, legitimate question. Please answer it.

[Cleopatra]

Claus have you turned into a woo-woo now? :(

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
In your list(great job BTW) I see a claim. I want a clarification. I want to know if what you really claim is that the poster who posts here, in this forum, under the nick-name Lucianarchy has posted the quote above somewhere else.

It is a simple, legitimate question. Please answer it.

I repost the question so as everybody sees the thread.

[DionysianSmile]

I'm confused as to what the term sceptic means, Luci. You say in various posts that you are a sceptic so I'm curious how you define it.

Edit to add:

I thought you were reading Bioelectromagnetics one, I left that question there for you to scratch and sniff at but no response.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Claus have you turned into a woo-woo now? :(

Now...?

[CFLarsen]

By request - and for the last time:

I did not obtain Lucianarchy's IP address from the JREF board.

I did not obtain Lucianarchy's IP address from the admins/mods of the JREF board.

[Cleopatra]

We already know that you did not obtain the IP from the admin or the mods because Hal told us so.

We don't know yet that you didn't get it from this board by using a trick.

How do you know that THAT Lucianarchy has a similar IP with the poster under the nick Lucianarchy that posts here? In order to know that you have to know the IP of Lucianarchy that posts here.

How you claim that the IP addresses are similar without knowing which IP address Lucianarchy uses to post in this forum?

[CFLarsen]

Cleopatra,

(cough)...where do I say that I know Lucianarchy's IP from here?

I really don't understand why this sentence:

"I did not obtain Lucianarchy's IP address from the JREF board."

is so hard to understand. Apparently it is, so if someone with a better grasp of English could please rewrite it, so Cleopatra, tamiO et al can understand it?

Because I, for one, am done with this nonsense.

[Cleopatra]

Claus I forgot that you are slow in getting some facts so I will repeat my question until you get it.

One more time.

How do you know that the IP address that the poster under the nick Lucianarchy uses to post here is similar to the the IP address of the poster under the nick Robin/Lucianarchy?

Did you get it now Claus? Do not answer to irrelevant questions please.

Let me help you. In order to know that you have to know the IP address that Lucianarchy uses in order to post in this forum and you have to take it from here to be certain.

Sheeeeesh.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Because I, for one, am done with this nonsense.

So you demand others to provide evidence for their claims, but you are telling us you are refusing to provide evidence for your claim of:

"Very similar ISPs."

???

That's kind of confusing, Claus. Maybe you could clear it up for us.

[Cleopatra]

Claus, your unwillingness to remove the claim put us all in a very awkward position when we discuss with non-skeptics. You give them a reason to dodge the questions and you help them ruin the skeptical community. You give them the hammer that brings the house down.

Think about it.

[An Infinite Ocean]

This thread makes skeptics look just as bad as the believers.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by An Infinite Ocean
This thread makes skeptics look just as bad as the believers.

I doubt that!

;)

[T'ai Chi]

So you demand others to provide evidence for their claims, but you are telling us you are refusing to provide evidence for your claim of:

"Very similar ISPs."

???

That's kind of confusing, Claus. Maybe you could clear it up for us.



OOps, I pressed cntrl C and cntrl v by mistake. ;)

[Cleopatra]

Bump for Claus.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So you demand others to provide evidence for their claims, but you are telling us you are refusing to provide evidence for your claim of:

"Very similar ISPs."

???

That's kind of confusing, Claus. Maybe you could clear it up for us.



OOps, I pressed cntrl C and cntrl v by mistake. ;) Obviously, for privacy reasons, Claus cannot disclose the IPs or how he got them.

Very similar IPs: When you use a dial-up connection, your ISP's proxy server assigns a random IP to you each time you log on, but each proxy has only a certain range of IP addresses to assign from. So, considering the general geographical spread of people here, two posters consistently using IPs from the same range is evidence that they might be the same person. On the other hand, they might just live close to each other.

Hans

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Obviously, for privacy reasons, Claus cannot disclose the IPs or how he got them.

Hans

Claus knew that he would be asked to provide evidence for his claim. Yet he made the claim and when he was challenged to provide the evidence he replied that the issue is pending. If the issue is pending he must remove the claim from his list until he has sufficient evidence to present.

As for the similar IPs he has to know the IP that Luci uses to post here in order to prove that we are talking about the same Lucianarchy and I have been asking him. Does he know the IP Luci uses to post here and if yes how?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Claus knew that he would be asked to provide evidence for his claim. Yet he made the claim and when he was challenged to provide the evidence he replied that the issue is pending. If the issue is pending he must remove the claim from his list until he has sufficient evidence to present.

It's a question. I asked Lucianarchy, I got a reply, I am still looking into it.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
As for the similar IPs he has to know the IP that Luci uses to post here in order to prove that we are talking about the same Lucianarchy and I have been asking him. Does he know the IP Luci uses to post here and if yes how?

No, I don't have to know the IP that Lucianarchy uses here. E.g., it is clear that the Lucianarchy who posts on Fortean Times and on SurvivalScience is the same Lucianarchy that posts here. (Please note that I am not saying that I know Lucianarchy's IP address there, though.)

If you want to question the identity of Lucianarchy on those boards, then you also have to question the identity of me posting there. I don't see you do that, though.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


It's a question. I asked Lucianarchy, I got a reply, I am still looking into it. It is not a question, it is an accusation.You should remove it from your list.
No, I don't have to know the IP that Lucianarchy uses here. E.g., it is clear that the Lucianarchy who posts on Fortean Times and on SurvivalScience is the same Lucianarchy that posts here. (Please note that I am not saying that I know Lucianarchy's IP address there, though.)
You are bringing other fora here and you ask me to judge posters of this forum based on their posts in fora I do not even know their existence.This is not necessary. I have freaked out enough with what Lucianarchy posts here.As everybody else I am in the position to understand some things.

You have to know what IP Lucianarchy uses here in order that you are certain. You know very well that you cannot admit that you know the IP he uses here without admitting that you hacked the forum( since people corrected me that hacking and not stealing is the right word).

If you want to question the identity of Lucianarchy on those boards, then you also have to question the identity of me posting there. I don't see you do that, though. What? Please don't do that. Don't get surreal. You brought the issue here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
It is not a question, it is an accusation.You should remove it from your list.

Who is spinning now? It's a question.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You are bringing other fora here and you ask me to judge posters of this forum based on their posts in fora I do not even know their existence.This is not necessary. I have freaked out enough with what Lucianarchy posts here.As everybody else I am in the position to understand some things.

You have to know what IP Lucianarchy uses here in order that you are certain. You know very well that you cannot admit that you know the IP he uses here without admitting that you hacked the forum( since people corrected me that hacking and not stealing is the right word).

I do not have to have Lucianarchy's IP from here.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What? Please don't do that. Don't get surreal. You brought the issue here.

It's not surreal at all. How do you determine who is who on different boards?

[Cleopatra]

Claus you accuse Lucianarchy for having posted in another forum an invitation to people to bring down Randi's forum. What makes you believe that it's Lucianarchy that posts here who wrote that post there?

[Ed]

Perhaps I can relieve the tedium for relative newbies by pointing out that for a brief moment, IP adresses were posted here. There was an outcry and the practice was stopped. TVtalkshows did the same thing.

[CFLarsen]

Cleopatra,

That particular post (and the following ones - hint, hint) is classic Lucianarchy. The tone and the content points to him. In fact, it is by far the worst I have seen from L's hand, so I'm not sure why he is so terrified of it.

How do you determine if two persons posting two different places are the same? A personal confession? Similar IPs? How?

[Cleopatra]

I don't know how to identify posters in different fora but I do know how I identify sock-puppets here. Each person's writing style has a different rhythm and each of us is stuck to some patterns that it seems that is unable to get over them. Although I am rarely wrong I cannot prove it and the only thing I can do is spot it and discuss it with other posters.

The nature of the post in question doesn't permit us even to re-post it if we are not a 100% certain. You brought the argument of the IP and this creates more questions especially because Lucianarchy denies that he has posted this thing.

[CFLarsen]

Cleopatra,

Of course we can repost it, provided we do not claim that it is Lucianarchy.

Which I don't.

[Cynical]

Claus Flodin?.....Get over yourself, already.:rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

It's interesting to note that the majority of honest, real skeptics here are women.

It's interesting to note, because Claus is evidently quite a misogynist.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Cleopatra,

(cough)...where do I say that I know Lucianarchy's IP from here?

I really don't understand why this sentence:

"I did not obtain Lucianarchy's IP address from the JREF board."

is so hard to understand. Apparently it is, so if someone with a better grasp of English could please rewrite it, so Cleopatra, tamiO et al can understand it?

Because I, for one, am done with this nonsense.


So therefore CFLarsen you don't have evidence to back up the claim atm (apparantly pending evidence),

Oh what to do?...withdraw the claim perhaps? Cleopatra's suggestion is ignored, so therefore she keeps pressing for evidence as you have not withdrawn the claim.

[Timble]

Lucianarchole is peddling its lies somewhere else now:

Mia Dolan at:

http://domain600823.sites.fasthosts.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=183&PN=1


This is also at Mia Dolan:

http://domain600823.sites.fasthosts.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=179&PN=1

[CFLarsen]

Bumpety-bump.

[Cynical]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It's interesting to note that the majority of honest, real skeptics here are women.

It's interesting to note, because Claus is evidently quite a misogynist.

Good point, Luci. But I've thought for some time that Claus Flodin is most likey gay. I've suspected that ever since he used to post as "Cantata" over at TVTALK. After all, what real man would use THAT moniker? So you see, it makes sense. Gay men think more like women.

[Cynical]

Oh, crap. I meant, most "likely"....:bricks:

[Lucianarchy]

It is not a problem what Larsen's sexuality is, as long as he's not a pedophile.

[Lucianarchy]

[quote]
budddyh
JREF Kid

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: darkest Philadelphia
Posts: 1052

[...]

Here's what I found out so far.
Post in question here:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.c...104&article=220
IP address (view source to see it) 216.112.142.177
Which resolves to concentric.net in California.

All you have to do is tie Lucianarchy to that IP address. I have been unable to do so. So far there is nothing tying Lucianarchy to this post.
[/quote



Now, please, what is "similar" about the IP's?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now, please, what is "similar" about the IP's?

I asked you a question, I got a reply, I am still looking into it.

[gnome]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I asked you a question, I got a reply, I am still looking into it.

Claus... I hate to play into Lucianarchy's hands if that's what I'm doing, but I have to call them like I see them.

You made a very specific technical claim linking Luci to the post in question. If you are not going to withdraw the claim, I feel you are obligated by integrity to present the information that leads you to that technical claim.

Even if your study of the matter is not complete, surely you can post what you already know, that led you to say so in the first pace.

Additionally, you have hammered Luci and others in the past for refusing to give direct, informative answers. How can you now make a similar refusal? It has been almost painful to see you dancing around this issue, when you have been a champion of openness and disclosure.

[CFLarsen]

gnome,

First, let me make it absolutely clear: I am not dancing around this issue. Quite the opposite. I have met people's enquiries with my explanation, which they can agree with or not, of course. However, I have to stress - again - that I don't link Lucianarchy to the quote, nor do I say that it is Lucianarchy. I see similarities, and I am still looking into it.

To me, it's equivalent to examining the evidence of mediumship: Does mediumship exist? There are some things that point in the direction, there are other things that point against it. I could also point to a political/military subject: WMD in Iraq. Do they exist, or do they not? So far, we have seen none.

Does that mean that they don't exist? No. Should we stop talking about it? No.

Should the point in the list be removed? I don't think so, for the same reasons: It would be equivalent to stop talking about mediumship at all. I think I can run the risk and assume that very few people here are interested in ceasing to talk about mediumship or, for that matter, any other paranormal phenomenon. If no paranormal phenomena exist, then we can still discuss why people believe in them. If they do exist...oy! :)

Same with WMD: There are still consequences, regardless of they exist or not. If they exist, the rationale for the war was supported by previous claims. If they do not, then quite a few politicians are in deep manure.

I think it is quite alright to have "open issues". If we can find an answer - e.g. test a claim, look for WMD or try to locate Lucianarchy's IPs, we should try, with everything we got. I am doing the latter, as well as having been involved with tests of paranormal phenomena as well. As for looking for WMD..it is a bit harder - but I can assure you there are none in my back yard!

Really.

[gnome]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
gnome,

First, let me make it absolutely clear: I am not dancing around this issue. Quite the opposite. I have met people's enquiries with my explanation, which they can agree with or not, of course. However, I have to stress - again - that I don't link Lucianarchy to the quote, nor do I say that it is Lucianarchy. I see similarities, and I am still looking into it.


With all respect, Claus, this doesn't cover it.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs.


The statement that needs elaboration is "Very similar ISPs."

I have yet to see any information from you that explains what leads you to say that. Pressed, you say you are still studying it. But this was not presented as speculation or hypothesis, but as a statement of fact. At least three people now have asked you to go further on this particular point and on each occasion you have not. How is that not dancing around the issue?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
gnome,

First, let me make it absolutely clear: I am not dancing around this issue. Quite the opposite. I have met people's enquiries with my explanation, which they can agree with or not, of course. However, I have to stress - again - that I don't link Lucianarchy to the quote, nor do I say that it is Lucianarchy. I see similarities, and I am still looking into it.
You actually believe that you are NOT dancing around the issue? Then you shouldn't mind some simple questions:

On what did you base the statement that it is "Highly likely that it is L's statement."?
You said that there were "Very similar ISPs". Did you mean ISP as in "Internet Service Provider", or is it a typo and did you mean IP addresses?
Did that last question make any difference - are "ISPs" and "IP addresses" the same?
You say that you are still looking into it. Exactly what are you looking at?
What efforts have you already undertaken to look into it?
It has been a year. What do you have left to do?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
You actually believe that you are NOT dancing around the issue? Then you shouldn't mind some simple questions:

Of course not. To mind would be to dance around the issue.

Originally posted by Thanz
On what did you base the statement that it is "Highly likely that it is L's statement."?

I cannot reveal that - yet. There are a number of people involved, some whose identity I cannot reveal at the present time - some, I have promised to keep their involvement confidential, mostly due to the long history of deceit on Lucianarchy's part. You have no idea how deep this goes.

Originally posted by Thanz
You said that there were "Very similar ISPs". Did you mean ISP as in "Internet Service Provider", or is it a typo and did you mean IP addresses?

Both. I should have been more clear. Apologies.

Originally posted by Thanz
Did that last question make any difference - are "ISPs" and "IP addresses" the same?

No, ISP means "Internet Service Provider". IP means "Internet Protocol".

Originally posted by Thanz
You say that you are still looking into it. Exactly what are you looking at?

Although I am not at liberty to reveal everything - yet - I can say that the investigations are many-threaded and rather complicated. It does not merely involve a brutal Internet search, but also connecting with people. That takes time, I'm afraid, partly because people have been hurt by Lucianarchy's actions before. I am not always met with open arms, I can assure you. Suspicion runs deep.

Originally posted by Thanz
What efforts have you already undertaken to look into it?

See above.

Originally posted by Thanz
It has been a year. What do you have left to do?

That's hard to say, since this is not an investigation where I can see the finishing line. When I know sufficient to reach an answer, I will let you and everyone else know.

[gnome]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I cannot reveal that - yet. There are a number of people involved, some whose identity I cannot reveal at the present time - some, I have promised to keep their involvement confidential, mostly due to the long history of deceit on Lucianarchy's part. You have no idea how deep this goes.

Finally you're beginning to reach something that answers the question.

But I'll make a gentleman's bet with you (no stakes, just honor)... I'll bet that when you finally reveal what's going on, I can paraphrase it in such a way that would have given a satisfactory answer, without violating anyone's confidentiality, or undermining your efforts.

In other words, I don't believe the total secrecy is necessary. It sounds way too much like what we're expected to swallow without evidence from "believers". But we'll see.

I still contend, however, that if you are unwilling to present your evidence at this time, you should remove that specific claim until you are. You're trying to have it both ways--by mentioning ISP's, you're trying to gain credibility for your statement. But you don't deserve it yet. Representing that you have evidence, but being unwilling to show it is the same thing as offering none.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by gnome
Finally you're beginning to reach something that answers the question.

But I'll make a gentleman's bet with you (no stakes, just honor)... I'll bet that when you finally reveal what's going on, I can paraphrase it in such a way that would have given a satisfactory answer, without violating anyone's confidentiality, or undermining your efforts.

I cannot say anything about that. However, I doubt anyone would take my word for it. Heck, they shouldn't!!

Originally posted by gnome
In other words, I don't believe the total secrecy is necessary. It sounds way too much like what we're expected to swallow without evidence from "believers".

Ah, but the difference is that I am not making any claim that it is Lucianarchy.

Originally posted by gnome
But we'll see.

Hopefully, we will. Hey, it might even turn out to be nothing! Like with paranormal claims, who knows?

.....however, regarding WMD, I am beginning to lean on the answer that we won't find any...ever...but that's for another thread...

Originally posted by gnome
I still contend, however, that if you are unwilling to present your evidence at this time, you should remove that specific claim until you are.

We disagree there. I trust you will understand my reasoning.

[gnome]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We disagree there. I trust you will understand my reasoning.

I really don't... you added a detail (similar ISP's) intended to make your statement more believable. By that you are suggesting people draw a preliminary conclusion before the evidence is in.

But I can't make you do anything. If we have to agree to disagree on this point, so be it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by gnome
I really don't... you added a detail (similar ISP's) intended to make your statement more believable. By that you are suggesting people draw a preliminary conclusion before the evidence is in.

Ehh...no. I added it, because I wasn't clear the first time. I am not suggesting anything - I have repeatedly stated that no conclusion can be reached. Yet.

Originally posted by gnome
But I can't make you do anything. If we have to agree to disagree on this point, so be it.

Yup.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I cannot reveal that - yet. There are a number of people involved, some whose identity I cannot reveal at the present time - some, I have promised to keep their involvement confidential, mostly due to the long history of deceit on Lucianarchy's part. You have no idea how deep this goes.



It goes all the way back to Roswell.

Claus, has anyone ever told you that you just might actually be suffering from paranoid delusions?

[Timble]

Nobody to lie to on Mia Dolan tonight, Lucianarchole?

[gnome]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ehh...no. I added it, because I wasn't clear the first time. I am not suggesting anything - I have repeatedly stated that no conclusion can be reached. Yet.

You have suggested that it is "likely." That's a little stronger than "inconclusive".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It goes all the way back to Roswell.

Not quite. There are some interesting links to some interesting people. And posts. And socks aplenty...

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, has anyone ever told you that you just might actually be suffering from paranoid delusions?

Ah, yes, of course: Why not start spreading rumours about my sanity, so people will not take anything I say serious?

You don't really think that anyone fell for that cheap trick you tried to pull at the Mia Dolan board? Sock puppets seem a crucial part of your method.

Originally posted by gnome
You have suggested that it is "likely." That's a little stronger than "inconclusive".

Perhaps.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Ah, yes, of course: Why not start spreading rumours about my sanity, so people will not take anything I say serious?



'Rumours'? lol! Claus, the people who dislike me are laughing at you now. lol.

I notice you've devoloped paranoia into thinking the 'sock puppets' are out to get you. I told you, they are from Roswell. Make sure you get your tin-foil hat on.

Don't take this as a diagnosis, but there are plenty of people reading this who know your behaviour is now verging on full-blown clinical psychosis.

Way to bolster your integrity. I am sure the skeptical community is proud of you :rolleyes:

[JamesM]

Two bald men fighting over a comb.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
'Rumours'? lol! Claus, the people who dislike me are laughing at you now. lol.

Perhaps. You're the psychic one. Oh, wait - no, you're not....

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I notice you've devoloped paranoia into thinking the 'sock puppets' are out to get you. I told you, they are from Roswell. Make sure you get your tin-foil hat on.

I notice that you are still unable to read. I do not think that sock puppets are out to get me. I do have a growing body of evidence that show your many - many - sock puppets. Or perhaps you deny that you have ever used sock puppets? That would help my investigation a great deal.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Don't take this as a diagnosis, but there are plenty of people reading this who know your behaviour is now verging on full-blown clinical psychosis.

I won't, then. I also doubt that you know what goes on in people's minds. Though I have serious doubts about your psychic abilities, I'm sure that you are somewhat familiar with psychiatry.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Way to bolster your integrity. I am sure the skeptical community is proud of you :rolleyes:

Judging from the number of hits on SkepticReport and the amount of positive feedback I get, I would say "yes". A big "yes".

So - have you ever used sock puppets, Lucianarchy? Just "yes" or "no".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JamesM
Two bald men fighting over a comb.

Not at all. First, I'm not the bald one.... (http://www.dudeluci.com/1201HMdlpic.jpg) ;)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen



So - have you ever used sock puppets, Lucianarchy? Just "yes" or "no".

No. Not unless they are my alien comrades acting under s3(ba)1V.~ of The Glactic Alliance Defence Treaty.

Claus, you know that shadowy figure on the roof you saw looking at you whilst you went to the cashpoint last week....

sock puppet n. [Usenet: from the act of placing a sock over your hand and talking to it and pretending it's talking back] In Usenet parlance, a pseudo through which the puppeteer posts follow-ups to their own original message to give the appearance that a number of people support the views held in the original message. http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/s/sock_puppet.html

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No. Not unless they are my alien comrades acting under s3(ba)1V.~ of The Glactic Alliance Defence Treaty.

Claus, you know that shadowy figure on the roof you saw looking at you whilst you went to the cashpoint last week....

sock puppet n. [Usenet: from the act of placing a sock over your hand and talking to it and pretending it's talking back] In Usenet parlance, a pseudo through which the puppeteer posts follow-ups to their own original message to give the appearance that a number of people support the views held in the original message. http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/s/sock_puppet.html

Checkmate.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not at all. First, I'm not the bald one.... (http://www.dudeluci.com/1201HMdlpic.jpg) ;)

Where did you get that from? I demand an answer.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Checkmate.

No, I said 'cashpoint'. It was outside the bank.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Where did you get that from? I demand an answer. I could be wrong, but my psychic guide suggested that looking in the address bar above the picture and it came up with dudeluci.com :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Where did you get that from? I demand an answer.

Check the address.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
No, I said 'cashpoint'. It was outside the bank.

Down in flames you go, liar.

[Thanz]

Claus -

Thank you for answering my questions. Based on your answers, I can only say that whenever it is that you tell us all (if ever) I now expect it to be a reveal of I-know-where-hoffa-is-buried proportions. Either that, or you are really off the deep end, especially considering the latest cryptic sock puppet discussions.

In the meantime, I'll have to conclude that it is not "highly likely" that the statement was made by Luci, or that the IPs were similar. I will be fully willing to change this position once I see your evidence.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Check the address.


:dl:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:dl:

Meaning? The photo is not you? Just yes or no.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Meaning?

Meaning; you are one completely, utterly, insane kook.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Meaning; you are one completely, utterly, insane kook.

That may be so. Is the picture you, yes or no?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


That may be so. Is the picture you, yes or no?

Claus, it's a friggin cartoon dog!!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, it's a friggin cartoon dog!!

Stop evading the question:

Is this you, yes or no? (http://www.dudeluci.com/1201HMdlpic.jpg)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Stop evading the question:

Is this you, yes or no? (http://www.dudeluci.com/1201HMdlpic.jpg)

Oh, that picture. It's getting difficult these days, Claus, what with you seeing me everywhere you look.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Oh, that picture. It's getting difficult these days, Claus, what with you seeing me everywhere you look.

Yes, that picture. Is that you, yes or no?

[Timble]

LAs seems to have managed to divert two other threads to discuss their issues, as well as this one...I suspect getting attention is their whole aim.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yes, that picture. Is that you, yes or no?

Claus, I think we both know the answer to that question.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, I think we both know the answer to that question.

Please answer the question.

[Marian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Claus, I think we both know the answer to that question.

Yeah because when someone posts a bald guy picture in comment to another poster and you jump out demanding to know where he got that...

Yeah. I think it's obvious we all know the answer.

Rogaine!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Please answer the question.

No.

[Lucianarchy]

budddyh
JREF Kid

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: darkest Philadelphia
Posts: 1052

[...]

Here's what I found out so far.
Post in question here:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.c...104&article=220
IP address (view source to see it) 216.112.142.177
Which resolves to concentric.net in California.

All you have to do is tie Lucianarchy to that IP address. I have been unable to do so. So far there is nothing tying Lucianarchy to this post.




Now, please, I have answered your question, now answer mine.

What is "similar" about the IP's?

[tamiO]

Lucianarchy has posted to my forum and the only IP address Luci accesses my site with (repeatedly) is not in any way similar to the IP address buddyh has posted.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Yes, that picture. Is that you, yes or no?

Whether it is Luci or not does not distract me from the issue.

I am not sure if my logic is correct here, BUT.

If you know it is your Luci, you are disclosing private information.

If you do not know it's your Luci, you are accusing the person who is pictured on the front page of DudeLuci.com - the website that you hijacked the photo from - of everything you accuse Luci of.

I can call the admin contact for DudeLuci.com and get this sorted out.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Timble
LAs seems to have managed to divert two other threads to discuss their issues, as well as this one...I suspect getting attention is their whole aim.

I hope you don't include this thread in your counting. :D

[CFLarsen]

tamiO,

Can I give you a piece of advice? Can you try not to hype your posts so much? You exaggerate wildly.

I did not disclose private information - I asked if it was Lucianarchy. I did not hijack the photo - I simply referred to it.

A call to the admin would not consistute anything. You think you will get any other answer than "No, that's not me"?

[T'ai Chi]

I haven't read any evidence yet about IP's. He must be keeping it secret..

[tamiO]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I did not hijack the photo - I simply referred to it.

A call to the admin would not consistute anything. You think you will get any other answer than "No, that's not me"?

You are correct, you only posted a link to a photo of a man who is or is not Luci.

You are accusing the person who is pictured on the front page of DudeLuci.com of everything you accuse your Luci (known to us as Lucianarchy) of. That person deserves to know that he has been brought under suspicion in a high traffic public forum.

I don't know what the person that answers the phone will say. Neither do you.

I think I can arrange some other things that will help me determine if the person who is the admin contact for that domain name is lying or telling the truth.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by tamiO
You are correct, you only posted a link to a photo of a man who is or is not Luci.

Thank you.

Originally posted by tamiO
You are accusing the person who is pictured on the front page of DudeLuci.com of everything you accuse your Luci (known to us as Lucianarchy) of. That person deserves to know that he has been brought under suspicion in a high traffic public forum.

I don't know what the person that answers the phone will say. Neither do you.

You think it will be a "Yes, I'm Lucianarchy"?

Originally posted by tamiO
I think I can arrange some other things that will help me determine if the person who is the admin contact for that domain name is lying or telling the truth.

Go ahead.

[Cleopatra]

Is Lucianarchy a musician? That's very cool!!!! :)

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Not at all. First, I'm not the bald one.... (http://www.dudeluci.com/1201HMdlpic.jpg) ;)

That guy's not bald! He just has an incredibly long, sweeping forehead.

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by tamiO

You are accusing the person who is pictured on the front page of DudeLuci.com of everything you accuse your Luci (known to us as Lucianarchy) of. That person deserves to know that he has been brought under suspicion in a high traffic public forum.


lol, I read these forums occasionally, and I swear, some of you lot lose the plot the longer you are here.
That person deserves to know his image is being linked to typical internet forum bickering! He's now under *suspicion* no less! On a 'high traffic public forum'!!

I accuse him of being Elvis - I await to be sued. Get a grip tamiO.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by HenDralux

I accuse him of being Elvis - I await to be sued. Get a grip tamiO.

No one is sueing anyone. :rolleyes:

I see you have been here around 2 months, so I can understand where you are coming from. I exaggerate the circumstances to put an end to Claus and Luci's endless internet forum bickering.

It's not important to anyone but Claus and Luci.

ps. maybe I am wrong and you have been reading for years :)

[HenDralux]

Originally posted by tamiO


No one is sueing anyone. :rolleyes:



Oh I dunno, Mr. Long-forehead may really really hate Elvis.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You think it will be a "Yes, I'm Lucianarchy"?



Go ahead.

http://www.dudeluci.com/Dude_Luci_Dialer-Proof_Dreams_DSL.ram

Life immitating art?

[Ceinwyn]

So Luci, can you still predict lottery numbers?

[Doctor X]

. . . unsuccessfully?

--J.D.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Is Lucianarchy a musician? That's very cool!!!! :)

I think not, Cleo. A 'MixMeister' by the looks of it.

His 'studio' is a joke. I've seen 12-year-old-budding DJ's with more expensive gear. I guess the keyboard is there to 'make dem funny noises'.

Obviously 'a legend in his own mind' is DudeLuci. IMO he is probably too old to get the chicks he wants, so he is a 'power-poseur'. i.e. he likes to be 'on stage' because he gets puffed out and sweaty dancing with the hot girlies. When chicks point or look at him, he doesn't realise they are laughing at him.

DudeLuci: 'Gee, that blonde must really fancy me by the way she's staring.'

Blonde to pal: 'Gawd, that guy looks like a real psycho, don't you think?'

However, if Claus is saying this is our Lucianarchy, I'm confused more than ever.

Yet, those eyes remind me of someone else's avatar in here. What do you think? Someone who methinks protests too much?

Just speculation, of course.:D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Doctor X
. . . unsuccessfully?

--J.D.

Don't forget about the IP numbers..

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
However, if Claus is saying this is our Lucianarchy, I'm confused more than ever.

I'm not saying that....but judge for yourself:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Not at all. First, I'm not the bald one.... (http://www.dudeluci.com/1201HMdlpic.jpg) ;)

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Where did you get that from? I demand an answer.

Isn't that kind of a strange reply, if the photo was not Lucianarchy? I know, I know...the laughing dog, the evasive posts following that....but why not simply a straight-forward "No, that's not me"?

After all - if it was not Lucianarchy, why not jump at the opportunity to say "No, that's not me - Claus, you fool"?

Makes ya think, eh?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I'm not saying that....but judge for yourself:

Isn't that kind of a strange reply, if the photo was not Lucianarchy? I know, I know...the laughing dog, the evasive posts following that....but why not simply a straight-forward "No, that's not me"?

After all - if it was not Lucianarchy, why not jump at the opportunity to say "No, that's not me - Claus, you fool"?

Makes ya think, eh?

So you mean all that 'worked for the Home Office' stuff was actually (probably) lies?

Well, I never!

Maybe he is a DJ for the CIA. He does mixes to be used as 'psychological irritants' against the Terrorists.

Or, did he DJ a Home Office Christmas bash with the definitive Bing Crosby meets Metallica ultra-mix?
:D

[The Mighty Thor]

Even if he's not Lucianarchy, Dude Luci is 'interesting' in an 'Interesting Ian' kinda way.:D

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Don't forget about the IP numbers..

Yes. Come on, Claus. You've had your little bit of fun. Stop trying to divert attention away from the real issues.

budddyh
JREF Kid

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: darkest Philadelphia
Posts: 1052



Here's what I found out so far.
Post in question here:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.c...104&article=220
IP address (view source to see it) 216.112.142.177
Which resolves to concentric.net in California.

All you have to do is tie Lucianarchy to that IP address. I have been unable to do so. So far there is nothing tying Lucianarchy to this post.



Now, please, I have answered your question, now answer mine.

What is "similar" about the IP's?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
So you mean all that 'worked for the Home Office' stuff was actually (probably) lies?

Well, I never!

I think it is obvious by now that Lucianarchy has a long history of perpetual lying. I suppose it becomes part of one's life, if you've been at it for that long.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yes. Come on, Claus. You've had your little bit of fun. Stop trying to divert attention away from the real issues.

"Fun"? That's not "fun", Lucianarchy. Neither is it diversion.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Now, please, I have answered your question, now answer mine.

What is "similar" about the IP's?

I have already answered it.

Here's one of mine:

Looking for psi: WHAT are you actually looking for? How do you define it, how do you discover it, measure it, discern it from other phenomena?

Or, if you like:

How can you determine that Brits are more fearful of 13 than Danes, if you cannot quantify this?

Or, if you like:

Have you tried to replicated the SAIC experiments? If no, why do you insist we do it? If yes, can we see the results, methodology, full data set, etc.?

Or, if you like:

Why is it incomprehensible that Geller can fool Targ?

Or, if you like:

Natalia Lulova: How would you have designed and carried out the test?

Or, if you like:

Do you understand that witness testimony is utterly irrelevant in science?

Or, if you like:

Are character flaws an indication of the validity of a person's findings?

Or, if you like:

Do you think it is possible that parapsychologists could be fooled by a masterful magician?

Or, if you like:

What awards have you won and what pieces were they for and what publications were they in?

Or, if you like:

What kind of evidence will you accept that show you are wrong?

[The Mighty Thor]

My apologies to DudeLuci, of course, if he is NOT Lucianarchy. He might be quite a, well . . ., 'normal' guy:)

But I dislike DJ's anyway. When I was in the Musician's Union the slogan was "Keep Music LIVE":D :D :D

[The Mighty Thor]

Why would a DJ have such a beef with Randi?

[TheBoyPaj]

Maybe he thought he was the first person to recognise songs by looking at the grooves?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor


But I dislike DJ's anyway. When I was in the Musician's Union the slogan was "Keep Music LIVE":D :D :D

Ah, yes, the early 80's. The graveyard years of failed pub-rock, old intransigent hippies, and Ian Curtis wannabees. Lol! Thank Gaia for the digital revolution.

BTW, which part of DJ / mixing in front of thousands of people is not 'live'? :rolleyes:

[TheBoyPaj]

I'd like everybody to come and watch my new live drama production, as I stick on a DVD of "The English Patient"

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


"Fun"? That's not "fun", Lucianarchy. Neither is it diversion.



I have already answered it.



Not even in your deepest dreams. lol!

Claus, how far apart, using the evidence you claim to have, is there between my IP address and the one in California which published the actionable anti-Randi post that you are hilariously trying to pin on me?

Just narrow it down to units of thousand miles if you would for the time being.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Not even in your deepest dreams. lol!

Claus, how far apart, using the evidence you claim to have, is there between my IP address and the one in California which published the actionable anti-Randi post that you are hilariously trying to pin on me?

Just narrow it down to units of thousand miles if you would for the time being.

O........K.

For the time being: 20,000 km. I can't determine if we need to go East or West of California.

Consider this answer "IPso facto psirony".

Now, please answer this question (I'm just picking one, but I'm sure you don't mind):

Why is it incomprehensible that Geller can fool Targ?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Ah, yes, the early 80's. The graveyard years of failed pub-rock, old intransigent hippies, and Ian Curtis wannabees. Lol! Thank Gaia for the digital revolution.

BTW, which part of DJ / mixing in front of thousands of people is not 'live'? :rolleyes:

From what I've seen, usually the DJ himself. Or, "Life, but not as we know it, Jim."

So, you ARE a fan of the old MixMeisters, Luci? Strange, for such an academic and scholar. How many DJ's actually pay their fair share to Performing Rights, do you think?

Note that one, Claus. I thought Lucianarchy might be more of a jazz club fella, like he who is presently absent. Or, maybe an opera buff -- plenty of drama there.;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Note that one, Claus. I thought Lucianarchy might be more of a jazz club fella, like he who is presently absent. Or, maybe an opera buff -- plenty of drama there.;)

Disagree. Stealing music for a living fits beautifully with how Lucianarchy markets himself: As a pot-smoking rebellious anarchist with megalomaniac tendencies, who fancies himself having paranormal abilities.

I suppose it is part of the process of growing up: Showing disdain for establishment. If it seems to upset your parents (which can also be personified by science), Lucianarchy will do it. Most people outgrow such behaviour when they reach adulthood, though.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


O........K.

For the time being: 20,000 km. I can't determine if we need to go East or West of California.

Consider this answer "IPso facto psirony".

Now, please answer this question (I'm just picking one, but I'm sure you don't mind):

Why is it incomprehensible that Geller can fool Targ?

O....K.

Concentric.net is, you estimate, 20,000km or so away from my actual IP address. O....K. What is similar bewteen the concentric.net IP address which was used to for actionable anti-Randi post. and my IP address?

Now, to answer yours. I have never claimed that it was incomprehensible that the good Mr G could fool the eminent Mr Targ.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Stealing music for a living fits beautifully with how Lucianarchy markets himself: As a pot-smoking rebellious anarchist with megalomaniac tendencies, who fancies himself having paranormal abilities.


You say that as if that's a bad thing. :confused:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Isn't that kind of a strange reply, if the photo was not Lucianarchy? I know, I know...the laughing dog, the evasive posts following that....but why not simply a straight-forward "No, that's not me"?

After all - if it was not Lucianarchy, why not jump at the opportunity to say "No, that's not me - Claus, you fool"?

Makes ya think, eh?

Yeah, you're right there, Claus. It sure does.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Concentric.net is, you estimate, 20,000km or so away from my actual IP address. O....K. What is similar bewteen the concentric.net IP address which was used to for actionable anti-Randi post. and my IP address?

Some of the numbers. I cannot reveal which ones - yet.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I have never claimed that it was incomprehensible that the good Mr G could fool the eminent Mr Targ.

Another lie: Actually, you have:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
So you admit that even those at the peak of their career or ability can 'cheat', regardless of "power" be it athletic, artistic or mental. The overall evidence in favour of Uri Geller's 'psi' powers being genuine is overwhelming. It would be perfectly understandable for him to sometimes not be able to perform, it would also be understandable for him to sometimes cheat (I believe his ability was strongest during the 70's). Many people forget that those who actually tested him in the labs (as opposed to 'showbiz' appearances) employed the services of magicians, and I believe Russ Targ (SRI/Geller) even had a background as a performing magician before he became a performing physicist.

Didn't Randi mention that in his books or any of his other writings about Uri at the SRI?
Source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870118254)

Heck, you even claim that Geller cannot fool David Blaine:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Uri has been tested under the eye of performing stage magicians and illusionists including David Blaine, and others during his time at the SRI. They did not detect trickery. Anyone with half a brain can detect the trickery in the sort of 'psychic' spoon-bending you are talking about. :rolleyes:

If you want to discuss any other issues about the good Mr G, please do so under the appropriate thread and pm me if you want my attention drawn to it.
Source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870166914)

So, we have conflicting statements from you. Would you like to clarify your position, before we move on?

Incidentally, how did you get the Uri Geller FAQ copyrighted and even trademarked under your pseudonym "Lucianarchy"?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You say that as if that's a bad thing.

Stealing music is not a bad thing?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Some of the numbers. I cannot reveal which ones - yet.



Another lie: Actually, you have:


Source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870118254)

Heck, you even claim that Geller cannot fool David Blaine:


Source (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870166914)

So, we have conflicting statements from you. Would you like to clarify your position, before we move on?

Incidentally, how did you get the Uri Geller FAQ copyrighted and even trademarked under your pseudonym "Lucianarchy"?



Stealing music is not a bad thing?

"some of the numbers", are "similar", is that what your claim is then? lol! Claus, I'll bet you see faces on the moon and Jesus in a cloud too.

Claus, let me tell you something that will scare the s**t out of you.

Ready?

Where ever you go, you will always find me (and my lil' alien buddies), plotting with the Dark Forces, smoking pot, mixing music, eating quorn and drinking Cappuccino with three sugars (and cream).

Btw, you claimed "incomprehenisble" in your question. Please don't drag the goal-posts. I have never claimed it was incomprehensible. Although, it is a word which should be applied to your psyche.

[TheBoyPaj]

Another one for you, Luci.

Where is your evidence that my experiment is "corrupt"?

http://domain600823.sites.fasthosts.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=183&PN=1&TPN=1

So far you have only provided an opinion about the relative looseness of the protocol. That is not evidence of cheating.

After all, your beloved Schwartz had similarly lax protocols, did he not?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
"some of the numbers", are "similar", is that what your claim is then? lol! Claus, I'll bet you see faces on the moon and Jesus in a cloud too.

Sure, I do. I recognize them for what they are: Pareidolia.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus, let me tell you something that will scare the s**t out of you.

.......oooooohhhhhh........

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Ready?

Yes! Yes!

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Where ever you go, you will always find me (and my lil' alien buddies), plotting with the Dark Forces, smoking pot, mixing music, eating quorn and drinking Cappuccino with three sugars (and cream).

Oh. OK. I had expected somewhat more scary than the equivalent of Teletubbies on Prozac.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Btw, you claimed "incomprehenisble" in your question. Please don't drag the goal-posts. I have never claimed it was incomprehensible. Although, it is a word which should be applied to your psyche.

That's nice. Do you care to elaborate on your conflicting statements above? They are mutually exclusive.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Do you care to elaborate on your conflicting statements above? They are mutually exclusive.

Not until you have the deceny to apologise for claiming that it was 'highly likely' that it was me who wrote the anti-Randi crap you dredged up, claiming that the IP addresses are "very similar", without providing one shred of evidence.

Until then, put your tin-foil hat back on and go back to your conspiracies.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Isn't that kind of a strange reply, if the photo was not Lucianarchy?

Maybe Luci likes yanking your chain and feeding your assumptions. :D

For instance, "PeeWee? Can I go to the