Lucianarchy and remote viewing [Archive] - Page 2

Starrman

23rd July 2003, 07:23 AM

"His"? I can assure you that I am not trying to impress the "us" you refer to If you want to dismiss the 'ladybrook' perception as (insert your own belief here) then it's no skin off my nose. I'm just telling it like it is, you can embellish it with police scanners and secret editing techniques till the cows come home, it makes no difference to what really happened as I know you really think that my perception was genuine, as does tbk, your behaviour and hysteria is a dead give-away.

I was talking about the Koestler Institute tests, asking if they are repeatable and, if so, if they had been. I had mistakingly thought 'Koestler' was a single man, which is why I typed "his".

As I told you already, I only brought up police scanners as a possible alternate solution, and I never accused you of secret editing techniques (who is hysterical here?).

I actuall will concede that I believe that you typed the word 'ladybrook' based on an image in your head, and then something happened in ladybrook.

But I will say this again - this is not even that compelling of a coincendence! You have not demonstrated anything paranormal - you had an image that was likely to be in the news at some point after you typed it. By typing only a single word, any number of events could be shoe horned to fit your one-word 'perception'.

c0rbin

23rd July 2003, 07:42 AM

The time and clock issue is almost moot with Renata and Starrman's RV skillz showing strong.

Lucky is desperatly trying to see the demons in her basement.

Ceinwyn

23rd July 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Ersby, "such results" like Renata's are not even remotely ( no pun intended) compelling. :rolleyes:

Ladybrook is a far more uncommon term than anything she put up, and a bus hijacked by terrorists and packed with explosives, is, I suggest a tad more important than someone smelling smoke or a grass fire? Except, Luci, you NEVER posted anything to do with a bus, or terrorists, or a hijacking. You simply typed one word, which could have meant ANYTHING.

If something else had happened there, say an 18-wheeler hitting a council house or a fire demolishing a community center, would you have said those were your predictions? Seems to me your claim has very much in common with Renata's.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What I find extremely interesting is you ignoring the evidence that it was perfectly possible for you to dump that word there.

You must live in a strange, strange world, full of conspiracy, deception and lies. Either that, or you have serious unresolved issues from childhood which relate to trust. You really think it is possible that I managed to get an hour old post edited undetected, in one of the most popular forums on the JREF, and somehow get hold of the terrorist attack in ladybrook before the police and media and tie it into tbk's challenging my rv ability thread? If you do, then your cyncicism is clinical in the extreme, Claus. If I was to post edit (undetected) for the sake of deception, why would I just put 'ladybrook', wouldn't it have been more convincing to put something like 'ladybrook bus bomb'?

Your sort of cynicism sees conspiracy and deception everywhere. Everywhere, that is, that does not fit your pre-existing beliefs of course. :rolleyes:

There is no convincing you anyway, Claus. If someone picks up the JREF $1m, I very much expect you to suggest that Randi is in cahoots with the winner, or even the winner was using some 'secret device' which only you and 'Jeff' know about.
:rolleyes:

Starrman

23rd July 2003, 07:58 AM

Except, Luci, you NEVER posted anything to do with a bus, or terrorists, or a hijacking. You simply typed one word, which could have meant ANYTHING.

And don't forget this conveniently ignored post you made earlier:

"As with most parts of west Belfast, Ladybrook has been at the epicentre of the Troubles. A peace line separates the estate from parts of neighbouring Suffolk."

Ladybrook would have made the news eventually.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by buki
Except, Luci, you NEVER posted anything to do with a bus, or terrorists, or a hijacking. You simply typed one word, which could have meant ANYTHING.

Really? How many news items have there been which include anything to do with 'ladybrook' since my post? How many of them were as serious as a terrorist attack? :rolleyes:

thaiboxerken

23rd July 2003, 08:02 AM

You must live in a strange, strange world, full of conspiracy, deception and lies.

It is reality that people cheat, lie and steal.

You really think it is possible that I managed to get an hour old post edited undetected, in one of the most popular forums on the JREF, and somehow get hold of the terrorist attack in ladybrook before the police and media and tie it into tbk's challenging my rv ability thread?

It's possible, unlikely ( I admit ), but possible.

Why wouldn't I... convincing to put something like 'ladybrook bus bomb'?

We don't know, Lucky, only you know. But I ask you this, if you really had an RV perception.. why did you not write something convincing like "ladybrook bus bomb"?

Your sort of cynicism sees conspiracy and deception everywhere. Everywhere, that is, that does not fit your pre-existing beliefs of course. :rolleyes:

You seriously exaggerate the position of the skeptics here. We are saying that it's perfectly possible for you to cheat, and that it wouldn't be all too hard given the right tools.

There is no convincing you anyway, Claus. If someone picks up the JREF $1m, I very much expect you to suggest that Randi is in cahoots with the winner, or even the winner was using some 'secret device' which only you and 'Jeff' know about.
:rolleyes:

Are you sure about that? There is only one way to find out. Prove that Claus is unconvincable and go take the JREF money. Put up or shut up.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Starrman

And don't forget this conveniently ignored post you made earlier:

Ladybrook would have made the news eventually.

:rolleyes: Any word would have made the news eventually. But ladybrook is very rarely mentioned in the news, except this time, when it was mentioned the next day as ocurring only an hour after I posted it, and the fact that it was a terrorist hijack with a bus packed with explosives, driven through a residential area, en-route to a police station makes it highly significant. You may beg to differ, of course, I see some have already and see it as significant as a grass fire, or car crash :rolleyes: . Don't let me stop you.

Starrman

23rd July 2003, 08:08 AM

Really? How many news items have there been which include anything to do with 'ladybrook' since my post? How many of them were as serious as a terrorist attack?

You didn't say anything about a terrorist attack until after it happened. You just typed 'ladybrook', big whoop.

Ceinwyn

23rd July 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Really? How many news items have there been which include anything to do with 'ladybrook' since my post? How many of them were as serious as a terrorist attack? :rolleyes: Well, in that case, how many items about brush fires in Trenton have there been? How many items about the Eiffel Tower being on fire? Or items regarding thunderstorms knocking out power in New York? Looks like Renata's still doing just as well as you.

And you also seem to forget that there was no actual terrorist attack, merely the threat of one, and in a highly troubled area. That's probably why there has been no mention of it in other news outlets.

CFLarsen

23rd July 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You must live in a strange, strange world, full of conspiracy, deception and lies.

The world is, indeed, often populated with liars. Such as yourself, Lucianarchy.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Either that, or you have serious unresolved issues from childhood which relate to trust.

Not really. You continue to misunderstand: It's not about trust, it's about evidence? That aside, you have zero credibility, so you asking us to trust you is a bit naive.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You really think it is possible that I managed to get an hour old post edited undetected, in one of the most popular forums on the JREF, and somehow get hold of the terrorist attack in ladybrook before the police and media and tie it into tbk's challenging my rv ability thread? If you do, then your cyncicism is clinical in the extreme, Claus. If I was to post edit (undetected) for the sake of deception, why would I just put 'ladybrook', wouldn't it have been more convincing to put something like 'ladybrook bus bomb'?

I note that you seem to equate "cynicism" with "skepticism". Two very different concepts.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Your sort of cynicism sees conspiracy and deception everywhere. Everywhere, that is, that does not fit your pre-existing beliefs of course. :rolleyes:

Heavens, no: I am perfectly willing to be convinced. Your problem is that it is very hard to be convinced by this.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There is no convincing you anyway, Claus. If someone picks up the JREF $1m, I very much expect you to suggest that Randi is in cahoots with the winner, or even the winner was using some 'secret device' which only you and 'Jeff' know about.
:rolleyes:

Let's worry about that when someone picks up the $1M, shall we? I take it you won't have a go at it?

Lottery numbers?

c0rbin

23rd July 2003, 08:29 AM

Really? How many news items have there been which include anything to do with 'ladybrook' since my post? How many of them were as serious as a terrorist attack?

What does this have to do with anything?

If something happens next week you'd probably claim that as part of your powers of prediction as well.

Ceinwyn

23rd July 2003, 08:35 AM

Also Luci, if you could please answer an earlier question I had:

"If something else had happened there, say an 18-wheeler hitting a council house or a fire demolishing a community center, would you have said those were your predictions?"

Thanks.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by buki
Also Luci, if you could please answer an earlier question I had:

"If something else had happened there, say an 18-wheeler hitting a council house or a fire demolishing a community center, would you have said those were your predictions?"

Thanks.

You seem to miss the point, Buki. I have said, many, many times now, that I often get an impression, a 'bolt from the blue', a compelling word or name. I didn't have the impression of the words 'new york' or 'iraq'. It was 'ladybrook'. It wasn't 'ladybrook bus bomb hijack police station'. You are retrospectively fishing, Buki, if they had occured in ladybrook, then it would be mildy interesting, that's all. The fact is, that it wasn't, and it certainly wasn't a grass fire or a power cut, but a terrorist attack using a hijacked bus packed with explosives, driven through a residential area, en-route to a police station. I find it highly significant and self-evident. I am quite happy for you to draw whatever conclusion you want from that.

juninho

23rd July 2003, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by buki
And you also seem to forget that there was no actual terrorist attack, merely the threat of one, and in a highly troubled area. That's probably why there has been no mention of it in other news outlets.

Let me just suggest a theory IF we believe that the post was not edited;

On 13th July 2003 there was a story on the bbc website regarding the DNA testing of about 1,000 men in the hunt for a killer of a pensioner, Gladys Godfrey, in her own home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2846839.stm

The hunt for the killer, it is reported in the article, also featured on Crimewatch as one of their appeals for information from the public. I could not find the date the programme aired.

The interesting thing about this is that the woman lived on the Ladybrook estate in Mansfield (northern town in England). Now we know that Lucianarchy has an interest in Crime (see Police and Psychics thread) and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she watched crimewatch that night and we know that she trawls the bbc website anyway.

My theory is that she intentionally threw in the word Ladybrook because she thought there may be some breakthrough on the case in the near future. She could then claim that she had predicted it. She just got lucky with the bus-bomb thing.

That is, of course, IF you believe she didn't edit the message, I don't.

CFLarsen

23rd July 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The fact is, that it wasn't, and it certainly wasn't a grass fire or a power cut, but a terrorist attack using a hijacked bus packed with explosives, driven through a residential area, en-route to a police station. I find it highly significant and self-evident. I am quite happy for you to draw whatever conclusion you want from that.

And yet, in these times of jitterish media, looking for any kind of possible terrorist attack, this incident was hardly mentioned......

In fact, only local press plus the BBC picked it up as a one-page story. No follow-ups, no big story at all. I haven't seen it anywhere else.

Perhaps you should have waited for something bigger to show up, but then, this thread might not be active anymore. That would kinda diminish the impact of your psychic powers, wouldn't it?

I find it highly suspicious that you can predict something in the very thread that discusses your psychic powers.

It stinks, Lucianarchy. To high heaven.

juninho

23rd July 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by juninho

Let me just suggest a theory IF we believe that the post was not edited;

On 13th July 2003 there was a story on the bbc website regarding the DNA testing of about 1,000 men in the hunt for a killer of a pensioner, Gladys Godfrey, in her own home.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2846839.stm

The hunt for the killer, it is reported in the article, also featured on Crimewatch as one of their appeals for information from the public. I could not find the date the programme aired.

The interesting thing about this is that the woman lived on the Ladybrook estate in Mansfield (northern town in England). Now we know that Lucianarchy has an interest in Crime (see Police and Psychics thread) and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she watched crimewatch that night and we know that she trawls the bbc website anyway.

My theory is that she intentionally threw in the word Ladybrook because she thought there may be some breakthrough on the case in the near future. She could then claim that she had predicted it. She just got lucky with the bus-bomb thing.

That is, of course, IF you believe she didn't edit the message, I don't.

Oops, story was on 13th March.

thaiboxerken

23rd July 2003, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You are retrospectively fishing, Buki, ... I find it highly significant and self-evident. I am quite happy for you to draw whatever conclusion you want from that.

HAHAHA! Buki is fishing? LOL.

Some people hang themselves, you are one of them, Lucky.

The fact is, you only placed a word there. A word is nothing more than fishing for something. You got your something, now you are claiming it as RV.

Still in question is whether or not you even placed the word in your post before or after the "significant" event.

Renata's RV abilities are better.

thaiboxerken

23rd July 2003, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by juninho

Oops, story was on 13th March.

That's ok. There has been news in the Ladybrooke estate area and the original motivation for Lucky placing the word in his post are still unknown.

One word doesn't constitute a sentence.

In essence, Lucky is still trying to claim a non-prediction as his prediction.

I think Lucky should check into the local asylum.

c0rbin

23rd July 2003, 09:18 AM

You seem to miss the point, Buki. I have said, many, many times now, that I often get an impression, a 'bolt from the blue', a compelling word or name.

You are not alone, Lucky.

Everyone with a brain gets bolts from the blue.

Only overly the credulous, the paranoid schizophrenics, and you seem to think they are signs of psychic powers.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And yet, in these times of jitterish media, looking for any kind of possible terrorist attack, this incident was hardly mentioned......

So what. It happened never the less. Probably one of the main reasons it wasn't mentioned much, apart from the fact that thankfully, the security forces were able to act and no one was injured - was that the BBC were ( and still are) slap bang in one of the biggest scandals to ever hit them. Namely, their intelligence 'source' who was found dead (Friday?) who they alledged had been the one who blew the whistle on the "sexed up" WMD report, which was used by Blair to take the UK into war against Iraq. It has been a big story here, and the Beeb are at the center of it all.

The sad fact is, and this goes back through history, terrorism often gets pushed down in reportage, unless it happens on the streets of London or New York.

juninho

23rd July 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

So what. It happened never the less. Probably one of the main reasons it wasn't mentioned much, apart from the fact that thankfully, the security forces were able to act and no one was injured - was that the BBC were ( and still are) slap bang in one of the biggest scandals to ever hit them. Namely, their intelligence 'source' who was found dead (Friday?) who they alledged had been the one who blew the whistle on the "sexed up" WMD report, which was used by Blair to take the UK into war against Iraq. It has been a big story here, and the Beeb are at the center of it all.

The sad fact is, and this goes back through history, terrorism often gets pushed down in reportage, unless it happens on the streets of London or New York.

Oh look, I've found another story about Ladybrook, this one from the Belfast Telegraph - dated 5th July 2003.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=421885

Seems that its a bit of troublesome area that Ladybrook. I'll tell you what I'm going to predict that something will happen in Brixton (suburb of london) within the next 24 hrs that will make the news somewhere.

The clock is ticking, its now 16:32 BST (or GMT +1) or is it 16:00 :D

CFLarsen

23rd July 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
So what. It happened never the less. Probably one of the main reasons it wasn't mentioned much, apart from the fact that thankfully, the security forces were able to act and no one was injured - was that the BBC were ( and still are) slap bang in one of the biggest scandals to ever hit them. Namely, their intelligence 'source' who was found dead (Friday?) who they alledged had been the one who blew the whistle on the "sexed up" WMD report, which was used by Blair to take the UK into war against Iraq. It has been a big story here, and the Beeb are at the center of it all.

All the more reason to divert attention from the Kelly case! A terrorist story would be perfect for this. But no, hardly a mention.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The sad fact is, and this goes back through history, terrorism often gets pushed down in reportage, unless it happens on the streets of London or New York.

Wrong. Think Paris, yesterday. Think anywhere in the world, where any event could have been a terrorist attack. You are merely inventing excuses why your "prediction" was not much a prediction.

I still lean towards the explanation that you cheated.

c0rbin

23rd July 2003, 09:37 AM

Seems that its a bit of troublesome area that Ladybrook. I'll tell you what I'm going to predict that something will happen in Brixton (suburb of london) within the next 24 hrs that will make the news somewhere.

Sorry, juninho, but you have commited a cardinal sin if you are going to be a psychic.

You got specific and potentially cornered yourself with the 24 hour part.

If you had left it at "london", you might have a better chance.

;) :D

Ceinwyn

23rd July 2003, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

You seem to miss the point, Buki. I have said, many, many times now, that I often get an impression, a 'bolt from the blue', a compelling word or name. I didn't have the impression of the words 'new york' or 'iraq'. It was 'ladybrook'. It wasn't 'ladybrook bus bomb hijack police station'. You are retrospectively fishing, Buki, if they had occured in ladybrook, then it would be mildy interesting, that's all. The fact is, that it wasn't, and it certainly wasn't a grass fire or a power cut, but a terrorist attack using a hijacked bus packed with explosives, driven through a residential area, en-route to a police station. I find it highly significant and self-evident. I am quite happy for you to draw whatever conclusion you want from that. No, I have to say I don't find it highly significant or self-evident. So what if it was an attempted terrorist attack? My point that you seem to be missing is that the way you posted, it could have been anything. It could have been a grass fire or a power cut, we (and you, I might add) simply don't know. And I'm still wondering if, had it been any of those things, you would have taken credit as you have for this terrorist thing.

I mean seriously, Luci, you gave us NOTHING. In fact, there is certainly more than one place named Ladybrook, as juninho pointed out. But you didn't even bother to mention if it was a town or city or any kind of geographical location at all!

Please note that I have not nor am I accusing you of cheating, since I really don't know nor do I care at this point if you did or not. The simple fact is, all you did was type out a single word with no clarifying circumstances, then expected us to believe you used psychic powers in some way. I'm sorry, but I cannot find this reasonable.

thaiboxerken

23rd July 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by juninho

I'll tell you what I'm going to predict that something will happen in Brixton (suburb of london) within the next 24 hrs that will make the news somewhere.

The clock is ticking, its now 16:32 BST (or GMT +1) or is it 16:00 :D

Now you're doing much more than Lucky did. You are actually making a prediction, and making it clear to everyone that you are. If something happens, then you win. However, if nothing happens you lose.

Now, if you would've just typed in "Brixton" at the end of a post, you'd be doing the Lucky thing of not making a prediction but being able to claim one if something happens. That's a win/win.

The difference being that your tactic is falsifiable, Lucky's is not because Lucky is only typing a word (which conveys NO meaning).

AlienX

23rd July 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Alien X,

First off, I have been 'tested', perhaps you missed my earlier post regarding work for the Koestler Inst. You also need to know a bit more about RV, I suggest you go look up some of the links Dr Grenard has provided before you spout any more of your silly home-made tests. I find it hilarious that with all the charges of dishonesty, cheating etc levelled at me, you, in return, expect me to take forums members honesty at face value.:rolleyes: BTW, how you expect me to take someone who quotes a childrens cartoon in their sig seriously, I don't know, but, I can assure, I do not.

Judging by the lengths of your rants and your immature attitude, it seems that you came here and saw something you didn't like, sorry about that, but it's not my problem.

The signature really is not relevent here, it's from an episode of Southpark which is quite a good watch anyway and happens to pertain to the subject matter of these boards.

Hmm silly little homemade tests seem to be our only course of action as proper scientific tests only show one result - and it's one which you don't like. At least a silly homemade test is better than nothing and it would certainly be more searching and reliable than a random word on a message board.

I can assure you the only thing I don't like is the total lack of proper methodology and the refusal of all these people to be tested properly - those that have been fail.

The main point I feel is not the integrity of the boards posters but that of people who claim and charge money for services with serious question marks over them.

Also if you dislike all the people here so much why do you bother - goto a site where people agree with you and praise your supposed impressive abilities.

AX

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 11:34 AM

Hal has said that if you edit a post within 2 minutes of first posting it, you do not get an "laste edited..." message.

OK. Now that's settled.

Lucianarchy

23rd July 2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by juninho

That is, of course, IF you believe she didn't edit the message, I don't.

Hal has said that if you edit a post within 2 minutes of first posting it, you do not get an "laste edited..." message.

I did not edit the post.

Now what, juninho? Terrorist suspect? Lucky guess? :rolleyes:

CFLarsen

23rd July 2003, 11:41 AM

Lucianarchy,

What exactly is your claim re. "Ladybrook"?

thaiboxerken

23rd July 2003, 11:43 AM

Nothing, Luci, now nothing. You simply wrote a word. It wasn't a prediction. You didn't claim it as "RV" until after an event happened.

You are simply trying to get praise for doing.. nothing.

Toride.

AlienX

23rd July 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

What exactly is your claim re. "Ladybrook"?

Nobody else can really see any specific valid claim only Luci and one or two others.

The word "Ladybrook" appeared in one of Luci's posts apparently prior to some terrorist incident in Ladybrook. It must be noted that nothing else but the word appeared at the end of one of Luci's posts (In other words it didn't mention it was a premenition etc just the word - on it's own with no context of terrorism etc) but apparently it's being claimed as RV or precognition -- not sure what was the claimed method as it is irrelevent.

There is some argument over timings and post editing after the (cough) event.

Me personally i would say Luci did NOT cheat and edit ;-), if that was the case you would expect something alot higher than a 1 out of 10 on the impressive sale. I would have settled for Ladybrook + Terrorism + Today then i would have been a bit more interested.

Something else that need to be considered is blogs, never used em but they are on the rise and they often have material way before many of the standard other news sources.

It's all a bit of a non event really but people are taking a true skeptics approach and thinking of ways it could have been fixed etc and Luci doesn't like this it seems. The fact that many so called phychics have been caught cheating in the past seems not to be considered - I certainly consider it and so it seems does everyone else because of the history of cheating in general.

I think we need is someone who thinks they are phychic but are a little bit more open to the possibility that they really are not. Then we could try out some tests without any pram shaking or dummy spitting from either side ;-). Anyway Luci won't partake in any of these "silly" little tests as none of us can be trusted apparently.

AlienX

davidhorman

23rd July 2003, 02:28 PM

Hal has said that if you edit a post within 2 minutes of first posting it, you do not get an "laste edited..." message.

And Pyrrho said that you can edit a post at any time until the post is read, and not get the "last edited".

To be honest I find that doubtful but I'm going to assume Pyrrho's got his facts straight.

David

juninho

24th July 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Now you're doing much more than Lucky did. You are actually making a prediction, and making it clear to everyone that you are. If something happens, then you win. However, if nothing happens you lose.

Now, if you would've just typed in "Brixton" at the end of a post, you'd be doing the Lucky thing of not making a prediction but being able to claim one if something happens. That's a win/win.

The difference being that your tactic is falsifiable, Lucky's is not because Lucky is only typing a word (which conveys NO meaning).

Try,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3091949.stm

I'll take my applause now and that was just a quick search.

thaiboxerken

24th July 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by juninho

Try,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3091949.stm

I'll take my applause now and that was just a quick search.

Now that IS impressive. You actually made a big deal about your prediction and it came true. Even though you placed yourself in a falsifiable spot, you've come through. This shows that your RV skills are superior to Luci, who will only write one word down.

juninho

24th July 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Now that IS impressive. You actually made a big deal about your prediction and it came true. Even though you placed yourself in a falsifiable spot, you've come through. This shows that your RV skills are superior to Luci, who will only write one word down.

Now I think I'll just ring-up the CIA as I think I can see where a fat ageing moustached gentleman may be hiding....

Ceinwyn

24th July 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by juninho

Try,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3091949.stm

I'll take my applause now and that was just a quick search. But juninho, that news item has nothing to do with attempted terrorists, or failed terrorists, or terrorists with a dream!

Oh wait, you didn't predict anything about terrorism. Just like Lucianarchy. :D

(I'm on heavy cold medication, so I'm feeling a bit silly today. Tally ho!)

dingler44

24th July 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Clausen asks for evidence of statements made abut the Dozier Kidnapping and Remote Viewing. You can enter these in Google and get that "evidence." Here are a few snippets and their sources. Clausen still hasn't gone on the record with what he considers evidence so folks keeping count can consider this the 40th or 50th time he asks for evidence but refuses to specify what constitutes that evidence. I hope the following helps in placing this story in context and provides the "evidence" at the very least that the kidnapping ocurred, it was RV'd by the U.S government and that most if not all (there are discrepancies in some minor internal details) of information proved veridical.

I mentioned the Dozier kidnapping to Claus a few weeks ago He immediately wrote back and said I was witholding information from the police and should contact them immediately with that info. He probably forgot. I ignored him. Its not that important, just typical of his knee jerk reactions to jump on me re this subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Post
30 December 1996
Military Psychic Unit's 'Hits' and Misses
by Jack Anderson
and Jan Moller

(SG: snipped - much longer critical article on subject, this part refers again to the Dozier kidnapping and remote viewing input as requested by CLaus; the various press accounts all seem to
differ slightly. In the Wash Post article Dozier is chained to a wall heater; in another article below to a bed. None mention the tent which the remote viewer himself mentions in his book which just came out. He was a chained inside the tent to pipes which could have been the railings of the cot or, I suppose, hot water pipes along the back wall).

"An important U.S. Army general was kidnapped in Italy by the Red Brigades terrorists. The U.S. government pulled out all the stops, shook up every intelligence source and scanned every photo but had no luck locating the general.

"The government turned to the ghost-finders -- an ultra-secret psychic unit run by the Army under the code name "Project Grill Flame." Three psychics turned their "remote viewing" vision to find Brig. Gen. James Dozier, being held by the brutal terrorists, in late 1981.

"One remote viewer, Joe McMoneagle, was particularly successful. He zeroed in on the room where Dozier was held, chained to a wall heater. He described it, but couldn't get the house number. Yet he did get the location, the Italian city of Padua.
The information was slowly sent up the chain of command, and finally arrived on the right desk. But it didn't arrive until a day after Dozier was released -- in Padua -- in early 1982.
Some of these events are noted in a highly sensitive secret log that recorded the unit's activities from 1979 to 1989, which was obtained by our associate Dale Van Atta. In the Dozier case, Project No. 8125, it is noted that McMoneagle "provided 'Padua' eight days before [Dozier's] release." The log further brags that "all other info was confirmed during a debriefing conducted by project personnel." (end Wash Post snippet)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is snipped from a much larger article in the Vancouver Courier and is re the Dozier case as Larsen demands. I see from this that McMoneagle claims he can see inside darkened file cabinets so I retract my statement that Randi's non-hypothetical challenege wouldn't apply. I did state that I was not aware of a claim that fit this but I was wrong. (SG)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday June 2 1996
The Vancouver Courier

The Cold War induced powers to explore information gathering through psychic phenomena
by Geoff Olson
Contributing writer

(snipped fr much longer article)

"Under the DIA's wing, however, several successes were cited, including the finding of Brig.-Gen. James Dozier, kidnapped by the Italian Red Brigade. According to the physicist in charge of the DIA Stargate project, one remote viewer gave the name of the town where Dozier was being hid--Padua--and another gave the name of the building. Details down to the bed where Dozier was chained were apparently accurate. "

(SG: he was inside a tent chained to a cot acc to McMoneagle)

This is an account from CBS NEWS snipped from a much larger story they were doing on Remote Viewing:
June 30, 2000 - 48 HRS

(CBS) Although often treated with scientific disdain, the concept of extrasensory perception is well known throughout the world. But as 48 Hours Correspondent Harold Dow reports, a group of researchers in California say they have proof of its existence.

(snip snip snipped)

"Perhaps even more extraordinary was the case of U.S. General James Dozier, kidnapped in northern Italy by Red brigades in 1981. Remote viewer Joe McMoneagle, a Vietnam veteran, was called in.

""I named the city....I drew a street map that was about as accurate as you can get....I gave them descriptions of the building [where] he was being held," says McMoneagle. "My information didn't get there till he was released, but it probably would have resulted in his release.""

(SG) As I indicated, this information was turned over to the Italian authorities and determined to be accurate. Here information was
obtained by the RVer in the US before (8 days) Dozier was released, given to intelligence agents, but as later learned was not received by the Italian authorities until after the raid. It was verified, however.

I know I'm reading this 9 months after the fact but I can't help it -

<FONT size=24>LOL!!!!</FONT>
:roll:

I'm laughing too hard to even respond to this!!!

But I'm confident it has already been thoroughly SMASHED by those on this forum of sound intelligence.

So... back to reading this realllllly long thread.

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 11:13 AM

dingler: I know I'm reading this 9 months after the fact but I can't help it -

Reply: Nine months? Try 22 years. This was Larsen's mistake. He thought it was yesterday. Indicative of how well people read. The original incident ocurred late in 1981, one report above is from 1996 and the other from 2000. I cannot fathom how anyone can be so far off.

renata

24th July 2003, 11:21 AM

Has anybody noticed that my RV visions just keep on giving?

New York- the murder of the City Councilman in NY City Hall. At the same day, there is an announcement out of Van Nuys about a new security system for LA City Hall! http://www.newswire.ca/releases/July2003/23/c4579.html

I am goooood.

dingler44

24th July 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
dingler: I know I'm reading this 9 months after the fact but I can't help it -

Reply: Nine months? Try 12 years. This was Larsen's mistake. He thought it was yesterday. Indicative of how well people read. The original incident ocurred late in 1981, one report above is from 1996 and the other from 2000. I cannot fathom how anyone can be so far off.

Actually I messed up and took your Oct 2002 registration date to be the posting date. (Oct 2002 to July 2003 = 9 months) Oops.

I did understand that the kidnapping and RVing events described were from many years ago.

And where do you get 12 years anyway? 2003 - 1981 = 22 years. Try to get your math right when you're correcting other people.

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 12:30 PM

Oh yeah, I did a typo. Not 12, 22. Corrected above.

CFLarsen

24th July 2003, 12:42 PM

Steve, where did you mention the Dozier kidnapping to me a few weeks ago?

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 02:06 PM

In another thread where we started talking abut Rving I mentioned this case. I wont bother searching for it as it would
be too time consuming. It is not important. The case is 22 yrears
old. I probably gave you the impression it was current and you
responded that I should inform the authorities immediately!

Steve

CFLarsen

24th July 2003, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
In another thread where we started talking abut Rving I mentioned this case. I wont bother searching for it as it would
be too time consuming. It is not important. The case is 22 yrears
old. I probably gave you the impression it was current and you
responded that I should inform the authorities immediately!

Steve

I searched the forum and it's not there.

It apparently is "important" enough for you to claim that I accused you of witholding vital information about the kidnapping. That's a serious claim, Steve, and I must insist that you either show me where I said that, or retract the claim.

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 02:26 PM

Its actually not a very serious claim since the information you were so fond of accusing people of witholding in these conversations was 22 years old.

I specifically recall you saying this to me and me ignoring it as more of your hyperbole. As we see again here. So No I will not retract and I will not search for it. If I notice it someday I will bring it to your attention if it is so desperately important to you as most trivial issues are. I already agreed that I may've given you the impression the case was current which it wasn't.

Diamond

24th July 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Its actually not a very serious claim since the information you were so fond of accusing people of witholding in these conversations was 22 years old.

I specifically recall you saying this to me and me ignoring it as more of your hyperbole. As we see again here. So No I will not retract and I will not search for it. If I notice it someday I will bring it to your attention if it is so desperately important to you as most trivial issues are. I already agreed that I may've given you the impression the case was current which it wasn't.

So Claus is guilty of something you recall being there but which isn't actually there?

Claus...you're busted! :rolleyes:

c0rbin

24th July 2003, 02:50 PM

I wont bother searching for it as it would
be too time consuming. It is not important.

This is pretty typical from you, Steve.

Do you ever finish or see a debate through?

CFLarsen

24th July 2003, 03:07 PM

Steve,

This is the reason I check on you: You are a perpetual liar. You don't even have the guts to admit you were wrong.

You are pathetic, Steve.

CFLarsen

24th July 2003, 03:11 PM

c0rbin,

No, Steve never finishes anything. He has promised so many papers on the paranormal, but he never delivers. He claims to have conducted experiments, then backs down, even though the evidence is there. He threatens people with lawsuits, but never follows through.

Steve is nothing but hot, putrid air.

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 03:34 PM

If Claus can search and read 400 to 500 or more posts on TVTALK in the four minutes he took to initially reply then I guess he must be right and its not there. Oh well.
Talk about superhuman powers.

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 03:36 PM

Claus -- did I ever promise you a lawsuit? The people whose filthy minds libeled and slandered myself and others have apologized. You were not involved. People might like to see the 20 PEMs you send paranoiacally asking if I was gonna sue you and my responses, which were negative. Have you gotten any help yet for this problem Claus?

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 03:45 PM

Claus should I remind people how utterly slanderous it is to be accused of sleeping with someone when married to someone else (40 years) and that person is thousands of miles away and I never met them in person? That's what your friend Ed Dittus accused me of. How about calling that person the town whore? Thats what your buddy Ed Dittus, now a moderator of this forum did and which indeed was being considered for a serious lawsuit against JREF for refusing to respond by removing this utter filth and Mr. Ed Dittus of X town in Connecicut who was investigated by my lawyers. There is also someone no longer associated with JREF who was partly responsible for their ineptitude but I won't say more. Mr. Ed has apologized. JREF has reformed. But Claus, you are still the same paranoid personality you always were and it is a good thing you have left the country. You can be sure that your activities on the internet and your cyberstalking and harassing are known to the INS in case you decide to try and return although I dont think you'd want to. They are very particular these days who they let in the country.

How about the death threat from Jeff Corey which you backed up and his publishing my home address publicly? You guys are just a bunch of scumbags pure and simple but you wont get me to back down on you like you've tried to destroy previous efforts. Just keep it up. It makes the file all the more compelling.

Its all documented in black and white so take care buddy. And keep harassing me (and others) and I will keep documenting it. And no, I am not publishing this documentation here but dont worry, it gets where its supposed to go. So dont bother asking.

CFLarsen

24th July 2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If Claus can search and read 400 to 500 or more posts on TVTALK in the four minutes he took to initially reply then I guess he must be right and its not there. Oh well.
Talk about superhuman powers.

Steve, ever heard of a search engine?

Not superhuman at all. Heck, you refer to Google often enough to know what it is.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Claus -- did I ever promise you a lawsuit. The people whose filthy minds libeled and slandered myself and others have apologized. You were not involved. People might like to see the 20 PEMs you send paranoiacally asking if I was gonna sue you and my responses, which were negative. Have you gotten any help yet for this problem Claus?

It's not my problem, Steve. And I still have those emails of yours, Steve. All of them. You threatened me with a lawsuit. As well as other people here.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Claus should I remind people how utterly slanderous it is to be accused of sleeping with someone when married to someone else and that person is thousands of miles away and I never met them? That's what your friend Ed Dittus accused me of.

First, he is not my "friend". I have never met the guy. I do read his posts with great interest, though.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
How about calling that person the town whore? Thats what your buddy Ed Dittus, now a moderator of this forum did and which indeed was being considered for a serious lawsuit against JREF for refusing to respond by removing this utter filth and Mr. Ed Dittus of X town in Connecicut who was investigated by my lawyers.

WTF are you talking about? Where did Ed claim you were the town whore???

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
There is also someone no longer associated with JREF who was partly responsible for their ineptitude but I won't say more.

Back to your usual, whispering innuendos again, eh?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Mr. Ed has apologized.

He has?? Where?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
JREF has reformed.

Oh, I dunno...you are still here.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
But Claus, you are still the same paranoid personality you always were and it is a good thing you have left the country.

I left the US for my own reasons. However, I will not forget that post you made about me and pedophilia. That one is saved for posterity, I can assure you.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You can be sure that your activities on the internet and your cyberstalking and harassing are known to the INS in case you decide to try and return although I dont think you'd want to. The are very particular these days who they let in the country.

Oh, Steve. Now, you threaten me with the INS. How pathetic....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
How about the death threat from Jeff Corey which you backed up and his publishing my home address publicly? You guys are just a bunch of scumbags pure and simple but you wont get me to back down on you like you've tried to destroy previous efforts. Just keep it up. It makes the file all the more compelling.

Death threat?? What are you talking about? There was never any "death threat".

As for files....I keep files, Steve. That's probably why you never make good on those threats of yours...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Its all documented in black and white so take care buddy. And keep harassing me and I will keep documenting it. And no, I am not publishing this docuemntation here but dont worry, it gets where its supposed to go. So dont bother asking.

I am "harrassing" you? Why, Steve, then you should contact the moderators and report this hideous offense. You should contact your lawyer, and file a lawsuit (a real one, this time).

You're a loonie, Steve.

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 04:08 PM

Corbin Parroting Larsen: Do you ever finish or see a debate through?

This is your idea of a debate. You have got to be kidding.

:big: :big:

CFLarsen

24th July 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
larsen: Do you ever finish or see a debate through?

This is your idea of a debate. You have got to be kidding.

:big: :big:

Steve, that was not my quote. Sheeesh, you can't even quote people correctly!

Whattamaroon....

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 04:11 PM

Usual misdirection from larsen. Unfortunately for him I will not respond to any of his deliberate attempted misunderstanding of what I wrote. He can say what he wants, its okay with me. I just wanted to make sure he knew that these items were not forgotten and are safely archived for future reference.

SteveGrenard

24th July 2003, 04:12 PM

Oh yeah sorry Corbin. So you're the one who considers this a debate. You are all beginning to look alike ...............

CFLarsen

24th July 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Usual misdirection from larsen. Unfortunately for him I will not respond to any of his deliberate attempted misunderstanding of what I wrote. He can say what he wants, its okay with me. I just wanted to make sure he knew that these items were not forgotten and are safely archived for future reference.

Misdirection? Steve, you are the one who makes a claim about me, that you cannot back up.

You can bet your bee-hind that I am saving what you post. Even that which you later remove from your posts....

thaiboxerken

24th July 2003, 05:18 PM

This isn't really a debate, as there are no judges. However, that doesn't mean that logic doesn't apply in these discussions. It seems that fallacies make up the back-bone of most believer's arguements.

The believers have yet to show valid evidence for their claims. Luci does not have superpowers, prove me wrong Luci, win the JREF money.

Ceinwyn

24th July 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The believers have yet to show valid evidence for their claims. Luci does not have superpowers, prove me wrong Luci, win the JREF money. Hell, never mind the JREF money Luci, just make any prediction at all!

Seriously. Make a prediction, one that can be noted and filed. I don't need JREF to validate anything, I'd just like you to make one specific prediction that comes true.

You won't win anything, but you may change my mind...

juninho

25th July 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
How about calling that person the town whore? Thats what your buddy Ed Dittus

Totally out of order. Ed and Claus should know better - if you're going to make a claim we need hard (pardon the pun) evidence.

Lists of people Steve has slept with.
Sworn testimonies from eye-witnesses/voyeurs.
Clinical records from the local clap clinic, etc.

c0rbin

25th July 2003, 08:36 AM

Oh yeah sorry Corbin. So you're the one who considers this a debate. You are all beginning to look alike ...............

Yeah, we all look like little black text on a screen.

Steve, that you walk away from debates is not a matter to debate. Therefore this thread is not a debate.

However, there are several issues for which you (and some others) are the champion. It is bad form to walk away from them when the heat is on from your opposition.

That tells me that you really don't think there is anything to "life after death."

Get some sand, man. Address the points in those debates and move on--quit playing footsy.

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by juninho
Totally out of order. Ed and Claus should know better - if you're going to make a claim we need hard (pardon the pun) evidence.

Sorry, but you are buying into Steve's lies here, I'm afraid. I have never called someone a "town whore". Steve actually taught me that term.

No, you know what my real "crime" in all this was? That I did not speak out against Ed, when he made a crack about Steve and Pam.

I honestly didn't see it when it happened, but this "non-action" apparently made Steve so pissed that he started throwing threats of lawsuits around, hitting not just me and Ed, but also other people here, guilty of the same "crime" as mine: Not speaking up against those who are nasty to poor, li'l Steve.

So, beware: If someone makes Steve mad, and you don't see it and speak out against it, Steve is calling his lawyers to hit you with a lawsuit!!

Apparently, Steve thinks that everyone in the world should direct their undivided attention to anything that happens in his life. Is it any wonder why Steve has zero credibility....?

Lucianarchy

25th July 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

What exactly is your claim re. "Ladybrook"?

I often write things down as they come to me, I rarely stop to review or even think about it. I was responding to TBK's taunt-thread and a powerful perception of 'ladybrook' came through, almost shouting at me so I wrote it down. It seemed important at the time, compelling even, but frankly, I forgot about it until I heard about the Ladybrook terrorist attack on Sunday morning. Usually I write things down in a diary or book, but this time, as the thread was about RV and the message seemed to be 'pushing' it's way through, I thought 'what the hey', and just let it out where it wanted to be. That nonsense about 'I am lord bible', I admit I have no idea where that came from, it seems meaningless, but I've learned to let it flow. To be honest, as a skeptic, these things still spook me a bit sometimes when they happen like that.

c0rbin

25th July 2003, 08:59 AM

I often write things down as they come to me, I rarely stop to review or even think about it.

As has been demostrated better and more by others on this thread who offer no perternatural explanation.

How ironic that a group of skeptics is more open-minded than a "psychic."

Or is that "psyronic"?

juninho

25th July 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Sorry, but you are buying into Steve's lies here, I'm afraid. I have never called someone a "town whore". Steve actually taught me that term.

I think you'll find I sent it with a very heavy slice of sarcasm. Maybe its a British thing.

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 09:06 AM

Lucianarchy,

So you do not claim anything paranormal???

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by juninho
I think you'll find I sent it with a very heavy slice of sarcasm. Maybe its a British thing.

Ah. :)

thaiboxerken

25th July 2003, 09:26 AM

I was responding to TBK's taunt-thread and a powerful perception of 'ladybrook' came through, almost shouting at me so I wrote it down.

It was so important that you only wrote down the one word.. and then failed to mention to anyone that it was important. No, Luci, the one word guess is a dishonest tactic of unfalsifiability. It's your "prediction" without making a prediction, it's your non-commitment to actually letting others test your superpowers. Writing one word down.. if nothing happened, no one would've really noticed. If someone did notice, it was just one word so you can claim that it wasn't an important word to you and that you just wrote it down for no apparent reason.

It seemed important at the time, compelling even, but frankly, I forgot about it until I heard about the Ladybrook terrorist attack on Sunday morning.

So did everyone else, that's why the word is not important. You didn't specify it as being important until AFTER something happened. Post hoc predictions are worth NOTHING.

Usually I write things down in a diary or book, but this time, as the thread was about RV and the message seemed to be 'pushing' it's way through, I thought 'what the hey', and just let it out where it wanted to be.

Or, you just wrote the word down thining "what the hey, if something happens, I can claim a prediction. If nothing happens, no one will probably pick up on it. If someone does, it's just one word and I haven't made a prediction."

That nonsense about 'I am lord bible', I admit I have no idea where that came from, it seems meaningless, but I've learned to let it flow. To be honest, as a skeptic, these things still spook me a bit sometimes when they happen like that.

Please do not insult the skeptics here as claiming yourself to be one. You are a believer in the supernatural, and that you have superpowers yourself.

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Sorry, but you are buying into Steve's lies here, I'm afraid. I have never called someone a "town whore". Steve actually taught me that term.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its very simple. Everytime Larsen brings up anonymous smear campaigns, lawsuits and other accusations, I will respond in detail on the background leading up to those incidents. Mr. Larsen prides himself on his memory. I pride him on his senile penchant to repeat himself for years. He calls them lies. I have the proof on file, saved as web pages from this site, that they are true. He is skating on dangerously thin ice.

If the Moderators, who are getting a copy of this, do not wish me to bring these things up they need to advise Mr. Larsen in no uncertain terms not to bring them up first as innuendos which then require a response from me.

No, Mr. Larsen did not call me a town whore. Mr. Ed Dittus applied that term to Pam Blizzard, using a euphemism for that I will not post here. This was an attempt by Larsen to divert attention from the charge and make light of it. He deliberately confuses facts.
He doesn't get away with it, however and I refuse to believe he is either that dumb or that confused. Dittus called someone else that term in the same post as the one I was slandered in. So why Larsen are you trying to confuse people here?

Yes, Prof Corey told me to die and then published my home address in the public forum with an invitation. Corey's posts were
forwarded to his dept head, the provost, the local police where he works and the head of his security dept. This was unsettling. Its not a joke, not a laughing matter to utter such a threat and then follow it up with my home address. Ed et al also published Pam's home address. I did not publish Ed's home address even though my lawyers found it when they were thinking of suing him. Corey has never apologized so this remains an open matter.
Mr. Larsen should realize that although he did not utter these threats or make these charges himself, because he constantly uses them to belittle and mislead, this too is a form of harassment which has been documented. Every post he makes with this tone and these charges is harassment.

Mr. Ed Dittus also accused me of an illicit relationship, in writing, in public with a person I have never met. This was
slanderous and caused my wife, myself and the other person
some considerable grief.

Yes, we asked James Randi and Andrew Harter (who is no longer a moderator) to remove this. Randi responded that he would have Harter do this. It was not done. Mr. Dittus has since apologized however, and the board was revamped and the
offending posts gone but retained on hard-drives privately.

So everytime Larsen brings up these innuendos, he will get the above response. Again, if the Moderators are as tired as I am of repeating and responding to these comments, they will ask Mr Larsen to cease from doing this in the future; in addition an apology would be appreciated as well.

Thank You

dingler44

25th July 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

...be honest, as a skeptic, these things still spook me a bit sometimes when they happen like that.

teeheehee, you said "skeptic"

c0rbin

25th July 2003, 09:42 AM

Why don't you address the discussion instead of hiding behind these tactics, Steve.

You have many threads in this forum that you left just when things got interesting.

Why not stand up, be a man, and put your thoughts out there. This "I'm gonna tell on you." tack is childish.

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 09:45 AM

Lucianarchy

25th July 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

So you do not claim anything paranormal???

It is certainly beyond normal to have an uncommon word running around in your mind with an urgency that compels you to record it in an opening post on a thread which was taunting my RV ability and to have that recorded word named as the place where a terrorist attack occured within an hour and a half of its recording on this forum. 'Ladybrook' is an extremely uncommon word, I have seen the other cynics and their jokes about 'new yourk, houston and grass fires, car crashes etc, but eveyone knows that ladybrook is far more uncommon than any of those places and the event, a terrorist attack far more important than grass fires and power cuts. The event also took place within a very short space of time of impression bieng recorded. This perception replicates many other instances I have experienced and together with the extraordinary experiences with Dr Steinkamp, I cannot rationaly put all this down to 'luck' or 'chance' anymore. So yes, I believe that the perception was paranormal. I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened.

Starrman

25th July 2003, 10:16 AM

This perception replicates many other instances I have experienced and together with the extraordinary experiences with Dr Steinkamp, I cannot rationaly put all this down to 'luck' or 'chance' anymore. So yes, I believe that the perception was paranormal. I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened.

But it wasn't that big of a coincidence! Do you really think that the odds of 'Ladybrook' showing up in the news at some point are that small? People have already shown you that Ladybrook has been in the news before and is a hot-spot of IRA activity.

And if it is so replicable (not sure if that's a word) why did you guffaw at the challenges of your ability on this thread? You had the chance to make us all look like fools by demonstrating your ability, but you continually fall back on stories and your one-word non prediction.

And remember, just because YOU can't explain it, does not mean that no-one can or that there isn't a more mundane explanation. The fact that you do not see it this way makes your last sentence a complete farce.

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Its very simple. Everytime Larsen brings up anonymous smear campaigns, lawsuits and other accusations, I will respond in detail on the background leading up to those incidents. Mr. Larsen prides himself on his memory. I pride him on his senile penchant to repeat himself for years. He calls them lies. I have the proof on file, saved as web pages from this site, that they are true. He is skating on dangerously thin ice.

Oh, goodie! Let's see that evidence of yours, Steve!!

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If the Moderators, who are getting a copy of this, do not wish me to bring these things up they need to advise Mr. Larsen in no uncertain terms not to bring them up first as innuendos which then require a response from me.

I wait with abated breath. I also have evidence, Steve...lots of it.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
No, Mr. Larsen did not call me a town whore. Mr. Ed Dittus applied that term to Pam Blizzard, using a euphemism for that I will not post here.

Well, it is a bit difficult to see what you are accusing Ed of, if you won't say it....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
This was an attempt by Larsen to divert attention from the charge and make light of it. He deliberately confuses facts.

You are most welcome to show where I "confuse" facts.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He doesn't get away with it, however and I refuse to believe he is either that dumb or that confused. Dittus called someone else that term in the same post as the one I was slandered in. So why Larsen are you trying to confuse people here?

Nope. Are you saying that you were not called a "town whore"? I might have misunderstood that. However, I will need to see the actual quotes about who were called a "town whore", before I admit to any misunderstanding.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes, Prof Corey told me to die and then published my home address in the public forum with an invitation. Corey's posts were forwarded to his dept head, the provost, the local police where he works and the head of his security dept. This was unsettling. Its not a joke, not a laughing matter to utter such a threat and then follow it up with my home address.

Steve, your home address is readily available on the Internet. As for Jeff Coreys "death threat", all he said was "Drop dead and die". Is that a "threat", Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ed et al also published Pam's home address.

...readily available on the Internet, Steve...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I did not publish Ed's home address even though my lawyers found it when they were thinking of suing him.

Ed's home address is readily available on the Internet, Steve...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Corey has never apologized so this remains an open matter.

Is it? Problem is, what DID the police say, Steve? If this is an "open" matter, and it happened months ago, why should we believe it is an "open" matter?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Mr. Larsen should realize that although he did not utter these threats or make these charges himself, because he constantly uses them to belittle and mislead, this too is a form of harassment which has been documented. Every post he makes with this tone and these charges is harassment.

Whoa, Steve! You threatened me with a lawsuit because I did not speak up when Ed made his joke. I still have the emails to prove it.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Mr. Ed Dittus also accused me of an illicit relationship, in writing, in public with a person I have never met. This was slanderous and caused my wife, myself and the other person some considerable grief.

Take that up with Ed.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Yes, we asked James Randi and Andrew Harter (who is no longer a moderator) to remove this. Randi responded that he would have Harter do this. It was not done. Mr. Dittus has since apologized however, and the board was revamped and the offending posts gone but retained on hard-drives privately.

Oh, yeah, probably..... :D

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So everytime Larsen brings up these innuendos, he will get the above response. Again, if the Moderators are as tired as I am of repeating and responding to these comments, they will ask Mr Larsen to cease from doing this in the future; in addition an apology would be appreciated as well.

I don't really see any evidence in your response.

I don't know about you, Steve, but I have never heard from the moderators regarding this. Never. So I don't really understand where the "repeated" responses come in...

If, however, the moderators should contact me, I will hand over all my evidence to them. Then, they can judge for themselves.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The opinions or beliefs of Larsen clones are of no concern to me.
Corbin, you seriously find Ed calling Pam a whore,

Where did Ed call Pam a "whore"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
someone else calling Linda moderator something worse,

Who called Linda what?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Corey threatening my life,

No, he didn't, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Ed accusing me of cheating on my wife

I'm not even sure he knew you were married. Can't blame him.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
and publishing my home address interesting.

It's not that difficult, Steve....Google is wonderful:

Staten Island University Hospital, SIUH Sleep Apnea Center - Control Room (http://www.siuh.edu/sleeplab/technicians.html)

Respiratory Therapy Societies/AARC Chapters/Related Medical Societies and Organizations (http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed/respi.htm)
Note your email at the bottom. SIUH, where you work, Steve.

And, in the same directory:
Herpetology Books On-Line Catalogue (http://www.xmission.com/~gastown/herpmed/phibia.htm)

(......whistling)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You are pretty sick if that's the case.

Perhaps we could dispense with the diagnoses, Steve? As I recall, you have made some pretty nasty insinuations about me and my move back to Denmark. You want to see that again, Steve??

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 10:27 AM

Lucianarchy,

If you cannot put all this down to "luck" or "chance", then you must be able to show us the statistics you must have kept.

Because you are not going to tell us that you haven't kept a log of these incidents, as well as performed the necessary statistical analyses......are you???

c0rbin

25th July 2003, 10:38 AM

The opinions or beliefs of Larsen clones are of no concern to me.
Corbin, you seriously find Ed calling Pam a whore, someone else calling Linda moderator something worse, Corey threatening my life, Ed accusing me of cheating on my wife and publishing my home address interesting. You are pretty sick if that's the case.

::Laughing:: I don't have the perserverance to a be a Larsen clone.

Anyway...

The "getting interesting" part I was talking about were the recent threads about studies done in parapsychology.

Here is (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23624) a great example of a thread you left when the challenge got too hot for you.

Being called a whore is one thing. Threatening to call the cops is lame, lame, lame.

You need to gather some sand if you are to be taken seriously and not cry about the slings and arrows.

If you have grievences, put up or shut up, it has nothing to do with me, except on these forums where you never seem to "put up" in regards to the science (or embarrassingly lack there of) of parapsychology.

Lucianarchy

25th July 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Starrman

But it wasn't that big of a coincidence! Do you really think that the odds of 'Ladybrook' showing up in the news at some point are that small?

At some point, no. But coming up within an hour and a half of the 'ladybrook' post and being a terrorist attack, then that's extremely unlikely. And in relation to Ladybrook, I can't find anything as serious as a hijacked bus, packed with explosives, driven through a residential area, whilst many children were playing in the Saturday sunshine, aimed at a police station. Ever.
But in this case, it came within an hour and a half of it being recorded, in this forum, in an opening post in response to a taunt about my RV skills. It speaks for itself.

davidhorman

25th July 2003, 10:50 AM

It speaks for itself.

Needless to say, most of us remain unconvinced. Getting three out of six balls on the National Lottey for three weeks running? Now that'd be good evidence, and oh so easy to prove. Wasn't that what you claimed in the lottery thread, way back when?

David

Starrman

25th July 2003, 11:23 AM

At some point, no. But coming up within an hour and a half of the 'ladybrook' post and being a terrorist attack, then that's extremely unlikely. And in relation to Ladybrook, I can't find anything as serious as a hijacked bus, packed with explosives, driven through a residential area, whilst many children were playing in the Saturday sunshine, aimed at a police station

BUT YOU DID NOT PREDICT ANY OF THAT!

You did not say it would happen within two hours.

You did not say it would be serious.

You did not mention a hijacked bus

You did not mention it was packed with explosives.

You did not mention where it was driven.

You said nothing about children.

You said nothing about a police station.

You didn't even point out to anyone that you had typed the damn word!

thaiboxerken

25th July 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The opinions or beliefs of Larsen clones are of no concern to me.
Corbin, you seriously find Ed calling Pam a whore, someone else calling Linda moderator something worse, Corey threatening my life, Ed accusing me of cheating on my wife and publishing my home address interesting. You are pretty sick if that's the case.

What's this have to do with the discussion of paranormal or Luci's claim of having superpowers? It seems that you are a pompous ass that just wants to get all those that don't agree with you tossed in jail or worse.

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 03:04 PM

Correct. Right. Zero. Therefore, I am:

Re-Directing this comment to Claus Lardsen since thaiboxkenneth lost track of the fact that it was Lardsen who brought up the ad hominem accusations to which I was responding. Please
get your accusations straight or you'll end up like him, a claus clone.

T: What's this have to do with the discussion of paranormal or Luci's claim of having superpowers? It seems that you are a pompous ass that just wants to get all those that don't agree with you tossed in jail or worse.

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 03:09 PM

Corbin .. I nominated a paper. I even found a full text version on the web and placed the url in a message. I am waiting for feedback on that or some discussion. I read the paper, I agree with the conclusions. Now MT or whomever can try and refute those conclusions. Wasn' t this the game? So who are we waiting for? I am confused.

I hope you didn't expect me to discuss it with myself.........

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 03:10 PM

Steve,

This juvenile name-calling only serves to show what a petty person you are. Do you honestly think anyone takes you serious after such a childish post?

Sheeeeeeesh......whattamaroon.... :rolleyes:

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 03:14 PM

LRDSEN:

Why don't you dredge up the 27 paranoid e-mails you sent me asking if I was going to sue your sorry butt....and my answer, which was NO, I wasn't. You were not the guilty party. You managed to inject yourself nicely into the middle of that situation. Your harassing e-mails should be published for posteriority along with the answers.

As I announced above everytime you bring up your filthy lies about Ed Dittus's disgusting, slanderous remarks, I will respond. This brings you closer and closer to having some culpability as well. Are you going to apologize?

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
LRDSEN:

Ah, you are soooo funny....not.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Why don't you dredge up the 27 paranoid e-mails you sent me asking if I was going to sue your sorry butt....and my answer, which was NO, I wasn't. You were not the guilty party. You managed to inject yourself nicely into the middle of that situation. Your harassing e-mails should be published for posteriority along with the answers.

Please do.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
As I announced above everytime you bring up your filthy lies about Ed Dittus's disgusting, slanderous remarks, I will respond. This brings you closer and closer to having some culpability as well. Are you going to apologize?

For what? What is my crime, Steve? How should I be punished?

renata

25th July 2003, 03:28 PM

Gentlemen,

Allow me to stick my nose in. Feel free to disregard this comment from a spectator.

I feel I can learn so much from a civil conversation between you two, a conversation that does not descend into who called who a whore somewhere a year ago, who did not complain to moderators, and who reported who to INS. The flame war section is a few down. Please settle old grudges there.

I look forward to an interesting discussion on the paranormal.

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 03:34 PM

CL: For what? What is my crime, Steve? How should I be punished?

Harassment. Check the law... you are using the internet to not only harass me but a number of others as well. A simple apology will do plus a pledge to refrain in the future. Thank you.

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 03:38 PM

Allow me to stick my nose in. Feel free to disregard this comment from a spectator.

I feel I can learn so much from a civil conversation between you two, a conversation that does not descend into who called who a whore somewhere a year ago, who did not complain to moderators, and who reported who to INS. The flame war section is a few down. Please settle old grudges there.

I look forward to an interesting discussion on the paranormal.

Reply: Agreed. However, then please request Larsen then to refrain, completely, from using ad hominems and harassing me as well as a few others here. You may not know this but since he brought up lawsuit...read Larsen BROUGHT it up, I am then compelled to dredge up why a lawsuit was contemplated, against whom (Dittus) and what the result was: JREF removed the offending post and Dittus apologized privately. Apparently this very civilized end to this unfortunate episode is lost on Larsen who continues to bring it up. His problem and it will be a problem,
believe me.

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Harassment. Check the law... you are using the internet to not only harass me but a number of others as well. A simple apology will do plus a pledge to refrain in the future. Thank you.

What law is that, Steve? How do I "harrass" you? What happened to that evidence you were going to post?

You will not threaten me - or others - into silence, Steve.

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 03:45 PM

renata

25th July 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Reply: Agreed. However, then please request Larsen then to refrain, completely, from using ad hominems and harassing me as well as a few others here. You may not know this but since he brought up lawsuit...read Larsen BROUGHT it up, I am then compelled to dredge up why a lawsuit was contemplated, against whom (Dittus) and what the result was: JREF removed the offending post and Dittus apologized privately. Apparently this very civilized end to this unfortunate episode is lost on Larsen who continues to bring it up. His problem and it will be a problem,
believe me.

I respect Claus quite a bit. I have no doubt he would continue this discussion without any personal attacks, if asked. Claus?

But you BOTH have to stop it. I do not care who started it, and I doubt anyone else does. Just...stop it. Right now.

And, neither one is obligated to escalate once it is started. A simple "I will not get personal" response will make your point and prevent this from going further.

I am sorry, but so many great threads degenerate into old score settling and who started it, and minutae. Just stop. I know from my own experience that personal attacks and fighting, even if one is 100% right can only detract from one's credibility.

Once again, apologies for interfering. One should never get involved in the middle of an old fight, both parties hate the intruder. :)

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 03:57 PM

Renata: I agree with everything you say. You may be in for a surprise regarding this statement, however:

"I respect Claus quite a bit. I have no doubt he would continue this discussion without any personal attacks, if asked. Claus?"

Let's see his reply shall we?

I actually never threatened Claus with a lawsuit and ask him to provide evidence of that. I did, however threaten Ed Dittus and JREF and Andrew Harter (now gone from this forum) with a lawsuit if they did not remove the offensive post regarding me cheating on my wife with someone I never met as well as the tangential remark that Pam was a skank which is a slang for town whore. Ed said these things. Jeff Corey, another good ole buddy of Claus Larsen's, told me to die and then published my home address in cased anyone wanted to take me out. Yup.
And this is a Professor of Pychology who teaches critical thinking. These are the mentalities you are dealing with here.

So Renata, thanks for getting involved. Now you know what you are dealing with here. And if you still respect Larsen I just dont know what to do. I do agree with you, however, that Larsen should stop harassing me re these matters and an apology would be nice for his harassment.

edited to add: I think I detect you backing out so maybe my thanks for your intervention was premature. Lets see what happens anyway. ;)

renata

25th July 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Renata: I agree with everything you say. You may be in for a surprise regarding this statement, however:

"I respect Claus quite a bit. I have no doubt he would continue this discussion without any personal attacks, if asked. Claus?"

Let's see his reply shall we?

I am an appalling judge of character, I am afraid. I always thinks people are more reasonable and patient than they turn out to be.

But in this case, I think Claus will be happy to continue a discussion on issues and not taking it to a personal level. Twice before he agreed to do so with Clancie, but it did not proceed forward for other reasons.

So yes, I have hope :)

Edited to say- I see Steve added more to his post.

I actually never threatened Claus with a lawsuit and ask him to provide evidence of that. I did, however threaten Ed Dittus and JREF and Andrew Harter (now gone from this forum) with a lawsuit if they did not remove the offensive post regarding me cheating on my wife with someone I never met as well as the tangential remark that Pam was a skank which is a slang for town whore. Ed said these things. Jeff Corey, another good ole buddy of Claus Larsen's, told me to die and then published my home address in cased anyone wanted to take me out. Yup.
And this is a Professor of Pychology who teaches critical thinking. These are the mentalities you are dealing with here.

I am sorry, but like I said previously- I simply don't care. This happened long ago, and I am sure the people you mention will have a different take on this. This has nothing to do with the discussion. I will not take a public position on offenses and threats and perceived offenses of the past.

I just want it to STOP. All of it.

So Renata, thanks for getting involved. Now you know what you are dealing with here. And if you still respect Larsen I just dont know what to do. I do agree with you, however, that Larsen should stop harassing me re these matters and an apology would be nice for his harassment.

I am not sure you understood me. I am not calling for admission of guilt or apology from either of you. Just STOP.

edited to add: I think I detect you backing out so maybe my thanks for your intervention was premature. Lets see what happens anyway.

I am not sure what you mean by backing out. Mine was simply a "stop the insanity" post. I do not intend to hold your hand, I do not intend to arbitrate who offended who, and I cannot intervene between two grown men.

I just want a real discussion on real issues. I am tired of the bickering.

Can't both of you simply declare amnesty, stop demanding apologies and start with a clean slate, right now? That is all I want to see.

Lucianarchy

25th July 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Where is that evidence of yours???

'ladybrook'

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 04:27 PM

rentata,

I understand where you are coming from, and you are (most likely) right. However, Steve has a long history of deceit, back-stabbing, below-the-belt accusations, innuendos, lies....well, the list is long, as you can imagine! :)

Steve is trying very hard to establish himself in the paranormal world. He sucks up to Schwartz and is a willing accomplice in the sloppy design and experiments we see so many of. If Steve wants to destroy his own reputation is one thing. If he wants to be the laughing stock of the thinking world, that is his choice.

But I cannot sit back and let him intimidate people, or see him trying to silence his critics. I will not sit back and see him abuse people for his own purposes. And when he makes threats, I speak up. You bet, baby. Because he has frightened some people here, whom I respect and admire. Only because he thought they were guilty of not doing what he wanted them to do.

Steve's a vicious prude, a pompous ass, with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. He is incredibly incompetent and that - not his mean spirit - will be his downfall. It is easy to point out the flaws of his experiments and argumentation. It is, however, necessary to point out when he wants to silence his critics.

Censorship is what Steve wants. He loathes the idea of people being able to speak their minds. He has expressed this many times, and we have to be careful what his kind is prepared to do. He is a modern-day Comstock.

Yes, I am very direct - that's the way I am. I call'em as I see them. And as I see it, skepticism can only exist in a free-speech world. When it is up to those, who want to push an agenda of Medieval thinking, to decide who can say what, then we are heading straight into the abyss of ignorance and suppression.

Think I am overreacting? Think again. Read a bit of history, and you might understand my point.

I have no problems concentrating on the issues. In fact, I prefer it. But that is not how Steve plays. If he plays straight, I play straight. If he plays dirty, I point it out. No restraints.

As I see it, it is all up to Steve.

Let's discuss issues! I wonder what Steve is going to do....

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
'ladybrook'

What are you talking about? I was addressing Steve, not you.

Am I to understand that a word, taken out of the blue (but most likely, lifted off a police radio or news wire), is "evidence" of your paranormal powers?

Lucianarchy

25th July 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What are you talking about?

The topic.

Am I to understand that a word, taken out of the blue (but most likely, lifted off a police radio or news wire), is "evidence" of your paranormal powers?

It is certainly beyond normal to have an uncommon word running around in your mind with an urgency that compels you to record it in an opening post on a thread which was taunting my RV ability and to have that recorded word named as the place where a terrorist attack occured within an hour and a half of its recording on this forum. 'Ladybrook' is an extremely uncommon word, I have seen the other cynics and their jokes about 'new yourk, houston and grass fires, car crashes etc, but eveyone knows that ladybrook is far more uncommon than any of those places and the event, a terrorist attack far more important than grass fires and power cuts. The event also took place within a very short space of time of impression bieng recorded. This perception replicates many other instances I have experienced and together with the extraordinary experiences with Dr Steinkamp, I cannot rationaly put all this down to 'luck' or 'chance' anymore.

So yes, I believe that the perception was paranormal. I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened.

Diamond

25th July 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
So yes, I believe that the perception was paranormal. I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened.

:dl:

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 04:50 PM

Lucianarchy,

O..............K.

Then, please explain why renata does not have paranormal powers. Or the other people who posted much more accurate "predictions" that you.

renata

25th July 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
rentata,

Why do so many people call me renTata? Is this some sort of joke I am not getting??

I understand where you are coming from, and you are (most likely) right. However, Steve has a long history of deceit, back-stabbing, below-the-belt accusations, innuendos, lies....well, the list is long, as you can imagine! :)

Let me tell you the same thing I told him. It does not matter. If you guys continue, we will have a dozen more threads each going into a dozen pages, each with insults and threats and grudges. You may think that is fine, but I bet many people here want to see an issue debate, want to learn.

As some know, part of my job involves being a negotiator. I deal with people on opposite sides of long standing feuds ALL the time. One thing I learned is that half the battle is trying to determine what the other side really is looking for, and acknowledging it.

But I cannot sit back and let him intimidate people, or see him trying to silence his critics. I will not sit back and see him abuse people for his own purposes. And when he makes threats, I speak up. You bet, baby. Because he has frightened some people here, whom I respect and admire. Only because he thought they were guilty of not doing what he wanted them to do.

Fine, whoever starts slinging mud first gets a time out. But can't you guys at least TRY..for a day or so?

Yes, I am very direct - that's the way I am. I call'em as I see them. And as I see it, skepticism can only exist in a free-speech world. When it is up to those, who want to push an agenda of Medieval thinking, to decide who can say what, then we are heading straight into the abyss of ignorance and suppression.

If you knew me better, you would know that I also call them as I see them. But your audience is not just Steve- it is dozens of posters here. And like it or not, credibility and respect for all parties in a mud wrestling match decreases. Don't believe me- start a poll.

Think I am overreacting? Think again. Read a bit of history, and you might understand my point.

Are you patronizing me, Dane?:)

Don't tell me to learn history. I know about censorship and free speech-from real life, not internet board. I know history. Indeed as has been amply proven (Pindar!!) I know some history better than you. Don't make me have to spank you in flame wars.

I have no problems concentrating on the issues. In fact, I prefer it. But that is not how Steve plays. If he plays straight, I play straight. If he plays dirty, I point it out. No restraints.

As I see it, it is all up to Steve.

Let's discuss issues! I wonder what Steve is going to do....

Fine, point it out. Don't escalate it.

Now, both of you- deep breath, continue on the issues!

Thanks in advance :)

dingler44

25th July 2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The topic.

[b]

It is certainly beyond normal to have an uncommon word running around in your mind with an urgency that compels you to record it in an opening post on a thread which was taunting my RV ability and to have that recorded word named as the place where a terrorist attack occured within an hour and a half of its recording on this forum. 'Ladybrook' is an extremely uncommon word, I have seen the other cynics and their jokes about 'new yourk, houston and grass fires, car crashes etc, but eveyone knows that ladybrook is far more uncommon than any of those places and the event, a terrorist attack far more important than grass fires and power cuts. The event also took place within a very short space of time of impression bieng recorded. This perception replicates many other instances I have experienced and together with the extraordinary experiences with Dr Steinkamp, I cannot rationaly put all this down to 'luck' or 'chance' anymore.

So yes, I believe that the perception was paranormal. I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened.

endoplasm

Lucianarchy

25th July 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by renata

Why do so many people call me renTata? Is this some sort of joke I am not getting??

Yes.

Now Fu*k off.

renata

25th July 2003, 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

Yes.

Now f*ck off.

You crack me up :)

Upset that my RV powers are better than yours?

Lucianarchy

25th July 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

O..............K.

Then, please explain why renata does not have paranormal powers. Or the other people who posted much more accurate "predictions" that you.

:rolleyes: Claus, you are transparent.

Wake up.

CFLarsen

25th July 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by renata
Why do so many people call me renTata? Is this some sort of joke I am not getting??

Errr....yes. I'm sure there's a joke somewhere, and if there is, it's on you! :D

Originally posted by renata
Let me tell you the same thing I told him. It does not matter. If you guys continue, we will have a dozen more threads each going into a dozen pages, each with insults and threats and grudges. You may think that is fine, but I bet many people here want to see an issue debate, want to learn.

It's not about insults or grudges. It's about censorship. Take it very seriously.

Originally posted by renata
As some know, part of my job involves being a negotiator. I deal with people on opposite sides of long standing feuds ALL the time. One thing I learned is that half the battle is trying to determine what the other side really is looking for, and acknowledging it.

Oh, I am perfectly aware of what Steve is looking for.

Originally posted by renata
Fine, whoever starts slinging mud first gets a time out. But can't you guys at least TRY..for a day or so?

Not a problem with me.

Originally posted by renata
If you knew me better, you would know that I also call them as I see them. But your audience is not just Steve- it is dozens of posters here. And like it or not, credibility and respect for all parties in a mud wrestling match decreases. Don't believe me- start a poll.

I don't see this as a "mudwrestling". I see this as exposing closemindedness and bigotry.

Originally posted by renata
Are you patronizing me, Dane?:)

Wouldn't dream of it! :)

Originally posted by renata
Don't tell me to learn history. I know about censorship and free speech-from real life, not internet board. I know history. Indeed as has been amply proven (Pindar!!)

Shurrup!

Originally posted by renata
I know some history better than you. Don't make me have to spank you in flame wars.

Challenge me officially, and I'll crush you! :D

Originally posted by renata
Fine, point it out. Don't escalate it.

Now, both of you- deep breath, continue on the issues!

I'll do better. I'll hit the sack! :)

Lucianarchy

25th July 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by renata

You crack me up :)

Upset that my RV powers are better than yours?

No, I think they are wonderful, well done, you should be pleased to have helped the understanding of science in such a selfless way. The significance of it all is phenomenal.

I just don't care much for disigenuous little s**t-stirrers, that's all. :rub:

renata

25th July 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Errr....yes. I'm sure there's a joke somewhere, and if there is, it's on you! :D

Halleluja! You and Lucyanarchy agree on something! I knew I could achieve that. Poor spelling, most likely :)

It's not about insults or grudges. It's about censorship. Take it very seriously.

But when you degenerate into old offenses, it appears to be about grudges. Some things should be self evident, we do not need to be hammered on the head to see them.

Not a problem with me.

OK..thanks. Try as long as you can, please!

Wouldn't dream of it! :)

There may be hope for you yet...

Shurrup!

Or maybe not...:mad:

Challenge me officially, and I'll crush you! :D

I thought I just did? Or would you like an order of Hooked on Phonics to help with your reading comprehension?

(she jabs first, and it connects!)

Just so you know, my credibility when it comes to challenging European men in anything ain't that great after that hoax I pulled with glee... :o

TLN

25th July 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I just don't care much for disigenuous little s**t-stirrers, that's all. :rub:

Then how do you deal with that schmuck in the mirror?

SteveGrenard

25th July 2003, 05:25 PM

Let's read between Larsen's lines:

L:I understand where you are coming from, and you are (most likely) right. However, Steve has a long history of deceit, back-stabbing, below-the-belt accusations, innuendos, lies....well, the list is long, as you can imagine!

Reply: Provide evidence of all of the above, Back-stabbing below the belts, the whole LOOOONG list. Whose back have I stabbed?Whose below the belt did I hit? How long is my history? I have been here for .... months. Is it that long? Is it 10 years, 20, 40? How long Claus is that "long" history you refer to? Please answer,

L: Steve is trying very hard to establish himself in the paranormal world. He sucks up to Schwartz and is a willing accomplice in the sloppy design and experiments we see so many of. If Steve wants to destroy his own reputation is one thing. If he wants to be the laughing stock of the thinking world, that is his choice.

Reply: This is because Larsen says, and has said: there is no such thing as the paranormal so there can be no evidence for it. I am, indeed, looking for explanations. Using the laughing stock of the thinking world is just another ad hominem. Yet another to add to the list above. Renata: is this or is this not ad hominem?
Anyone else care to weigh in on this question or are you all scared of Larsen?

L: But I cannot sit back and let him intimidate people, or see him trying to silence his critics. I will not sit back and see him abuse people for his own purposes. And when he makes threats, I speak up. You bet, baby. Because he has frightened some people here, whom I respect and admire. Only because he thought they were guilty of not doing what he wanted them to do.

Reply: And who exactly am I intimidating? You? For bringing up the lawsuit which I explained. Are you saying that Ed Dittus DID NOT slander myself and Pam? If so, this makes you a de facto liar.
I asked for evidence to back up your claim that I threatened you with a lawssuit? Why not post all the e-mails you sent me asking when I was going to sue you and my responses, which was "Never." You were not worth suing but you were like a kid locked out of the candy store. You were not a party to that lawsuit, Ed Dittus was its primary focus. It has been resolved. You want to bring it up over and over again, you will get the same response. Your choice.

L: Steve's a vicious prude, a pompous ass, with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. He is incredibly incompetent and that - not his mean spirit - will be his downfall. It is easy to point out the flaws of his experiments and argumentation. It is, however, necessary to point out when he wants to silence his critics.

Reply: How many ad homs do you count in this one? It proves my point. But is it wrong to be a prude when accused of cheating on your wife? Or how about having your life threatened, even with
your home address published and an invite to anyone interested. You actually think this is funny? This was in the days not so long ago when the cowardly Larsen was hiding behind a pseudonym, Cantata, and using Yahoo as his e-mail address.
Dont worry. Yahoo would give you up in a heartbeat if asked by the authorities. They don't like cyberstalkers who harass and threaten people. Neither does AOL when pseudonyms like crow birds do the same.

And what do experiments have to do with the lawsuit? Or the death threat? And what experiments have I done? What have I published? I have asked you before to provide evidence I have done experiments. If you call having personal experiences experiments then okay. We