Is there a Larsen List in your name?

[TLN]

The constant bickering between some posters on this board—believer and skeptic alike—is really starting to impact the signal to noise ratio here. I think the core problem is a difference in communication methods and each side not understanding how the other side communicates. Instead of seeing any translation efforts, each side is just raising their voices.

I thought it might be time to describe how a lot of the skeptics here think, what they consider to be “evidence”, and what to expect from many posters here with regard to paranormal or unusual claims. This post will not be a complete account of the scientific method, however, as I’m poorly qualified to do so.

First off, this is a message board for critical and skeptical thinking. In the world according to me at least, this pretty much means one thing: science. The skeptics here employ the scientific method in the examination or simple consideration of unusual claims.

When you make a post to this board it’s not unlike proposing a new scientific theory. If you make a post supporting, say, Sylvia Browne, you’re making a claim, like it or not, that you think Sylvia Browne is genuine. Also like scientific theories, new theories can make predictions or claims outside of their original claim. For example, I make the claim that I think Sylvia Browne is a genuine medium. Just by making that claim I have made several others, including, but not limited to:

There is life after death.
Remote viewing works.
Predicting the future works, and so on…

In the scientific community, new claims are always subjected to the same rigors, regardless of who makes the claim. No one cares if a new theory is made by Stephen Hawking; all his math has to fit too. He doesn’t get any special treatment for being Stephen Hawking. Science does not recognize celebrity.

No, if Professor Hawking makes a new claim he can expect it to be savaged by people he probably considers to be his friends and peers. They won’t care how much his new theory means to him or how much hard work it took to formulate. All that matters is the data; it’s either right or it’s wrong, period. This review process is critical to science. It’s how truly worthwhile ideas are weeded out from poor ones.

Unfortunately, it’s also pretty brutal stuff. Maybe his new theory does mean a lot to Stephen Hawking. Maybe we’ll upset him with our criticism. Maybe his new theory provides some level of comfort to him which he’ll miss once we try and snatch it away. He may resent us for it.

Fortunately, Stephen Hawking knows that this is the process and has probably done his best to distance himself emotionally from his theory. No, whether the theory works or not is the only concern.

This is the starting point from which most of the skeptics here will proceed. They won’t consider your feelings. I know it’s harsh, but there you have it. Science just doesn’t care how you feel.

So, if you make a claim, prepare yourself for a lot of questions. Your answers might actually generate more questions. This is to be expected. If you’re here to genuinely examine your claims, then you owe it to yourself to answer these questions as they come up. If you’re not here to think critically about your claims, you should probably post elsewhere. You’ll find very little sympathy here.

So, in our example above, if our Sylvia supporter claims “But Sylvia did a reading for me and knew my grandmother’s name without ever meeting me before!” there are questions to be answered:

Did you make an appointment in advance?
Did you use your real name to schedule the appointment?
Did you pay with a credit card?
What is your grandmother’s name?

And so on. This might seem overwhelming to our poor Sylvia fan and with good reason. It is pretty overwhelming. But it’s also science and it’s how we distinguish fact from fiction.

Of course, our poster might choose to ignore these questions and just move on.

I want to be clear on this next point: that is his or her right. No one is saying you have to examine your claims. By all means, don’t. But at least recognize that fact, admit it, and move on.

But again, posting here is almost tantamount to saying “I can prove it” or at the very least “I think I can prove it, can anyone see any flaws in this theory?” It’s also an admission that you agree to play by the rules of science. Again, you don’t have to, but then what are you doing here? I certainly wouldn’t attend a KKK rally and ask “What, you mean you folks don’t think blacks are our equals?”

Pick your fights.

The real problem comes from the posters who make claim after claim, never answering the questions that naturally arise out of those claims. Instead, some folks just move on, as if the text never existed. This is not science; it’s belief and it’s your right.

But not here.

Here you must meet the burden of proof as described in the scientific method. Here, no one cares how happy your claim makes you. Here, people are pricks.

Like our pal Claus Larsen. What a prick. Seriously. And bless him for it to…

If you’re the unlucky recipient of a Larsen List there’s only one reason: you didn’t answer the questions are they came up. If you had, he might have moved on, but instead he spends his time cataloging all the quotes, claims, and assertions that don’t quite add up and compiling them into a list.

A lot of you hate Claus for this (or for whatever other reason). That’s yet another one of your rights, but I think some of you are letting your personal distaste for Claus blind you to the legitimacy of the questions he poses. Does the question really flow from your claim? Why don’t you answer it? Is it because you can’t or don’t want to?

But at the end of the day all Larsen Lists should start with a single question, a question that would preclude the necessity of all the others that follow:

Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you simply here to speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

If you think it’s the former, then your personal feelings about Claus are irrelevant. Answer the questions. They flow from your claims.

Or don’t! But again, then why engage skeptics in discussion?

And you know what, Claus is an ass. He’s brash, blunt, and doesn’t give a damn about the way you feel. He could stand some serious lessons in diplomacy and in how to speak to believers. And you know what? None of that makes any difference at all towards the legitimacy of the questions he asks. If you’re genuinely interested in examining your beliefs you owe it yourself—not to Claus—to answer those questions.

The bickering here is all about personalities and little on substance. She’s a liar, he’s a liar, rolling eyes and name calling, none of which gets us any closer to any real answers. None of this is science, it’s playground mudslinging, on both sides.

C’mon kids…

So, here we have it. The Ted List. A single question:

Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

If it’s the former, you need to play by the rules of science. If it’s the latter, there are plenty of message boards on the internet where you won’t have to suffer the constant barrage of questions and the stoicism of the questioners.

It’s your call…

[Sundog]

Good post with a lot of good points in it. I think, though, that at some point it's time to stop hounding people. Where's the fun if we drive everyone off?

Claus said in another thread "We're not having a cozy little tea party here." That made me think a bit; we're here for different reasons. I am here for a cozy little tea party. I'm here to communicate with intelligent people about interesting topics and for the most part, I'm pretty laid back about it. I only get riled when people are purposely offensive or when they are being a bully. I have zero tolerance for bullies.

But others, like Claus, are here waging battle. Good for them, but not everyone is here for that. Along comes a fuzzy thinker who incautiously throws out a few indefensible ideas and they are shocked to find the Atheist Avengers on their trail.

While I agree it's important - I think John Edward should be in a jail with cold, hard prison bars around him - the stridency is hard to take at times, and makes no one look good.

[Skeptical Greg]

Great post..

[BNiles]

A standing ovation ensues.

:clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap:
:clap: :clap: :clap:

[Ipecac]

Well said.

[Thanz]

TLN - you have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into your post, and I applaud you for it. However, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with one of your major premises:

Originally posted by TLN
First off, this is a message board for critical and skeptical thinking. In the world according to me at least, this pretty much means one thing: science.

HUGE SNIP

So, here we have it. The Ted List. A single question:

Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

If it’s the former, you need to play by the rules of science. If it’s the latter, there are plenty of message boards on the internet where you won’t have to suffer the constant barrage of questions and the stoicism of the questioners.

It’s your call…

I disagree that science is the be-all and end-all of discussion on this board. I assume that you are only referring to this particular forum (General Skepticism and the Paranormal) as many of the other forums are obviously not designed for science.

The little blurb under the heading on the forums page says:Discuss aspects of the paranormal here, as well as general questions and comments on things skeptical, such as dowsing, UFOs, etc.

I don't see anything there requires the scientific method. I don't see why we can't have discussions here that do not rise to the level of scientific evidence. In fact, I'd say many of the topics here do not. Any of the JE threads, for example. They are not about science - they are about different peoples impressions of one particular performer. Is he real? Is he a charlatan? Why do you think he may be real? What sort of hits does he get? What is a "special" hit? How can the "special" hits be explained? How do cold readers perform? Are they better or worse?

All of these questions get examined on a daily basis, and none of them produce any scientific evidence. That does not mean that they are not interesting to discuss. This is a DISCUSSION board, not a paranormal - prove it board. People are NOT automatically making a series of new claims or new scientific theories when they post something in favour of JE or Sylvia or anyone else. They should not have to expect the JREF inquisition by saying "Hey that JE sure is freaky!"

When Stephen Hawking, or any other scientist, presents a new theory, they expect it to be tested according tothe rigours of science. The posters here should not have to have that expectation. This is a place for discussion, not proof or disproof. If you want to say that X is not proven scientifically, fine - say it. But that doesn't mean the rest of us can't discuss it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't see anything there requires the scientific method.

If you have a better method for distinguishing fact form fiction I'd love to hear it.

Sorry Thanz, here science rules. If you want to play by another set of rules, you've lost us.

Feel free to find a skeptic to disagree with me.

[Cleopatra]

I agree with Sundog and especially with the last sentence of his post. I wish that we could lock those who take advantage of the pain of the people behind bars.

This is one thing but what Clauss does is, in my opinion, far away from skepticism.

The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

A skeptic cannot be- by definition- an authority and I am afraid that this is what Clauss is doing, he is playing the authority. Not to mention that I find his methods a bit offensive for the rest of us too.

We are in position to see who is answering the logical questions and who isn't, we do not need anybody to interpret another member's behavior for us.

I have brought my opinion to his attention before and I have no problem in repeating it here as well :)

I use the name of Clauss because he was brought as an example of a specific attitude.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

A skeptic cannot be- by definition- an authority...



Wow. What a great, great point.

Thanz, ya lost me there too, buddy. Science is our only guide. But it shouldn't preclude discussion.

[thaiboxerken]

The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

Why not?


A skeptic cannot be- by definition- an authority and I am afraid that this is what Clauss is doing, he is playing the authority. Not to mention that I find his methods a bit offensive for the rest of us too.

Why can't a skeptic be an authority, is there something in the definition of "skeptic" that I'm missing?


We are in position to see who is answering the logical questions and who isn't, we do not need anybody to interpret another member's behavior for us.

So.. we shouldn't point out the logical flaws, fallacies and fabrications of believers? What's there to discuss then?


I have brought my opinion to his attention before and I have no problem in repeating it here as well :)

I use the name of Clauss because he was brought as an example of a specific attitude.

I still don't understand, what is wrong with having a skeptic in a position of authority? I'd much rather have a skeptic as president than a superstitious fool.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN
If you have a better method for distinguishing fact form fiction I'd love to hear it.
Not every discussion here has to have "distinguishing fact from fiction" as its focus.

Sorry Thanz, here science rules. If you want to play by another set of rules, you've lost us.
I'm not playing by another set of rules, except maybe rules of civility. IMO Claus is a "prick" in ways that have nothing to do with science, and more to do with pulling down believers.

Not everyone who posts here has to prove, scientifically, what they are saying is THE truth. People are entitled to the opinion that JE is for real. They are entitled to post the reasons for that opinion. Others will undoubtedly post counter opinions and arguments that, while undoubtedly more logical, are not up to the level os scientific proof either.

Feel free to find a skeptic to disagree with me.
Why don't I count? :confused:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

Why not?


Because There's No Such Thing as a True Skeptic. Anyone who sets themselves up as THE authority on skepticism is riding for a fall... as we've proven here once or twice.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by TLN
Instead of seeing any translation efforts, each side is just raising their voices.
I AGREE!!!!!!!!

Its very important to understand every side of a debate, otherwise its mindless bickering.

[Cleopatra]

thaiboxerken

So.. we shouldn't point out the logical flaws, fallacies and fabrications of believers? What's there to discuss then?

This is what skepticism is about. Pointing fallacies and exposing the fabrications of the believers within the frame of a discussion.

I have seen many poeple here, including Clauss, to be very efficient in that. I have seen it, I understood it, I do not need to be reminded of it every other day and on the expense of another member. I have discussed with Clancie too and I know by first hand that she avoids to answer to certain questions, those who have followed the discussion have seen it as well, we are not in the classroom where the teacher has to remind us what we are learning or what we are seeing.

A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Not every discussion here has to have "distinguishing fact from fiction" as its focus.

Of course not. Thanz, my main point here is if you make a claim, expect to have it challenged. Expect to have to meet the burden of science.

If you don't want to, fine, but then why post here? If all you're after is "discussion" regarding, say, John Edward, may I suggest johnedwardfriends.org? You won't have to deal with any questions there of a critical nature. But making those claims here, then refusing to answer follow up questions, only demonstrates that you're not interested in a critical examination of your beliefs. Again, that's fine, but then why post it here?

[thaiboxerken]

A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

I simply don't agree. I think a good leader should have a exercise great deal of skepticism. A good leader poses questions and recieves them from those he is leading. I seem to recall a great leader named Jefferson who was also a skeptic.

[TLN]

"Arguments from authority carry little weight -- 'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."

Carl Sagan

[Sundog]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

I simply don't agree. I think a good leader should have a exercise great deal of skepticism. A good leader poses questions and recieves them from those he is leading. I seem to recall a great leader named Jefferson who was also a skeptic.

You two are talking past each other. Thai, that's not what she means. Jefferson never set himself up as an authority on skepticism.

IMO when people do that, they are failing to recognize the flaws within themselves.

As I've said a few times, we strive to approach skepticism. We never reach it.

Edited to add: TLN, re the Sagan quote, yes, exactly.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN
Of course not. Thanz, my main point here is if you make a claim, expect to have it challenged. Expect to have to meet the burden of science.

If you don't want to, fine, but then why post here? If all you're after is "discussion" regarding, say, John Edward, may I suggest johnedwardfriends.org? You won't have to deal with any questions there of a critical nature. But making those claims here, then refusing to answer follow up questions, only demonstrates that you're not interested in a critical examination of your beliefs. Again, that's fine, but then why post it here?
I fear that I may have taken your initial post incorrectly. I agree with the idea that if you post a claim here, you should expect it to be challenged and you should expect questions of a critical nature.

I do not think, however, that unless someone can prove their claim scientifically, that they should just bugger off and go somewhere else. I think that when someone like Clancie comes here, she should be able to say "I think there may be something to mediumship, and here is why" without being attacked. I think that she is capable of pointing out arguments from the believer side of the spectrum that are interesting. I don't particularly care whether she considers herself a believer or a skeptic. I am not convinced by her arguments, but I do find them interesting and thought provoking.

I agree that if you are out to PROVE that JE is talking to the dead, then yes - we need scientific tests under controlled conditions. No question. But if we just want to talk about it, from what we see on TV, etc. and the possible explanations for it, I think we can have that discussion without the need for the scientific tests. As long as both sides realize that it is just a discussion, no one is likely to "win", and the outcome will not be proof of anything.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted your post. But when I read it, I got the impression that you were saying "Unless you can prove it scientifically, bugger off" and that is what I disagree with.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

I simply don't agree. I think a good leader should have a exercise great deal of skepticism. A good leader poses questions and recieves them from those he is leading. I seem to recall a great leader named Jefferson who was also a skeptic.

I do not use the word authority to describe leadership but an infallible expert.Bible is an authority to some people, for example.

Havind said that I agree with you that the authority in a country is better to be in the hands of the skeptics, of people who accept and pose questions :)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I do not use the word authority to describe leadership but an infallible expert.Bible is an authority to some people, for example.

Havind said that I agree with you that the authority in a country is better to be in the hands of the skeptics, of people who accept and pose questions :)

Ok, I gotcha. Looks like we agree on both points.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
I think that when someone like Clancie comes here, she should be able to say "I think there may be something to mediumship, and here is why" without being attacked.

Sorry, but that's what going to happen here. You can deal with that, or ignore it. Also your call...

Also, I would say that a lot of these "attacks" are simply the questions that naturally flow from the claims. Of course, this a bit overwhelming to the uninitiated.

Sorry...

Originally posted by Thanz
I apologize if I have misinterpreted your post. But when I read it, I got the impression that you were saying "Unless you can prove it scientifically, bugger off" and that is what I disagree with.

Well, I think it would go more like this: If you make a claim expect to have it challenged. If you don't want to be challenged, then yes, "bugger off." If you don't want to answer the questions that naturally flow from your claims, why make the claims at all?

[T'ai Chi]

TLN, excellent post. :)

It is a good reminder for everyone to cut down pure arguments, something I think everyone, including myself, can work on, to make this place a better place.

"When you make a post to this board it’s not unlike proposing a new scientific theory."

I do politely disagree with that. On an internet discussion board, it is opinions. I would be in favor of creating a forum specifically for people posting their scientific theories. In that forum, those people should be prepared to present actual evidence.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
On an internet discussion board, it is opinions.

Ahh, but on this board it's about evidence.

All I'm asking of the believers is to regonize that fact.

All I'm asking of the skeptics is to realize that most believers don't recgonize that fact.

Again, it's a communication problem. No one here is more right or wrong than the other. But here, evidence rules. If you're into opinion there are plenty of other places to post. This is not a demand on my part, just an observation.

[BNiles]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

I simply don't agree. I think a good leader should have a exercise great deal of skepticism. A good leader poses questions and recieves them from those he is leading. I seem to recall a great leader named Jefferson who was also a skeptic.

I think your confusing "Authority" with "Leader". Authority in this context is referring more like an expert of a topic, not the leader of a country.

Edited to add: I see that I was a little late with this...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TLN
Instead of seeing any translation efforts, each side is just raising their voices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right on the money.
Wasn't it Twain who said something like, "A fool raises his voices when he should strengthen his argument.":D :)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN
Sorry, but that's what going to happen here. You can deal with that, or ignore it. Also your call...

Also, I would say that a lot of these "attacks" are simply the questions that naturally flow from the claims. Of course, this a bit overwhelming to the uninitiated.

Sorry...
Here's the thing: I don't consider the LarsenLists to be made up solely of "questions that naturally flow from the claims". Claus seems to be on a vendetta against certain people, and constantly interprets (or misinterprets) posts in the worst possible light, then asks a question about that. Like "When did you stop beating your wife" type questions. That isn't science. That is badgering for the sake of it.

Well, I think it would go more like this: If you make a claim expect to have it challenged. If you don't want to be challenged, then yes, "bugger off." If you don't want to answer the questions that naturally flow from your claims, why make the claims at all?
There is a difference between asking questions, and the hounding of Claus the Inquisitor. Someone may be perfectly willing to answer questions that come from their claims, but turned off by the rude atangonistic style of some of the posters here. You don't have to accept anyone else's beliefs, but at least treat people with a modicum of respect. That is what is lacking here.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Here's the thing: I don't consider the LarsenLists to be made up solely of "questions that naturally flow from the claims".

I happen to agree. But at the same time, I also think there are a lot of questions of genuine merit in there, probably the majority. Perhaps the subject of these lists can join this thread and we can pick the relevant questions and discard the others.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Ahh, but on this board it's about evidence.
Why? Because YOU say so? Because you want it to be so?

All I'm asking of the believers is to regonize that fact.
It is not a fact. It is merely your opinion.

All I'm asking of the skeptics is to realize that most believers don't recgonize that fact.
Perhaps because it is not a fact?

Again, it's a communication problem. No one here is more right or wrong than the other. But here, evidence rules. If you're into opinion there are plenty of other places to post. This is not a demand on my part, just an observation.
No, it seems to be more of a demand.

To use the ever popular JE example, there is no real evidence that JE has hidden microphones, moles in credit card companies, assigned seats all the time, spies in the green room feeding info to JE, ringers in the gallery, or a team of internet researchers. Yet all of these theories have been floated by skeptics here, and not questioned by other skeptics. Yet you say "evidence rules"? Not quite.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Why? Because YOU say so? Because you want it to be so?

No, because, regardless of whether you agree or not, skepticism is about science.

This is a board about skepticism. Expect science.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN
[B]
Ahh, but on this board it's about evidence.
[B]

TLN, while I agree that evidence is important in discussions and in showing evidence for phenomena, I disagree that these forums are about evidence.

JREF has this board to foster intelligent discussion from believers and non-believers. JREF says nothing about people having to provide evidence or anything like that on the discussion boards, even though it might be desirable.

I believe that on any discussion board people post their opinions on things, and perhaps links to studies that have evidence. The board participants, especially the skeptics, might desire evidence for all things, but that was not why the board was created.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
TLN, while I agree that evidence is important in discussions and in showing evidence for phenomena, I disagree that these forums are about evidence.

Look, if that's how some folks want to proceed, be my guest. But it's pretty foolish to complain that someone's asking (and asking and asking...) for you to produce evidence. What did you think we'd ask for, stories?

I wouldn't go to a Christian fundamentalist message board and expect anyone to understand the scientific method. I wouldn't complain about all the credulous behavior. What did I expect?

What do believers expect when they post here? That no one will challenge their claims? That flimsy evidence will go unchallenged?

It's your right to have any belief you want; to not examine it critically or look for empirical evidence to support your claim. I just wouldn't recommend you do it here. Again, I wouldn't go to a KKK rally then complain about all the ignorant hicks.

[thaiboxerken]

To use the ever popular JE example, there is no real evidence that JE has hidden microphones, moles in credit card companies, assigned seats all the time, spies in the green room feeding info to JE, ringers in the gallery, or a team of internet researchers. Yet all of these theories have been floated by skeptics here, and not questioned by other skeptics. Yet you say "evidence rules"? Not quite.

LOL. So it's not skeptical to question JE's mediumship abilities simply because he hasn't been caught cheating many times? Until JE proves himself to the scientific community, mundane explanations for what he does will suffice. Heck, is he really cheating, after all he does state that he's just an entertainer. Don't entertainers sometimes research those they are entertaining?

JE could be cheating, and skeptics here have said that he could have. I don't recall any skeptics here claiming that he must have hidden microphones and credit card moles, just that it's plausible and would get him the information he uses on his shows.

People don't have superpowers.

[Mike D.]

Originally posted by TLN
First off, this is a message board for critical and skeptical thinking. In the world according to me at least, this pretty much means one thing: science.

TLN,

Why not call it a "science message board" instead of a "skeptic message board." What would be the difference between the two, if skeptical thinking "pretty much means one thing: science."?

Mike

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by TLN
No, because, regardless of whether you agree or not, skepticism is about science.


TLN, I believe that one can be a skeptical thinker and not have anything to do with science. I feel that the term skepticism refers to thinking critically and examining evidence in general, not just in a science setting, although skepticism is certainly used in science.

[CFLarsen]

My, my...is this finally the Larsen "Appreciation" Thread? ;)

First, great subject, although I don't think I am quite entitled of so much focus. There are plenty of people here who, although different in style, perhaps, but just as...tenacious, should also be named. But I won't... ;)

The lists. Ah, yes. They are annoying, I can see that. They stay. They are great at showing how some believers "operate".

We have seen that, unless a claim is recorded, as well as the result of the discussing, the claim pops up at a later time. Repeat an unsupported claim often enough, and it becomes fact. That's why it is important to keep these lists, to document what people have said, and how things really went. It's not necessarily flat-out lies, it is the more or less intentional attempts at deceit I try to prevent. Urban legends become, to some, reality. Rumors become accepted fact. That's dangerous.

This is only about finding answers. Nothing else.

Somebody said that I was waging battle. You could call it that. I want some answers, dammit! I am sick and tired of these claims popping up with no answers. "Modern" parapsychology has been "at it" for more than a hundred years, and still, not a single shred of evidence of anything. It is, as far as I know, the only field of interest in that time frame that has absolutely nothing to show for it.

Nothing.

Reading history, I can understand why people in the past believed in this bahooey. If you can't read, if you have no books, if you cannot freely gather information, if you have no basic understanding of the world around you, yes, you will believe that an eclipse is a dragon eating the sun. That, unless you sacrifice to the gods, the sun won't rise tomorrow. That, unless you do what the priests and kings tell you, you will burn in hell.

But today? There's no excuse, dear people. It is our goddamn duty to dispel the darkness of ignorance. We haven't gotten our cozy little houses with central heating and aircondition by praying to gods or speaking with dead grandmas. "Better Life Through Science"? Yup. And knowledge is at the center of this. Real knowledge, not fantasies or wishful thinking.

So, no tea party here. No fuzzy, warm feelings. Yes, it is probably overwhelming, suddenly to have a barrage of questions thrown at ya', especially if you haven't tried that before - or even realized that they could exist. But that's the way it is here. And it is a good thing to examine your beliefs, if you build them on what you think is evidence. If you simply want to believe, fine. Have a nice life. Be good, and all that. No lists from me.

But if you argue from evidence? I'm on your case, buddy, and so are others. I want some answers. You don't like it? Putting me on ignore won't help. Sure, you won't read it, but others will. If you want a life of ignorance, that is your choice. But you don't silence the questions. Those will be heard. We don't post for the people who answer us, we post for those who never speak up, who watch from the shadows.

It is very gratifying to be able to search for some real answers on this forum. I know that I won't be censored because I do that. I was censored, and subsequently banned, from both Pam Blizzard's Board of JE-adoration and Steve Grenard's SurvivalScience-forum. Here, we seek real answers. Deal with it.

Personally, I don't really see the need for a political forum, unless it is to skeptically evaluate political issues. I certainly don't see the need for being able to discuss your favorite movie, unless it is to skeptically evaluate the scientific aspects of it. Phil Plait does a great job of that on his own BadAstronomy-site, and it is very educational reading. Sure, we can also have a bit of fun. But the main object of this forum is to promote critical thinking and skepticism.

Science is the authority here. Not skeptics, not anything else. We need answers. And we don't find answers by not asking questions.

You don't like it? Either leave or deal with it. Should you stay, stop complaining that your claims are questioned.

They will be. Trust me! ;)

[asthmatic camel]

TLN, you deserve an award for your original post. Thank-you.

Regards,

AC.

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I AGREE!!!!!!!!

Its very important to understand every side of a debate, otherwise its mindless bickering.

No it's isn't...:p

[Darat]

Originally posted by Diamond


No it's isn't...:p

Oh yes it is.... :p

(Sorry couldn't resist please feel free to resume serious discussion.)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
TLN, I believe that one can be a skeptical thinker and not have anything to do with science. I feel that the term skepticism refers to thinking critically and examining evidence in general, not just in a science setting, although skepticism is certainly used in science.
I agree. Skepticism is a mindset of doubt. It is not always science.

James Randi is the perfect example. He does not claim to be doing "science", but I don't think that anyone doubts that he is skeptical. Let's say that the russian girl passes the blindfold test. Has anything been proven scientifically? No.

I think that it has been said more than once here that the challenge is not a science experiment. It is, however, skeptical in nature.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

LOL. So it's not skeptical to question JE's mediumship abilities simply because he hasn't been caught cheating many times? Until JE proves himself to the scientific community, mundane explanations for what he does will suffice. Heck, is he really cheating, after all he does state that he's just an entertainer. Don't entertainers sometimes research those they are entertaining?
I never said that we can't question JE's supposed abilities. I was just responding to TLN's claim that this board is about evidence, when clearly skeptics also make arguments based on conjecture. I am not saying that we need to reject these arguments - I am just pointing out that they are unsupported by evidence at this time.

JE could be cheating, and skeptics here have said that he could have. I don't recall any skeptics here claiming that he must have hidden microphones and credit card moles, just that it's plausible and would get him the information he uses on his shows.
Yes, of course it is plausible. But there is no evidence for it. TLN said that "evidence rules" here. That is not always the case.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Yes, of course it is plausible. But there is no evidence for it. TLN said that "evidence rules" here. That is not always the case.

Don't forget: The onus is on the claimant. Always.

E.g., it is not up to the skeptics to prove that JE is not talking to dead people. It is up to JE and those who claim that he can, that he in fact can do it.

It doesn't start with the claim that JE is fake. It starts with the claim that JE is real. Then, we investigate what evidence people come up with.

It's very simple.

[Thanz]

Claus -

There is a difference between examining whatever evidence that people come up with and actually positing your own theories. In the "No General seating" thread, you posited the idea that JE may have some sort of mole at the credit card company or ticketing agency who feeds info to JE, who then researches the individual, and remembers where they are sitting in each seminar. This goes beyond simply examining evidence offered by others. And it is just a theory that is backed up with no actual evidence itself.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

When we investigate a claim from a skeptical POV, we look at mundane explanations. Fraud is absolutely one of the possibilities we have to look at.

Did we find it in the case you mention? No. Does that stop further investigation? No.

Did we (or rather: Dateline) find evidence of fraud, when they looked at JE? Yes. Does that stop further investigation? No.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes, there could very well be a mole somewhere, who - just occasionally - fed JE with information.

Even Clancie - after much evasion - had to accept the possibility. It is, however, telling how long it takes for a believer to accept such a possibility.

Very telling.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

When we investigate a claim from a skeptical POV, we look at mundane explanations. Fraud is absolutely one of the possibilities we have to look at.
Of course it is. But there is no evidence of it. No evidence of a mole, or hidden mics, or plants in the audience. I agree that we need to raise these as possibilities. But TLN said on this board, evidence rules. There is no evidence of these. Yet, they are still discussed. I have no problem with that.

However, if TLN believes what he wrote, HE should have a problem with it. There is no evidence of any of this stuff. Where are the calls on you by TLN and other skeptics to produce your evidence or "bugger off"?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes, there could very well be a mole somewhere, who - just occasionally - fed JE with information.
Possible? yes. Likely? no. It seems to me, unless you have any evidence at all to back this up other than "its possible", it is a fantastical theory and should be given almost zero weight.

Even Clancie - after much evasion - had to accept the possibility. It is, however, telling how long it takes for a believer to accept such a possibility.
Perhaps because, without evidence, it must be seen as a very remote possibility? Why does it matter what a "believer" accepts or doesn't accept? Present your arguments and your evidence and let people decide. You don't have to hound them tell they agree with you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
However, if TLN believes what he wrote, HE should have a problem with it. There is no evidence of any of this stuff. Where are the calls on you by TLN and other skeptics to produce your evidence or "bugger off"?

Who claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

Originally posted by Thanz
Possible? yes. Likely? no. It seems to me, unless you have any evidence at all to back this up other than "its possible", it is a fantastical theory and should be given almost zero weight.

Disagree completely.

Originally posted by Thanz
Perhaps because, without evidence, it must be seen as a very remote possibility? Why does it matter what a "believer" accepts or doesn't accept? Present your arguments and your evidence and let people decide. You don't have to hound them tell they agree with you.

I don't "hound" people, I merely ask them questions that arise from their claims.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Thanz

Of course it is. But there is no evidence of it. No evidence of a mole, or hidden mics, or plants in the audience. I agree that we need to raise these as possibilities. But TLN said on this board, evidence rules. There is no evidence of these. Yet, they are still discussed. I have no problem with that.



Maybe we do not have evidence that JE's methods are questionable but we happen to know how such mediums work since antiquity .
I am ready to accept that JE is the exception regarding the methods he is using but as long as he doesn't provide evidence about his claims, as a skeptic I have the duty to bring to other people's attention how mediums of this sort work.

Why does it matter what a "believer" accepts or doesn't accept? Present your arguments and your evidence and let people decide. You don't have to hound them tell they agree with you.

As we have discussed in another thread, I believe that people have the right to be deceived, I do not believe though that people have the right to deceive others.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?
According to TLN's initial post, when you post a message supporting Sylvia Browne you are making a claim, whether you like it or not. Similarly, when you start a thread about how there is no general seating at JE seminars, and that JE has access to all of the credit card information and seating of the people at his seminar, you are making a claim, whether you like it or not. You can't expect not to be asked questions about evidence just because you say "its possible" rather than "it is". For crying out loud, doesnn't Clancie say, ad nauseum, "there MAY be something to mediumship"? Does that somehow stop you from asking for evidence? And then attaching the appropriate weight when no convincing evidence is forthcoming?

Disagree completely.
Based on what? We have no evidence of these things. Without evidence, why attach any weight at all? The only reason I said "almost zero" as opposed to "zero" is that of course these things ARE possible. But without a shred of actual evidence, we should not think them probable at all. Occam's razor commands us to discount this theory until more mundane explanations (cold reading) have been ruled out. And I do not think that you have ruled out that JE may be simply cold reading.

I don't "hound" people, I merely ask them questions that arise from their claims.
Sure. Keep on believing that. You DO hound people. In the politics forum you attacked Clancie for asking about whether rumours surrounding Arnie may hurt him, by complaining that she shouldn't post rumours without back up. You then proceeded to confirm two of the three rumours (I think) yourself!

[Starrman]

According to TLN's initial post, when you post a message supporting Sylvia Browne you are making a claim, whether you like it or not.

As a skeptic, I would say that it certainly is possible that she is a real medium.

Similarly, when you start a thread about how there is no general seating at JE seminars, and that JE has access to all of the credit card information and seating of the people at his seminar, you are making a claim, whether you like it or not.

As a skeptic, I would say that is certainly possible that he gets his information from a mole at a credit card company.

I agree that there is really no evidence for either, the reason I would give more credence to the second theory is that it doesn't require talking to dead people.

So there is no more evidence for the second theory than the first. So I think I agree with you in the fact that, taken literally, it is not ALWAYS about evidence. Sometimes it is about Occam's Razor.

(and I don't think Edward needs a mole to do what he does, there are even more mundane explanations out there) ;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
According to TLN's initial post, when you post a message supporting Sylvia Browne you are making a claim, whether you like it or not. Similarly, when you start a thread about how there is no general seating at JE seminars, and that JE has access to all of the credit card information and seating of the people at his seminar, you are making a claim, whether you like it or not. You can't expect not to be asked questions about evidence just because you say "its possible" rather than "it is". For crying out loud, doesnn't Clancie say, ad nauseum, "there MAY be something to mediumship"? Does that somehow stop you from asking for evidence? And then attaching the appropriate weight when no convincing evidence is forthcoming?

Raising the possibility is not "claiming evidence".

Does Clancie claim proof? Yes. She claims she is no believer, so she must be arguing from evidence. She rarely uses the word "possibility", when she argues. I have to drag that out of her, remember?

However, she is constantly moving the goal posts, shifting the focus and avoids the hard questions on a regular basis, so I don't blame you for being a bit confused where Clancie stands. You are not alone.

Who claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

(2nd time you are asked this....)

Originally posted by Thanz
Based on what? We have no evidence of these things. Without evidence, why attach any weight at all? The only reason I said "almost zero" as opposed to "zero" is that of course these things ARE possible. But without a shred of actual evidence, we should not think them probable at all. Occam's razor commands us to discount this theory until more mundane explanations (cold reading) have been ruled out. And I do not think that you have ruled out that JE may be simply cold reading.

Given the history of previous mediums, we should most definitely think them probable. Why discard any previously attained knowledge? It sounds as if you want to start all over again, each time a medium comes along.

Originally posted by Thanz
Sure. Keep on believing that. You DO hound people. In the politics forum you attacked Clancie for asking about whether rumours surrounding Arnie may hurt him, by complaining that she shouldn't post rumours without back up. You then proceeded to confirm two of the three rumours (I think) yourself!

I did not "attack" Clancie, I pointed out that she was posting rumors - she said so herself. I then did what Clancie should have done: Found the evidence behind two of the stories. The third could not be verified. Ergo, it must be dismissed.

Why don't you point out that Clancie posted rumors, without bothering to provide evidence? You seem only to see the criticism of the flaw, not the flaw itself.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Starrman
I agree that there is really no evidence for either, the reason I would give more credence to the second theory is that it doesn't require talking to dead people.
As would I. I said that I would give the mole "almost zero weight". I would give talking to the dead "zero weight" as there is no evidence. This is despite the fact that I personally believe in an afterlife. I also know that there is no evidence for it, but I am comfortable believing it on faith. If I have to examine something rationally, however, I have to accept that there is no evidence of the afterlife and certainly no evidence that we can talk to dead people even if there is an afterlife.

So there is no more evidence for the second theory than the first.
Only in that we know it is physically and logically possible. Hence, "ALMOST zero weight".

So I think I agree with you in the fact that, taken literally, it is not ALWAYS about evidence. Sometimes it is about Occam's Razor.

(and I don't think Edward needs a mole to do what he does, there are even more mundane explanations out there) ;)
I agree. So, using Occam's Razor, we should not assume the existence of the mole until cold reading has been ruled out, which I don't think it has.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Raising the possibility is not "claiming evidence".
By raising the possibility, you open yourself up to questions about evidence. If you say, "I think it is possible that there is a mole at the credit card company", it is perfectly legitimate for other to ask if you have any evidence to back that up.

Does Clancie claim proof? Yes.
Proof of what? Where? All I can remeber her saying, again and again, is that she thinks that there may be something to mediumship. If you have a quote where she claims to have prrof of mediumship, I'd like to see it.

However, she is constantly moving the goal posts, shifting the focus and avoids the hard questions on a regular basis, so I don't blame you for being a bit confused where Clancie stands. You are not alone.
Forgive me if I do not accept your interpretations of Clancie's posts. Please show me where she claims to have prrof of mediumship, or clarify what you allege she claims proof of.

Who claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?
By raising it as a possibility, you have for the purpose of answering questions about evidence. For hidden mics and plants, see O'Neill, and through him, Shermer and Randi.

(2nd time you are asked this....)
2nd time I have answered it...............

Given the history of previous mediums, we should most definitely think them probable. Why discard any previously attained knowledge? It sounds as if you want to start all over again, each time a medium comes along.
No, no, no. It is one thing to say that mediums in the past have cheated, hot read or whatever. It is quite another to say that the ticketing set up for JE specifically allows for a specific way for him to cheat. I agree that we cannot rule out that he is cheating or hot reading in some manner. But until we determine that cold reading alone cannot explain his performance, why assume that more elaborate cheating schemes are probable? Of course they are possible. But why probable? Evidence of what A has done is not evidence that B is doing the same.

I did not "attack" Clancie, I pointed out that she was posting rumors - she said so herself. I then did what Clancie should have done: Found the evidence behind two of the stories. The third could not be verified. Ergo, it must be dismissed.

Why don't you point out that Clancie posted rumors, without bothering to provide evidence? You seem only to see the criticism of the flaw, not the flaw itself.
She wasn't claiming that the rumours were true, she was asking "I'm curious what Republicans who felt Clinton's personal "morality" was reprehensible, would say if several rumored vices of Schwartzenegger's turn out to be true?"

In essence, this is a hypothetical question. She never claimed to have the truth to any of them - just that they were rumours. She posted rumours, clearly labelled them rumours, and asked what people would think IF they were true. It was not about whether they were in fact true.

[Sundog]

The parent in me finds this all very familiar and very boring. "He said this... She said that... Yes you did... No I didn't... I can prove it..." Yawn.

This isn't communication, this is bickering. This isn't searching for truth, it's single-minded obsession bordering on the unhealthy.

When my kids used to do this I'd separate them for a while, because they weren't going to break out of the pattern on their own. Unfortunately there's no analogue in the adult world.

Or is there? Whoever's being pursued with lists of questions can simply use the ignore option. In my mind that wouldn't be a refusal to debate, just a refusal to acknowledge an individual's tactics.

I don't mind debating anyone, but when they get into the over-aggressive pestering mode I bail. I think that's a reasonable response, because I do NOT think hounding people with ridiculously long lists of questions serves any intellectual purpose whatsoever.

So while I applaud the spirit of the original post, I definitely do NOT agree that Claus is proceeding in a manner that exemplifies this lofty goal.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


If you have a better method for distinguishing fact form fiction I'd love to hear it.

Sorry Thanz, here science rules. If you want to play by another set of rules, you've lost us.

Feel free to find a skeptic to disagree with me.

Science has a role to play but obviously not an all-embracing exclusive role. I mean the overwhelming scientific evidence for anomalous cogitation and perturbation is just ignored by the skeptics for a kick off. This might be argued to be justified, but it shows there are other factors to consider in addition to scientific evidence (reasoning for a kick off).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]
The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

Why not?



Skepticism can and does. But scepticism shouldn't.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Thanz



I'm not playing by another set of rules, except maybe rules of civility. IMO Claus is a "prick" in ways that have nothing to do with science, and more to do with pulling down believers.



Claus is just rather an intense guy and overzealous in his skepticism. You get believers like that as well :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
[B]

Of course not. Thanz, my main point here is if you make a claim, expect to have it challenged. Expect to have to meet the burden of science.



OK, so if for example someone claims reincarnation doesn't occur they must then prove this using science? Well this should be fun! LOL :D

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


OK, so if for example someone claims reincarnation doesn't occur they must then prove this using science? Well this should be fun! LOL :D

No, because that's not a claim, it's a denial of the positive claim "reincarnation occurs". The claim "reincarnation doesn't occur" would not exist without the initial claim of "reincarnation occurs".

What's so freaking hard about this concept? Why do believers insist that they be proved wrong?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


No, because, regardless of whether you agree or not, skepticism is about science.



No, skepticism is all about a particular interpretation of reality. A particular interpretation which should be examined and discussed just as much as any other interpretation.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Skepticism can and does. But scepticism shouldn't.

Why shouldn't it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


No, because that's not a claim, it's a denial of the positive claim "reincarnation occurs". The claim "reincarnation doesn't occur" would not exist without the initial claim of "reincarnation occurs".

What's so freaking hard about this concept? Why do believers insist that they be proved wrong?

Ah I see, so the word claim comes to mean just what a skeptic chooses it to mean.

Why is the hypothesis that at some time in the near future we will cease forevermore to have conscious experiences not a positive claim?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
By raising the possibility, you open yourself up to questions about evidence. If you say, "I think it is possible that there is a mole at the credit card company", it is perfectly legitimate for other to ask if you have any evidence to back that up.

If it is a possibility, then we investigate if there could be something about it.

If it is a claim, then evidence is sought.

Originally posted by Thanz
Proof of what? Where? All I can remeber her saying, again and again, is that she thinks that there may be something to mediumship. If you have a quote where she claims to have prrof of mediumship, I'd like to see it.

We have to work with what people say: If Clancie argues for something, without saying specifically that it is a possibility, then we have to assume that she is arguing from evidence.

We cannot allow people to go back and say "Hey, btw, I meant it as a possibility". That would render any discussion meaningless.

If we can't rely on what people say, then what?

Originally posted by Thanz
By raising it as a possibility, you have for the purpose of answering questions about evidence. For hidden mics and plants, see O'Neill, and through him, Shermer and Randi.

No, no....now you are moving the goal posts. Your complaint was about people here, on this board.

O'Neill, Shermer and Randi (hardly) don't post here, so they cannot possibly be "bound" by the rules of this board.

Originally posted by Thanz
2nd time I have answered it...............

No. You have not answered it. You have named some people OUTSIDE this board. Please name those people who - "here" - have claimed that hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience.

Originally posted by Thanz
No, no, no. It is one thing to say that mediums in the past have cheated, hot read or whatever. It is quite another to say that the ticketing set up for JE specifically allows for a specific way for him to cheat. I agree that we cannot rule out that he is cheating or hot reading in some manner. But until we determine that cold reading alone cannot explain his performance, why assume that more elaborate cheating schemes are probable? Of course they are possible. But why probable? Evidence of what A has done is not evidence that B is doing the same.

We should definitely compare the possibilities. Why is it not "probable" that JE has a mole at a ticket seller?

Originally posted by Thanz
She wasn't claiming that the rumours were true, she was asking "I'm curious what Republicans who felt Clinton's personal "morality" was reprehensible, would say if several rumored vices of Schwartzenegger's turn out to be true?"

In essence, this is a hypothetical question. She never claimed to have the truth to any of them - just that they were rumours. She posted rumours, clearly labelled them rumours, and asked what people would think IF they were true. It was not about whether they were in fact true.

She was spreading rumors about a person. Of course she has to ask IF they are true - otherwise they wouldn't be rumors...:rolleyes:

Now please answer the question:

Who here - because that was your claim - claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

[thaiboxerken]

Ah I see, so the word claim comes to mean just what a skeptic chooses it to mean.

It's the rules of logic, a skeptic's tools. We already know that you really don't like logic.


Why is the hypothesis that at some time in the near future we will cease forevermore to have conscious experiences not a positive claim?

That is a negative claim for the "everlasting soul" claim.

[neofight]

"I am totally with Thanz on this one." -- neo

Actually, I'm totally with just about everything you said in this thread, Thanz. Others have made some good points as well, but I generally disagree with those who have said that unless one is able to show scientific evidence for everything they discuss, they should go elsewhere to discuss it.

originally posted by thaiboxerken:
Why can't a skeptic be an authority, is there something in the definition of "skeptic" that I'm missing?

LOL I think that rather says it all. tbk is an interesting kind of guy. rofl

originally posted by TLN:
Feel free to find a skeptic to disagree with me.

originally posted by Thanz:
Why don't I count?

Perhaps not, Thanz. It may be something akin to the way that some blacks feel when it is pointed out to them that Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell have such high positions in the Bush Administration, and they respond in such a way as to indicate that somehow those two are just not quite "black" (read: liberal) enough, to count. It's regrettable, don't you think?

Also, the painfully obvious double standard that exists here with regard to "claims" that believers make, VS "claims" that skeptics make, is rather amusing and mind-boggling at the same time. ;)

I would also point out to TLN, just as an aside, that even though he believes that people like myself should go elsewhere to discuss these subjects, since we have no scientific evidence to offer, Claus himself has hounded and harassed all of the believers over at TVTalkShows for well over a year, and I think if we all left here, it would not be too long before he arrived there again in hot pursuit. LOL ....neo

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

"Questions for neo" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21305)

Please either:

address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If it is a possibility, then we investigate if there could be something about it.

If it is a claim, then evidence is sought.
Whatever Claus. If you want to draw such a fine line between "investigate" and "seeking evidence", go right ahead. I think that you are being silly.

We have to work with what people say: If Clancie argues for something, without saying specifically that it is a possibility, then we have to assume that she is arguing from evidence.

We cannot allow people to go back and say "Hey, btw, I meant it as a possibility". That would render any discussion meaningless.

If we can't rely on what people say, then what?
Let's work with what YOU said: "Does Clancie claim proof? Yes." You have now backed off that. What is you pet phrase here? Oh yeah - you are moving the goalposts. If she has actually claimed proof, show it. Don't assume that she is claiming proof, as she has said consistently that her position is that there MAY be something to mediumship. Not that she could prove anyone is talking to the dead.

No, no....now you are moving the goal posts. Your complaint was about people here, on this board.

O'Neill, Shermer and Randi (hardly) don't post here, so they cannot possibly be "bound" by the rules of this board.

No. You have not answered it. You have named some people OUTSIDE this board. Please name those people who - "here" - have claimed that hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience.
How about this - you seem fond of the tit-for-tat thing. How about you asnwer Lurkers questions that have been pending for close to 2 months and I'll answer this.

We should definitely compare the possibilities. Why is it not "probable" that JE has a mole at a ticket seller?
Well, because we have no evidence that he does have one. And the policies of ticket sellers is to NOT divulge personal credit card information. We cannot say that anything is "probable" when it has zero evidence to back it up. How is this not getting through?

[voidx]

Posted by Thanz:
As would I. I said that I would give the mole "almost zero weight". I would give talking to the dead "zero weight" as there is no evidence. This is despite the fact that I personally believe in an afterlife. I also know that there is no evidence for it, but I am comfortable believing it on faith. If I have to examine something rationally, however, I have to accept that there is no evidence of the afterlife and certainly no evidence that we can talk to dead people even if there is an afterlife.
People flip flop, and that's what causes many of the problems here. I agree Thanz you can have you're belief in the afterlife, so long as you acknowledge its based completely on faith, and not on any scientific evidence. But not everyone does this, nor do they do it consistently. On seperate occasions, through persistence we've had both Clancie and Neo admit that there is no scientific proof for their belief in mediumship, that they debate it because they find it interesting or fun, and that their belief is based, in their opinion, on a gap in our current mundane explanations to find one that fits JE, or mediumship in general. They take JE performances and transcripts and other mediumship examples as "suggestive" evidence for mediumship, but when pressed (and yes very persistently) they will admit that there seems to be no real or actual proof for their belief. The problem I believe comes in here. If they were to state their opinion of belief, followed by a disclaimer that its based completely on faith as there is no specific evidence for it, I think they'd have an easier time here. But at other times they want to get much more specific in their analysis of mediumship, and JE, and this often comes with a call for proof or clear demonstration of something mundane that is similiar. So to be clear, they want evidence or proofs against something that has no scientific, or even at times a logical basis of support in the first place. They forget that we have proven examples of the frauds and fakes, but that we do not have a definitively proven case of an authentic medium. So logically, skeptically, we should start from these mundane roots in our explanation. Any other tact is merely assuming the spirit connection because you want to believe it, or rather, taking advantage of something a little mysterious to insert and posit you're believe in the afterlife, which you should acknowledge at the outset.

As for the tactics in the threads I admit they often devolve into pointless bickering. There's an inordinate amount of time wasting in these threads playing combat de quotes, of which I'll admit to having engaged in myself to a degree. The problem seems to be keeping people on topic. You can argue intentional or not, but both sides miscontrue peoples comments, and then run with them, and this then devolves into pages and pages of "You said this." "No I said this", "No see :quote: you said this", "yah but I meant this", "I think you're changing your mind, I think you meant that". Pretty pointless. I think its perfectly logical to take people to task when they don't acknowledge their contradicting themselves, or if they've changed their mind without likewise acknowledging it. But its used to a ridiculous degree here.

I'm also in the middle regarding the science angle. Yes I'm in full support of it and agree that if you're here to put forth a theory and don't want to seem perhaps foolish, its in you're best interest to have done some homework and have somethings to back it up. You don't have to do this, and yes people can just discuss things and theorize, but when you're theorsizing about something most people on the board don't believe in, be prepared to be asked in the course of that discussion for some solid backing off it. I mean mediumship for example is tough because there is no solid scientific support for it, in fact it seems to hide in all the convinient grey areas that science cannot definately disprove yet or doesn't fully understand, so its hard to invoke science against it persay. And this is what people do, they put forth something, want to debate it in detail, and then when things don't go their way or their theory is inconsistent, pull back to the safe, well that's just my opinion level. It can be frustrating. So sure, you can debate opinions and personal theories, but since both sides can fall back on not always having definitive proof one way or the other, such as with mediumship, its as TLN says, pretty pointless.

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
I would also point out to TLN, just as an aside, that even though he believes that people like myself should go elsewhere to discuss these subjects, since we have no scientific evidence to offer, Claus himself has hounded and harassed all of the believers over at TVTalkShows for well over a year, and I think if we all left here, it would not be too long before he arrived there again in hot pursuit.

I think Claus going to TVTalkShows and expecting folks to speak science is as absurd as believers showing up here and expecting us to swallow anecdotes.

Neo, could you answer my central question please?

Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK, so if for example someone claims reincarnation doesn't occur they must then prove this using science? Well this should be fun! LOL :D

Ian, you're constantly asking others to prove a negative. It doesn't work that way and you know it. I have never claimed there is no life after death. You claim there is.

Prove it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Whatever Claus. If you want to draw such a fine line between "investigate" and "seeking evidence", go right ahead. I think that you are being silly.

And I think you have just backed down.

Originally posted by Thanz
Let's work with what YOU said: "Does Clancie claim proof? Yes." You have now backed off that. What is you pet phrase here? Oh yeah - you are moving the goalposts. If she has actually claimed proof, show it. Don't assume that she is claiming proof, as she has said consistently that her position is that there MAY be something to mediumship. Not that she could prove anyone is talking to the dead.

Why not? Is that impossible?

I have not backed off anything. I am saying that if Clancie does not specifically say that she is talking about possibilities, and that she is not arguing from a believer's POV, what does that leave us with?

Argument from evidence, right?

Originally posted by Thanz
How about this - you seem fond of the tit-for-tat thing. How about you asnwer Lurkers questions that have been pending for close to 2 months and I'll answer this.

Which I have answered. And stop pulling a "Clancie" here: Don't make your answer dependent on something irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Answer the question:

Who here claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

Please either:

address the question, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
state that you refuse to answer.


Originally posted by Thanz
Well, because we have no evidence that he does have one. And the policies of ticket sellers is to NOT divulge personal credit card information. We cannot say that anything is "probable" when it has zero evidence to back it up. How is this not getting through?

How is "fraud" not getting through? It is not "probable" because it is against policies?

[voidx]

Posted by neofight:
Also, the painfully obvious double standard that exists here with regard to "claims" that believers make, VS "claims" that skeptics make, is rather amusing and mind-boggling at the same time.
You can argue this is a problem you've experienced with specific people neo, you cannot make a blanket statement applying it to all skeptics. The ongoing discussion over the statistics in the process of John Edward thread is a fine example of skeptics disagreeing with skeptics. If this applies in you're mind to specific people then just come out and mention them. To lump us all together is as bad as when you complain about believers getting lumped together. And to get specific, the question often put to you ends up being...what convincing reasons do we have to so quickly abandon our mundane explanations and accept paranormal ones. I've so far seen nothing to this degree. Mundane ones we understand, paranormal ones are vague and grey area's, no one seems to truly understand, again, which one is a more solid basis for a viewpoint? That is perhaps why you're claims are scrutinized more closely than skeptics in some instances.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
[B]
People flip flop, and that's what causes many of the problems here. I agree Thanz you can have you're belief in the afterlife, so long as you acknowledge its based completely on faith, and not on any scientific evidence.



Not on any scientific evidence? Where do you get this from?

BTW do you acknowledge that your belief that people cease to exist when they die is completely based on faith and not on any scientific evidence?

[thaiboxerken]

BTW do you acknowledge that your belief that people cease to exist when they die is completely based on faith and not on any scientific evidence?

It's not a matter of faith, it's a matter of not believing the claims that there is an afterlife.

[TLN]

Ian, please go derail someone else's thread.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Not on any scientific evidence? Where do you get this from?

Where do you get it from? Show me and I'll read.

BTW do you acknowledge that your belief that people cease to exist when they die is completely based on faith and not on any scientific evidence?
Nope, not completely faith. I cannot disprove that they perhaps do not cease to exist, but its what our current understanding of science would seem to suggest. I know you disagree with what you would term my materialistic perception of the world and the science we use for this purpose, but within the framework of how science works now it seems to make sense. The paranormal does not.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Ian, you're constantly asking others to prove a negative. It doesn't work that way and you know it. I have never claimed there is no life after death. You claim there is.

Prove it.

I have not claimed that, I have said I subscribe to that hypothesis. And it is not clear to me that stating that the brain generates consciousness and therefore that consciousness will cease to exist forevermore once the brain is dead, is not a positive assertion.

You don't get away by saying that your belief system doesn't make any positive assertions therefore it is more likely to be correct. It doesn't impress me and it is not rational. Indeed it is sheer stupidity.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Ian, please go derail someone else's thread.

Nobody ever seems to want me! :(

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You don't get away by saying that your belief system doesn't make any positive assertions therefore it is more likely to be correct. It doesn't impress me and it is not rational. Indeed it is sheer stupidity.

I have no belief systems. We may go on after we die and we may not.

Now shut the hell up.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
Not on any scientific evidence? Where do you get this from?

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


Where do you get it from? Show me and I'll read.


You have made the claim. I demand you back your statement up.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW do you acknowledge that your belief that people cease to exist when they die is completely based on faith and not on any scientific evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nope, not completely faith. I cannot disprove that they perhaps do not cease to exist, but its what our current understanding of science would seem to suggest.



Tell me what aspect of science seems to suggest this.

[TLN]

Ian, we're not discussing the survival hypothesis here. Please, go insult folks elsewhere.

[voidx]

Posted by Interesting Ian:
You have made the claim. I demand you back your statement up.
So you want me to prove the non-existence of scientific proof of the afterlife? Heh care to rephrase that? You can disagree with me, and you can prove me wrong by providing evidence, therefore making me retract my statement. But I can't prove that there is no evidence for it. What do you want me to do, read every article ever written and definatively say, "nope, no proof ever". Come on. :rolleyes:



Posted by Interesting Ian:Tell me what aspect of science seems to suggest this.
We are biological organisms, consciousness is a function of the brain. When we achieve brain death, we're dead, that's it. I know you disagree that consciousness is a function of the brain, but you have nothing objective aside from pure theory that the consciouness is not part of brain function, whereas science seems to suggest it is. And yes i'm not an expert here so I cannot specifically state how this is explained scientifically, or what the current theory on it is, congratulations! But I'm sure I could go do some reading and find out. You're simply trying to out-science debate me as a way of invalidating my comments. And you'd probably win cuz you know more big words than me. :rolleyes:

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And I think you have just backed down.
You'd be wrong. I think that you are being ridiculous. I just don't want to waste my time arguing the difference between "investigating" and "seeking evidence". What are you doing when you are investigating? That's right - seeking evidence.

Why not? Is that impossible?

I have not backed off anything. I am saying that if Clancie does not specifically say that she is talking about possibilities, and that she is not arguing from a believer's POV, what does that leave us with?

Argument from evidence, right?
There is no logical reason to believe that she is arguing from evidence unless she explicitly says otherwise. In fact, given her repeated statements of doubt, I'd say it would be more logical that she is offering her opinion unless stated otherwise.

You said that Clancie claimed proof. If you have any post that actually SAYS this, bring it on. Otherwise, you are just making stuff up.

Which I have answered.
No, you haven't. Not at all. You can't even pull the "I don't know, I haven't tallied them" crap here as Lurker's questions are specifically geared to deal with that.

Also, "Void" is not an answer. If I claimed that you said you believe that JE is talking to the dead, I'm sure that someone would challenge me on it. If you then came in and said "I don't believe that JE is talking to the dead" that does nothing to void my claim that you have said it in the past. That claim, that you have said it, is still out there. And I can't just say - Claus has changed his mind, so I don't need to answer. It is the same with you. You have claimed that clancie has said something, and she denies it. You can't use her denials to avoid backing up your claim.

And stop pulling a "Clancie" here: Don't make your answer dependent on something irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I am not "pulling a Clancie" whatever that is. I am trying to pull an answer from you that has been pending close to two months. You were willing to go question for question with her - why not me? Is it because the answer will show you couldn't back up your statement?

How is "fraud" not getting through? It is not "probable" because it is against policies?
What definition of "probable" are you using here? I would say that in order for something to be "probable", it has to be "more likely than not".

Let's apply this to a mole at the ticketing agency and examine the evidence. On the one side, pro-mole, we have.... absolutely nothing. On the other side, we have corporate policy against this type of behaviour. So, when I weigh a policy against someone being a mole on one side with absolutely nothing on the other, I come up with the conclusion that it is not probable that there is a mole at the ticketing agency.

How do you support your conclusion of "probable"? Where is the evidence?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
There is no logical reason to believe that she is arguing from evidence unless she explicitly says otherwise. In fact, given her repeated statements of doubt, I'd say it would be more logical that she is offering her opinion unless stated otherwise.

Frankly, I'd like to hear this from her.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Frankly, I'd like to hear this from her.
Fair enough. But I'd also like to see ANY example of Clancie claiming that she had proof of mediumship.

I think that it would be simple to find an example of her stating that she "thinks there may be something to mediumship". This does not imply proof to me - quite the opposite. If anything, it implies the possibility of mediumship. Without any posts claiming proof, I don't know why Claus would assume she was arguing proof when we have statements like this to the contrary.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
Fair enough. But I'd also like to see ANY example of Clancie claiming that she had proof of mediumship.

Also fair enough.

Clancie, are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

[thaiboxerken]

We have to remember that Clancie has mastered the art of not making a claim and yet defending the claim.

She hasn't stated that she thinks mediumship is real or that JE is a real medium, but she sure will fight against any position that states otherwise.

She's a believers, she's just not honest enough to say so.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
You'd be wrong. I think that you are being ridiculous. I just don't want to waste my time arguing the difference between "investigating" and "seeking evidence". What are you doing when you are investigating? That's right - seeking evidence.

No, investigating is seeking options, explanations, data. When we have those, we can evaluate for evidence.

Originally posted by Thanz
There is no logical reason to believe that she is arguing from evidence unless she explicitly says otherwise. In fact, given her repeated statements of doubt, I'd say it would be more logical that she is offering her opinion unless stated otherwise.

Where does that leave us? Do we have to have some kind of score board, where everybody's stance on everything is recorded?

On this board, you are arguing from evidence, by default. If you are not, you should say so, in each case.

Otherwise, we will open up for anybody being able to retract anything they say, on basis on it "really" being something else. We'd get nowhere.

Originally posted by Thanz
You said that Clancie claimed proof. If you have any post that actually SAYS this, bring it on. Otherwise, you are just making stuff up.

Nope. I am working from the standard position of this board: Argue from evidence.

Originally posted by Thanz
No, you haven't. Not at all. You can't even pull the "I don't know, I haven't tallied them" crap here as Lurker's questions are specifically geared to deal with that.

Yes, I have. Go check.

Originally posted by Thanz
Also, "Void" is not an answer. If I claimed that you said you believe that JE is talking to the dead, I'm sure that someone would challenge me on it. If you then came in and said "I don't believe that JE is talking to the dead" that does nothing to void my claim that you have said it in the past. That claim, that you have said it, is still out there. And I can't just say - Claus has changed his mind, so I don't need to answer. It is the same with you. You have claimed that clancie has said something, and she denies it. You can't use her denials to avoid backing up your claim.

I have given my answers. You don't like them, fine. But you have not answered my question here.

Originally posted by Thanz
I am not "pulling a Clancie" whatever that is. I am trying to pull an answer from you that has been pending close to two months. You were willing to go question for question with her - why not me? Is it because the answer will show you couldn't back up your statement?

Not at all. Please answer the question, or state that you refuse to answer.

Originally posted by Thanz
What definition of "probable" are you using here? I would say that in order for something to be "probable", it has to be "more likely than not".

OK, it ends here. If you want to debate the meaning of every word in the English language, then you know you have lost.

And don't ask me for the definition of "lost".

Originally posted by Thanz
Let's apply this to a mole at the ticketing agency and examine the evidence. On the one side, pro-mole, we have.... absolutely nothing. On the other side, we have corporate policy against this type of behaviour. So, when I weigh a policy against someone being a mole on one side with absolutely nothing on the other, I come up with the conclusion that it is not probable that there is a mole at the ticketing agency.

How do you support your conclusion of "probable"? Where is the evidence?

Again, stop asking for definitions of well-known English words. Your whole post has basically been doing this. That means you have lost this debate.

Who here claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

Please either:

address the question, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[voidx]

the wheels on the bus go round and round.........:rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by voidx
the wheels on the bus go round and round.........:rolleyes:

Agreed. Exactly what I'm trying to stop.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by TLN


Agreed. Exactly what I'm trying to stop.

"Here comes the new boss; same as the old boss."

This isn't a zero-sum game; one side isn't good and the other evil. Both sides of this argument-fest have some backing down to do.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Sundog
"Here comes the new boss; same as the old boss."

This isn't a zero-sum game; one side isn't good and the other evil. Both sides of this argument-fest have some backing down to do.

Strawman: Have I said otherwise?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by TLN


Strawman: Have I said otherwise?

Strawman yourself. Yes, that was the entire purpose of your post: to explain why Claus was a necessary evil. I disagree, and my point is that his tactics negate any worth his arguments might otherwise have.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Sundog
Strawman yourself. Yes, that was the entire purpose of your post: to explain why Claus was a necessary evil. I disagree, and my point is that his tactics negate any worth his arguments might otherwise have.

Nonsense. You need to reread my posts.

[Thanz]

In deference to the spirit in which this thread was started, and TLN's latest post, this is the last post I will make in this thread to bicker with Claus.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Where does that leave us? Do we have to have some kind of score board, where everybody's stance on everything is recorded?

On this board, you are arguing from evidence, by default. If you are not, you should say so, in each case.

Otherwise, we will open up for anybody being able to retract anything they say, on basis on it "really" being something else. We'd get nowhere.
No. Clancie has repeatedly stated her position as one of possibility. Unless you have specific evidence of her claiming proof, that is the more logical position to take with Calncie.

Yes, I have. Go check.
Go check where? They are not in the original thread, nor in the recent thread where Leroy reposted them. If you point me to the post where you answered them, I'll be happy to help you further.

I have given my answers. You don't like them, fine. But you have not answered my question here.
Sure I have. Twice. You may not like the answers.......

OK, it ends here. If you want to debate the meaning of every word in the English language, then you know you have lost.

And don't ask me for the definition of "lost".
I am not trying to argue definitions. I just know that English is your second language and that although you are quite proficient at it, we may be talking past each other. That is why I clarified what I meant by probable. And I don't think that it is by any stretch an outlandish definition. If you meant something else by "probable", I'd like to know so that we are at least arguing about the same thing.

Again, stop asking for definitions of well-known English words. Your whole post has basically been doing this. That means you have lost this debate.
Complete and utter BS Claus. The paragraph you quoted asks for no definitions. It contains my argument why a mole is not probable. I asked for your argument, which it seems you cannot provide. Because you have no evidence of a mole. And remember, around here evidence rules.

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN


I think Claus going to TVTalkShows and expecting folks to speak science is as absurd as believers showing up here and expecting us to swallow anecdotes.

It may be absurd, but he's done it. Relentlessly. And I don't think every person posting here who tends to believe that there might be something to mediumship is expecting, or even asking you, to accept anecdotes as evidence of anything. I really don't see that happening here, TLN.

We are just discussing the issue of how JE is able to do what he does, and some skeptics seem to enjoy these discussions as well, even if it can become somewhat frustrating at times, to both sides.

Neo, could you answer my central question please?

Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

That depends, TLN. If, by "skeptically examine" my beliefs you mean allow myself to be browbeaten and insulted by a bunch of know-it-alls, no matter how well-meaning some of them might be, then the answer is an emphatic and resounding "NO!".

If, on the other hand, you mean to consider any and all of the evidence that skeptics might put forward that demonstrates either how JE has cheated, or how admitted cold-readers have successfully done readings in which they have "brought forth" information of the same caliber as what JE brings up, and on just as consistent a basis, then yes, I am willing to continue to look at all of that evidence, if it exists. :) ........neo

[TLN]

Neo, it was a yes or no question. Your special qualifiers are not needed.

[neofight]

Originally posted by TLN
Neo, it was a yes or no question. Your special qualifiers are not needed.

That, my dear sir, is debatable. ;) ......neo

[Sundog]

Originally posted by TLN


Nonsense. You need to reread my posts.

Again, nonsense yourself. You take issue with the way I've phrased it, but I understand your post perfectly well.

You have set Claus up as someone who does a necessary job, and something someone should justifiably expect when they come to a skeptical board and spout nonsense.

While I agree with much of what you say, you are completely in error when you nominate Claus for this role. He is overly confrontational, obsessive, and falls into the same errors he accuses others of. As I said, in my opinion that is not the way proper skepticism operates, and I am as entitled to have an opinion on that subject as you or Claus; my credentials as a skeptic are not in question.

I don't want to get in a discussion about it any more than I want to walk in quicksand. I just want to make the point that not everyone agrees that this is the was skepticism needs to operate. You are free to disagree, of course.

Edited to add: Talk about irony. Look at Neo's post directly above, where he is objecting to exactly this, and look at your own about "yes or no questions" where you refuse to acknowledge this objection.

This "confrontational" style of skepticism simply increases the noise level. The proof is in front of your eyes.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Sundog
While I agree with much of what you say, you are completely in error when you nominate Claus for this role.

I have done no such thing.

Originally posted by Sundog
He is overly confrontational, obsessive, and falls into the same errors he accuses others of. As I said, in my opinion that is not the way proper skepticism operates, and I am as entitled to have an opinion on that subject as you or Claus; my credentials as a skeptic are not in question.

I agree.

Now, what's the problem here?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by neofight


That, my dear sir, is debatable. ;) ......neo

Look Neo, if you don't answer, we will have to torture you until you confess...

[Sundog]

Originally posted by TLN


I have done no such thing.



I agree.

Now, what's the problem here?

None at all, if you admit that both sides are equally at fault and that this overly-confrontive style of skepticism is not a positive but a negative thing.

[TLN]

Originally posted by neofight
That, my dear sir, is debatable. ;) ......neo

If you say so, but your statement above does not deal with the issue at hand. Skeptics don't have to produce any evidence. We're not making the claim, the believers are.

I don't have to show a cold-reader who can do what Edward does, Edward has to show he's not cold reading.

I don't have to produce bugs located on the set of "Crossing Over," Edward has to allow skeptics ufettered access to his studio.

The burden of proof in on him, not us.

It's a yes or no question Neo.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Sundog
None at all, if you admit that both sides are equally at fault and that this overly-confrontive style of skepticism is not a positive but a negative thing.

*cough* (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6666)

[Sundog]

Here, watch this:

Hey Neofight: Do me a favor, PM Clancie and ask her if she thinks I'm a fair person, or if I'm going to try to trap you. Then do me the favor of answering this question:

If the conversation was to take place in a fair and low-key manner, would you feel comfortable allowing your beliefs to be questioned scientifically?

Thank you in advance.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by TLN


*cough* (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6666)

Entirely commendable. I confess I don't see how you reconcile these two viewpoints.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
In deference to the spirit in which this thread was started, and TLN's latest post, this is the last post I will make in this thread to bicker with Claus.

Fine. Your utter and complete retreat is noted.

Originally posted by Thanz
No. Clancie has repeatedly stated her position as one of possibility. Unless you have specific evidence of her claiming proof, that is the more logical position to take with Calncie.

Sorry, no can do. You cannot singlehandedly redefine the goals and standards of this board. Like you tried to redefine the English language...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Thanz
Go check where? They are not in the original thread, nor in the recent thread where Leroy reposted them. If you point me to the post where you answered them, I'll be happy to help you further.

Don't be disingenious. You refer to where I say "void", and you claim you don't know where? Man, you really are in trouble, aren't you?

Originally posted by Thanz
Sure I have. Twice. You may not like the answers.......

Nope. You have not answered the question. You have referred to people's writings outside this board. The question remains, until you either answer it, or state that you refuse to answer it. According to board rules.

Originally posted by Thanz
I am not trying to argue definitions. I just know that English is your second language and that although you are quite proficient at it, we may be talking past each other. That is why I clarified what I meant by probable. And I don't think that it is by any stretch an outlandish definition. If you meant something else by "probable", I'd like to know so that we are at least arguing about the same thing.

Yes, you are trying to argue definitions. You ask me what I think English terms mean, and that is supposedly because I don't have English as my first language? I have never - ever - seen you question my use of English before. Which is why I know that you are trying to weasel out of this.

Originally posted by Thanz
Complete and utter BS Claus. The paragraph you quoted asks for no definitions. It contains my argument why a mole is not probable. I asked for your argument, which it seems you cannot provide. Because you have no evidence of a mole. And remember, around here evidence rules.

If you want to argue that a mole is not "probable" because the rules say a mole can't exist, then I would very much like to sell you the Eiffel Tower. You really are way too gullible for your own good.

Who here claims that there are hidden microphones, moles, or plants in the audience?

Please either:

address the question, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claim, or
state that you refuse to answer.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Sundog
Entirely commendable. I confess I don't see how you reconcile these two viewpoints.

That the presentation doesn't affect the facts, though it may make them unpalatable. Medicine sometimes tastes horrible.

I think Claus should be more diplomatic and mellow his presentation a bit, but most of his questions are valid. His poor presentation doesn't alter the facts one bit.

The same thing goes for our host, James Randi.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by TLN


That the presentation doesn't affect the facts, though it may make them unpalatable. Medicine sometimes tastes horrible.

I think Claus should be more diplomatic and mellow his presentation a bit, but most of his questions are valid. His poor presentation doesn't alter the facts one bit.

The same thing goes for our host, James Randi.

But, as you have just seen with Neofight, it drastically raises the noise level to the point where an honest discussion cannot take place because there is no common ground. That most definitely reduces the value of any outcomes. When Claus crows, "I win because you're tired of arguing with me", what reasonable purpose is served? None at all.

And the questions he insists on the most are nonsensical. "Who here has claimed that moles exist in the credit card companies? I demand an answer!" This is a silly, confrontational question that does not further understanding at all.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Sundog
But, as you have just seen with Neofight, it drastically raises the noise level to the point where an honest discussion cannot take place because there is no common ground.

Neo is free to choose her conversation partners.

"Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

[thaiboxerken]

But, as you have just seen with Neofight, it drastically raises the noise level to the point where an honest discussion cannot take place because there is no common ground.

Is that a product of CFL's posting method, or is Neofight simply not able to carry on an honest discussion? All one has to do is answer CFL's questions to keep it honest.


That most definitely reduces the value of any outcomes. When Claus crows, "I win because you're tired of arguing with me", what reasonable purpose is served? None at all.

It simply shows how stupid the arguements of the believers are.


And the questions he insists on the most are nonsensical. "Who here has claimed that moles exist in the credit card companies? I demand an answer!" This is a silly, confrontational question that does not further understanding at all.

It's a valid question that addresses the claim Thanz has made that skeptics don't really care about evidence. We're shooting down Thanz's example, and would like a valid one that supports the claim.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by TLN


Neo is free to choose her conversation partners.

"Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"

You lost me. Are you saying Neofight is free to ignore your demand for a yes or no answer?

I don't mean to quarrel with you, I respect you quite a lot. I just think there are negative aspects to the "bad medicine" that damage the free flow of ideas more than you have considered.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
That the presentation doesn't affect the facts, though it may make them unpalatable. Medicine sometimes tastes horrible.

Actually, it should taste horrible. I am appalled when I see how medicine in the US is flavored, e.g. with cherry flavor. That's an invitation for kids to O.D.!! Make all medicine slightly bitter. :)

Originally posted by TLN
I think Claus should be more diplomatic and mellow his presentation a bit, but most of his questions are valid.

I'm not diplomatic? F*ck you! :)

I'm not mellow? F*ck you! :)

OK, I am actually getting more diplomatic and mellow...it comes with age. Just don't tell anyone!!

Originally posted by TLN
His poor presentation doesn't alter the facts one bit.

True. For some reason, believers tend to complain about things getting personal, but when I suggest that we skip the personal issues and focus on the real issues, they seem to run away...

Originally posted by TLN
The same thing goes for our host, James Randi.

Indeed. However, I can understand why he seems grumpy at times (he is not in r/l!), because of all the crap he has had to put up with over the years.... It's amazing that he can still laugh....

[TLN]

Originally posted by Sundog
You lost me. Are you saying Neofight is free to ignore your demand for a yes or no answer?

It's not a demand, it's a request. As such, she's free to ignore it. I won't hound her with it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
True. For some reason, believers tend to complain about things getting personal, but when I suggest that we skip the personal issues and focus on the real issues, they seem to run away...

You have to recognize that most of them aren't capable of this.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Indeed. However, I can understand why he seems grumpy at times (he is not in r/l!), because of all the crap he has had to put up with over the years.... It's amazing that he can still laugh....

For the record, I didn't pick Randi's career, he did. If he can't be civil in the face of a tsunami of ignorance he should have been a dentist.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Look Neo, if you don't answer, we will have to torture you until you confess...

LOL Cleopatra! I know. You haf veys uf making me tawk! lol Just whatever you do, please, PLEASE! Don't throw me into the briar patch!!! ;) .......neo

[voidx]

That depends, TLN. If, by "skeptically examine" my beliefs you mean allow myself to be browbeaten and insulted by a bunch of know-it-alls, no matter how well-meaning some of them might be, then the answer is an emphatic and resounding "NO!".

If, on the other hand, you mean to consider any and all of the evidence that skeptics might put forward that demonstrates either how JE has cheated, or how admitted cold-readers have successfully done readings in which they have "brought forth" information of the same caliber as what JE brings up, and on just as consistent a basis, then yes, I am willing to continue to look at all of that evidence, if it exists. ........neo
You complain about being insulted and then yet again lay a blanket statement of browbeating know-it-alls on us. A tad hypocritical. No more vague categories. I will no longer refer to believers, since my conversations on here are strictly with Clancie and yourself, I will refer to you directly, I figure we should all do the same.

As for the second part you're completely missing the emphasis again. You give the impression that you're coming here with a "convert me if you can" attitude. This is not the point. No one cares if you believe in JE or not. Go ahead, I don't care at all. I think you're wrong, and that you're reasons aren't very solid or logical, but go ahead. Yes, for us as skeptics to airtightly dispell JE's abilities it would be fantastic to have evidence of cheating, cold-readers doing the same "quality" as JE is subjective and I have my doubts whether or not you or Clancie would acknowledge it, if presented with such since we already disagree on many other points. But what you're missing is that we here have so far not been presented with anything that has convinced us that our belief in mundane explanations is not justified. Nothing in the form of transcripts or anything else has made the paranormal such an overriding choice over the mundane. Again, we can explain and demonstrate the mundane. No one can explain and demonstrate the paranormal on a consistent basis. I look at transcripts, and remember performances by JE, I see nothing impressive, I see nothing that requires a paranormal explanation, because I find the mundane makes just as much sense. I don't feel the need to convert you're belief in mediumship because I can't understand why logically you put the paranormal first. When you see his readings, you see suggestions and the potential for the paranormal, that is stronger than the mundane. You can't explain why you think the paranormal is stronger, you merely can state that the mundane is lacking. So show the strength of the paranormal viewpoint, show how it is so much more immeninently possible from the mundane. We all know where the mundane explanations are perhaps weak, but I've seen no one explain to me why the paranormal is so strong. The burden of this is upon you and Clancie as this is more your viewpoint. You don't have to, but I'm not going to take you seriously if you don't.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
You have to recognize that most of them aren't capable of this.

I know. Hope springs eternal, though.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Sundog
Here, watch this:

Hey Neofight: Do me a favor, PM Clancie and ask her if she thinks I'm a fair person, or if I'm going to try to trap you. Then do me the favor of answering this question:

If the conversation was to take place in a fair and low-key manner, would you feel comfortable allowing your beliefs to be questioned scientifically?

Thank you in advance.

Hi, Sundog. Well I forwarded your post to Clancie in an e-mail, but in the meantime, I have not seen anything in any of your own posts that would make me reluctant to respond to any questions that you might have. I mean, you sound like a fair-minded person to me. :) .....neo

[Sundog]

Originally posted by neofight


Hi, Sundog. Well I forwarded your post to Clancie in an e-mail, but in the meantime, I have not seen anything in any of your own posts that would make me reluctant to respond to any questions that you might have. I mean, you sound like a fair-minded person to me. :) .....neo

See, folks? I don't have the evangelistic zeal to pursue it, but I'll betcha I'd get faster and better results with this approach than would ever be obtained with the combative style.

Thanks, Neo, I won't even ask you for the answer; you already answered "yes" but certain folks were too busy demanding an answer to notice it. ;)

We'll speak again, I'm sure.

[voidx]

Originally posted by TLN


Neo is free to choose her conversation partners.

"Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?"
This is an important point. Love or hate the debating tactics of Claus, Neo and Clancie do repeatedly let themselves get dragged into the confrontations with him. I think this is TLN's point. Is it hard to not defend yourself against allegations you're a liar sure, but if you really think Claus is just blowing hot air, try you're best to ignore him and post you're views on the topic. While they complain about Claus, they repeatedly get into it with him regardless.

[voidx]

Posted by Sundog:
See, folks? I don't have the evangelistic zeal to pursue it, but I'll betcha I'd get faster and better results with this approach than would ever be obtained with the combative style.
Oh give me a break. I agree that the overly confrontational tone makes it harder to have an objective discussion, but this last little experiment is ridiculous. What was Neo going to say to you're request? No? I don't think so. And notice she can't just say..."sure". No one can say yes or no anymore. Yah its important to clarify, but what's with all the qualifiers. "Since the moon is full and my ankle is swollen and I have so far not found anything in you're posts that make you out to be a hound-dog, sure, I'll probably answer some questions.".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
For the record, I didn't pick Randi's career, he did. If he can't be civil in the face of a tsunami of ignorance he should have been a dentist.

A dentist?? :confused: Where did that come from? Dentists are all-serene creatures?? :)

[Sundog]

Originally posted by voidx

Oh give me a break. I agree that the overly confrontational tone makes it harder to have an objective discussion, but this last little experiment is ridiculous. What was Neo going to say to you're request? No? I don't think so. And notice she can't just say..."sure". No one can say yes or no anymore. Yah its important to clarify, but what's with all the qualifiers. "Since the moon is full and my ankle is swollen and I have so far not found anything in you're posts that make you out to be a hound-dog, sure, I'll probably answer some questions.".

Just making a point, and it's crystal clear. This is more than a one-time demonstration. I have a good rapport with Ian, with Clancie, with many of the people labeled "woo-woos". It means that they will talk to me in a manner they won't use with people who attack them.

Not meant to be proof of anything.

[thaiboxerken]

See, folks? I don't have the evangelistic zeal to pursue it, but I'll betcha I'd get faster and better results with this approach than would ever be obtained with the combative style.

What results are you looking for? If you are looking for evidence of mediumship and JE's authenticity, you won't get any further than the rest of us.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


See, folks? I don't have the evangelistic zeal to pursue it, but I'll betcha I'd get faster and better results with this approach than would ever be obtained with the combative style.

What results are you looking for? If you are looking for evidence of mediumship and JE's authenticity, you won't get any further than the rest of us.

I am merely making the (to me, blindingly obvious) point that you will get further with a cooperative witness than a hostile one.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Sundog


Just making a point, and it's crystal clear. This is more than a one-time demonstration. I have a good rapport with Ian, with Clancie, with many of the people labeled "woo-woos". It means that they will talk to me in a manner they won't use with people who attack them.

Not meant to be proof of anything.

But have you gained any more evidence of their claims than any of us? What have you really accomplished that makes your "way" better than CFL's or mine?

[Sundog]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


But have you gained any more evidence of their claims than any of us? What have you really accomplished that makes your "way" better than CFL's or mine?

See above.

Do you really expect people to communicate honestly if they perceive that they're being persecuted?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Sundog


I am merely making the (to me, blindingly obvious) point that you will get further with a cooperative witness than a hostile one.

To what ends? Your cooperative witness hasn't provided one more piece of evidence for her claims than the hostile one.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Sundog


See above.

Do you really expect people to communicate honestly if they perceive that they're being persecuted?

I don't expect Neo to communicate honestly regardless of her perception of the discussion. She is a believer, one who decieves herself into believing in the afterlife and mediumship. Why should I expect her not to try and decieve anyone else if she's not honest with herself?

Despite the fact that the believers like you more than me, CFL or other "harsh" skeptics, you haven't gained any more evidence from the believers than we have.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Sundog


Just making a point, and it's crystal clear. This is more than a one-time demonstration. I have a good rapport with Ian, with Clancie, with many of the people labeled "woo-woos". It means that they will talk to me in a manner they won't use with people who attack them.

Not meant to be proof of anything.
I'm all for rapport, to a degree. I have a decent rapport with Clancie, and at times with neofight, although she may disagree. It makes things easier, and there is less yelling back and forth, this is obvious. But its not distinctly necessary to debate or discuss these topics. People can be civil and discuss without having a friendly rapport with one another, they just have to be civil, not that that happens with everyone on here I'll admit. I guess the question would be, have you used you rapport with Clancie persay to debate her on her position further? I know I took quite a long time initially trying to in a civil manner pin down what her actual viewpoint is and I think I understand it pretty well. What's the point of the rapport if you don't use it for anything. Not that I think you don't use yours. Just making a point is all.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


To what ends? Your cooperative witness hasn't provided one more piece of evidence for her claims than the hostile one.

Like I said, I'm not emotionally involved enough in this to pursue it. But I have no doubt at all that any of these folks would react better to a spirit of inquiry than a spirit of inquisition.

(Ooh, that was good. Hey Mercutio...) ;)

I don't want to alienate all my fellow skeptics. I just think we shoot ourselves in the foot on occasion.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by voidx

I'm all for rapport, to a degree. I have a decent rapport with Clancie, and at times with neofight, although she may disagree. It makes things easier, and there is less yelling back and forth, this is obvious. But its not distinctly necessary to debate or discuss these topics. People can be civil and discuss without having a friendly rapport with one another, they just have to be civil, not that that happens with everyone on here I'll admit. I guess the question would be, have you used you rapport with Clancie persay to debate her on her position further? I know I took quite a long time initially trying to in a civil manner pin down what her actual viewpoint is and I think I understand it pretty well. What's the point of the rapport if you don't use it for anything. Not that I think you don't use yours. Just making a point is all.

That's a very fair point, of course. Things are certainly liable to move past the "friendly" stage. But I think a couple of folks here push it way too far - unnecessarily far - in the other direction.

Heck, if anyone remembers, I had a great rapport with Jedi Knight. I agreed with virtually nothing he said but he would talk to me even when he was p'd off at everyone else. Did I get anywhere with him? I'm not sure, but no other approach would have got anywhere, that's for sure.

But I admire all of you who do the "heavy lifting" as someone called it, don't think for a moment that I don't. I just question whether the extremely in-your-face style is the best way to get results.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Sundog


Like I said, I'm not emotionally involved enough in this to pursue it. But I have no doubt at all that any of these folks would react better to a spirit of inquiry than a spirit of inquisition.

(Ooh, that was good. Hey Mercutio...) ;)

I don't want to alienate all my fellow skeptics. I just think we shoot ourselves in the foot on occasion.

Ok.. So now that you have your witness that is cooperative, do you think you can at least ask for some evidence for their paranormal claims? They might react better to you, but I highly doubt that they'll provide you with any more valid evidence than they have to the "meanie" skeptics.

I can try to be nice to the believers, but I realized that it doesn't really matter.. they have no evidence, nor a logical reason to believe their claims.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Sundog


Like I said, I'm not emotionally involved enough in this to pursue it. But I have no doubt at all that any of these folks would react better to a spirit of inquiry than a spirit of inquisition.

(Ooh, that was good. Hey Mercutio...) ;)

I don't want to alienate all my fellow skeptics. I just think we shoot ourselves in the foot on occasion.
To the first part I agree, but at the same token I know at times their general bad experiences with skeptics they don't like can get carried over to other people, or general statements about "all-us-skeptics" which makes the spirit of inquiry harder.

As for the second part I agree completely, and understand that at times it probably causes the above problem.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Despite the fact that the believers like you more than me, CFL or other "harsh" skeptics, you haven't gained any more evidence from the believers than we have.

This is true but by claiming proof you actually ask somebody to question his beliefs. It's easier for somebody to question his beliefs when he doesn't feel that he has to pass an interrogation, don't you agree?

What are we interested in? To prove that believers have no evodences or to show them that they might be wrong?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Sundog

I just question whether the extremely in-your-face style is the best way to get results.

With people like Neo and Clancie, there are no results to get. They believe in their nonsense and no evidence contrary to it will change their minds. JE was caught cheating by Dateline, and they have rationalized that fact away and convinced themselves that JE wasn't really cheating. Reality doesn't matter to them, just the fantasy that there is an afterlife.

[Sundog]

Well, the point is either made or it's not made, so it's time for me to shut up now. :D

I apologize if I ruffled anyone's feathers. I really do have a great deal of respect for all of you, whether I think you're right at the moment or not.

On with the show!

[thaiboxerken]

This is true but by claiming proof you actually ask somebody to question his beliefs. It's easier for somebody to question his beliefs when he doesn't feel that he has to pass an interrogation, don't you agree?

Depends on the person, some people react better to interrogation and others don't.


What are we interested in? To prove that believers have no evodences or to show them that they might be wrong?

Both. I just say it outright and bluntly instead of beating around the bush. With my friends, I beat around the bush and I've helped a few come away from paranormal beliefs. However, it's obvious that Neo and Clancie are concrete believers that no method will work, so it's just fun to bash on them instead.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Sundog


That's a very fair point, of course. Things are certainly liable to move past the "friendly" stage. But I think a couple of folks here push it way too far - unnecessarily far - in the other direction.

Heck, if anyone remembers, I had a great rapport with Jedi Knight. I agreed with virtually nothing he said but he would talk to me even when he was p'd off at everyone else. Did I get anywhere with him? I'm not sure, but no other approach would have got anywhere, that's for sure.

But I admire all of you who do the "heavy lifting" as someone called it, don't think for a moment that I don't. I just question whether the extremely in-your-face style is the best way to get results.
I would question the effectiveness of the extreme in your face technique as well. While its important to be firm with people and stick to your points and make people stick to theirs and not wander off topic, its taken to far at times here. If you've posted a list of questions 14 times across 6 threads and their not getting answered repeatedly, yes, they could be avoiding the question, and this sometimes happens, but its also possible they just don't want to talk to you anymore, either way, its not really accomplishing anything.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[However, it's obvious that Neo and Clancie are concrete believers that no method will work, so it's just fun to bash on them instead.

Bash on them for fun?:eek:

I am sorry but I couldn't disagree more, in fact I want to believe that this is not what Clauss is doing...

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Bash on them for fun?:eek:

I am sorry but I couldn't disagree more, in fact I want to believe that this is not what Clauss is doing...

That's what I do, not CFL.

And I do find it fun.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Sundog
Well, the point is either made or it's not made, so it's time for me to shut up now. :D


I think most of us understand your point. I don't agree with it in context of the firm believers in here. They have already closed their minds to the possibility that their paranormal beliefs are wrong.

[neofight]

Originally posted by voidx

You complain about being insulted and then yet again lay a blanket statement of browbeating know-it-alls on us. A tad hypocritical. No more vague categories. I will no longer refer to believers, since my conversations on here are strictly with Clancie and yourself, I will refer to you directly, I figure we should all do the same.

That's fine, voidx. I don't think I've ever accused you of brow-beating, have I? I'm sure that the brow-beaters and the bullies know who they are, as do their butt-munchers. ;)

As for the second part you're completely missing the emphasis again. You give the impression that you're coming here with a "convert me if you can" attitude. This is not the point. No one cares if you believe in JE or not. Go ahead, I don't care at all. I think you're wrong, and that you're reasons aren't very solid or logical, but go ahead.

Well, then we should have the ideal climate for discourse, voidx, since I don't care if you believe in JE or not, either, nor do I particularly care what you may think of me. :)

Yes, for us as skeptics to airtightly dispell JE's abilities it would be fantastic to have evidence of cheating, cold-readers doing the same "quality" as JE is subjective and I have my doubts whether or not you or Clancie would acknowledge it, if presented with such since we already disagree on many other points.

Well, now that's not exactly what I would call a fair opinion of Clancie and me, voidx. In fact, it looks like a little pre-judging going on there on your part. Why would you believe we would not acknowledge good solid evidence if it were presented to us?

Don't forget, Lurker already tested some of us over at tvtalkshows, and he, as a skeptic testing our integrity as believers to objectively evaluate a sample "cold-reading", passed his test with flying colors. Ask him.

But what you're missing is that we here have so far not been presented with anything that has convinced us that our belief in mundane explanations is not justified. Nothing in the form of transcripts or anything else has made the paranormal such an overriding choice over the mundane.

I understand that, voidx. And at the risk of sounding patronizing,
I would respectfully suggest that you, and many other skeptics, are not quite as familiar with the types of information that we can expect to see come through with a medium that we believe might be real, vs a cold-reader such as Ian Rowland, Mark Edward or Michael Shermer. There is a definite difference.

If we didn't feel that we could discern a difference in these readings, we would not make the claim. All we've ever asked for was a decent sample or samples of the particular individuals readings, so that there would be enough to make a real comparison.

Again, we can explain and demonstrate the mundane. No one can explain and demonstrate the paranormal on a consistent basis. I look at transcripts, and remember performances by JE, I see nothing impressive, I see nothing that requires a paranormal explanation, because I find the mundane makes just as much sense.

I know. And yes, it's true that the mundane makes as much sense. In fact, we all agree that the mundane makes even more sense. :) It's when we don't see cold-readers able to achieve the same results that JE does, that we begin to wonder why that is.

Of course, the latest response from the skeptic side is that JE has been doing it so much longer than everyone else. That one is fairly new, and is hard to dispute, but if I were a cold-reader, I think I'd want to work on my act until I could work on a par with JE, if all he is doing is cold/warm/hot reading. It should be a piece of cake. Otherwise, it's just one more stale, unsubstantiated claim on the part of the skeptics.

Then again, please consider, without becoming offended, that your inability to see a difference between the two, or your failure to see something "impressive" in any JE reading, may originate from a blind spot that occurs from your pre-conceived notion that a paranormal explanation is simply not acceptable. ;) I'm not trying to rile you, voidx. I'm really not. But we all should acknowledge that Cognitive Resonance affects us all.

I don't feel the need to convert you're belief in mediumship because I can't understand why logically you put the paranormal first. When you see his readings, you see suggestions and the potential for the paranormal, that is stronger than the mundane. You can't explain why you think the paranormal is stronger, you merely can state that the mundane is lacking. So show the strength of the paranormal viewpoint, show how it is so much more immeninently possible from the mundane. We all know where the mundane explanations are perhaps weak, but I've seen no one explain to me why the paranormal is so strong. The burden of this is upon you and Clancie as this is more your viewpoint. You don't have to, but I'm not going to take you seriously if you don't.

Well, I'll tell you why that is, voidx. It's because when JE gives a successful reading in his studio, skeptics cry "foul" because of the editing factor, as well as speculation as to the place being "bugged", shills brought into the gallery, and "CO" staff getting an earful and reporting back to JE before the show. Special hits are thought to be gotten by internet/newspaper searches.

If he does well in a seminar format, skeptics claim faulty memory, innacurate note-taking and assigned seating, (read: hot reading) as the reason he gets hits. The "mole at the credit card office" theory gets introduced.

If the venue does not have assigned seats, then the JE staff mingling with the audience members gets floated as a possible explanation, along with cold-reading, which trust me, is pretty difficult when the sitter is way up in the balcony of a theater, and JE is down on the stage blinded by stage lights.

In all honesty, it gets to the point where a close observer of JE, who sees his readings as fairly consistent, no matter what the venue, finds these excuses to be less than adequate as theories, and searches for other explanations.

The only exception to the rule, for me, would be the short telephone readings that are done on shows such as LKL. And it's not that I don't think that JE is incapable of giving a good reading over the phone, because I think he is, but I believe it might be better done with one, single sitter, as opposed to the several that they attempt to squeeze on the show in that short time allowed. Let that reading run it's course, till JE stops getting information, and then if there's time after that, take another caller.

So, short of having unlimited access to both a self-proclaimed medium such as JE as well as an admitted cold-reader, such as the ones I've already mentioned, I guess all we can do it to try to respond as best we can to questions from people who are interested in why we see it differently than you might. :) .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by voidx

This is an important point. Love or hate the debating tactics of Claus, Neo and Clancie do repeatedly let themselves get dragged into the confrontations with him. I think this is TLN's point. Is it hard to not defend yourself against allegations you're a liar sure, but if you really think Claus is just blowing hot air, try you're best to ignore him and post you're views on the topic. While they complain about Claus, they repeatedly get into it with him regardless.

Voix, I have gone for weeks, perhaps months, over at tvtalkshows not bothering with Claus, (Cantata) as has Clancie. (Gryphon2) It never stopped him from posting directly to us, and making a pest of himself, even though we made it clear that we didn't want to interact with him.

But you are right. We are adults, and we should simply ignore him if we believe that he is out of line. And you can ask him. I do ignore many of his posts. Now, I only respond when I feel like it. The people here who know how to be civil, I've never had a problem with.......neo

[Clancie]

Well, TBK, you bash believers "just for fun". That's what it always seemed like--thanks for your candor.

******
TLN,
Commendable thread topic, although I disagree with most (not all) of your points. Basically, I have four things to respond to.

I. What is a JREF skeptic?

Posted by TLN
First off, this is a message board for critical and skeptical thinking. In the world according to me at least, this pretty much means one thing: science. The skeptics here employ the scientific method in the examination or simple consideration of unusual claims.
Actually, I see very little use of the scientific method here. Nor do people exhibit a whole lot of knowledge about mediumship in general--particularly historical research into it. (Those skeptics who do--dharlow and Mike D come to mind--are not so quick to say "there is absolutely no evidence in 100 years" or that all mediums have been shown to be fraudulent.)
Posted by TLN
Posting here is almost tantamount to saying “I can prove it” or at the very least “I think I can prove it, can anyone see any flaws in this theory?” It’s also an admission that you agree to play by the rules of science.

Here you must meet the burden of proof as described in the scientific method.
Ummm….says you. James Randi says otherwise:
Posted by James Randi in “Forum” Introduction

Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe.
According to your definition of this board, non skeptics (i.e. those not engaging in scientific method and providing evidence for their claims) should go elsewhere. That is clearly NOT James Randi’s message. He says “intelligent discussion”.

I agree with T’ai Chi. JREF is an educational, not scientific, foundation. Education, in the Socratic mode, often emerges out of intelligent discussion, the examination of different points of view on a variety of topics. I see nothing in JREF’s statements that say “believers” are unwelcome here.

You obviously feel that way, TLN—and apparently some others here agree with you (not all). But that is NOT stated as the official intent of this board, regardless of what you would like to claim.

Next.....

[Clancie]

II. 2 Kinds of Skepticism

I posted this several days ago. (Now I understand why your comment in the thread, TLN, was, “What’s your point?”)

Again, from Wikipedia, “Two Kinds of Skepticism”

Skepticism can mean:

Philosophical skepticism - a philosophical position in which people chooose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have true knowledge; or

Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced in accordance with the scientific method.

My point was (and is)…you (and some others) consider that only “Scientific skepticism” counts. I disagree. The first definition, “Philosophical skepticism” is where I am coming from.

If you're right, TLN, and it's all about "scientific skepticism" then the Paranormal forum should be shut down. There is nothing you personally would accept as “scientifically proven” in paranormal topics so any discussion about it would be totally pointless.

Yes, I agree with you about the “communication problem”. Two kinds of skepticism...leading to two totally different expectations from discussion….. Next point....

[neofight]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


With people like Neo and Clancie, there are no results to get. They believe in their nonsense and no evidence contrary to it will change their minds. JE was caught cheating by Dateline, and they have rationalized that fact away and convinced themselves that JE wasn't really cheating. Reality doesn't matter to them, just the fantasy that there is an afterlife.

Tbk, if you were even a little bit familiar with how JE does readings, you would understand that the fact that JE might end up reading some member of the crew, is quite common, and is, by no means, proof that he was cheating. He very often gets information from deceased family members/friends of the people he works with.

The fact that Tony the cameraman's dad came through was not all that unusual, and JE simply handled it the way he always does when something of that nature happens. He just passed on the information he got. If he was at all caught "off-guard" by Hockenberry, it was because he was basically being unjustly accused of having cheated.

This was a set-up by John Hockenberry and the Date-line show. They tried to turn an innocent thing into a "gotcha" moment, and skeptics everywhere were only too happy to buy into it.......neo

[Clancie]

III. Claus

Posted by TLN

If you’re the unlucky recipient of a Larsen List there’s only one reason: you didn’t answer the questions are they came up.
For the record, I strongly dispute this. But arguing over his “list” (in my case three lists—“Questions for Clancie”; “Questions Clancie does NOT want to answer” and “Question for Clancie Why Are You Not a Believer?”) – is pointless.

Those who see through his tactics, already understand my point. Those who think he does as you say, are unlikely to be convinced by a “back and forth” between me and Claus about it. (Not to mention it ratcheting up the “noise to signal” ratio which you rightly comment on).

Is Claus a fair skeptic? Imo, he is not. Again, those who see his tactics, have (imo courageously) commented about this here and elsewhere—and I appreciate their willingness to take such an unpopular stand.

TLN, you said neo can choose who she wishes to communicate with. But there is no way to opt out with Claus (despite the presence of many good debaters raising good points). He is relentless. (And not in a good way).

Just for curiosity, I looked over my posts for the last few days. He continually interjects himself into conversations I am having with others….

For example (these are just from 8/18 on….).

I posted to Mike D (in “Endless JE Debate”)…Claus chimed in to me despite the fact my post was to Mike.

I posted to voidx on “JE sets off Baloney Detector” and Claus posted back to me, following with 6 new questions and 3 new directives.

I post to neo on “Randi and the Psychic Challenge” and Claus jumped right in to post to me about what I'd said to neo.

I posted to Bill and there was…Claus…posting to me about it.

On my “More JE Live and Unedited” thread, I responded to voidx’s request for my opinion about the readings. I gave the opinion and immediately, Claus interjected himself, saying, “Hearsay. Your memory has shown to be not just flawed but consistently biased in favor of JE.”

I post on renata’s "JE hits on LKL" and he jumped in to accuse me of “moving goal posts" and listed another 5 new questions to me.

Then he posted about me to Juryjone. He posted in that thread to me about my response to Darat. Same thread, he posted to me about my response to voidx.

Even in this thread, he has already mentioned me more than ten times (some several paragraphs long)—and this is the first post I’ve even made here!!!

“Ignore him”? He doesn’t care. He hounds me, yes, "hounds" is the only possible word for it, TLN. He posts so often that he dominates and sets the tone for every discussion.

Now, you might say, “He’s just a champion of scientific thinking and a fervent debunker of woo-woos”. Then why then does he also come to other threads just to try to make me look bad?

Thanz accurately gave the example of the Schwartzenegger thread in "Politics". Claus even criticized me there for linking to an important Premiere magazine article—criticizing me on the basis that it was a WebArchive rather than a live web link!!!

One example that still rankles is when Genghis Pwn asked about learning Chinese. I posted some advice, and Claus chimed in—not to help GP, only to blast me by (falsely and irrelevantly) saying that I didn’t know the difference between Mandarin and Cantonese!!!!

Hounding??? You bet. Obsessive? Most definitely. Very personally motivated (for some reason that I don’t understand)? Without a doubt.

I agree with those who have said that this thread is to rationalize and justify his behavior. However, imo, his tactics (goading, baiting, badgering, belittling, misrepresenting….hounding) should be repudiated not endorsed or emulated.

IV. Personal note

For the record, Claus has accomplished the seemingly impossible--made me sick of debating mediumship. Really, I'm burned out totally from a year and a half of him.

Not that I'm leaving the board (I am, after all, a member in good standing). But I'm going back to Religion...Community...Politics...where discussion can, sometimes, resemble a bit more of a cozy tea party...or at least a civil exchange of divergent opinions, facts, and ideas.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, TBK, you bash believers "just for fun". That's what it always seemed like--thanks for your candor.

******
TLN,
Commendable thread topic, although I disagree with most (not all) of your points. Basically, I have four things to respond to.

I. What is a JREF skeptic?


Actually, I see very little use of the scientific method here. Nor do people exhibit a whole lot of knowledge about mediumship in general--particularly historical research into it. (Those skeptics who do--dharlow and Mike D come to mind--are not so quick to say "there is absolutely no evidence in 100 years" or that all mediums have been shown to be fraudulent.)
[/B]
Ummm….says you. James Randi says otherwise:
[/B]
According to your definition of this board, non skeptics (i.e. those not engaging in scientific method and providing evidence for their claims) should go elsewhere. That is clearly NOT James Randi’s message. He says “intelligent discussion”.

I agree with T’ai Chi. JREF is an educational, not scientific, foundation. Education, in the Socratic mode, often emerges out of intelligent discussion, the examination of different points of view on a variety of topics. I see nothing in JREF’s statements that say “believers” are unwelcome here.

You obviously feel that way, TLN—and apparently some others here agree with you (not all). But that is NOT stated as the official intent of this board, regardless of what you would like to claim.

Next..... [/B]

Clancie I absolutely agree whole-heartedly with everything you say here :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie
Again, from Wikipedia, “Two Kinds of Skepticism”


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skepticism can mean:

Philosophical skepticism - a philosophical position in which people chooose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have true knowledge; or

Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced in accordance with the scientific method.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



My point was (and is)…you (and some others) consider that only “Scientific skepticism” counts. I disagree. The first definition, “Philosophical skepticism” is where I am coming from.


Speaking for myself I only recognise philosophical skepticism. So called "scientific scepticism" will inevitably lead to scepticism about many things that obviously exist, but the nature of whch, for whatever reason, solid scientific evidence cannot be accumulated. I find it most unfortunate that almost everyone on here seems to be this type of "skeptic" rather than the proper type of skepticism engendered by philosophical skepticism. Oh well :(

[Cleopatra]

Clancie, in another thread we have decided that you owe Humanity an apology ... :p

You know very well my feelings ( of anger) regarding mediums and I have told you that in my association we do not lose opportunity to procecute them but I am not going to sit and enjoy the hobby of " chasing Clancie and Neofight around the forum".

I don't want JREF to turn into a Roman Arena.

edited to add

Clancie, I also think that you have another good reason to return to the Philosophy forum;over there, if somebody fails to make you agree with him he advises you to get laid more often, people do care in that forum...

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


It may be absurd, but he's done it. Relentlessly. And I don't think every person posting here who tends to believe that there might be something to mediumship is expecting, or even asking you, to accept anecdotes as evidence of anything. I really don't see that happening here, TLN.

We are just discussing the issue of how JE is able to do what he does, and some skeptics seem to enjoy these discussions as well, even if it can become somewhat frustrating at times, to both sides.


Couple of points here as far as I am aware TVTalkShows JE forum is not a forum for believers of JE, it is a forum for anyone who wants to talk about JE's TV show to talk about it.

It isn't as far as I am aware (and I'm happy to be corrected) meant to just be for believers to discuss what they believe JE can do.

Unlike this board it has no set "purpose", I am sure Claus can just as easily “accuse” you of "Relentlessly" going on about how JE can communicate with the dead.

Personally I am of the belief that if I make a claim anywhere it is only honest to try and support it or acknowledge that it is purely a belief or opinion.

I can't see why it matters where I make a particular claim, it's about integrity.

For instance if I said "Science has proven that pink unicorns exists" and then refuse to support that or acknowledge it's just something I'd like to be true is dishonest whether that be on a forum for believers of pink unicorns or a science rules forum.


Originally posted by neofight

That depends, TLN. If, by "skeptically examine" my beliefs you mean allow myself to be browbeaten and insulted by a bunch of know-it-alls, no matter how well-meaning some of them might be, then the answer is an emphatic and resounding "NO!".



To speak for another the answer has to be no, to sceptically examine your beliefs is to first of all accept that you might be wrong and start from that premise (Thanz I believe summed this up before by describing sceptiscms as a "state of doubt".)

Originally posted by neofight


If, on the other hand, you mean to consider any and all of the evidence that skeptics might put forward that demonstrates either how JE has cheated, or how admitted cold-readers have successfully done readings in which they have "brought forth" information of the same caliber as what JE brings up, and on just as consistent a basis, then yes, I am willing to continue to look at all of that evidence, if it exists. :) ........neo

So you are not sceptical about your beliefs, only the beliefs of others.

That is perhaps the key difference between a sceptic and a believer (to grossly generalise :( ) a sceptic has to be just as sceptical about their own faiths, given axioms, beliefs and proofs as they are of others whilst a believer is just sceptical of other people's faiths, given axioms, beliefs and proofs

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
So you are not sceptical about your beliefs, only the beliefs of others.

That is perhaps the key difference between a sceptic and a believer (to grossly generalise :( ) a sceptic has to be just as sceptical about their own faiths, given axioms, beliefs and proofs as they are of others whilst a believer is just sceptical of other people's faiths, given axioms, beliefs and proofs

I think you just hit it right on. Very well said.

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

Please provide evidence that JE "very often" gets information from deceased family members/friends of the people he works with.

I find it sad that you reject the fact that JE was caught cheating on Dateline. You may claim he wasn't, but then you are rejecting reality. Sad.

Please either:

address the questions, providing either a retraction or evidence of your claims, or
state that you refuse to answer.


"Questions for neo" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21305)

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

Wow. What a long rant from you. Good to get that off your chest.

I'll try to keep it brief:

If people here exhibit very little knowledge about mediumship, why don't you try to educate them? If you ask where you can learn more on this board, you usually get lots of information, links, references, etc. Yet, you don't want to seem to want to share your knowledge. You are always the one to ask for references, and to ask hypothetical questions, where others have to find evidence for/against it - yet you rarely - if ever - help others. I find that very odd. Some might even say selfish. I dunno.

You claim that Randi does not see science as an integrated part of this board. You are very wrong, and I think it is because you - again - do not present the full data. Or perhaps haven't done your homework. The JREF board is managed for the greater benefit of the JREF - that is, the foundation itself. Two of the foundation's goals are:

Demonstrating to the public and the media, through educational seminars, the consequences of accepting paranormal and supernatural claims without questioning.

Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

Skeptics and believers alike, we are guests here, kindly invited by JREF. I don't know about you, but I do my best to work for those goals, which I find extremely important.

Sure, we can argue about non-paranormal things, even have a tea party. But if you make a claim, you back it up with evidence. Those are the rules of this board. I hope you understand what is meant by "evidence". It is not hearsay, it is not anecdotes, it is not fantasies or wishful thinking.

So, yes, it is stated that we work from the scientific method(s) here. It is not a kaffee klatch, Clancie. Naturally, you are free to subscribe only to philosophical skepticism. But you don't set the rules of this board.

As for your list (I sure hope you saw the irony in making such a list, while complaining about mine!), well...what can I say? It is a free forum, where everybody can jump in, whenever they feel like it. If you want to have a private conversation, take it private. As TLN said, if you make a claim here, expect it to be challenged. Forum rules, Clancie. Deal with it.

I take your retreat from the mediumship debate as a "I refuse to answer the pending questions about mediumship". The list of questions you refuse to answer will be updated accordingly, for reference. Should you choose to return, I will repost the questions as a reminder, in the hope that you might have changed your mind about that also.

Whether you are a member of "good standing" is really something I would let others decide, if I were you. But if you want to attend a tea party (with no claims made), instead of seeking out the truth about how the universe works, fine with me.

As brief as it could be! :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Sundog


Just making a point, and it's crystal clear. This is more than a one-time demonstration. I have a good rapport with Ian, with Clancie, with many of the people labeled "woo-woos". It means that they will talk to me in a manner they won't use with people who attack them.

Not meant to be proof of anything.

Perhaps this is because you don't challenge anything they say or believe in?

(I have no idea if this is the case, it's not a claim it is posed as a question, feel free to ignore this question or answer it in anyway you want.)

[Diamond]

Originally posted by Darat


Oh yes it is.... :p

(Sorry couldn't resist please feel free to resume serious discussion.)

No, it isn't...

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat

Couple of points here as far as I am aware TVTalkShows JE forum is not a forum for believers of JE, it is a forum for anyone who wants to talk about JE's TV show to talk about it.

It isn't as far as I am aware (and I'm happy to be corrected) meant to just be for believers to discuss what they believe JE can do.

Absolutely not, and I for one, would not want it to be any other way. If I did, then Pam's JEF's site would be the only place I'd post.

Unlike this board it has no set "purpose", I am sure Claus can just as easily “accuse” you of "Relentlessly" going on about how JE can communicate with the dead.

Personally I am of the belief that if I make a claim anywhere it is only honest to try and support it or acknowledge that it is purely a belief or opinion.

I can't see why it matters where I make a particular claim, it's about integrity.

For instance if I said "Science has proven that pink unicorns exists" and then refuse to support that or acknowledge it's just something I'd like to be true is dishonest whether that be on a forum for believers of pink unicorns or a science rules forum.

I don't disagree with you Darat. But what is your point, exactly? Nobody is refusing to explain and/or support their opinions over at TVTalkShows. The discussion was about Claus' unreasonable demands about providing scientific evidence for every opinion that one might offer, even when it's already been acknowledged that there is no conclusivie scientific evidence that can prove it.

To speak for another the answer has to be no, to sceptically examine your beliefs is to first of all accept that you might be wrong and start from that premise (Thanz I believe summed this up before by describing sceptiscms as a "state of doubt".)

So you are not sceptical about your beliefs, only the beliefs of others.

Darat, I have never been unwilling to examine my beliefs, and I have never stated that there is no way that I'm wrong about mediumship. I just will not accept as conclusive, the way some skeptics do, the scant couple of pieces of flimsy circumstantial evidence that is often presented by some as proof positive of JE's being a fraud. It's sadly lacking, and by itself, means next to nothing.

That is perhaps the key difference between a sceptic and a believer (to grossly generalise :( ) a sceptic has to be just as sceptical about their own faiths, given axioms, beliefs and proofs as they are of others whilst a believer is just sceptical of other people's faiths, given axioms, beliefs and proofs

Well, needless to say, I absolutely disagree with your assertion that believers are only skeptical of other people's beliefs, and not of their own. And I think you are sadly mistaken in believing, as you seem to do, that skeptics are immune from their own confirmation bias. That's absurd. Dream on! :D .......neo

[Darat]

Originally posted by neofight


Absolutely not, and I for one, would not want it to be any other way. If I did, then Pam's JEF's site would be the only place I'd post.


I don't disagree with you Darat. But what is your point, exactly? Nobody is refusing to explain and/or support their opinions over at TVTalkShows. The discussion was about Claus' unreasonable demands about providing scientific evidence for every opinion that one might offer, even when it's already been acknowledged that there is no conclusivie scientific evidence that can prove it.




“acknowledged that there is no conclusivie scientific evidence that can prove it” by who?

Originally posted by neofight


Darat, I have never been unwilling to examine my beliefs, and I have never stated that there is no way that I'm wrong about mediumship. I just will not accept as conclusive, the way some skeptics do, the scant couple of pieces of flimsy circumstantial evidence that is often presented by some as proof positive of JE's being a fraud. It's sadly lacking, and by itself, means next to nothing.

…..

Well, needless to say, I absolutely disagree with your assertion that believers are only skeptical of other people's beliefs, and not of their own. And I think you are sadly mistaken in believing, as you seem to do, that skeptics are immune from their own confirmation bias. That's absurd. Dream on! :D .......neo

Hold on Neo, please consider what you are saying here. You are absolutely confirming my statement about a difference (generalised I know) between a “sceptic” and a “believer”.

(Please note also that your answer also demonstrates why I so much dislike the use of labels for people.)

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

Very well. You have repeatedly ignored my posts about you answering the questions. I take that as a "I refuse to answer the questions".

[Clancie]

Claus,
I'm always intrigued by your "good cop/bad cop" switches. But to correct a couple of your points....
Posted by CFLarsen

You claim that Randi does not see science as an integrated part of this board. You are very wrong
Actually, I was disputing TLN's assertion that this forum requires participants to use the scientific method and back up their posts with scientific evidence. Randi has not said that.
I don't know about you, but I do my best to work for those goals, which I find extremely important.
You work for them in your way; I work in mine. :)
But if you make a claim, you back it up with evidence.
And when you don't "make a claim"? When you represent some thought-provoking "possibilities" based on "evidence" that is definitely not the product of strictly controlled laboratory testing? If a discussion can't exist here without requiring everyone backing ideas and thoughts with indisputably rigorous "scientific evidence", then Paranormal should shut down. (And for the record, I have never claimed "proof" of mediumship, btw, as you claimed I did to Thanz).
Naturally, you are free to subscribe only to philosophical skepticism. But you don't set the rules of this board.
And neither do you (or TLN). Randi has never said (as TLN did) that believers are unwelcome at this board and should go elsewhere.

As for your list (I sure hope you saw the irony in making such a list, while complaining about mine!), well...what can I say? It is a free forum, where everybody can jump in, whenever they feel like it.
Of course. But I think your pattern in discussing with believers in general (and me in particular) often goes unnoticed by those not on the receiving end. You do dominate and set the tone of nearly every discussion on mediumship, Claus, for the reasons I mentioned. And you are impossible to put on "Ignore", because you will interject yourself into every conversation I participate in, often before anyone else "arrives". (I notice you didn't comment on the "other board" situation either, btw. Your GP posts criticizing me there, for example, were really...over the top, Claus).

Whether you are a member of "good standing" is really something I would let others decide, if I were you.
I just meant as in "JREF member in good standing". Just technically speaking. Not as in "a beloved member of the community".

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,
I'm always intrigued by your "good cop/bad cop" switches. But to correct a couple of your points....

Since you now post again in the Paranormal forum, I take it that you are ready to discuss mediumship. Am I correct?

Originally posted by Clancie
Actually, I was disputing TLN's assertion that this forum requires participants to use the scientific method and back up their posts with scientific evidence. Randi has not said that.

Yes, he has. This is the Paranormal forum. Here, if you make a claim, you have to show your evidence, accept if you don't have it, or clearly state that you refuse to answer questions about it.

Originally posted by Clancie
You work for them in your way; I work in mine. :)

Yes. I seek truth, you want a tea party. Problem is, you blame me for my "way".

Originally posted by Clancie
And when you don't "make a claim"? When you represent some thought-provoking "possibilities" based on "evidence" that is definitely not the product of strictly controlled laboratory testing? If a discussion can't exist here without requiring everyone backing ideas and thoughts with indisputably rigorous "scientific evidence", then Paranormal should shut down. (And for the record, I have never claimed "proof" of mediumship, btw, as you claimed I did to Thanz).

You argue in favor of mediumship, and point to evidence. You ask others for their evidence in these matters.

What "evidence" are you talking about?

Originally posted by Clancie
And neither do you (or TLN). Randi has never said (as TLN did) that believers are unwelcome at this board and should go elsewhere.

Who has said that believers are unwelcome???

Originally posted by Clancie
Of course. But I think your pattern in discussing with believers in general (and me in particular) often goes unnoticed by those not on the receiving end. You do dominate and set the tone of nearly every discussion on mediumship, Claus, for the reasons I mentioned. And you are impossible to put on "Ignore", because you will interject yourself into every conversation I participate in, often before anyone else "arrives". (I notice you didn't comment on the "other board" situation either, btw. Your GP posts criticizing me there, for example, were really...over the top, Claus).

"GP"?

Have you wondered, that if my "pattern" goes unnoticed, then it might be that there is no "pattern" at all? Why is it a problem that I am participating in the mediumship discussions? Is it my...tenaciousness you don't like, or the fact that you have a very hard time answering some (actually, most!) of the questions that arise from your claims?

I can see why you'd rather have me back down, but that won't happen. I'm here. You won't get rid of me.

Originally posted by Clancie
I just meant as in "JREF member in good standing". Just technically speaking. Not as in "a beloved member of the community".

I didn't say you described yourself as the latter. How do you know which JREF members are in "good standing"? Where is this rating shown?

[Sundog]

Just allow me to give an example of a tactic that I consider erroneous, that happened right here. I am paraphrasing for effect.

"Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science?"

"Yes, as long as you're not just browbeating me."

"Answer the question."

What is this, the third degree?

I see this sort of thing too much. "You're dishonest", "You owe me an apology", "Admit you're wrong or shut up". This is not skepticism. This is not intelligent inquiry. This is not a search for truth. It's simple badgering. Anyone who is a victim of it is fully justified in ignoring it completely in my book. Claus's oft-repeated claim that refusal to engage implies capitulation is dismissable as schoolyard logic.

I think skeptics should conduct themselves in a logically defensible manner, or quit calling themselves skeptics and admit that they have become zealots.

[voidx]

Originally posted by neofight
Well, now that's not exactly what I would call a fair opinion of Clancie and me, voidx. In fact, it looks like a little pre-judging going on there on your part. Why would you believe we would not acknowledge good solid evidence if it were presented to us?

Don't forget, Lurker already tested some of us over at tvtalkshows, and he, as a skeptic testing our integrity as believers to objectively evaluate a sample "cold-reading", passed his test with flying colors. Ask him.
What I meant is examples I've taken as clear examples of JE doing what I consider indistinguishable from cold-reading, you've thought otherwise. That's the problem. I could point out something here that everyone else considers cold-reading and you would not, because its somewhat subjective. And in fact, while I may have my preconceived notion that he is not talking to the dead, you also have yours that he is. It goes both ways.

I understand that, voidx. And at the risk of sounding patronizing,
I would respectfully suggest that you, and many other skeptics, are not quite as familiar with the types of information that we can expect to see come through with a medium that we believe might be real, vs a cold-reader such as Ian Rowland, Mark Edward or Michael Shermer. There is a definite difference.

If we didn't feel that we could discern a difference in these readings, we would not make the claim. All we've ever asked for was a decent sample or samples of the particular individuals readings, so that there would be enough to make a real comparison.
Firstly familiarity does not always breed expertise. Second, I've seen no clear posting of all these "special hits" even though I've asked for them. I have all of Renata's, and a few examples you and Clancie have posted. And even those we've picked holes in. You've not been able to explain adequately to me how the examples you've posted so far are more likely an example of unexplained, paranormal instances than they are as likely cold-reading. I'm very much going to have to respectfully disagree with you here entirely. Logically looking at these readings there's clear evidence of fishing for information, of broadening the scope of his questions, and in cases where this is less shown, we've had examples of legitamitely questioned whether we even have the full verbal exchange, such as the cut down the tree in the graveyard plot example. If you have a better understanding of these types of special hits, and the information gleaned from them, then prove it, demonstrate it, post the transcripts and explain it to me. Until then I've only your own word that your understanding of what to look for is better than mine.

I know. And yes, it's true that the mundane makes as much sense. In fact, we all agree that the mundane makes even more sense. :) It's when we don't see cold-readers able to achieve the same results that JE does, that we begin to wonder why that is.
But you have a belief in the afterlife correct? Again my problem with this is you say you agree that the mundane is more likely, yet you discount it because the mundane cannot reproduce, in your opinion, the quality seen within JE and other mediums. And you lean towards the paranormal explanation do you not? You argue quite strongly against any attempt to draw a line between the mundane explanations and mediumship, if your response to the mundane explanations wasn't so vehement, I might give you're above statement a little more muster.

Of course, the latest response from the skeptic side is that JE has been doing it so much longer than everyone else. That one is fairly new, and is hard to dispute, but if I were a cold-reader, I think I'd want to work on my act until I could work on a par with JE, if all he is doing is cold/warm/hot reading. It should be a piece of cake. Otherwise, it's just one more stale, unsubstantiated claim on the part of the skeptics.
It wouldn't be a piece of cake, JE has been doing this for years, decades. You shouldn't need a clear case of cold-reading equals JE to question what he's doing. I think this is where you and Clancie make a mistake. If the mundane is more likely, and JE at times resembles ever bit the cold-reader, that alone should be making you doubt his abilities, but you refuse too until you see a cold-reader do as well. While it would be nice to see, and pretty damning for JE, its not wholly necessary.

Then again, please consider, without becoming offended, that your inability to see a difference between the two, or your failure to see something "impressive" in any JE reading, may originate from a blind spot that occurs from your pre-conceived notion that a paranormal explanation is simply not acceptable. ;) I'm not trying to rile you, voidx. I'm really not. But we all should acknowledge that Cognitive Resonance affects us all.
Firstly I won't become offended if you can provide an example, any example, of my inability to differeniate what makes an impressive hit. You say this as if its fact, I'd suggest you reconsider. And I never said the paranormal was not acceptable, I've always stated that it doesn't make logical sense, that its inconsistent, and that it seems much less likely than the mundane explanation, so try not to misinterprete me there. You're still missing this point. While I might find the examples given so far as being good cold-reading, they do not impress me any more than a cold-reader landing a great hit would. And their usually precluded by some fishing for information, or broadening of the his questions, I've discussed these exampels in other threads. Yet again, there's not case so far that has come even remotely close to making me assume a paranormal explanation, they are so much more likely to be mundane as any other hit of JE's that's not special is so much more easily explained by the mundane. If his average hits fit in with cold-reading and other techniques, why would you not follow that his special hits are too, why hopscotch in those cases over to a more paranormal explanation? If you want to call them mysterious, I'd give you that perhaps depending on the example, but I so far have not been inclined to give you..."hmmm he might be talking to the dead on this one".

Well, I'll tell you why that is, voidx. It's because when JE gives a successful reading in his studio, skeptics cry "foul" because of the editing factor, as well as speculation as to the place being "bugged", shills brought into the gallery, and "CO" staff getting an earful and reporting back to JE before the show. Special hits are thought to be gotten by internet/newspaper searches.
While I cannot discount any of those possibilities I've never claimed them myself, so forget the "other skeptics" and respond to me. While all those other points are possible, and I think the editing, while not evidence of cheating, surely casts a huge doubt on the potential objectivety of the show and its transcripts, I'm willing to stand on my general cold-reading description alone. On LKL he does poorly because he its a one on one reading, its live, he's not face to face with the sitter. On CO and in Seminars he does better, which I'm possibly willing to give you, if we ever get some transcripts posted from either. My explanation for this is, he's in a group setting, more ideal for a cold-reader, he has more time, more ideal for a cold-reader, he's face to face with whoever he decides to do the reading for, more ideal for a cold-reader. Now I believe your contention is that he cannot communicate as well via phone, or tv because of possible communication problems, and that the time is too short. I'd like to see something stated by JE that describes these above points as problems. I can think of several that contradict the above. Also, if you can, explain to me why my above explanation does not seem logical, or rather, why any other explanation, whatever it is, is immenintently more likely.

If he does well in a seminar format, skeptics claim faulty memory, innacurate note-taking and assigned seating, (read: hot reading) as the reason he gets hits. The "mole at the credit card office" theory gets introduced.

If the venue does not have assigned seats, then the JE staff mingling with the audience members gets floated as a possible explanation, along with cold-reading, which trust me, is pretty difficult when the sitter is way up in the balcony of a theater, and JE is down on the stage blinded by stage lights.
Again while all possible, I don't see them as necessary if intial cold-reading and fishing for information works as well. Also if someone in the crowd is already claiming something JE has tossed out, then he's got a foot in the door, while more difficult than normal as he can't sit face to face with them and must do it at a distance, you cannot claim extreme difficulty of cold-reading, we don't know this for sure.

In all honesty, it gets to the point where a close observer of JE, who sees his readings as fairly consistent, no matter what the venue, finds these excuses to be less than adequate as theories, and searches for other explanations.{/quote]
And this is the crux of the issue, you see his readings as fairly consistent. Everything I've seen here so far has shown him as anything but consistent, or if anything, consistently resembling a cold-reader. So of course you don't find our points adequate.

[quote]The only exception to the rule, for me, would be the short telephone readings that are done on shows such as LKL. And it's not that I don't think that JE is incapable of giving a good reading over the phone, because I think he is, but I believe it might be better done with one, single sitter, as opposed to the several that they attempt to squeeze on the show in that short time allowed. Let that reading run it's course, till JE stops getting information, and then if there's time after that, take another caller.
Of course this would be as good an arguement for cold-reading as mediumship. The longer you give him to fish about, the more likely he'll get something seemingly significant. Because he certaintly does fish about and broaden questions while on LKL.

So, short of having unlimited access to both a self-proclaimed medium such as JE as well as an admitted cold-reader, such as the ones I've already mentioned, I guess all we can do it to try to respond as best we can to questions from people who are interested in why we see it differently than you might. :) .....neo
True enough, but we can still try and look at them logically. In my opinion the mediumship angle does not logically hold up, or at the very least, does not hold up anywhere near as well as the mundane.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Clancie
II. 2 Kinds of Skepticism

I posted this several days ago. (Now I understand why your comment in the thread, TLN, was, “What’s your point?”)

Again, from Wikipedia, “Two Kinds of Skepticism”

Skepticism can mean:

Philosophical skepticism - a philosophical position in which people chooose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have true knowledge; or

Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced in accordance with the scientific method.
My point was (and is)…you (and some others) consider that only “Scientific skepticism” counts. I disagree. The first definition, “Philosophical skepticism” is where I am coming from.

If you're right, TLN, and it's all about "scientific skepticism" then the Paranormal forum should be shut down. There is nothing you personally would accept as “scientifically proven” in paranormal topics so any discussion about it would be totally pointless.

Yes, I agree with you about the “communication problem”. Two kinds of skepticism...leading to two totally different expectations from discussion….. Next point....
We went over this before Clancie. The idea of the soul not being connected to the body, or the, are we real in the manner that we perceive ourselves to be real would be philosophical, and perhaps even the idea of the afterlife would be as well. However the process by which the soul passes on after the death of the physical body would be scientific, and here's the most important part. Communication with the physical realm would be wholly within the realms of science. Its communication, science will be able to explain how this occurs. It will be able to measure it and understand it. We have true knowledge of how all other forms of communication work, of "energy" and "vibrating molecules". While Ian might discount these based on his world view, their at least consistent and understood within the world view of science, and so should telepathy/esp/psi. While some aspects of mediumship could be more philosophical in nature, one cannot deny the scientific nature of the claim. Now I see what you're saying, you cannot show much of anything solid in a scientific sense for mediumship and telepathy, and so argue that you're really only left with more philosophical venues of discussion. Sure, I'll agree with that to a degree, but then I think you would question you're potential belief in it because of this fact. Again I can admit to not knowing how its all accomplished via mundane means, but I've no airtight reason for positing the paranormal. So while you can admit to their being 2 different kinds of skepticism, I wholly disagree that you can seperate them without admitting that often, one requires the other in order to prove or discuss anything. The idea of, I'm a philosophical skeptic and you're a scientific skeptic doesn't preclude us from using normal logic to look at a potential process like mediumship communication.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by voidx
[B]
We went over this before Clancie. The idea of the soul not being connected to the body, or the, are we real in the manner that we perceive ourselves to be real would be philosophical, and perhaps even the idea of the afterlife would be as well. However the process by which the soul passes on after the death of the physical body would be scientific,


Not if the soul isn't physical it wouldn't. Unless consciousnesses, minds, souls are to be equated with physical things, entities or processes, which in my opinion is ludicrous, then the "process" by which the soul passes on after the death of the physical body cannot lie within the realm of science.

[voidx]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Not if the soul isn't physical it wouldn't. Unless consciousnesses, minds, souls are to be equated with physical things, entities or processes, which in my opinion is ludicrous, then the "process" by which the soul passes on after the death of the physical body cannot lie within the realm of science.
If you by the idea that we have physical bodies period, they'd at least have to be linked somehow. How else would my consciousness be tied to this particular physical vessel then? I get the feeling we just disagree on a very fundamental way here Ian.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
And neither do you (or TLN). Randi has never said (as TLN did) that believers are unwelcome at this board and should go elsewhere.

I never said believers are not welcome here Clancie. Ever.

Clancie, why do you post here?

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

I never said believers are not welcome here. Ever.
Well, I think your feelings seem pretty clear from your post, TLN.
Posted by TLN

If you’re not here to think critically about your claims, you should probably post elsewhere.
and..Posted by TLN

No one is saying you have to examine your claims. By all means, don’t. But at least recognize that fact, admit it, and move on.
Posted by TLN

But again, posting here is...also an admission that you agree to play by the rules of science. Again, you don’t have to, but then what are you doing here?
and this....
Posted by TLN

If it’s the latter, there are plenty of message boards on the internet where you won’t have to suffer the constant barrage of questions and the stoicism of the questioners.

As for your last question....
Posted by TLN

Clancie, why do you post here?
I think you really should be able to figure it out from what I already wrote in this thread, TLN.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Clancie,

Wow. What a long rant from you. Good to get that off your chest.

I'll try to keep it brief:

If people here exhibit very little knowledge about mediumship, why don't you try to educate them? If you ask where you can learn more on this board, you usually get lots of information, links, references, etc. Yet, you don't want to seem to want to share your knowledge. You are always the one to ask for references, and to ask hypothetical questions, where others have to find evidence for/against it - yet you rarely - if ever - help others. I find that very odd. Some might even say selfish. I dunno.

You claim that Randi does not see science as an integrated part of this board. You are very wrong, and I think it is because you - again - do not present the full data. Or perhaps haven't done your homework. The JREF board is managed for the greater benefit of the JREF - that is, the foundation itself. Two of the foundation's goals are:



Skeptics and believers alike, we are guests here, kindly invited by JREF. I don't know about you, but I do my best to work for those goals, which I find extremely important.

Sure, we can argue about non-paranormal things, even have a tea party. But if you make a claim, you back it up with evidence. Those are the rules of this board. I hope you understand what is meant by "evidence". It is not hearsay, it is not anecdotes, it is not fantasies or wishful thinking.

So, yes, it is stated that we work from the scientific method(s) here. It is not a kaffee klatch, Clancie. Naturally, you are free to subscribe only to philosophical skepticism. But you don't set the rules of this board.

As for your list (I sure hope you saw the irony in making such a list, while complaining about mine!), well...what can I say? It is a free forum, where everybody can jump in, whenever they feel like it. If you want to have a private conversation, take it private. As TLN said, if you make a claim here, expect it to be challenged. Forum rules, Clancie. Deal with it.

I take your retreat from the mediumship debate as a "I refuse to answer the pending questions about mediumship". The list of questions you refuse to answer will be updated accordingly, for reference. Should you choose to return, I will repost the questions as a reminder, in the hope that you might have changed your mind about that also.

Whether you are a member of "good standing" is really something I would let others decide, if I were you. But if you want to attend a tea party (with no claims made), instead of seeking out the truth about how the universe works, fine with me.

As brief as it could be! :)

From that we can take it that you agree that my ladybrook example of the psi effect is now proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In addition, we can now lay to rest that you apologise for colluding with TLN's previous use of forged quotes which he tried to attribute as mine.

Good, you are moving forward and waking up at long last.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
From that we can take it that you agree that my ladybrook example of the psi effect is now proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

Sorry Luci, not by the standards of science. Let me know when you're ready for a genuine study of your powers.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I think you really should be able to figure it out from what I already wrote in this thread, TLN.

I can't. Will you help me please?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


Sorry Luci, not by the standards of science. Let me know when you're ready for a genuine study of your powers.

Hi there. Maybe you missed it, but I have explained that I have undergone study and tests with Dr Steinkemp from Edingburgh University (Koestler Inst). Thank you for the offer though.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Hi there. Maybe you missed it, but I have explained that I have undergone study and tests with Dr Steinkemp from Edingburgh University (Koestler Inst). Thank you for the offer though.

May we see it?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


May we see it?

Not at the moment, it is being peer reviewed, you will have to wait for publication. For my part in the experiments, I can tell you that I was extraordineeriely accurate. :re:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Not at the moment, it is being peer reviewed, you will have to wait for publication.

When?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


When?

With a bit of luck, by the end of the year.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
With a bit of luck, by the end of the year.

Why can't we see the original study now?

[Clancie]

TLN: Clancie, what is your reason for being here?

Clancie: I think you really should be able to figure it out from what I already wrote in this thread.

TLN: I can't. Will you help me please?
Really. Well, then here it is for you. My purpose is "to be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

What's yours?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by TLN


Why can't we see the original study now?

It's likely that there is very little science involved with the experiments and tests done on Lucky.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Really. Well, then here it is for you. My purpose is "to be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a lot of skeptics here are going to ask you to "prove" your beliefs?

My point is, if you don't want to be questioned, why post here?

[TLN]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's likely that there is very little science involved with the experiments and tests done on Lucky.

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

So, why can't we see the study now? Why do we have to wait for the peer review?

[Clancie]

TLN, I answered you...twice. Did you miss my reciprocal question?

What's your reason for being here?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by TLN


I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

So, why can't we see the study now? Why do we have to wait for the peer review?

It might not exist, that's my first guess.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


Why can't we see the original study now?

Claus would probably have it censored and there are people who deserve deserve to assimilate it before you. It will assimilate through the appropriate channels. Like most of the public, you will have to wait for publication.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Claus would probably have it censored and there are people who deserve deserve to assimilate it before you. It will assimilate through the appropriate channels. Like most of the public, you will have to wait for publication.

Could Claus have is censored from a person's e-mail account or PM's? That's ok, I won't be holding my breath for another paranormal BS test result.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


It's likely that there is very little science involved with the experiments and tests done on Lucky.

What are you talking about? Are you referring to Dr Steinkemp? Please be specific.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


What are you talking about? Are you referring to Dr Steinkemp? Please be specific.

How can I be specific about a test that hasn't been released for scrutiny yet? I'm merely expressing my opinion that this will be just another BS experiment, like the Ganzfield experiments.. like Schwartz's experiments and like remote viewing experiments.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
What's your reason for being here?

To discuss skepticism.

Originally posted by Clancie
Did you miss my reciprocal question?

No. Did you miss mine?

Originally posted by TLN
Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that a lot of skeptics here are going to ask you to "prove" your beliefs?

My point is, if you don't want to be questioned, why post here?

[Starrman]

With a bit of luck, by the end of the year.

Cool. That is the same time I will be releasing the plans for my perpetual motion machine! I have the plans now, but for various reasons (which depend on your particular objection) I can't let them out right now. Is that Psirony?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


How can I be specific about a test that hasn't been released for scrutiny yet?

Then you cannot claim anything about Dr Steinkemp either. You certainly can't draw such libelous 'liklihood' from her already proven eminent credibility as a scientist. It would be honourable of you to at least apologise. I hope you do.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Starrman


Cool. That is the same time I will be releasing the plans for my perpetual motion machine! I have the plans now, but for various reasons (which depend on your particular objection) I can't let them out right now. Is that Psirony?

No, that's bollocks.:roll:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus would probably have it censored and there are people who deserve deserve to assimilate it before you. It will assimilate through the appropriate channels. Like most of the public, you will have to wait for publication.

I will not have it "censored". All I want is a reference. No need to post the full thingie here.

Just a link.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Then you cannot claim anything about Dr Steinkemp either. You certainly can't draw such libelous 'liklihood' from her already proven eminent credibility as a scientist. It would be honourable of you to at least apologise. I hope you do.

I can form opinions based on reality. The reality is that people don't have superpowers. I don't care who it is that claims it, unless they provide real and scientific data, I will stand by that.

I'll apologize to Dr Steinkemp when her results earn her a Nobel prize for showing that psi exists.

I'll bet money that this doesn't happen, how much would you like to place on this bet?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I will not have it "censored". All I want is a reference. No need to post the full thingie here.

Just a link.

Sorry, Claus, you will have to wait, probably until last, which is the way you like it, evidently. You create the conditions in which you can remain asleep, hence your censorship of the paper which provides proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the replications Hyman wanted. But there you go.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Sorry, Claus, you will have to wait, probably until last, which is the way you like it, evidently. You create the conditions in which you can remain asleep, hence your censorship of the paper which provides proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the replications Hyman wanted. But there you go.

In otherwords, you aren't going to provide a link because you know it would get ripped apart by the skeptics. That's ok, you can keep close minded and protect your beliefs from us "evil" skeptics.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I can form opinions based on reality. The reality is that people don't have superpowers. I don't care who it is that claims it, unless they provide real and scientific data, I will stand by that.

I'll apologize to Dr Steinkemp when her results earn her a Nobel prize for showing that psi exists.



You made the claim about the standard of the science employed in these tests. I really do suggest you apologise, Ken.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


You made the claim about the standard of the science employed in these tests. I really do suggest you apologise, Ken.

I told you the conditions in which I will apologise. I really don't understand your implied threat, what will happen if I don't apologise?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


I told you the conditions in which I will apologise. I really don't understand your implied threat, what will happen if I don't apologise?

That, is not in my hands. Your conditions are clearly corrupt in terms of your defense, they have nothing to do with your original claim, which was about the standard of Dr Steinkemp's science. You create your own karma, Ken. I am trying to help you here.

[TLN]

Luci,

Why do we have to wait?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


That, is not in my hands. Your conditions are clearly corrupt in terms of your defense, they have nothing to do with your original claim, which was about the standard of Dr Steinkemp's science. You create your own karma, Ken. I am trying to help you here.

Ooohhh.. I'm so scared of the Big, Bad, Karma monster.. especially since I've done nothing wrong. :rolleyes:

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN
Luci,

Why do we have to wait?

There are people who deserve to assimilate it before you. It will assimilate through the appropriate channels. Like most of the public, you will have to wait for publication.

[Sundog]

Has anyone, in the history of mankind, ever apologized because an apology was demanded of him? Maybe a few times, I suppose.

I have here a pile of apologies.I offer an apology to anyone who wants one from anyone else, on their behalf, free of charge. Now get on with the hand-waving.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
There are people who deserve to assimilate it before you. It will assimilate through the appropriate channels. Like most of the public, you will have to wait for publication.

This is no way answers my question. Why do I not "deserve" to view it?

Luci, put up or shut up. No one's intersted in the promises of someone who engages in as much dishonesty as you.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Ooohhh.. I'm so scared of the Big, Bad, Karma monster.. especially since I've done nothing wrong. :rolleyes:

Ultimately, that judgement is passed by those who are conscious of the reality you share and act in, not solely by yourself.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Sundog
Has anyone, in the history of mankind, ever apologized because an apology was demanded of him? Maybe a few times, I suppose.



Nothing has been demanded of Ken, that would not be true to responsibility, he has been asked to take that decision for himself.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


Ultimately, that judgement is passed by those who are conscious of the reality you share and act in, not solely by yourself.

LOL. Yea sure. And if that doesn't work, you'll shoot laserbeams out of your eyes to take care of me, eh? C'mon Lucky, you can't threaten me with fairytales and myths. I'm as scared of your "karma" as I am of the christians' "hell".

Wow, you're stupid.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


This is no way answers my question.


Yes, it does. It may not meet your wants, but that is not my responsibility.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


LOL. Yea sure. And if that doesn't work, you'll shoot laserbeams out of your eyes to take care of me, eh? C'mon Lucky, you can't threaten me with fairytales and myths. I'm as scared of your "karma" as I am of the christians' "hell".



You have nothing what so ever to fear from my Karma, Ken. Only yours.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


You have nothing what so ever to fear from my Karma, Ken. Only yours.

Yea, whatever. :rolleyes:

STFU you stupid troll.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Yea, whatever. :rolleyes:



Indeed, whatever.

[TLN]

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread:

Originally posted by TLN
Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?


Originally posted by CFLarsen
Questions for Lucianarchy

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

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

So, Lucianarchy - are you up for it?

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


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

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


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

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


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



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


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


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

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


Randi/Magic
Why hasn't Dr. Gary Schwartz applied for the Randi Challenge? Why haven't SAIC applied for the Randi Challenge? Why hasn't Uri Geller applied for the Randi Challenge? Why haven't you (and your team) applied for the Randi Challenge? Have you read the terms for the Randi Challenge?
Answer:"I have read the terms of the Challenge." Do you understand the terms for the Randi Challenge?
If yes, why do you continue to refer to the test as a "grant" and not a "challenge/test"? Do you realize that the posters here are not JREF staff, except Randi, Andrew and Linda? Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?

Answer:"Of course not. But perhaps that illustrates the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor."
Status: Highly likely that it is L's statement. Very similar ISPs. Why do you want to oppress and silence those who criticise your beliefs, e.g. James Randi's website? Do you think it is possible that you could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that someone who has been in a spaceship or who worked for a huge, bureaucratic government agency could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that David Blaine could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that parapsychologists could be fooled by a masterful magician? Do you think it is possible that Jane Katra was doing a trick, when the bowl in her hand rolled up 180 degrees? If not, why not? Do you think it would be in Jane Katra's interest (financially and emotionally) to act scared, in order to heighten the believability of a trick? If not, why not? How does the "sawed-through lady" trick work? What about the "disappearing dove in a cage" trick?


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


And the final one:

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

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN
We now return to our regularly scheduled thread:

Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?

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


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



My answer has been given in the 'status' element. I am a skeptic and I am skeptical of your claim. Please provide evidence to back your claim that they are "very similar ISPs". Your failure to do so will demonstrate the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor.

[TLN]

Loki, you are no skeptic. Here's why:

All your beliefs have alternative mundane explanations that you ignore.

Asked to produce actual evidence that we can all scrutinize on a variety of claims, you evade.

Asked to answer direct questions that flow from your claims and you ignore them.

You make arguments from authority all the time. You just did above.

You know nothing about science.

Loki, you're a believer. Your not here to skeptically examine your beliefs, you're here to simply parrot the explanations of other people that you don't even understand. Asked to elaborate, all you have to offer is "Is to!" and a foot stomp.

Please, go troll elsewhere. You're not fooling anyone here, believer or skeptic alike.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread:

Is this your statement, Lucianarchy?



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



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



TLN, why are you not backing up your claim you just posted here?
Under the circumstances of your thread, it demonstrats a propensity for you to be extraordinarily hypocritical.

My answer has been given in the 'status' element. I am a skeptic and I am skeptical of your claim. Please provide evidence to back your claim that they are "very similar ISPs". Your failure to do so will demonstrate the desperation and tactics psuedo-skeptics will stoop to in order to smear, denigrate and censor.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
TLN, why are you not backing up your claim you just posted here?
Under the circumstances of your thread, it demonstrats a propensity for you to be extraordinarily hypocritical.

That's Claus' statement/claim, not mine.

Besides, can you tell me why I should answer any of your questions when you never answer mine?

I'll play fair as soon as you do.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


That's Claus' statement/claim, not mine.



You posted it, I assumed you'd take responsibility for it. The forged quotes were presented by yourself, Liarson made the lie bigger making the claim on the ISP's.

Proof, that you are both liars.

In other words, more censorship. Don't you think anyone will notice what it is you are trying to censor? :confused:

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
I am a skeptic and I am skeptical of your claim.
Sure, like I'm a born agin Christian.
Praise the Lard.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You posted it, I assumed you'd take responsibility for it. The forged quotes were presented by yourself, Liarson made the lie bigger making the claim on the ISP's.

Proof, that you are both liars.

In other words, more censorship. Don't you think anyone will notice what it is you are trying to censor? :confused:

Rant on. When you're ready to discuss science, give me a ring...

[thaiboxerken]

http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/


What's this?! Edinburgh University studies into psychic stuff? Hmmm...let us scrutinise this and see what we find.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Dr+Steinkemp&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&selm=r82B9.5806%24B92.684460%40newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net&rnum=1

Thanks to my anonymous source for providing me with such information.

[thaiboxerken]

I guess we can always e-mail Dr Steinbeck about Lucky's experiment and the research done on Lucky.

http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/ejua35/welcome.htm

That's her homepage.

f.steinkamp@ed.ac.uk

That's her e-mail address.

[Lucianarchy]

Is there a resonable forum member here who would be prepared to ask Claus to back up his claim based on the forged quotes, which TLN raised?

Thanks in advance.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Is there a resonable forum member here...

Hmm, let me look around.

Nope, don't think so. :D

Have a good weekend, everyone.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by Sundog


Hmm, let me look around.

Nope, don't think so. :D

Have a good weekend, everyone.

And to you.

I think you are a very reasonable member of this forum. Would you be good enough to ask the question?

[Lucianarchy]

OK, well that just about wraps up TLN and Larsen. Liars and hypocrites, who depend on the use of lies - forged quotes in order to make themselves presumably 'feel better' because they are unable to debunk whatever they fear, and hypocrites - backing down and clamming up to their own claims, claims which if so called 'believers' had made, would have them both ripping and tearing into the bones of their prey.

The fact that TLN instigated this thread, and now runs from his own claim, just about says it all. :rolleyes:

[neofight]

originally posted by TLN:
Loki, you are no skeptic.

TLN, "not for nothin", as they say, but if you are referring to Lucianarchy, you should really use enough of that person's username to correctly identify them.

"Loki" is an entirely different person who posts here, and he is a skeptic from Australia. :D ......neo

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The fact that TLN instigated this thread, and now runs from his own claim, just about says it all. :rolleyes:

I haven't run from any claim as I haven't made one.

Clancie, did you want to continue our discussion?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


I haven't run from any claim as I haven't made one.



Yes you did, a vicarious one, by proxy. You posted up a Larsen List. In which, there is the claim about the forged quotes you used and the claim about "similar ISP's".

You started this thread, I have been most co-operative in answering your questions in this thread. It is very hypocritical of you to run away now such a germane one has arisen which concerns you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yes you did, a vicarious one, by proxy. You posted up a Larsen List. In which, there is the claim about the forged quotes you used and the claim about "similar ISP's".

Oh, you meant this one?

"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You started this thread, I have been most co-operative in answering your questions in this thread. It is very hypocritical of you to run away now such a germane one has arisen which concerns you.

If you are "most" cooperative, why don't you answer some of the questions? If my questions can become TLN's "by proxy", then go ahead.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You started this thread, I have been most co-operative in answering your questions in this thread. It is very hypocritical of you to run away now such a germane one has arisen which concerns you.

As opposed to what you do, right?

Luci, would you like me to point out all the threads where you ignore my direct questions about your claims?

No, I didn't think so. Remove that false signiture of yours and maybe we can make some progress.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


Besides, can you tell me why I should answer any of your questions when you never answer mine?

I'll play fair as soon as you do.

Excellent, because I have been answering your questions in this thread quite co-operatively. Now, this can't be a one-sided thing, I am sure you'll agree.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Excellent, because I have been answering your questions in this thread quite co-operatively.

You mean like the two above you just ignored?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


As opposed to what you do, right?

Luci, would you like me to point out all the threads where you ignore my direct questions about your claims?



I am sorry, I had you on ignore. But if you'd like to raise your question on a claim I have made, please feel free to ask it on the thread I made it on. I have answered your questions in this thread. I trust you will do likewise.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


You mean like the two above you just ignored?

Come now, TLN, I have been more than co-operative here with you. It is not a one way process. It's time for you to comply with your own standards.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Come now, TLN, I have been more than co-operative here with you. It is not a one way process. It's time for you to comply with your own standards.

In this thread perhaps. I see you still don't want to see all those examples of your past uncooperative behavior.

How may I cooperate with you?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Oh, you meant this one?

"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)



I will answer one for you, no problem. Then you will answer one of mine:*

Natalia Lulova

Why does the coach speak only occasionally to the girl in Russian?
Status: Void.


Answer. I honestly have no idea.

Thank you. I trust you will update this list and honour your part in this thread.


Specifically,* your claim about "similar IP's" of mine and the forged quotes provided by TLN. What is your evidence of "similar IP's"?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN



How may I cooperate with you?

By answering this question:

What evidence do you have that the quotes dredged up on the 'new age whacko's forum' (or whatever it's called, you know which quotes I'm referring to, the one's which Larsen claimed had "similar ISP's" to mine) were mine, the person posting here?

Having been shown by BuddyH that

"budddyh
JREF Kid

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: darkest Philadelphia
Posts: 1052

[...]

Here's what I found out so far.
Post in question here:
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=119104&article=220
IP address (view source to see it) 216.112.142.177
Which resolves to concentric.net in California.

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

do you still try to allude to them as mine?

What do you think of people who do that sort of thing?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
What evidence do you have that the quotes dredged up on the 'new age whacko's forum' (or whatever it's called, you know which quotes I'm referring to, the one's which Larsen claimed had "similar ISP's" to mine) were mine, the person posting here?

The person who made the post was named Lucianarchy. This post predated the earliest Lucianarchy post here, so JREF forgers doesn't seem likely. It's possible it's not you.

Happy now? Is it my turn?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


The person who made the post was named Lucianarchy. This post predated the earliest Lucianarchy post here, so JREF forgers doesn't seem likely. It's possible it's not you.



You based it on my name alone. :rolleyes: By using the forgery without checking your facts first, you played into the hands of the forgers, to commit defamation and libel. You were too stubborn to admit that you were wrong, and believed Liarson's claim about "similar ISP's".

And you feel hard done by because I won't answer a whole list of questions?

:rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
You based it on my name alone. :rolleyes: By using the forgery without checking your facts first, you played into the hands of the forgers, to commit defamation and libel. You were too stubborn to admit that you were wrong, and believed Liarson's claim about "similar ISP's".

Who could have forged the name Lucianarchy before we knew you?

If the quote's not yours, why does it upset you so much? Why are you so obsessed with it?

And you know what, this isn't the issue. The issue is I answer each and every one of your questions while you ignore those of mine you can't address. I'll go bump an example now so people can see how dishonest that signature of yours is.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19311&perpage=40&pagenumber=4

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN


Who could have forged the name Lucianarchy before we knew you?


Anyone.

"we"? Do you have some idea that all the JREF Forum members knew nothing about Lucianarchy before I joined here?
If you think that, you are wrong. I've had threats, mail bombs, hacks, forgeries done in my name, etc way before I joined this forum. The zeal of some of the fanatical pseudo-skeptics is crazy. I used to write under Lucianarchy for the Third Eye magazine and on Usenet, before the libel and other attacks started. Like I said, though, what it does is beg the question; what is it these people are trying to censor?

[TLN]

Keep on ignoring my questions Luci...

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by TLN
Keep on ignoring my questions Luci...

Since you have not apologised for your dispicable dishonesty for maintaining such disgusting lies, you, can kiss my 2nd Chakra and I, shall post haste return you to your ignore box.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Since you have not apologised for your dispicable dishonesty for maintaining such disgusting lies, you, can kiss my 2nd Chakra and I, shall post haste return you to your ignore box.

I knew you weren't sincere. Keep that head in the sand my believer friend...

[Lucianarchy]

Claus Larsen.

Provide evidence for your "Similar ISP's" claim.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Claus Larsen.

Provide evidence for your "Similar ISP's" claim.

Luci, why do you demand people play by rules you don't play by yourself?

[T'ai Chi]

Some of the questions are vague and open, like 'Do you understand the basics of science?', etc. The questions should be kept to the very specific points, mainly in an attempt to keep the list relevant instead of posting a long list for agitation purposes.

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Some of the questions are vague and open, like 'Do you understand the basics of science?', etc. The questions should be kept to the very specific points, mainly in an attempt to keep the list relevant instead of posting a long list for agitation purposes.

I totally agree. Fortunately, there are plenty of those too.

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
I can't. Will you help me please?

Clancie, did you not want to continue our discussion? (I don't mind.)

[Mercutio]

I want a Larsen List, too! I think I've put in the time, spewed forth the drivel, p!ssed off enough people that I should have a list to ignore! (and it's no fair posting your own list, like AP, or not, like Shemp. Those are not true Larsen Lists, nor true scots!)

But no...THere are, what three or four, max, Larsen Lists? (I can only think of two offhand...) Like rare wines, Van Goghs, or Stradivarii--I want an original! Sheesh, I don't even have anyone on my ignore list, nor am I on any that I know about--I need a Larsen List!

*sigh*