Lucianarchy and remote viewing

[Ossai]

Lucianarchy
I have been accused of using police scanners, using unknown editing techniques, criminal involvement and been told the clock was GMT and should be an hour different. All these suppositions have been shown to clearly false. No, you have claimed that they are false. No evidence was presented (baring the time stamp) the others are still open.

"such results" like Renata's are not even remotely ( no pun intended) compelling What makes her results different than yours?

Ossai

[davidhorman]

but it was your claim I was debunking.

Which claim exactly? That the forum clock is unreliable? That when it says GMT, it's actually showing something closer to BST, and is therefore incorrect?

As I've shown, either way you look at it corbin's post most likely occurred later than the timestamp (even if you pretend it's BST) indicates.

David

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
....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.

Who are you talking about here? Steve Grenard? He is not a doctor.

He's a clinical coordinator and administrative supervisor.

Get your facts straight, Lucianarchy.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Who are you talking about here? Steve Grenard? He is not a doctor.

He's a clinical coordinator and administrative supervisor.

Get your facts straight, Lucianarchy.

I hope he doesn't try to get the quackery introduced into the clinic.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Starrman


As to your testing, the key to scientific testing is repeatability, so one test by one person simply doesn't cut it. In order for us to take the Koestler test of you seriously, you have to have to have his findings of your abilities verified by an independent tester.

"His"? I can assure you that I am not trying to impress the "us" you refer to :rolleyes: 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.

[Starrman]

I suggest you go look up some of the links Dr Grenard ...

I assume that this was a simple mistake - since you hold honesty in such high regard.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
it makes no difference to what really happened.....

No, it didn't. You had ample time to edit your post.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
...as I know you really think that my perception was genuine, as does tbk, your behaviour and hysteria is a dead give-away.

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

In a thread about your proclaimed RV abilities? In a post, where you had ample time to edit it?

And we know that you lie, you cheat, you misrepresent?

Try again, this time a little harder, Lucianarchy.

[Starrman]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lucianarchy,

What exactly is your claim re. "Ladybrook"?

[thaiboxerken]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[CFLarsen]

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

[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

[CFLarsen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[CFLarsen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Lucianarchy,

So you do not claim anything paranormal???

[CFLarsen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Lucianarchy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

That may be, Steve. However, it does not change the fact that you threatened me - as well as others - with lawsuits. As well as all your other sneaky attempts at silencing your critics.

Where is that evidence of yours???

[renata]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Where is that evidence of yours???


'ladybrook'

[CFLarsen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Yes.

Now f*ck off.

You crack me up :)

Upset that my RV powers are better than yours?

[Lucianarchy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 all do experiments then. However, you have just crossed the line and called me incompetent
as well. Another ad hominem. Anybody counting how many this
person can get in a single post?


C: 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.

Reply: Yup. I would prefer not have people who never met me, don't know me, accuse me of having illicit relations with a person I never met living 1000s of miles away. I would also prefer if that person was not called a whore and I don't
appreciated Corey's death threat and subsquent action either.
So call me a prude. Comstockian in that respect, absolutely.
I also stood up for moderator Linda when someone no longer allowed on this board also called her a very vile name as well.
Larsen defended that banned person.

So is this attitude of mine what's bothering you Claus? From the looks of it, it is.

C: 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.

Reply: Free speech does not equate with ad hominems and it does not equate with filthy language. You can learn to say whatever it is you want and criticize people on the issues without resorting to meaningless name calling or accusing them
of immoral acts you have no idea occurred. Are you now the self-appointed spokesperson for skepticism on this? I see that you think you are.

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

Reply: I have given the history. However, Renata, as a PI you know why my attorney does not want the evidence of this matter published here. The offensive material has been removed but it is archived privately. Clearly from the above Claus has revealed himself as a purveyor of ad hominems and someone who feels that bad language is acceptable and equates it with free speech and, by some stretch, with skepticism. Weird.

C: 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.

Reply: If that's the case why did you bring up the same old tired b.s. you resurrect about every two weeks? Everybody knows you have no real arguments and that you resort to ad homs because that's all you have. You have proved that repeatedly.

You want to see a day in the life of Claus Larsen posts?

"Evidence? Show me evidence? Liar. Smear campaign, Liar, Liar.
Stupid. Lawsuit. Promised a lawsuit. Experiments that never occurred and being incompetent about them."

This is your entire repetoire. All ad homs.

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

Reply: Are you going to refrain from calling people liars? from accusing them of anonymous campaigns, of saying they did experiments that they did not conduct, or question lawsuits that were settled privately without you involved and to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs? Ed was a man about it and made up. His apology was accepted. You are the one to keep bringing this up. Yes or no?

So are you going to stop bringing this b.s. up? Yes or no. Its up to you.

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

Reply: Feel free. Lets see how long you can do it without uttering a single ad hom. Start the clock. I didnt bring all this up, you did.....

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.........

Steve,

My apologies. I didn't see where you edited your post to include the link to the paper. Do I understand then that this (http://www.psy.gu.se/PDF/JSPR4W.pdf) is the paper you are offering for discussion? If so, I'll read it this weekend and perhaps we (and others interested) can begin next week.

I've only glanced at it, but it seems to mainly be a summarized history of ganzfeld and the meta-analysis. The only data I saw involved sums of each of the studies? But as I say, I haven't read it yet. Please let us know if this is the one you intended, and thanks.

[renata]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


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 ****-stirrers, that's all. :rub:

You are right. Surely endless bickering over year old offenses is a much better way to conduct an intelligent conversation. irvine.

[thaiboxerken]

I think Luci is upset because no one is impressed with his ladybrook RV claim. Probably because one word means nothing. Post hoc predictions aren't impressive in the slightest.

[renata]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

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

Reply: Feel free. Lets see how long you can do it without uttering a single ad hom. Start the clock. I didnt bring all this up, you did.....

Terrific! Let's start the clock right now.

No ad homs, personal attacks and reminiscing about past issues. Let's see how long it will last. I predict at least 8 hours, as Claus went to sleep. :D

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by renata


You are right.

Thankyou.

[Jeff Corey]

I'm in. I assure you I will not attack anyone on this thread anymore.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Let's read between Larsen's lines:

Yeah, let's interpret a bit, instead of actually reading what it says....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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,

Backstabbing? Try Rain and dogwood, whom you blamed for the abysmal failure of your experiment, although it was only due to your extremely poor design.

Below the belt? Try me, Steve: Why did you make that remark about pedophelia and me moving back to Denmark?

How long? A couple of years now, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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?

Strawman. I have never said that there is no such thing as the paranormal so there can be no evidence for it. Quite contrary, I have always said that the possibility exists - there is just no evidence of it. And that's what I am looking for, evidence.

I doubt very much that I "scare" anyone here. Why does everything have to be about fear, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

You have been threatening me and others here with lawsuits. You have run your own SS-board into the ground for trying to enforce a cowardly rule of censorship. You even banned people for being on JREF, too, as well as banning people for breaking rules they were not allowed to see.

If you think Ed slandered you and Pam, sue them.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

Sure. Not a problem. (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/stevepam.htm)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

Steve, I have never - ever - denied who I was. You write as sgrenard (and sometimes "Jeanne", let's not forget that! ;)), I write as Cantata.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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.

Hey, go ahead, Steve! Report to me to Yahoo! Why don't you, instead of making one threat after another....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
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 all do experiments then. However, you have just crossed the line and called me incompetent as well. Another ad hominem. Anybody counting how many this
person can get in a single post?

You have conducted experiments online, with people from TVTalkshows. You have conducted experiments where you work. These were not personal experiments, Steve:

Experimental Volunteers Wanted as Controls
Dr. Gary Schwartz and myself are doing an experiment involving obtaining information non-locally using 4 mediums and 5 research sitters from different backgrounds, cultures and parts of the U.S.

As part of this project, we would like to test the generalization hypothesis by having as many control (non-sitters) as possible rate the information that applies to the intended sitters.

What this involves is receiving an e-mail each day with a list of activtiies accomplished in the past 24 hours which applies to one or more of the intended sitters. You will be asked, on a scale of ** to Zero to +3 to mark each activity as if it applies to you with +3 being strongly applicable and totally true, and ** being totally not true and impossible.

For example:

1. for breakfast: ate eggs
2. ate ham
3. with hasbrowns
4. with english muffin
5. you went to work
6. you had car trouble
7. you had 2 martinis for lunch
8. you had a fainting spell

etc. Only major identifiable activities will be listed ... no
thoughts or feelings.

So if you ate eggs, its a +3, if you had bacon and not ham, it might be a **; if you has frenchfries instead of hash its a +1 but
if you had no potatoes its a **. In fact if you didnt have any
of the items listed, just grits or cereal, each would be a **.

This starts Monday and involves a comittment of doing this for five consecutive days. You also need to keep notes for each
day on what you did from arising to retiring.

Anyone is welcome to apply, skeptics, and acceptors;
the control's honesty will be assumed.
Of skeptics, we ask
that they be open-minded and respectful and willing to commit five days of an hour or so doing this each day.

the controls will have no way of knowing if the activity information they receive is the true information so it would
be best to answer honestly. This would prevent any one
control from biasing the test. This part is being used only to
test the genralization hypothesis.

The primary objective is to determine whether the consciousness of departed persons with whom mediums purport to communicate can watch and report on the activity of strangers which will be the sitters.

The Protocol/Design
The objective is to determine if the surviving consciousness (aka: spirit) of a deceased person can observe and report on the activities of daily living (ADL) of a set of strangers (experimental sitters). We frequently hear from high profile mediums e.g. on television that surviving conscounsesses provide evidence that they know of events and changes that ocurred after they have crossed over.

There will be 5 sitters to whom all but Schwartz and myself will be blinded to. Two surviving consciousnesses, one known to Schwartz and one known to me will be asked on different days to observe the activtities of a particular sitter or "watch them."
The sitters names will be selected at random by the investigators as to the day (or order) their activtiies will be evaluated.

Then the participating mediums, who don't know the sitters, will be asked to contact the two suriving consciousnesses with respect to their watching the anonymous sitters and report that Sitter A did whatever it is they did on, say, Wednesday, June 17th, 2002. The sitters have agreed to provide a report of their activities for their particular day to the researchers.

The mediums and sitters will be blinded to each other. The study will be done non-locally with reporting via private via e-mail
to the investigators.

The mediums will not ask any questions, know who the sitters are nor will they be able to obtain any information other than as a result of their purported and claimed ability to **way communicate with surviving consciousnesses.

The control phase is an add-on suggested by Grenard based on James Randi's proposed testing of Sylvia Browne. Narrowly, this procedure would serve to falsify or validate the generalization or specificity hypothesis, depending on how you look at it. We will ask each of the volunteer controls to rate the inventory of ADLs
for the intended sitters as if it were true or false for them. This would need to be done on the specific day it ocurred for the intended or targeted sitters.

******************
Steve Grenard

Is that your post, Steve? "Dr. Gary Schwartz and myself are doing an experiment"...only for personal experiences???

True, you have never published anything. You never do, it's all in "progress".

I have "crossed the line", Steve? Now, what happens? Another threat??

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Yup. I would prefer not have people who never met me, don't know me, accuse me of having illicit relations with a person I never met living 1000s of miles away. I would also prefer if that person was not called a whore and I don't appreciated Corey's death threat and subsquent action either.
So call me a prude. Comstockian in that respect, absolutely. I also stood up for moderator Linda when someone no longer allowed on this board also called her a very vile name as well.
Larsen defended that banned person.

I did?? Where? Time for you to show evidence, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So is this attitude of mine what's bothering you Claus? From the looks of it, it is.

It bothers me that you abhor free speech and wants to enforce your wacko beliefs on others, yes.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Free speech does not equate with ad hominems and it does not equate with filthy language. You can learn to say whatever it is you want and criticize people on the issues without resorting to meaningless name calling or accusing them of immoral acts you have no idea occurred. Are you now the self-appointed spokesperson for skepticism on this? I see that you think you are.

Actually, Steve, free speech does equate whatever you want to say. There is nothing in, say, the American Constitution, that says you have to be polite.

Where did I accuse you of "immoral acts"? Evidence, please.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I have given the history.

"History", Steve. Not your history. It's not all about you.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
However, Renata, as a PI you know why my attorney does not want the evidence of this matter published here. The offensive material has been removed but it is archived privately. Clearly from the above Claus has revealed himself as a purveyor of ad hominems and someone who feels that bad language is acceptable and equates it with free speech and, by some stretch, with skepticism. Weird.

Weird, especially because you don't refrain from "bad language" yourself.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: If that's the case why did you bring up the same old tired b.s. you resurrect about every two weeks? Everybody knows you have no real arguments and that you resort to ad homs because that's all you have. You have proved that repeatedly.

It's there, for all to see. I don't see you post any evidence of your claims, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You want to see a day in the life of Claus Larsen posts?

"Evidence? Show me evidence? Liar. Smear campaign, Liar, Liar.
Stupid. Lawsuit. Promised a lawsuit. Experiments that never occurred and being incompetent about them."

This is your entire repetoire. All ad homs.

You "omitted" the most crucial: I ask for evidence. This, you do not want to give.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Are you going to refrain from calling people liars? from accusing them of anonymous campaigns, of saying they did experiments that they did not conduct, or question lawsuits that were settled privately without you involved and to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs? Ed was a man about it and made up. His apology was accepted. You are the one to keep bringing this up. Yes or no?

No, I will not refrain from calling people liars, if they lie. And I will not stop bringing up your threats, either.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
So are you going to stop bringing this b.s. up? Yes or no. Its up to you.

It's not b.s., Steve. Those were your threats.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Feel free. Lets see how long you can do it without uttering a single ad hom. Start the clock. I didnt bring all this up, you did.....

Fine with me. Whoever makes the first personal attack on anyone loses.

Start the clock.

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: Backstabbing? Try Rain and dogwood, whom you blamed for the abysmal failure of your experiment, although it was only due to your extremely poor design.

Below the belt? Try me, Steve: Why did you make that remark about pedophelia and me moving back to Denmark?

How long? A couple of years now, Steve.

Reply: I did not design the experiment. I recruited the controls. It was not my experiment. It was totally blinded. The blinding was broken by rain and dogwood by their publicly discussing it on this forum before the expeirment was finished. I took the responsibility for not fully explaining to these two out of 15 controls what blinding is and why they shoudn't discuss it publicly before the trial was complete. My bad. I already said so. The other 13 housewifes and businessmen somehow knew about blinding and did not discuss it publicly or violate the protocol. But clearly for those two it was my fault and I accept that repsonsibility.

Larsen defended vigorously books that promote, defend and exonerate sexual relationships with children (pedophilia) on the basis of free speech. These were titles published by Prometheus Press and I said I felt their presence on their list tarnished their entire operation. I wonder how many incidents of
pedophilia resulted from the reading of these titles seriously defending the practice which you defended? You actually did not defend pedophilia but said you defended the right of the authors and publishers to defend it. You have a serious problem with priorities, cause and effect and consequences.


Larsen: Strawman. I have never said that there is no such thing as the paranormal so there can be no evidence for it. Quite contrary, I have always said that the possibility exists - there is just no evidence of it. And that's what I am looking for, evidence.

Reply: I beg to differ with you. Every request you make for evidence fails to state what that evidence is and you have said, categorically, there is no evidence because it does not exist. This is why it is useless to discuss anything with you.

C: You have been threatening me and others here with lawsuits. You have run your own SS-board into the ground for trying to enforce a cowardly rule of censorship. You even banned people for being on JREF, too, as well as banning people for breaking rules they were not allowed to see.

If you think Ed slandered you and Pam, sue them.

Reply: We contemplated a lawsuit but achieved a desired result in other ways. I am sure Ed and JREF will now enjoy your uninvited participation in this matter. You were NEVER considered a target of any legal action. Furthermore your irrational behavior has already been marginalized by many reading what you post and how you non-respond to simple requests like what do you consider evidence. The SS Board was not mine. However the statements of Ed on JREF caused the board to close it and close it I did. They did not feel it was worth engendering the kind of muck Ed lied about . You helped destroy that effort so should be very proud of yourself. The effort is elsewhere, on the internet, but is closed to you anyone else of that mind-set. Sorry it is a "party" where you are not and never will be welcome.


Reply: You know full well that those are not the e-mails. I refer you to the series of short paranoid rantings you sent me on my private e-mail. My responses to each of them was that you were not being contemplated as a target of any legal action. This was after research indicated you directly were not involved in the slander. In fact it was not you who uttered the slanderous complaint, you merely played defender again. You agreed that Ed was within his rights to utter those remarks. You agreed that Corey was within his rights to utter a death threat, in writing, toward me and to publish my home address as a follow-up. Ed or you gleefully also published Pam's home address while both of you cowardly hid behind pseudnyms such as Cantata and God and used fake e-mais such as Yahoo. Boy wass Ed Dittus ever upset when I decided to publish his last name. LOL. I dont remember which of you two did that to Pam but it was way out of line, however. And you, Larsen, defended the right of pedophilia to exist as a subject to be extolled in books and publications or on the net. Free speech, remmeber?

C: Steve, I have never - ever - denied who I was. You write as sgrenard (and sometimes "Jeanne", let's not forget that! ), I write as Cantata.

Reply: Would you like to meet Jeanne. She would like to meet you. Come back to NY. No, better yet, drop me a private e-mail where you can be reached in Denmark in October and she will give you a ring. For a period Cantata appeared and nobody knew who that was. It is a pseudonym, plain and simple. Yahoo is a fake e-mail address used by people who think they cannot be traced if they do so. Who were you? Cantata? Cantata1001? or CFLarsen or Claus F Larsen or Claus Larsen? CFLarsen is the same as sgrenard, is my real name and is my standard e-mail address for more than 5 years.

C: You have conducted experiments online, with people from TVTalkshows. You have conducted experiments where you work. These were not personal experiments, Steve:


Reply: Thank you for verifying my role in that experiment. I recruited the controls. I was blind to everything else. This
was not my experiment, was not done at work, but at home,
and is the only experiment I have ever been involved in and it was not mine but was designed and run by many others.

If I ever do an experiment or design one that is performed, I
will be sure and let you know afterwards. I actually have no wish to do any experiments but I am interested in the results of others. My specialty is critical care and sleep medicine and I occupy 100% of my time in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of people with sleep disordered breathing. You do not know me and you lie constantly because you think you do.

C: Is that your post, Steve? "Dr. Gary Schwartz and myself are doing an experiment"...only for personal experiences???

Reply: The target audience for recruitment as controls only needed to know this. They were subsequently contacted by a research assistant. I said above what my role was. I did not design the experiment, I recruited the controls. Period.

C: True, you have never published anything. You never do, it's all in "progress".

Reply: I personally have nothing in line for publication that's in progress. You refer to remarks made about the research of others such as Keen on the Poole murder case or Robinson and Roy's third paper. I am as interested in these as anyone else here except perhaps you.

You have just added yet another ad hominem, trying now to destroy my professional reputation. It won't work. But it is definitely a threat by me to cease or desist or you will be found
in whatever alley you are inhabiting in Denmark and dealt with
legally. The fact that you are using this board to do this is also a problem and the moderators need to be made aware of it as well.
I am not a public figure, I did not do any of the work you contend I did, you do not know me, you lie constantly about me and others, you accuse me and others of lying which is a favorite trick of liars to cover themselves. Everyone knows this.


C: I did?? Where? Time for you to show evidence, Steve.

Reply: In matters related to this, I am enjoined from re-publishing evidence. You can try and provoke this but it will not happen. You have tried before and failed. Doesnt bother me.

C: It bothers me that you abhor free speech and wants to enforce your wacko beliefs on others, yes.

Reply: You must be omnipotent. You now crawl inside my head and know what my beliefs are. This is a rather chilling indictment of yourself and your mindset. You know nothing of my beliefs.
You hypothisize and hallucinate that you know them. I have never stated my beliefs to you or anyone else. I do belief in truth, however. I know sophistry exists and that you use it on a daily basis to advance your agenda. I know that you distort, lie, misattribute, deliberately or non-deliberately misunderstand and misquote people in order to achieve points in some bizarre game you play with yourself. I know that your idea of free speech includes the use of the words on the banned list here and elsewhere and that you defend the right of a serious academic publisher to hire a self-admitted pedophile as an editor and to publish books defending pedophilia. That professor, formerly of SUNY Buffalo is now in California.


C: Actually, Steve, free speech does equate whatever you want to say. There is nothing in, say, the American Constitution, that says you have to be polite.

Reply: See above. There is nothing in MY constitution (you are not an American so it does not apply to you) that does that but you forgot that there is something in my constitution that says the
Supreme Court and lower courts can make laws and interpret that document. Check out some of those concerning the areas you defend and find out whether MY constitution effectively deals with these issues or not. I take great offense that you, a foreigner, says that MY constitution permits pedophilia and
filthy language. Your use of ad hominems such as liar is indeed protected in MY country (try it in some countries in Europe and see what happens) but crosses the line of civilized debate, dragging it into the mud. You go there, I won't.

C: Where did I accuse you of "immoral acts"? Evidence, please.

Reply: If you defend the right of someone to utter slanderous remarks, you go there. You've done that rather nicely.

C: You "omitted" the most crucial: I ask for evidence. This, you do not want to give.

Reply: I very much included your demand for evidence. I also included the question for you as to what constitutes that evidence? You have never answered that question because
you probably cannot. Just admit it, you don't know what it is you are asking for.

C: No, I will not refrain from calling people liars, if they lie. And I will not stop bringing up your threats, either.

Reply: Fine. Now everyone knows your position, your willingness to use ad hominems and my contemplated but settled (for now) lawsuit for being slandered and my decisive action regarding the uttering of a death threat by one of your buddies.

C: It's not b.s., Steve. Those were your threats.

Reply: They are b.s. because you were not a part of them as much as you wish you were. I will legally threaten anyone who slanders myself or my friends and colleagues. I will threaten anyone who utters death threats at myself, my family and my friends includin friends I made here. Not everyone apparently is willing to do that but somebody has to.


C: Fine with me. Whoever makes the first personal attack on anyone loses.Start the clock.

Reply: I started that clock last night. You lost.


__________________
conclusion:

So there you have it folks. Larsen will not stop uttering ad homs which HE considers truthful. He will ressurect lawsuits and projects of years back over and over again for no apparent purpose other than to hear himself or rather see himself write.
He will pour salt on wounds for no apparent reason other than to stifle debate and or because he disagrees with you. He will argue new issues by example and comparison pointing to old issues. How boring and unimaginative. He will continue to defend the American Constitutional right to utter filthy language such as those words banned here because as a great constitutional scholar he thinks he is he feels this is protected. And he will defend the right and not criticize Prometheus Books and its publisher, Paul Kurtz and CSICOP from publishing books that extol pedophilia. For those not familiar with the Prometheus catalog they also publish a multi-volume set of porno film listings and reviews. So next time you pay your dues to CSICOP consider what you are supporting. So I tell you what I will do. I will go out and get those books and send them to FOX and see if anyone is interested in doing a story on CSICOP. This is dirty
laundry that has been kept in the closet long enough. Its beginning to stink and needs to be aired out.

Is that a threat? You bet it is. Do you think CSICOP will like this idea of mine? I doubt they will. But its free speech you know.
It works both ways. They can thank Claus F. Larsen for bringing this up and threatening to bring it up over and over again. He said he will. I was more than happy not to have to hear this Larsen whining over and over again but no such luck.

Have a nice day Larsen. I am done with you. And, BTW, thank you. You are now on ignore. I have gotten what I came for.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I did not design the experiment. I recruited the controls. It was not my experiment. It was totally blinded. The blinding was broken by rain and dogwood by their publicly discussing it on this forum before the expeirment was finished. I took the responsibility for not fully explaining to these two out of 15 controls what blinding is and why they shoudn't discuss it publicly before the trial was complete. My bad. I already said so. The other 13 housewifes and businessmen somehow knew about blinding and did not discuss it publicly or violate the protocol. But clearly for those two it was my fault and I accept that repsonsibility.

Steve, you are not making a very good case here. You explained the controls to each of the 15 people individually? How can you open up for the possibility of error this way? I can understand why Rain can screw up, but dogwood? He knows more about controls than you do, and he took you to task for this experiment. How can the other 13 "somehow" know about blinding but not dogwood? Do you really expect people to believe that?

You are a poor, sloppy experimenter, Steve. And yes, it was your experiment.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Larsen defended vigorously books that promote, defend and exonerate sexual relationships with children (pedophilia) on the basis of free speech. These were titles published by Prometheus Press and I said I felt their presence on their list tarnished their entire operation.

Please point out the books from Prometheus that "exonerate sexual relationships with children".

Prometheus Books is an American publisher, therefore protected by American law.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I wonder how many incidents of pedophilia resulted from the reading of these titles seriously defending the practice which you defended? You actually did not defend pedophilia but said you defended the right of the authors and publishers to defend it. You have a serious problem with priorities, cause and effect and consequences.

I have no idea if any "incidents of pedophilia" has resulted in reading books that are freely available to the American public, Steve. You tell me, you seem to have a vivid interest in this.

Can you make up your mind? First, I defend pedophilia, now I don't? You seem very confused.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I beg to differ with you. Every request you make for evidence fails to state what that evidence is and you have said, categorically, there is no evidence because it does not exist. This is why it is useless to discuss anything with you.

Steve, this is not correct: I constantly point to scientific evidence, and you know it. This is why is it useless to discuss anything with you: You constantly misrepresent what people say.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: We contemplated a lawsuit but achieved a desired result in other ways. I am sure Ed and JREF will now enjoy your uninvited participation in this matter. You were NEVER considered a target of any legal action.

If I were never considered a target of any legal action, why did you feel it was pertinent of you to mention New York as well as Florida, when you spoke of the lawyers?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Furthermore your irrational behavior has already been marginalized by many reading what you post and how you non-respond to simple requests like what do you consider evidence.

Appeal to popularity. You have to name these people, or nobody will believe you.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
The SS Board was not mine.

Yes, it was, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
However the statements of Ed on JREF caused the board to close it and close it I did.

It's not "your" board, but you can close it?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
They did not feel it was worth engendering the kind of muck Ed lied about . You helped destroy that effort so should be very proud of yourself. The effort is elsewhere, on the internet, but is closed to you anyone else of that mind-set. Sorry it is a "party" where you are not and never will be welcome.

Yes, that famed "closed" area where you tried to build a place where remote viewers could solve crimes. What ever happened that...?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You know full well that those are not the e-mails. I refer you to the series of short paranoid rantings you sent me on my private e-mail. My responses to each of them was that you were not being contemplated as a target of any legal action. This was after research indicated you directly were not involved in the slander. In fact it was not you who uttered the slanderous complaint, you merely played defender again. You agreed that Ed was within his rights to utter those remarks. You agreed that Corey was within his rights to utter a death threat, in writing, toward me and to publish my home address as a follow-up. And you defended the right of pedophilia to exist as a subject to be extolled in books and publications or on the net.

Huh? Those are not the emails?? Then please publish those emails you are talking about, Steve, because I am utterly confused here.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Would you like to meet Jeanne. She would like to meet you. Come back to NY. No, better yet, drop me a private e-mail where you can be reached in Denmark in October and she will give you a ring.

She can email me through webmaster@skepticreport.com. Then, "she" can tell me a phone number I can call her.

(Steve, you're not kidding anyone here - you posted as "Jeanne" at TVTalkshows. I still have the evidence. Wanna see it?)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
For a period Cantata appeared and nobody knew who that was. It is a pseudonym, plain and simple. Yahoo is a fake e-mail address used by people who think they cannot be traced if they do so. Who were you? Cantata? Cantata1001? or CFLarsen or Claus F Larsen or Claus Larsen? CFLarsen is the same as sgrenard, is my real name and is my standard e-mail address for more than 5 years.

Sure Cantata is a pseudonym. So is Gryphon2, neofight, Rain, dogwood, Crowunit. I sure don't hear you complain about those, Steve.

Yahoo is not a "fake" email address, used by people who want to be anonymous. Many people use these, especially if they are on the road, and not able to access their email from anywhere in the world.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Thank you for verifying my role in that experiment. I recruited the controls. I was blind to everything else. This was not my experiment, was not done at work, but at home, and is the only experiment I have ever been involved in and it was not mine but was designed and run by many others.

Was this a personal experiment, Steve? Really? How do you define one that is not?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
If I ever do an experiment or design one that is performed, I will be sure and let you know afterwards. I actually have no wish to do any experiments but I am interested in the results of others. My specialty is critical care and sleep medicine and I occupy 100% of my time in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of people with sleep disordered breathing. You do not know me and you lie constantly because you think you do.

I know you well enough to know that you will go on denying reality. It really is amazing how you can switch horses in the middle of everything. And think nobody notices....

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: The target audience for recruitment as controls only needed to know this. They were subsequently contacted by a research assistant. I said above what my role was. I did not design the experiment, I recruited the controls. Period.

Nobody said anything about you designing it, Steve. You "did" an experiment, with Schwartz. You clearly gave the impression that you and Schwartz were doing it together.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I personally have nothing in line for publication that's in progress. You refer to remarks made about the research of others such as Keen on the Poole murder case or Robinson and Roy's third paper. I am as interested in these as anyone else here except perhaps you.

What about those experiments with the psychics (some over the Internet) you conducted?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You have just added yet another ad hominem, trying now to destroy my professional reputation. It won't work. But it is definitely a threat by me to cease or desist or you will be found in whatever alley you are inhabiting in Denmark and dealt with legally. The fact that you are using this board to do this is also a problem and the moderators need to be made aware of it as well.

Steve, why not just do it now? Go ahead, try to slap me with a lawsuit. You will find it very different than the US, I can assure you.

Heck, you can even do it in the US, if you like. Go ahead. Nobody is holding you back.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I am not a public figure, I did not do any of the work you contend I did, you do not know me, you lie constantly about me and others, you accuse me and others of lying which is a favorite trick of liars to cover themselves. Everyone knows this.

Yep. And everyone can see how you lie, again and again.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: In matters related to this, I am enjoined from re-publishing evidence. You can try and provoke this but it will not happen. You have tried before and failed. Doesnt bother me.

I see. You refuse to show your evidence. Maybe in court?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: You must be omnipotent. You now crawl inside my head and know what my beliefs are. This is a rather chilling indictment of yourself and your mindset. You know nothing of my beliefs. You hypothisize and hallucinate that you know them. I have never stated my beliefs to you or anyone else. I do belief in truth, however. I know sophistry exists and that you use it on a daily basis to advance your agenda. I know that you distort, lie, misattribute, deliberately or non-deliberately misunderstand and misquote people in order to achieve points in some bizarre game you play with yourself. I know that your idea of free speech includes the use of the words on the banned list here and elsewhere and that you defend the right of a serious academic publisher to hire a self-admitted pedophile as an editor and to publish books defending pedophilia. That professor, formerly of SUNY Buffalo is now in California.

Huh?? Who are you talking about, Steve? This is a very serious accusation, and you better be prepared to back it up with evidence.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: See above. There is nothing in MY constitution (you are not an American so it does not apply to you)

Actually, when I lived in NY, it did..... ;)

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
that does that but you forgot that there is something in my constitution that says the
Supreme Court and lower courts can make laws and interpret that document. Check out some of those concerning the areas you defend and find out whether MY constitution effectively deals with these issues or not.

Sure! Please point to the Supreme Court rulings that state that you can't say dirty words in public.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I take great offense that you, a foreigner, says that MY constitution permits pedophilia and
filthy language.

Pedophilia, no. Dirty language, yes. And you may want to save those "foreigner" remarks. People might think you don't like non-Americans...

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Your use of ad hominems such as liar is indeed protected in MY country (try it in some countries in Europe and see what happens) but crosses the line of civilized debate, dragging it into the mud. You go there, I won't.

When I call you a liar, Steve, it's because I can back it up with evidence. Therefore, it is not ad hominem. Which means that even in dreaded Europe, I am not punished.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: If you defend the right of someone to utter slanderous remarks, you go there. You've done that rather nicely.

That's "immoral", Steve?? Someone exercising their constitutional right is "immoral"?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I very much included your demand for evidence. I also included the question for you as to what constitutes that evidence? You have never answered that question because you probably cannot. Just admit it, you don't know what it is you are asking for.

Oh, I think I am on pretty solid ground here. You want a discussion about what constitutes scientific evidence? I'm game.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Fine. Now everyone knows your position, your willingness to use ad hominems and my contemplated but settled (for now) lawsuit for being slandered and my decisive action regarding the uttering of a death threat by one of your buddies.

Fine. What happens next, Steve? Nothing? Thought so.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: They are b.s. because you were not a part of them as much as you wish you were. I will legally threaten anyone who slanders myself or my friends and colleagues. I will threaten anyone who utters death threats at myself, my family and my friends includin friends I made here. Not everyone apparently is willing to do that but somebody has to.

So why don't you?? Why don't you go ahead with those legal threats you are so fond of throwing around?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: I started that clock last night. You lost.

Who gave you the right to determine the rules, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
_________________
conclusion:

So there you have it folks. Larsen will not stop uttering ad homs which HE considers truthful. He will ressurect lawsuits and projects of years back over and over again for no apparent purpose other than to hear himself or rather see himself write. He will pour salt on wounds for no apparent reason other than to stifle debate and or because he disagrees with you. He will argue new issues by example and comparison pointing to old issues. How boring and unimaginative. He will continue to defend the American Constitutional right to utter filthy language such as those words banned here because as a great constitutional scholar he thinks he is he feels this is protected. And he will defend the right and not criticize Prometheus Books and its publisher, Paul Kurtz and CSICOP from publishing books that extol pedophilia. For those not familiar with the Prometheus catalog they also publish a multi-volume set of porno film listings and reviews. So next time you pay your dues to CSICOP consider what you are supporting. So I tell you what I will do. I will go out and get those books and send them to FOX and see if anyone is interested in doing a story on CSICOP. This is dirty
laundry that has been kept in the closet long enough. Its beginning to stink and needs to be aired out.

Is that a threat? You bet it is. Do you think CSICOP will like this idea of mine? I doubt they will. But its free speech you know.
It works both ways. They can thank Claus F. Larsen for bringing this up and threatening to bring it up over and over again. He said he will. I was more than happy not to have to hear this Larsen whining over and over again but no such luck.

(applause) Steve, that was....(sniffles)...touching..... Very eloquent, very deep emotions here.

Let's see if CSICOP survives this mortal blow from you. Keep us informed how the press handles this.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Have a nice day Larsen. I am done with you. And, BTW, thank you. You are now on ignore. I have gotten what I came for.
You came here to ignore people? You came here to feel insulted?

Oh, well...we all have our own little peculiarities, I guess.... ;)

[SteveGrenard]

While one can make a case for the veiled use of academic study for sexology and the obvious interest of this publisher in all types of sexual subjects, both normal and abnormal, one wonders how they can publish a 7 volume porno movie guidebook and titillating "sexual autobiographies" and at the same time try and disguise the pedophilia issue under academic interests. I have no problem with the publication of any of this. What I have a problem with is that the publisher who brings us James Randi, Michael Shermer and many other excellent books on skepticism and the paranormal also publishes this drivel. I have a problem understanding the internecine relationship between CSICOP, a non-profit and this profit making publisher. Is it an arm of CSICOP? If so, do CSICOP members know that they are supporting the dissemination of this material?

Thus for anyone who is interested in seeing what Prometheus and CSICOP is up to in addition to defending our skepticism and right to question the paranormal, I provide the following URL:

www.prometheusbooks.com/site/cat.html


Now some instructions. You have to go into subject categories.
You will find the material I described distributed in several:

Human Sexuality

and

Sexual Autobiography

You can click on the titles and get a thumb-nail description of what they are about.

Edited to add: Larsen is free to defend the publication of this kind of literature which he has done; he brought up the subject in the first place again today or yesterday. I am also within my right to question the underlying motivation of a publisher and reprinter of many great academic titles and popular modern science titles with the need to publish a 7 volume directory of porn flics and ask myself who would use such a compendium to their own best interest? You can be certain that in a comprehensive set of books like this there is no shortage of illicit pedophilia films or videos under review.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
While one can make a case for the veiled use of academic study for sexology and the obvious interest of this publisher in all types of sexual subjects, both normal and abnormal, one wonders how they can publish a 7 volume porno movie guidebook and titillating "sexual autobiographies" and at the same tyime try and disguise the pedophilia issue under academic interests. I have no problem with the publication of any of this. What I have a problem with is that the publisher who brings us James Randi, Michael Shermer and many other excellent books on skepticism and the paranormal also publishes this drivel. I have a problem understanding the internecine relationship between CSICOP, a non-profit and this profit making publisher. Is it an arm of CSICOP? If so, do CSICOP members know that they are supporting the dissemination of this material?

Why do you have such a problem with free speech and a free press, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Thus for anyone who is interested in seeing what Prometheus and CSICOP is up to in addition to defending our skepticism and right to question the paranormal, I provide the following URL:
www.prometheusbooks.com/site/cat.html

Now some instructions. You have to go into subject categories.
You will find the material I described distributed in several:

Human Sexuality

and

Sexual Autobiography

You can click on the titles and get a thumb-nail description of what they are about.

I did, Steve. Where is that support for pedophilia?? Can anyone find it??

[Pyrrho]

Hmm. "Childhood Phases of Maturity" and "Children's Sexual Encounters with Adults" are the only two titles that might fit Steve's allegations. I suppose John Money's books might have something in them that qualifies.

Before you proceed with your allegations of pedophilia, Steve, I suggest you compile some genuine evidence. But, that's your problem, not ours.

[SteveGrenard]

I have ordered all of these titles which will be sent to FOX news with background on the company and its relationshoip as known with CSICOP. It will be their call. I know someone who has reviewed them so I trust their review and stand firm in my assertions. You seemed also to neglect the material covered in the autobiography section such as fun with bestiality, etc and so forth. You also neglected to present a case why someone like Prometheus would find it necessary to produce a monumental 7 volume directory of porno flics reviews. I understand. It could take you some time to review the abstracts on everything there and more time to review the material itself if that is something you would even want to bother doing. The descriptive material
is the primary evidence Claus asked for. Sure it has to be backed up with specifics which would require obtaining and reading the material featured.

I understand your desire to defend the goals and actions of Prometheus and CSICOP. Understand my right to question them on this aspect of their publishing program. Claus did not feel these publications tarnished their image while I did. He defends their right to publish them. I defend their right to be published but I question whether Prometheus and CSICOP should do so
as there seems to be widespread acceptance of their programs by skeptics who are not aware of these titles. So long as a CSICOP supporter or member knows about these and continues to support them with this knowledge, that is also their right. Too few people have taken the time or effort to look into this. Even I did not do so until directed about this by someone else.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have ordered all of these titles which will be sent to FOX news with background on the company and its relationshoip as known with CSICOP. It will be their call. I know someone who has reviewed them so I trust their review and stand firm in my assertions.

Let me get this straight, Steve: You complain about the content of books which you haven't bothered to read?? :D

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You seemed also to neglect the material covered in the autobiography section such as fun with bestiality, etc and so forth.

Where is that?? I have not been able to locate just one reference to "fun with bestiality".

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
You also neglected to present a case why someone like Prometheus would find it necessary to produce a monumental 7 volume directory of porno flics reviews. I understand. It could take you some time to review the abstracts on everything there and more time to review the material itself if that is something you would even want to bother doing. The descriptive material is the primary evidence Claus asked for. Sure it has to be backed up with specifics which would require obtaining and reading the material featured.

Ahhh...Steve, you dirty old man! You were just looking for an excuse to order dirty stuff from the Internet! :D

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I understand your desire to defend the goals and actions of Prometheus and CSICOP. Understand my right to question them on this aspect of their publishing program. Claus did not feel these publications tarnished their image while I did. He defends their right to publish them. I defend their right to be published but I question whether Prometheus and CSICOP shoud do so when there seems to be widespread acceptance of their programs by skeptics who are not aware of these titles. So long as a CSICOP supporter or member knows about these and continues to support them with this knowledge, that is also their right. Too few people have taken the time or effort to look into this. Even I did not do so until directed about this by someone else.

Steve, why are you such a busybody? You don't give a hoot about CSICOP, you are not a skeptic, you couldn't care less. The only reason I see you doing this is malicious intent. Just like that anonymous smear campaign against JREF and Randi, you have rallied against Prometheus before. I've digged a little in the TVTalkshows-files, and here are a few of your accusations:


TVTalkshows
Thread: "THE RULES"

(sgrenard) 24.168.117.31 09-22-2002 11:34 AM
Ah Mel, would you like me to tell me why many people really fight these agents of Randi, Shermer, Kurtz, Jaroff, etc?

The trinity here are cry babies because they learn at their masters feet what to say and then when its handed back to them, they are the first to claim ad hominem. There is no double standard. They get what they give.

But the real reason has to do with the above people, the media skeptics and
organized skepticdoms support of sex with young children, kiddie porn, the confusion of free speech with these things and their manicial defense of the false memory syndrome. They are threatened by survival, they are threatened by even the thought that telepathy exists because they know these agents can be used against them and would shut down their worldviews and lifestyles. This country has lost all patience with child kidnapper/abusers as we have witnessed in recent months. I applaud this as long overdue. The trinity here may not be guilty of these things but are instead being manipulated and sent out by the Shermers, Randis and Jaroffs to do their dirty work for them. They are also, without releaizing it, defending the priests who are just people
who have flocked to the priesthood for protection, succor and opportunity to
practice their perversions.

You may sit there and think ah, Grenard has gone off his rocker and doesn't know what he's talking about. But before you do that, do some deep web searches on this. If I am being overly paranoid about this, so are a lot of other people.

(sgrenard) 24.168.117.31 09-22-2002 01:08 PM
The connections between the obvious sexual biases of people like Randi, Shermer, Jaroff et al, their pathological fervor in supporting False Memory Syndrome and the Prometheus Catalogue. In fact their editor for the section that has books on having sex with children is a card carrying member of a
Dutch kiddie porn organization. My lawsuit is no longer my lawsuit, there are so many people involved but this issue will be dealt with in the criminal courts.
....
Take a look at their poublishing arms long list of titles under the prometheus banner? Not only titles on debunking psi but titles that support sex with young children and kiddie porn. Why havent you answered my statement that the editor of the offensive titles at promtheus is a well known figure in the kiddie porn movement? This is what smacks of cultism. You are part and parcel of that and doing their dirty work. I am glad I am getting old and will leave here soon. I truly fear the world that awaits our children if this is allowed to persist. You can call me crazy but that's how I feel after I have looked at all of the above.

Oh, and I am still looking forward to learning the name of that self-admitted pedophile editor/professor, formerly of SUNY Buffalo, now in California, as well as seeing Prometheus' support for pedophilia.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
I have ordered all of these titles which will be sent to FOX news with background on the company and its relationshoip as known with CSICOP. It will be their call. I know someone who has reviewed them so I trust their review and stand firm in my assertions. You seemed also to neglect the material covered in the autobiography section such as fun with bestiality, etc and so forth. You also neglected to present a case why someone like Prometheus would find it necessary to produce a monumental 7 volume directory of porno flics reviews. I understand. It could take you some time to review the abstracts on everything there and more time to review the material itself if that is something you would even want to bother doing. The descriptive material
is the primary evidence Claus asked for. Sure it has to be backed up with specifics which would require obtaining and reading the material featured.

I understand your desire to defend the goals and actions of Prometheus and CSICOP. Understand my right to question them on this aspect of their publishing program. Claus did not feel these publications tarnished their image while I did. He defends their right to publish them. I defend their right to be published but I question whether Prometheus and CSICOP should do so
as there seems to be widespread acceptance of their programs by skeptics who are not aware of these titles. So long as a CSICOP supporter or member knows about these and continues to support them with this knowledge, that is also their right. Too few people have taken the time or effort to look into this. Even I did not do so until directed about this by someone else.

Whoa, pardner. Don't put words in my mouth. You're the one playing the "pedophilia" card. The burden of evidence is on you, pal.

As for this:

Grenard: You seemed also to neglect the material covered in the autobiography section such as fun with bestiality, etc and so forth. You also neglected to present a case why someone like Prometheus would find it necessary to produce a monumental 7 volume directory of porno flics reviews.

It's a free country, such as it is. Prometheus is free to publish anything that is legal to publish. This is free speech, and I, as a skeptic, willingly defend free speech. I don't have to like what someone publishes, but I don't have to feel ashamed because they're skeptics too. Their titles have valid scholarly uses, regardless of your abhorrence for the subject matter.

Good luck on your quest.

[SteveGrenard]

P: Whoa, pardner. Don't put words in my mouth. You're the one playing the "pedophilia" card. The burden of evidence is on you, pal.

Reply: Whoa yourself. Larsen brought up this first. He brought up my earlier debate with him this on the subject, forcing me to ressurect it. Please give credit where credit is due. I am assuring that it was Claus F. Larsen, not I, who brought this up. I want him to have full credit for this. I am merely responding.

It is more than pedophilia. It is bestiality, porn, and some things I read about those Prometheus books I frankly dont even have a clue about so won't comment. Everyone knows now where they can find this. I am not playing the card. Claus ressurected it from his deck and put it into play..................



P: It's a free country, such as it is. Prometheus is free to publish anything that is legal to publish. This is free speech, and I, as a skeptic, willingly defend free speech. I don't have to like what someone publishes, but I don't have to feel ashamed because they're skeptics too. Their titles have valid scholarly uses, regardless of your abhorrence for the subject matter.

Reply: And either do the Bill Reilly's and other commentators of our time have to like it either. It will be their choice. O'Reilly has already gone after the Boy-Man movement and I am sure he will be happy to do so again in the context of these publications from a o/w well respected academic publisher and SUNY Buffalo emeritus prof and CSICOP.


P: Good luck on your quest.

Reply: Not my quest. I really had little interest and forgot all about it until Larsen brought it up again. As above, he deserves full credit for bringing this to the surface once again. This is solely the consequence of his technique of using prior disputes, ad hominems and demands for evidence he cannot define as a means of debate. He did it with the Ed slander and lawsuit and the Corey death threat and now this. He actually believes people will forget what engendered these actions.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Whoa yourself. Larsen brought up this first. He brought up my earlier debate with him this on the subject, forcing me to ressurect it. Please give credit where credit is due. I am assuring that it was Claus F. Larsen, not I, who brought this up. I want him to have full credit for this. I am merely responding.

Liar. You claimed one of the reasons I moved back to Denmark was because of (supposedly) laxer laws on pedophilia. You claimed this connection between Prometheus and pedophilia.

Still, not a shred of evidence.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It is more than pedophilia. It is bestiality, porn, and some things I read about those Prometheus books I frankly dont even have a clue about so won't comment. Everyone knows now where they can find this. I am not playing the card. Claus ressurected it from his deck and put it into play..................

Your deck, Steve.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: And either do the Bill Reilly's and other commentators of our time have to like it either. It will be their choice. O'Reilly has already gone after the Boy-Man movement and I am sure he will be happy to do so again in the context of these publications from a o/w well respected academic publisher and SUNY Buffalo emeritus prof and CSICOP.

His credentials grows, it seems. Who is this person, Steve? Why won't you mention him?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Reply: Not my quest. I really had little interest and forgot all about it until Larsen brought it up again. As above, he deserves full credit for bringing this to the surface once again. This is solely the consequence of his technique of using prior disputes, ad hominems and demands for evidence he cannot define as a means of debate. He did it with the Ed slander and lawsuit and the Corey death threat and now this. He actually believes people will forget what engendered these actions.

"Little interest"?? The quotes from TVTalkshows show otherwise, Steve. I am only doing it so people will not forget "these actions" of yours.

[KelvinG]

Heh heh, Steve you are doing a wonderful job of backtracking while still providing no evidence for your claims.
Thanks for coming out.

[Ceinwyn]

I'm a little unclear on this whole Prometheus thing. I've read their "about us" page and they say nothing about being affiliated with CSICOP. They do publish a large variety of books in many different categories, some having to do with human sexuality. So ok, there are other publishing companies that do the same thing.

As far as this pedophilia thing goes, I'm rather confused since from what I can gather, neither Randi or Shermer wrote any books to do with that subject. So I guess I fail to see what the problem is here.

[kookbreaker]

Every noe and then I get soft and start to think Claus and other are being to harsh on Steve. Then he pulls a scumbag stunt like this and I remember why he is such a scumbag.

Shoot from the hip much, Steve? You tend to hit your own foot when you do that.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by buki
I'm a little unclear on this whole Prometheus thing. I've read their "about us" page and they say nothing about being affiliated with CSICOP. They do publish a large variety of books in many different categories, some having to do with human sexuality. So ok, there are other publishing companies that do the same thing.

As far as this pedophilia thing goes, I'm rather confused since from what I can gather, neither Randi or Shermer wrote any books to do with that subject. So I guess I fail to see what the problem is here.

Purely an attempt at guilt by association. Scumbaggery at its best.

I would like to take a moment to remind people that those who do a moral crusade against a thing often end up seeking it out. Preachers and Pornography dontcha know.

[NoZed Avenger]

The thread has reached page 10.

Does anyone recall the last actual substantive mention of remote viewing?

Congratulations. The discussion is now over an old grudge and the publishing practices of a company that has also puiblished books from CSICOP.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
The thread has reached page 10.

Does anyone recall the last actual substantive mention of remote viewing? Out of curiousity, I think I'll look.

Ladybrook.

2nd post in the thread.

Proven within an hour and a half.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Ladybrook.

2nd post in the thread.

Proven within an hour and a half.
Ladybrook.

No details given, just a single word.

Post-event, claim is made by Lucianarchy that Lucianarchy experienced precognition or remote viewing.

Nothing proven at all.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Ladybrook.

2nd post in the thread.

Proven within an hour and a half.

How can you prove something without a claim??

[renata]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
The thread has reached page 10.

Does anyone recall the last actual substantive mention of remote viewing?

Congratulations. The discussion is now over an old grudge and the publishing practices of a company that has also puiblished books from CSICOP.

Yup.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Ladybrook.

Nothing proven at all.

On the contrary. It has been proven that the perception of 'ladybrook' was recorded in the 2nd post of this thread, a thread about my rv skills. It was proven that just over an hour and a half later that perception turned into the location for a terrorist attack, the location being a residential area where children were playing in the streets whilst the hijacked bus, packed with explosives, was driven through that neighbourhood and aimed at a police station.

The data speaks for itself.

[thaiboxerken]

On the contrary. It has been proven that the perception of 'ladybrook' was recorded in the 2nd post of this thread, a thread about my rv skills. It was proven that just over an hour and a half later that perception turned into the location for a terrorist attack, the location being a residential area where children were playing in the streets whilst the hijacked bus, packed with explosives, was driven through that neighbourhood and aimed at a police station.

The data speaks for itself.

The timing of the post is still very questionable simply because of the nature of the forum clock. However, the word itself is not a prediction or "RV", it's just a word tossed out that is irrelevant to events that happened. You simply wrote down a word, and now want to claim a prediction after something happened. You can't make your words fit into events afterwards and expect people to be impressed.

I wonder, is anyone impressed with Luci's ladybrook prediction besides Luci himself?

Does anyone else see the ladybrook claim as being valid evidence of RV?

I think you are proud of a "fact" that you alone know, Luci. Go find a shrink and tell him about your RV powers and this ladybrook thing.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Congratulations. The discussion is now over an old grudge and the publishing practices of a company that has also puiblished books from CSICOP.

I think SG's censorship motive shine right out, especially with this attempt to get CSICOP and other skeptic groups censored. It's rather pathetic, actually.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
On the contrary. It has been proven that the perception of 'ladybrook' was recorded in the 2nd post of this thread, a thread about my rv skills. It was proven that just over an hour and a half later that perception turned into the location for a terrorist attack, the location being a residential area where children were playing in the streets whilst the hijacked bus, packed with explosives, was driven through that neighbourhood and aimed at a police station.

The data speaks for itself.
Yes, it does. Nowhere in your post are any details such as you have listed above, except for the single word, "ladybrook".

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The data speaks for itself.
And the cheese stands alone.
Wait a sec, what would be correct in English?
I like, "The data speak..."
Because of the plural agreeing rule that Miss O'Brien taught me in grade school. We called it grade school because the information was slanted.

[Ceinwyn]

Ok Luci. How about we replicate what happens with this RV power that you have?

Simply name a place and time and tell what specifically is going to happen. This is what's called a "prediction", and is what RVers all over claim to be able to do, you included.

If you can do that, then I will consider taking you seriously.

[AlienX]

I agree with you Buki, we can argue and name call all day and we will not get anywhere. We need some more structured testing but Luci will/can not do it I assume the reason will be is "it doesn't work that way" (I'm not taking the piss here I really think this will be the reason and if true then it's valid but then what use is the ability).

So we have Luci who's ability is not of the style that is open to testing so it's pointless them really participating at all. Unless of course he/she has a more test friendly ability.

I don't understand why people who claim these so called abilities get so worked up and upset when people try and debunk their claims, it's just the general scientific approach to "normal" science why get upset when it's applied elsewhere?

All i can suggest is that next time you make it clear that what you have written down was the result of a feeling or compulsion etc.
With an open mind i'm sure you would admit that it is possible that we all have random thoughts about places / people things etc and this could have simply happened to you and your applying some significance to a random thought.. it's certainly possible thats all it is - it could have been phychic in origin but the support evidence is very weak.

If you feel the impulse to name call me etc - then don't waste any bandwidth and post. You can but i'm not sure if I will care - you can give it a shot but it will not divert me away from the fact that we need some better testing done.

Thus the only way to really move forward is to do some more testing. None of it totally scientific but hey it will be interesting and will certainly supply some room for some serious name calling etc.. could be a laugh.

AlienX

[Dogwood]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard


Reply: I did not design the experiment. I recruited the controls. It was not my experiment. It was totally blinded. The blinding was broken by rain and dogwood by their publicly discussing it on this forum before the expeirment was finished. I took the responsibility for not fully explaining to these two out of 15 controls what blinding is and why they shoudn't discuss it publicly before the trial was complete. My bad. I already said so. The other 13 housewifes and businessmen somehow knew about blinding and did not discuss it publicly or violate the protocol. But clearly for those two it was my fault and I accept that repsonsibility.



Steve,

I have absolutely no desire to return to this old argument, but I must insist you report the facts correctly. Neither Rain nor I publically discussed the experiment before the experiment was over on this forum or any other. My review and Rain's comments were made after the week was over, not before.

[SteveGrenard]

Mark: I have absolutely no desire to return to this old argument, but I must insist you report the facts correctly. Neither Rain nor I publically discussed the experiment before the experiment was over on this forum or any other. My review and Rain's comments were made after the week was over, not before.

And I must insist on reporting that the study, feedback forms from conrols and follow-ups went beyond the week. This was my bad. There was no pre-set determination for the completion within precisely 1 week, 7 days or 168 hours for all participants. In your case and Rain's, this was evidently the perception and it was my fault for not cautioning you about this. As you will recall I was not posting here at the time and was advised by others who read the threads here that you and Rain were discussing the results of the project (not in general terms) but in questionnaire answers and specifically problems such as those caused by gender differences. I was advised in one case by another control who was not done so this invalidated her and everyone who came before. Fortunately we had additional backup controls.

This would have been fine if everything was done. The entire project went on for several more trials which were also my fault for not warning you about but customarily blinded conrols (and I was blinded to details as well) are not told this. Again my fault.
I should have issued a blanket No Discussion rule until the investigator(s) told me it was okay.

As you know it was not I who brought this up yet again. I am not that senile yet where I need to obsess on everything in the past.

[Dogwood]

Steve,

I acknowledge that you didn't bring this up and I respect the fact that you are accepting responsibility, however the scenario you describe is still not correct. The instructions we received from Schwartz specifically said not to discuss the experiment "until the week was over". Furthermore, I e-mailed you before I posted my review. You were originally reluctant but eventually encouraged me to release it saying it might generate useful feedback. If you'll review your old e-mails, I think you'll see this to be the case.

I hope this puts this issue to a close. I am looking forward to some positive discussions on the other thread.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Lucianarchy, I have a book on top of my pc tower in a well lit room. I shall leave it there for 7 days, please advise of the author's name and the title.

I can't wait to hear from you.

Regards,

AC

No reply so far. Come along Lucianarchy get those superpowers in gear. Provide the title and the name of the author and I shall be convinced.

I still can't wait to hear from you.

Regards,

AC

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


No reply so far. Come along Lucianarchy get those superpowers in gear. Provide the title and the name of the author and I shall be convinced.

I still can't wait to hear from you.

Regards,

AC
:rolleyes:
As I do not claim to be able to do what you want, nor does anyone else, AFAIK, then you will have to wait until you hear from yourself. That time being, presumably, when your comprehension or maturity reaches a rational, oprational level.

[thaiboxerken]

:rolleyes:
As I do not claim to be able to do what you want, nor does anyone else, AFAIK, then you will have to wait until you hear from yourself. That time being, presumably, when your comprehension or maturity reaches a rational, oprational level.

LOL. So, now you can't see into people's houses. Ok, then what about the lottery number claim?

:roll:

[AlienX]

I'm not sure how you can say that asthmatic camel is being immature?
Sorry I just don't get it at all - he's asked a perfectly reasonable question - the only flaw I can see is that he doesn't understand what your actually claimed "powers" are. How this means he is immature is simply beyond me?.

Just because someone does not agree with you and asks questions your unable to answer does not make them a bad person.

The result is you have not shown any ability so far which could be considered of phychic in origin.

You refuse to be tested as apparently being tested is immature and childish .. huh wtf is all that about?

Really if your going to claim phychic abilities then you should come forward with some damn good data to back up your claims. The history of fraud and cheating in this department warrents extra special care when designing experiments compared to other areas.

In reality phychic ability may be a real phenomena but so far all you have demonstrated is that you have none whatsoever. That's not to say you don't have but your unable to provide any good data so it's just as good as.

Do you have any "powers" which we could test on these boards?
or are you a "proffessional" phychic who charges for their services and thus won't do a freebie?

I'm certain if I do get a reply it will involve some other personal attack on this post, question my maturity /age/ mental state etc etc. I insist you don't bother unless it's some really good specific predicton (or it's a really clever nasty attack - that gives me a laugh).

AlienX

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

:rolleyes:
As I do not claim to be able to do what you want, nor does anyone else, AFAIK, then you will have to wait until you hear from yourself. That time being, presumably, when your comprehension or maturity reaches a rational, oprational level.

Errr, seeing as the remote viewers claim to be able to describe distant astronomical bodies, I thought that my book would be a fairly easy target.

As for comprehension and maturity, well, the word Ladybrook included in an internet post indicates precognitive abilities ?

Hmmmmm.

I'm still "sending" the front cover of my book, no doubt some psychic somewhere has the ability to contact my deceased relatives and friends in an attempt to describe it accurately.

Yours immaturely,

AC

[dingler44]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Ladybrook.

2nd post in the thread.

Proven within an hour and a half.

Please grace us with your next "post-prediction." I know everyone here is sweating with anticipation.

If you decide to do this, please start a new thread... this one here is a little bit messy!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel




As for comprehension and maturity, well, the word Ladybrook included in an internet post indicates precognitive abilities ?


AC

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.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


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.

Iraq

Regards,

AC

[asthmatic camel]

Or how about Bleak House Farm ? Or Moss Side ? Or Toxteth ?
Not too hard to make a prediction that something will happen soon is it ? :wink:

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

. I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened.

No, you're not skeptical. And you are closed off to the world of reality. Instead, you live in your own little world where you have superpowers.

Mundane explanations for your "feat" have been presented. You have convinced ZERO people with your lastest stunt.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Or how about Bleak House Farm ? Or Moss Side ? Or Toxteth ?
Not too hard to make a prediction that something will happen soon is it ? :wink:

:rolleyes:
But it was Ladybrook, hardly known in comparison to those places, and it was within an hour and a half of the perception being recorded here.

[Ersby]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:rolleyes:
But it was Ladybrook, hardly known in comparison to those places, and it was within an hour and a half of the perception being recorded here.

Surely the unusualness is a cultural thing. Ladybrook may be unknown to most, but to people in Belfast, the name could be more known. As an example, when Renata suggested "Van Nuys", that name, to me, sounds much more unlikely than "Ladybrook".

And as for the time of posting, you've put it anywhere between 2.33 and 3.33. It's clear you either do not know, or will not say.

Just editing, since I don't want to bump this thread up: if you look here...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24442

You'll see the poster tim makes a "prediction a la Lucian" re. a TV show concerning Stephen Turoff.

[Ossai]

Lucianarchy
I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened. Your entire claims of paranormal insight hinges on ignorance.

[alfaniner]

Originally posted by Ossai
Lucianarchy
Your entire claims of paranormal insight hinges on ignorance.

No, es entire claim of paranormal insight relies on ignorance.

[juninho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The data speaks for itself.

LOL! Would that be the same kind of data speaking for itself as the data you stated speaking for itself wrt your credentials when working for the home office. You don't half talk a load of cack.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:rolleyes:
But it was Ladybrook, hardly known in comparison to those places, and it was within an hour and a half of the perception being recorded here.

I've heard of Ladybrook and suspect that many others in Britain have too. I don't know what sources of information are available to you but I do know that when I was involved in foreign exchange dealing I had access to the latest reports from around the world hours before the general public.

Considering the posts questioning the reliability of the JREF clock and your lack of specific information regarding the Ladybrook incident, it is hardly surprising that people are less than overwhelmed by your predictive abilities.

My book is still available for remote viewing.

Regards,

AC.

[juninho]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


I've heard of Ladybrook and suspect that many others in Britain have too. I don't know what sources of information are available to you but I do know that when I was involved in foreign exchange dealing I had access to the latest reports from around the world hours before the general public.

Considering the posts questioning the reliability of the JREF clock and your lack of specific information regarding the Ladybrook incident, it is hardly surprising that people are less than overwhelmed by your predictive abilities.

My book is still available for remote viewing.

Regards,

AC.

I don't really want to breath life into this knackered vulture, but I notice from Lucainarchy's description of her/himself that she is a Journalist. Perhaps, therefore, she may be a bit privvy to information/situations that the general public are unaware of. If you believe she didn't cheat, of course.

[Lucianarchy]

'ladybrook' was a genuine 'psychic' impression. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. You can believe it or not, it makes no difference to me becasue it genuinely happened anyway. For me, it confirmed the the 'true unbeliever' psychological denial mind set of pseudo skeptics, because it was not a third party they were trying to debunk this time, 'it' - the Ladybrook terrorist attack - happened. Within an an hour or so of its time-stamped recording here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
'ladybrook' was a genuine 'psychic' impression. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. You can believe it or not, it makes no difference to me becasue it genuinely happened anyway. For me, it confirmed the the 'true unbeliever' psychological denial mind set of pseudo skeptics, because it was not a third party they were trying to debunk this time, it was me, and it happened.

No, it was not a "genuine psychic impression", you dimwit. It was something you picked off some source, and posted it - the word only, with no predictions whatsoever - at the end of a post, in a thread, opened to question your psychic abilities.

Don't even begin to think you are fooling anyone else but yourself. You did not get anything psychically.

If you ever get one of these "psychic impressions", please state beforehand that it is what you think it is, instead of sneaking it into a completely unrelated post of yours.

Sheesh...I can't believe you think you are going to pull this off...you are way out of your league....

[Starrman]

'ladybrook' was a genuine 'psychic' impression. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. You can believe it or not, it makes no difference to me becasue it genuinely happened anyway.

So you had a 'genuine psychic impression' and the best thing you could think of to do with it was to type one word onto the end of an unrelated post? Not even bothering to point out why you had done so? Why didn't you tell us it was a genuine psychic impression when you typed the word? Why did you wait until after something happened at Ladybrook?

it was not a third party they were trying to debunk this time, it was me, and it happened.

Well, at least you admit that we debunked you!:)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


No, it was not a "genuine psychic impression", you dimwit. It was something you picked off some source, and posted it - the word only, with no predictions whatsoever - at the end of a post, in a thread, opened to question your psychic abilities.



:rolleyes: If I had "picked off some source" which, don't forget, would have had to been psychic too, as I gave the impression over an hour *before* the event actualy *happened*, then why would just use "ladybrook" and not "ladybrook bus bomb" :rolleyes: This is how most impressions come, and it illustrates how rv works. *impressions* not *********** book titles and numbers.:rolleyes:

[Jeff Corey]

I love impressions.

Can you give us an impression of what a rational person would say about your claim?

[Rosencrantz]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
:rolleyes: If I had "picked off some source" which, don't forget, would have had to been psychic too, as I gave the impression over an hour *before* the event actualy *happened*, then why would just use "ladybrook" and not "ladybrook bus bomb" :rolleyes: This is how most impressions come, and it illustrates how rv works. *impressions* not f*cking book titles and numbers.:rolleyes: If you don't want to be accused of rigging the results, then you have to be less shady about how you present them. Your example illustrates how coincidences work, too. I would be much more likely to be convinced if you could tell us your "impressions" before the events that they supposedly describe occur. If I believed in RV, I would be so angry at you for wasting such a great opportunity to provide evidence of the phenomenon. If you knew something an hour before it happened, you should have told people about it immediately, and got your prediction on record. As it is, it just looks like a poorly-executed parlor trick. :(

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Rosencrantz
If you don't want to be accused of rigging the results, then you have to be less shady about how you present them. Your example illustrates how coincidences work, too. I would be much more likely to be convinced if you could tell us your "impressions" before the events that they supposedly describe occur. If I believed in RV, I would be so angry at you for wasting such a great opportunity to provide evidence of the phenomenon. If you knew something an hour before it happened, you should have told people about it immediately, and got your prediction on record. As it is, it just looks like a poorly-executed parlor trick. :(

I don't really care what you believe. It happened never the less. Impressions. I have explained how these impressions come through. The 'psi' effect is evidently elusive and tantalising in nature. This was good evidence of such. The psi effect exists. The evidence is overwhelming. Science must begin to study the mechanism and the possible relationships between space, time and mind and it is now the job of skepticism to become skeptical of the 'true unbeliever', as the evidence, in total, is beyond all reasonable doubt. If anyone is claiming every single last one of the recorded effect evideve is either self delusion, fraud or error, then they must provide rational candidates, not simply dismiss through prejudice.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't really care what you believe.

I think you do, otherwise you wouldn't be defending your position.

It happened never the less. Impressions.

That's what you say, I think most people didn't take it the same way. Most people just see a stray word in a post.

I have explained how these impressions come through.

Yes, after something cool happened. Next time, let us know that your word is an impression. Telling us this stray word was an impression AFTER the fact is shady.


The 'psi' effect is evidently elusive and tantalising in nature.

So elusive that it looks like coincidence. :roll:

This was good evidence of such.

Only to yourself. To everyone else, it looks like just a coincidence at best. Trickery at worst.

The psi effect exists. The evidence is overwhelming.

I doubt it.

Science must begin to study the mechanism and the possible relationships between space, time and mind and it is now the job of skepticism to become skeptical of the 'true unbeliever', as the evidence, in total, is beyond all reasonable doubt.

Then why is it that most reasonable people doubt this?

If anyone is claiming every single last one of the recorded effect evideve is either self delusion, fraud or error, then they must provide rational candidates, not simply dismiss through prejudice.

No, the evidence must stand on it's own. That's the problem, Lucky, yours doesn't and none has so far. If the evidence can't withstand scrutiny, then it is not valid evidence. Your "ladybrook" claim hasn't, and neither has any of the paranormalists claims.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


:rolleyes: If I had "picked off some source" which, don't forget, would have had to been psychic too, as I gave the impression over an hour *before* the event actualy *happened*, then why would just use "ladybrook" and not "ladybrook bus bomb" :rolleyes: This is how most impressions come, and it illustrates how rv works. *impressions* not *********** book titles and numbers.:rolleyes:

Not much "f*cking" use then is it ?

Regards,

AC.

[juninho]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


Not much "f*cking" use then is it ?

Regards,

AC.

Nah, forget about the journalist claim as well. You only need to read a few of her/his posts to understand that her grasp of English is so appaling that only a yoghurt would employ her in that capacity. "Never the less" ... jeez.

[Rosencrantz]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I don't really care what you believe. It happened never the less.You just keep repeating yourself, but it doesn't give you any more credibility. You don't care what I believe; I don't care what you say happened.

And you have an annoyingly long sig file.

[juninho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The 'psi' effect is evidently elusive and tantalising in nature. This was good evidence of such. The psi effect exists. The evidence is overwhelming.



Let me guess, does the data speak for itself?

How on earth can you seriously state that the 'psi' effect is 'evidently elusive and tantalising in nature'? Its certainly not evident to me in anyway. Please explain in what way is it evident and in what way does it manifest itself in an elusive and tantalising way. Don't you dare mention 'ladybrook' in your response.

I wonder how you manage to tie your own shoelaces in the morning or are you not allowed them in your padded cell?


Science must begin to study the mechanism and the possible relationships between space, time and mind and it is now the job of skepticism to become skeptical of the 'true unbeliever', as the evidence, in total, is beyond all reasonable doubt. If anyone is claiming every single last one of the recorded effect evideve is either self delusion, fraud or error, then they must provide rational candidates, not simply dismiss through prejudice.

And how, would you suggest, can science possibly study the mechanisms/relationships between space, time and the mind? You might as well ask 'science' to study the relationship between parrots and light-sabres.

OK I provide YOU as a 'rational candidate' for evidence of self-delusion and fraud. Error - Interesting Ian.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by juninho


Let me guess, does the data speak for itself?

How on earth can you seriously state that the 'psi' effect is 'evidently elusive and tantalising in nature'? Its certainly not evident to me in anyway. Please explain in what way is it evident and in what way does it manifest itself in an elusive and tantalising way. Don't you dare mention 'ladybrook' in your response.

[/B]

Ladybrook is one example, yes. If it is not evident to you, then that is a problem for you to solve, because its existence has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence, in total, if presented to a Court of law, would demonstrate bard that not every single case was false.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
If it is not evident to you, then that is a problem for you to solve, because its existence has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

To whom?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


Not much "f*cking" use then is it ?

Regards,

AC.

Irrelevant. The implications for its global, sociological and cultural acceptance is bigger than anything so far in our history / evolution.

It appears to be evident that the effects do not work solely on the dependance of what we currently understand as material living consciousness. Perhaps the grown ups left the key in a place which only grown ups could reach.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Irrelevant. The implications for its global, sociological and cultural acceptance is bigger than anything so far in our history / evolution.

It appears to be evident that the effects do not work solely on the dependance of what we currently understand as material living consciousness. Perhaps the grown ups left the key in a place which only grown ups could reach.

Saved for posterity.

Lucianarchy, you think that it is irrelevant that your abilities is of any use, even though "the implications for its global, sociological and cultural acceptance is bigger than anything so far in our history / evolution"?

Is there a illogical prize I can nominate this for??

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Irrelevant. The implications for its global, sociological and cultural acceptance is bigger than anything so far in our history / evolution.

It appears to be evident that the effects do not work solely on the dependance of what we currently understand as material living consciousness. Perhaps the grown ups left the key in a place which only grown ups could reach.

Errr, bigger than the acceptance of agriculture, the ability to produce fire, the ability to produce metals etc. etc. ?

I think not.

Regards,

AC.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


Errr, bigger than the acceptance of agriculture, the ability to produce fire, the ability to produce metals etc. etc. ?



Of course, without a doubt. The ability to transcend space and time, at will, would be a bigger step than any of the above.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Saved for posterity.

Lucianarchy, you think that it is irrelevant that your abilities is of any use, even though "the implications for its global, sociological and cultural acceptance is bigger than anything so far in our history / evolution"?

Is there a illogical prize I can nominate this for??

I am sure you can find something suitable which will meet your immature needs. You could even invent one.

At least that would enable you to evade the fact that I demonstrated the psi effect right here, 2nd post in this thread, a thread taunting me to do so.

Eat crow.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
At least that would enable you to evade the fact that I demonstrated the psi effect right here, 2nd post in this thread, a thread taunting me to do so.

You did no such thing.

Carl Sagan:

The reliance on carefully designed and controlled experiments is key, as I tried to stress earlier. We will not learn much from mere contemplation. It is tempting to rest content with the first candidate explanation we can think of. One is much better than none. But what happens if we can invent several? How do we decide among them? We don't. We let experiment do it.

Ready when you are. You are a skeptic after all, right?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
At least that would enable you to evade the fact that I demonstrated the psi effect right here, 2nd post in this thread, a thread taunting me to do so.


Here is the entire content of Luci's second post in this thread which she says demonstrates the psi effect:


The psi effect works only through co-operation, that is why Randi has the "Out" in his challenge, a challenge is not co-operation. ladybrook

Well, I'm convinced!!!

Luci, it may not be possible but say something else just as ridiculous. I'm in a good mood today and could use some more amusement.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Here is the entire content of Luci's second post in this thread which she says demonstrates the psi effect:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy

The psi effect works only through co-operation, that is why Randi has the "Out" in his challenge, a challenge is not co-operation. ladybrook





That's right, and within an hour or so the Ladybrook terrorist attack happened.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
That's right, and within an hour or so the Ladybrook terrorist attack happened.
No, it did not. You predicted nothing.

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
Ready when you are. You are a skeptic after all, right?

Lokianarchy rides again!

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No, it did not.



Yes, it did.

It burns you that such psirony was proven in front of your face.

I've explained how these things happen and the nature of effect, now you have the proof.

This is what you came here for.

Wake up.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Of course, without a doubt. The ability to transcend space and time, at will, would be a bigger step than any of the above.

Indeed it would. Isn't it a pity that no-one has yet shown the ability to do so ? (Other than Doctor Who, obviously).

Regards,

AC.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Yes, it did.

It burns you that such psirony was proven in front of your face.

I've explained how these things happen and the nature of effect, now you have the proof.

This is what you came here for.

Wake up.

No, it did not. Your "explanation" was only about throwing out a word. What about the words that pop into your head, and then nothing happens? Is that evidence that "psirony" does not exist?

Why didn't "New York", "power out", etc pop into your head, Lucianarchy?

[juninho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Of course, without a doubt. The ability to transcend space and time, at will, would be a bigger step than any of the above.

That'll feed the kids then.

[Lothian]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Of course, without a doubt. The ability to transcend space and time, at will, would be a bigger step than any of the above. How will it work? I presume in the same way as you seamlessly move between reality and fantasy?

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The psi effect works only through co-operation, that is why Randi has the "Out" in his challenge, a challenge is not co-operation. ladybrook

I'd like to know more about this "Prediction".
I see that you posted this on 7/19/03 at 10:33 AM EST
You claim that your location is London. I think that makes it 3:33 PM your local time (???) Someone let me know if I'm wrong about this.

What is the ladybrook incident, and when exactly did it occur?

[TLN]

Originally posted by BNiles
I'd like to know more about this "Prediction".
I see that you posted this on 7/19/03 at 10:33 AM EST
You claim that your location is London. I think that makes it 3:33 PM your local time (???) Someone let me know if I'm wrong about this.

What is the ladybrook incident, and when exactly did it occur?

This is all above.

[BNiles]

I see that it was a terrorist attack, and it happened an hour, a cuople of hours, a few hours after Luci's post. I was just looking for a little more detail.

[TLN]

Originally posted by BNiles
I see that it was a terrorist attack, and it happened an hour, a cuople of hours, a few hours after Luci's post. I was just looking for a little more detail.

Yeah, we all are.

Lokianarchy wants to accept that a single word constitutes a perdiction. That's pretty much it.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


The psi effect works only through co-operation, that is why Randi has the "Out" in his challenge, a challenge is not co-operation. ladybrook

In what way were the "terrorist" co-operating with you? Especially when your thoughts at the time were on TBK and Randi. Also, you claimed that even though you mispelled Ladybrooke, the article from Belfast had spelled it the same as you....(or you the same as them?)

A quick review of your posts shows that (if you believe the time stamps and location) the event took place about an hour after your 1st post; however, your 2nd post wasn't for another 9.5 hrs (8 hrs after the event) and no mention of the event or the "prediction". This might not seem like much to you, but I find it hard to believe that a person (who claims to have RV powers) would obscurely write a word and not wonder to themselves why. And then after 28 hrs and 45 min on their 7th post realise it was a stunning prediction :confused:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BNiles


In what way were the "terrorist" co-operating with you?

No one is saying they were. Please read my posts on this matter in this thread. I am sensitive and perceptive. I had no idea the attack happened until I saw it on the BBC news the next day. I just percieved 'ladybrook' 'ladybrook' 'ladybrook' with an urgency and a compulsion to record it. I don't fully understand the mechanism of the effect, all I know is that it is very real. It exists. I am a skeptic and have no mundane explanation. I am just being honest and open minded. This thing happened and TBK has been given the proof he asked for. Psirony. All he can do is go into denial, and he has. His problem, not mine.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am a skeptic and have no mundane explanation.

You are not a skeptic as you ignore the mundane explanations.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Yes, it did.

It burns you that such psirony was proven in front of your face.

I've explained how these things happen and the nature of effect, now you have the proof.

This is what you came here for.

Wake up.

You got lucky with a word drop Lucianarchy, try it again, but notify us that it's a prediction. Something like: "I sense ladybrook is important." would be fine.

I'll be surprised if you do.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


You got lucky with a word drop

Nope, this was the real deal. It happened just like I said it did.
A ladybrook 'lucky hit' to something of that magnitude ( a terrorist attack in Ladybrook within an hour or so of it being recorded here ) would require odds against chance which would be astronomical, and you know it. I understand if you want to wish it away to luck, but I'm a skeptic, not a wishful thinker. Sorry about that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Nope, this was the real deal. It happened just like I said it did.
A ladybrook 'lucky hit' to something of that magnitude ( a terrorist attack in Ladybrook within an hour or so of it being recorded here ) would require odds against chance which would be astronomical, and you know it. I understand if you want to wish it away to luck, but I'm a skeptic, not a wishful thinker. Sorry about that.

No, no, no....it did NOT happen "just like" you said it did.

You appended a word to a post of yours, in the very thread that questioned your psychic abilities, in a post that was about something else.

No explanations whatsoever. Not even that this was something so forceful that you had to write it down.

The forum clock was messed up at the time.

However, it was shown that you had posted the word after the incident happened.

It was much, much later, that you came up with the explanation that this was a premonition of things to come.

It doesn't even take a skeptic - just a clear-headed person - to realize what went on. You have a very hard time distinguishing reality and fantasy. I know that you will keep claiming that you got a psychic flash of some kind.

You did not.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


However, it was shown that you had posted the word after the incident happened.



Complete bulls**t. *All* you can do is throw ******** and wishfull thinking, it is the most desperate form of pseudo-skepticism / psychological denial / cynicism I have seen. It was certainly not shown that I had "posted the word after the incident happened", there may have been a few wackos who wanted to *believe* that, but there were people here who saw the post before the terrorist event happened and have simply not got the integrity, honesty or decency to publicly admit to it, which says more for the kind of 'skepticism' you promote than any critic could.

Sorry, Liarson, this *was* a "psychic flash", as you call it. It really was. I have told you before that as a skeptic, these effects spook me sometimes with their psironic nature, but obviously, given the dishonesty and lies you have tried to use to deny and protect your narrow, zealous mind-set, this one really scared the pants off *you*. WEll good, sometimes such a wake-up call is the best form of education. Keep up the outward denial if you want, Claus, maybe you have to given the corner you have painted yourself into, but we all know this happened. Right here. In this thread. Psirony.

[asthmatic camel]

I just yawned so widely at this thread that the top of my head fell off.:bs:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
I just yawned so widely at this thread that the top of my head fell off.:bs:

Translation: It's scared the crap out of you and made you rethink everything you have been lead to believe.

Otherwise you wouldn't have even bothered responding.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Complete bulls**t. *All* you can do is throw ******** and wishfull thinking, it is the most desperate form of pseudo-skepticism / psychological denial / cynicism I have seen. It was certainly not shown that I had "posted the word after the incident happened", there may have been a few wackos who wanted to *believe* that, but there were people here who saw the post before the terrorist event happened and have simply not got the integrity, honesty or decency to publicly admit to it, which says more for the kind of 'skepticism' you promote than any critic could.

Whoa...what, in your post, said anything about a terrorist event? What, in your post, said anything about it being a psychic flash?

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Sorry, Liarson,

It's Larsen.

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
this *was* a "psychic flash", as you call it. It really was. I have told you before that as a skeptic, these effects spook me sometimes with their psironic nature, but obviously, given the dishonesty and lies you have tried to use to deny and protect your narrow, zealous mind-set, this one really scared the pants off *you*. WEll good, sometimes such a wake-up call is the best form of education. Keep up the outward denial if you want, Claus, maybe you have to given the corner you have painted yourself into, but we all know this happened. Right here. In this thread. Psirony.

Oh, I'm REAL scared, Lucianarchy. :rolleyes: I notice that you do not try to refute what I say. Instead, you just call me "scared".

Next time, try to state what it means, or even what it is, before it happens, OK? You have not been able to convince anyone.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Complete bulls**t. *All* you can do is throw ******** and wishfull thinking, it is the most desperate form of pseudo-skepticism / psychological denial / cynicism I have seen. It was certainly not shown that I had "posted the word after the incident happened", there may have been a few wackos who wanted to *believe* that, but there were people here who saw the post before the terrorist event happened and have simply not got the integrity, honesty or decency to publicly admit to it, which says more for the kind of 'skepticism' you promote than any critic could.

Sorry, Liarson, this *was* a "psychic flash", as you call it. It really was. I have told you before that as a skeptic, these effects spook me sometimes with their psironic nature, but obviously, given the dishonesty and lies you have tried to use to deny and protect your narrow, zealous mind-set, this one really scared the pants off *you*. WEll good, sometimes such a wake-up call is the best form of education. Keep up the outward denial if you want, Claus, maybe you have to given the corner you have painted yourself into, but we all know this happened. Right here. In this thread. Psirony.
ROFL! You posted the word, "ladybrooke" with no other details, and because some incident occurred in "Ladybrooke", you've been trying to inflate that into a major psychic vision. Next time, try making a genuine psychic prediction. This lucky-hit-word-game method just ain't convincing.

Claus, myself, and others like us aren't in denial, Luci. We're laughing at your self-delusion and unshakeable egotism. This is almost as funny as your "psychic worms on Mars" routine.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Translation: It's scared the crap out of you and made you rethink everything you have been lead to believe.

Otherwise you wouldn't have even bothered responding.
Hey, if you think we are scared because we respond to you, what are you, since you run away from the questions put to you? :D

How should we translate that, Lucianarchy?

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Translation: It's scared the crap out of you and made you rethink everything you have been lead to believe.

Otherwise you wouldn't have even bothered responding.

Scared ? My big fat wobbly a*se. The only thing I'm scared of is the thought of reading any more of your drivel.

My book is still available for remote viewing.

Regards,

AC.

[thaiboxerken]

I pretended that I had superpowers when I was a child. Why hasn't Lucianarchy grown out of that phase? Does it make you feel special to roleplay that you are a telepath/claivoyant, Lucky?

Maybe you should explain your powers of perception to your local insane asylum, I'm sure they'd love to hear about it.

This thread has long outlived any rational discussion. All we have here is one, ONE person crying that they have superpowers, a person in denial of reality.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Nope, this was the real deal. It happened just like I said it did.
A ladybrook 'lucky hit' to something of that magnitude ( a terrorist attack in Ladybrook within an hour or so of it being recorded here ) would require odds against chance which would be astronomical, and you know it. I understand if you want to wish it away to luck, but I'm a skeptic, not a wishful thinker. Sorry about that.

The magnitude of your prediction is questionable. A failed terrorist incident in a region plagued by upheval and terrorism.

Why don't you actually figure out the odds of this being a lucky word drop for us? I'd be interested in seeing your rationalizations.

But you won't. Denial ain't just a river in egypt.

[athon]

OK. My curiousity is piqued.

Nobody seems to be analysing this is a seriously critical manner. So here's my deduction:

Luci posted a single word that later had relevance to an incident in another part of the world. It could have happened in one of the following ways-

1) Luci heard the word clairaudiantly through a means science is yet to quanitify.
2) Luci guessed the word through understanding ongoing turmoil in the relative region.
3) Luci read an article on the attack and went back and edited the posting retrospectively.

At this point, I can't think of any other significant ways of producing this result.

Now for some deduction.

1) Difficult for us to evaluate with the means at hand.
2) Unlikely that Luci guessed - Ladybrooke is not 'Belfast', and is a little too unusual for a straight out 'guess'. Luci is not known to throw random words out like this, hence the 'guess' theory is flawed. If there was a history of this behaviour, with a high incidence of being wrong, I'd give it more credit.
3) Is there some means a post can be edited without having the post labelled as such? And if so, can we check to see if this was the case? Surely there'd be some way of inspecting this?

Hence until we can discount all possibilities, the action is neither proven nor disproven, and therefore it is not to be taken into account as significant evidence.

Now, can anybody answer this?

Athon

[Ceinwyn]

I would like to remind people here that what Lucianarchy claims as a "terrorist attack" was not in any sense an attack. Some people were caught with some equipment, but nothing actually happened.

Luci, I cannot believe you are still spouting this nonsense. If for nothing else but your tenous credibility, give it up.

[KelvinG]

Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.

Help me...can't stop typing Ladybrook.
Have been taken over by forces I can't control.

Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.
Ladybrook.

[Ceinwyn]

Originally posted by athon
OK. My curiousity is piqued.

Nobody seems to be analysing this is a seriously critical manner. So here's my deduction:

Luci posted a single word that later had relevance to an incident in another part of the world. It could have happened in one of the following ways-

1) Luci heard the word clairaudiantly through a means science is yet to quanitify.
2) Luci guessed the word through understanding ongoing turmoil in the relative region.
3) Luci read an article on the attack and went back and edited the posting retrospectively.

At this point, I can't think of any other significant ways of producing this result.

Now for some deduction.

1) Difficult for us to evaluate with the means at hand.
2) Unlikely that Luci guessed - Ladybrooke is not 'Belfast', and is a little too unusual for a straight out 'guess'. Luci is not known to throw random words out like this, hence the 'guess' theory is flawed. If there was a history of this behaviour, with a high incidence of being wrong, I'd give it more credit.
3) Is there some means a post can be edited without having the post labelled as such? And if so, can we check to see if this was the case? Surely there'd be some way of inspecting this?

Hence until we can discount all possibilities, the action is neither proven nor disproven, and therefore it is not to be taken into account as significant evidence.

Now, can anybody answer this?

Athon Ok, I will.

Athon, I'm sensing the word "Sudbury". Now, let's see if something happens there. If not, then the word can be ignored. If so, then I must be psychic, right?

Keep in mind, I can use the word to mean anything, anywhere. It's just one word.

[Ceinwyn]

One other thing. If Lucianarchy is so hot with the remote viewing, how come he didn't predict the blackout?

Or will he just say he knew it after the fact, just like always?

[athon]

While I'm totally not discounting the 'guessing' option, I still don't think it is valid. Ladybrooke is not a prominant part of Belfast, and there are other cities that would have been more obvious to refer to.

It would have been a lotto win if Luci had picked it out of thin air, even narrowing down 'hotspots'. For example, if I were to use this method, I might say 'Indonesia', based on recent eents surrounding the Bali bombing trial, or 'Jakarta', rather than 'Mentang', a suburb within Jakarta.

See? I think labelling it a guess is a desparate stab at the claim just to discount it, and lacks any real sign of critical consideration. In other words, it is pretty shameful for a skeptic to simply say 'bah, you guessed', when if it was a guess, it was a damn good one. There are other fields we should look at first.

So again, I say is there a method Luci could have used to alter the post? Did anybody read the post before the incident and see the word?

If the answers are 'no' and 'yes', then we have deducted one possible method, and must explore the other two possibilities.

Athon

[Ceinwyn]

Athon:

It was not a good guess at anything. It was one word thrown in at the end of a post. Nowhere did Lucianarchy say "this is my prediction" or "this word means something". It was one word that could've meant anything. As proof of supernatural abilities, or as Luci likes to call it, "psirony", it is useless.

You seem to have your own agenda about this particular business; whatever it might be, a good grounding in logic would help you greatly.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by athon
While I'm totally not discounting the 'guessing' option, I still don't think it is valid. Ladybrooke is not a prominant part of Belfast, and there are other cities that would have been more obvious to refer to.

It would have been a lotto win if Luci had picked it out of thin air, even narrowing down 'hotspots'. For example, if I were to use this method, I might say 'Indonesia', based on recent eents surrounding the Bali bombing trial, or 'Jakarta', rather than 'Mentang', a suburb within Jakarta.

See? I think labelling it a guess is a desparate stab at the claim just to discount it, and lacks any real sign of critical consideration. In other words, it is pretty shameful for a skeptic to simply say 'bah, you guessed', when if it was a guess, it was a damn good one. There are other fields we should look at first.

You're assigning meaning after the event. Luci never mentioned anything about terrorists, or Belfast, or even that the word Ladybrook meant anything.

So again, I say is there a method Luci could have used to alter the post? Did anybody read the post before the incident and see the word?

If the answers are 'no' and 'yes', then we have deducted one possible method, and must explore the other two possibilities.

Athon

I'm unclear on the whole 'edited post' thing, so I refrain from commenting on it. It might have been, it might not. Hell, it wasn't even a real prediction so I find that argument pretty superfluous.

[Lucianarchy]

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

[Lucianarchy]

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.

[Lucianarchy]

As another example of how psirony manifests, here is a Usenet post from someone I had been corresponding with shortly before the 911 attack. He had been warning that terrible events were about to take place on earth. After reading the context of his postsm and from my own experiences with psiriony I had warned him that it was possible he was being used as a 'medium'. And then he wrote this allegory. It can be found on google. It was also archived in the Survival Science forum. After the event took place, I heard from him no more:


From: dicckk@prodigy.net (dicckk@prodigy.net)
Subject: Welcome Back Germany
View: Complete Thread (2 articles)
Original Format

Date: 2001-09-03 12:19:07 PST


I was out yesterday in my neighborhood with my companion of 22 years and our basset hound. It was the usual noon dog walk after lunch. It's rare to see people in NYC looking up, unless there is a leaper, or a building on fire, some workmen dangling precariously from scaffolding, etc.

I rarely look up, especially because I am always keeping our dog in tow. I hadn't noticed at first that everyone was looking to the skies. In fact, my companion and I had gone about three blocks before I noticed our dog wasn't getting her usual attention from people on the streets, and I wondered why. Most people stop to pet and ooh and ah over our girl.

I was utterly amazed to see everyone looking towards the skies. And, there seemed to be a lot of conversation. It became apparent that whatever it was, everyone was in a state of confusion over it. I nudged my companion and asked him what everyone was looking at? I didn't even bother to look. I tend to be blasé. Anything can happen in NYC, and if people were looking up and it was really important, I'd hear all about it on the news. I could wait, but if my companion cared to look up and tell me, fine.

Well, he claimed that he had no idea, and then suggested we might find some stoop sales. Stoop sales in the city are like garage sales in suburban communities. So, we headed down a side street.

But, then I heard a lady say, it looks like Germany. I stopped and
looked up to the sky. I squinted from the rays of the sun, and soon saw why everyone was looking.

It was sky writing.

I laughed, and thought, oh it's advertising, then proceeded down the side street.

Then suddenly, my companion mumbled, "how odd."

Our dog, of course, now that I was sufficiently distracted, chomped on some piece of bone she found. But, it was too late to do anything about it.

I looked up at the sky to see what my companion thought was odd.

The sky writing read, "Welcome Back To Germany."

I gave it some thought, and suddenly felt chilled. My companion had his eyes cupped with his hands, looking up at it.
World War II Germany came to mind. Hitler came to mind. GWB came to mind. A young couple next to us suggested to each other that it might be a travel advertisement. I piped in and suggested it might be a political one. They looked at me as if they didn't get the gist of why I'd say such a stupid thing. I shrugged.

My companion, who is well aware of my political views, gave me that look, which said, don't start.

Well, we walked on and I thought about the sky writing. I thought about it when we got home, and I thought of my post I made a few days back about the events about to unfold in the world.

I didn't know whether to feel good or bad about what was written in the sky that afternoon. But I thought, are there others like me with feelings of ill ease and fears for the state of affairs of our great Country. Are there others old enough to know and remember how quickly it might all become jeopardized by something like the GWB administration?

I thought of what I know about the ET connection, and the connection with religious fundamentalist and fanatics and far right wing agendas. And, I thought, how appropriate. Yes, how poignant. Welcome Back Germany, indeed.

Wish it had said Welcome Back to America The Land of the Free.


8 days later, two planes were flown into the Twin Towers of New York. The writing had been in the sky.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

What I am wondering about is this: If the word was so compelling to you, why did you merely write it down, with no explanation whatsoever?

You didn't even explain that you added the word because it was so compelling. That makes your case extremely weak.

If you consider an event like this supportive of the existence of psi, do you similarly consider the times a word pops into your head and nothing happens supportive that psi does not exist?

Or do you merely look at the data points that support your theory?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
As another example of how psirony manifests, here is a Usenet post from someone I had been corresponding with shortly before the 911 attack. He had been warning that terrible events were about to take place on earth. After reading the context of his postsm and from my own experiences with psiriony I had warned him that it was possible he was being used as a 'medium'. And then he wrote this allegory. It can be found on google. It was also archived in the Survival Science forum.:

[/B]
Lucianarchy,

I lived in NYC at the time. I did not see this sky writing, nor has anyone else. Except this guy.

Quite amazing, isn't it?

Such a long sentence would also be most difficult to achieve.

Did you live in NYC at the time? No? You got one witness that says this happened. I got 8-10 million that say it didn't.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Lucianarchy,

I lived in NYC at the time. I did not see this sky writing, nor has anyone else. Except this guy.

Quite amazing, isn't it?

Such a long sentence would also be most difficult to achieve.

Did you live in NYC at the time? No? You got one witness that says this happened. I got 8-10 million that say it didn't.

It was an allegory. A metaphor. Psironic intermedia. Of course it did not happen, it was a symbolic allegory, and that is what makes it even more chilling.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It was an allegory. A metaphor. Psironic intermedia. Of course it did not happen, it was a symbolic allegory, and that is what makes it even more chilling.

Why? A guy makes up a story about how he thinks GWB is Hitler?

What's the symbolism regarding 9-11 in that??

If you consider an event like this supportive of the existence of psi, do you similarly consider the times a word pops into your head and nothing happens supportive that psi does not exist?

Or do you merely look at the data points that support your theory?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
As another example of how psirony manifests, here is a Usenet post from someone I had been corresponding with shortly before the 911 attack. He had been warning that terrible events were about to take place on earth. After reading the context of his postsm and from my own experiences with psiriony I had warned him that it was possible he was being used as a 'medium'. And then he wrote this allegory. It can be found on google. It was also archived in the Survival Science forum. After the event took place, I heard from him no more:



8 days later, two planes were flown into the Twin Towers of New York. The writing had been in the sky. [/B]
If this anecdotal account is at all true, the matter is pure coincidence. Besides, the story contains no "warning that terrible events were about to take place", and what decent person receives such warnings and hides them in allegory?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

If this anecdotal account is at all true, the matter is pure coincidence. Besides, the story contains no "warning that terrible events were about to take place", and what decent person receives such warnings and hides them in allegory?

The warnings were in other posts to usenet at that time.

Maybe someone who doesn't fully understand the messages he is perceiving. These perceptions, like dreams, are often steeped in symbolism and skewed, rather like a child listening to a broadcast on quantum physics who then tries to relay what he has picked up.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Maybe someone who doesn't fully understand the messages he is perceiving. These perceptions, like dreams, are often steeped in symbolism and skewed, rather like a child listening to a broadcast on quantum physics who then tries to relay what he has picked up.
More likely, like a schizophrenic who stops taking her clozapine and starts hearing voices again.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

If this anecdotal account is at all true, the matter is pure coincidence.

It is true, and that "coincidence" thing being thrown at my 'ladybrook' psironic perception and this other one is very, very unlikely, and *extremely* weak as a skeptical explanation. I am telling you, *showing* you the nature of these effects in action, if you want to call them coincidences, fine, you are being either lazy or wilfully ignorant, either way you are doing exactly what the 'flat-earthers' of our scientific history have always done. Skepticism isn't about disbelief and simple denial, it is about being brave and questioning belief, incuding the current status of scientific knowledge, which is *extremely* unlikely to be either 100% correct or complete.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
It is true, and that "coincidence" thing being thrown at my 'ladybrook' psironic perception and this other one is very, very unlikely, and *extremely* weak as a skeptical explanation. I am telling you, *showing* you the nature of these effects in action, if you want to call them coincidences, fine, you are being either lazy or wilfully ignorant, either way you are doing exactly what the 'flat-earthers' of our scientific history have always done. Skepticism isn't about disbelief and simple denial, it is about being brave and questioning belief, incuding the current status of scientific knowledge, which is *extremely* unlikely to be either 100% correct or complete.
It's true that someone wrote such a post to Usenet. The contents of the post are anecdotal, and contain nothing to indicate the later events. Calling it an allegory is just an attempt to make it fit, when it doesn't.

Your "ladybrook" nonsense is either coincidence or a clever cheat. Your evidence for "ladybrook" as a true psychic precognition is not only weak, it is non-existant. There is no evidence that you ever provided details of any events at "ladybrook". Without evidence, we are under no obligation to believe it.

The term "skepticism" has been appropriated by willful nutcases who are ashamed to say that they are believers in any nonsense that comes down the pike and want to seem rational. Such people are not now and never have been skeptics.

It's true that scientific knowledge isn't 100% correct or complete. One cannot reasonably or rationally extrapolate that into justification for belief in nonsense such as psi. That is appeal to ignorance.

We're skeptics. Show us the evidence, and spare us the sophistry.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Why are you avoiding this question?

If you consider an event like this supportive of the existence of psi, do you similarly consider the times a word pops into your head and nothing happens supportive that psi does not exist?

Or do you merely look at the data points that support your theory?

[thaiboxerken]

While I'm totally not discounting the 'guessing' option, I still don't think it is valid. Ladybrooke is not a prominant part of Belfast, and there are other cities that would have been more obvious to refer to.

It's very likely, here is why. Luci just wrote "Ladybrook." at the end of one of his posts with NO references to it. It wasn't a sentence, and it didn't have anything to do with the post or conversation. Therefore, if something happened to a ladybrook, or in ladybrook.. lucky has "made a prediction". But, if nothing happened, most people will have forgotten the word was ever typed, and if someone asked why the word was typed, an evasion would come. It's the art of not making a prediction, Lucky did not make a prediction of any sort, he just typed one word. bellfast.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
While I'm totally not discounting the 'guessing' option, I still don't think it is valid. Ladybrooke is not a prominant part of Belfast, and there are other cities that would have been more obvious to refer to.

It's very likely, here is why. Luci just wrote "Ladybrook." at the end of one of his posts with NO references to it. It wasn't a sentence, and it didn't have anything to do with the post or conversation. Therefore, if something happened to a ladybrook, or in ladybrook.. lucky has "made a prediction". But, if nothing happened, most people will have forgotten the word was ever typed, and if someone asked why the word was typed, an evasion would come. It's the art of not making a prediction, Lucky did not make a prediction of any sort, he just typed one word. bellfast.

No, it was 'ladybrook', actually.

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

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

Why are you avoiding this question?

If you consider an event like this supportive of the existence of psi, do you similarly consider the times a word pops into your head and nothing happens supportive that psi does not exist?

Or do you merely look at the data points that support your theory?

No. The results are self-evident.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Pyrrho


It's true that scientific knowledge isn't 100% correct or complete. One cannot reasonably or rationally extrapolate that into justification for belief in nonsense such as psi. That is appeal to ignorance.



Nonsense yourself. There has been *plenty* of evidence for the existence of the psi effect. If presented in a court of law, the evidence , in total, would not all, each, and every account, be dismissed as being either fraud, error or delusion. It has been proven to exist beyond all reasonable doubt.

My own experiences, including the 'ladybrook' perception have provided me with self evidence. I can tell you the effect exists. If you want to call it luck, so be it, maybe that's why so many butterflies settle on me. I can also tell you that, like a butterfly, the effect evidently makes its *own* choice where it settles.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Nonsense yourself. There has been *plenty* of evidence for the existence of the psi effect. If presented in a court of law, the evidence , in total, would not all, each, and every account, be dismissed as being either fraud, error or delusion. It has been proven to exist beyond all reasonable doubt.

Ah, the old "court of law" silliness. We're talking science, Lucianarchy. Science cannot be determined in a court of law. Psi has never been proven to exist. You're using an appeal to popularity fallacy as well.

My own experiences, including the 'ladybrook' perception have provided me with self evidence. I can tell you the effect exists. If you want to call it luck, so be it, maybe that's why so many butterflies settle on me. I can also tell you that, like a butterfly, the effect evidently makes its *own* choice where it settles. Fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe.

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Why are you avoiding this question?

If you consider an event like this supportive of the existence of psi, do you similarly consider the times a word pops into your head and nothing happens supportive that psi does not exist?

Or do you merely look at the data points that support your theory?

Please either:

address the question, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Lucianarchy,

Why are you avoiding this question?

If you consider an event like this supportive of the existence of psi, do you similarly consider the times a word pops into your head and nothing happens supportive that psi does not exist?

Or do you merely look at the data points that support your theory?

Please either:

address the question, or
state that you refuse to answer.


I already have done, perhaps you missed it.

Here it is again:

No. The results are self-evident.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


No. The results are self-evident.

Yes, if you are incredibly gullible and incapable of critical thought.

Hey, that sums up you Luci.

You are a legend in your own mind. ladybrook

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

Are you answering the first or the second question?