Re: Underdown and Release Form (name changed at request of thread starter)

[Clancie]

Just an update....

Several weeks ago, as promised, I sent the CO "Appearance Release"* form to Darat, who scanned it in and forwarded it along to Claus.

The original understanding was that, once Claus had it, he would host it online so that others here could look at it. (I am also interested, in knowing if anyone sees anything the slightest bit suspicious in it--as I don't).

After waiting a while for him to post it, I PM'd him. He now says he may be "using it for an article" in the future and specified no plans to post it for others to see.

I find that quite deceptive of him, to be perfectly honest, particularly after the accusations he and thaiboxerken made that (1) I probably didn't have it and (2) probably wouldn't follow through and send it.

He agreed that, if he received it, he would host it online. Whether he "may use it for an article or not" in the future hardly seems relevant to his original commitment--which, imo, he appears to be breaking now.

[*amended 9/9, since I incorrectly identified the document as a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the thread title. For the record, CO only uses this four page "Appearance Release" form and does not require a non disclosure agreement.]

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Just an update....

Several weeks ago, as promised, I sent the CO Non Disclosure form to Darat, who scanned it in and forwarded it along to Claus.

The original understanding was that, once Claus had it, he would host it online so that others here could look at it. (I am also interested, in knowing if anyone sees anything the slightest bit suspicious in it--as I don't).


You don't? Then why do you later suggest that it is?

Originally posted by Clancie
After waiting a while for him to post it, I PM'd him. He now says he may be "using it for an article" in the future and specified no plans to post it for others to see.

Are you suggesting that I would deny people seeing this?

Originally posted by Clancie
I find that quite deceptive of him, to be perfectly honest, particularly after the accusations he and thaiboxerken made that (1) I probably didn't have it and (2) probably wouldn't follow through and send it.

Please point to those accusations.

Originally posted by Clancie
He agreed that, if he received it, he would host it online. Whether he "may use it for an article or not" in the future hardly seems relevant to his original commitment--which, imo, he appears to be breaking now.

I'm not breaking any promise. If people want to see it, they can see it. If they want to wait for an article, that's fine with me, too.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I'm not breaking any promise. If people want to see it, they can see it. If they want to wait for an article, that's fine with me, too.
I would like to see it. Please post it.

[Darat]

I feel awful, I have done a disservice to both Clancie and Claus.

Clancie very promptly sent me the document, just as she promised with no delays, no hesitation, no nothing. The only delay was that we agreed to use Linda as an intermediate.

I then asked Clancie, because of the issues I know exist between Clancie & Claus did she me mind me passing it onto Claus, Clancie graciously said that was fine.

However I didn't make any conditions on Claus on how or when he could use it apart from suggesting to him to properly credit Clancie for making it available, and for keeping her word on delivering the goods!

I certainly didn't lay any conditions on him about how he used it or when. He hasn't gone back on anything he said to me.

Therefore I have potentially caused yet more "bad blood" between them, which was the exact opposite of my intentions.

As an intermediate I should have been more careful and clearer in my handling of this situation and I offer an apology to both Clancie and Claus for causing any confusion and adding to an already "bad" situation.

I still have the documents and I will look into a way of getting the document hosted somewhere where it can be made available to anyone with web access. (If anyone has any suggestions please let me know.)

[Leroy]

Send the document to me, I will post it ;)

[Leroy]

send them to nirvelli41@yahoo.com

[Clancie]

Not your fault, at all, Darat, although its kind of you to take responsibility.

Originally, Claus and I had a very clear agreement (I even clarified it in a thread here, just because I don't trust him). It was: I would send it to him and he promised to host it so everyone could see it. (Not to host it just "at his convenience...whenever"--and instead keep it for himself to use, however he wants--as seems to be the case now). He even kept pushing me to commit to a specific timetable to get it to him which I found...annoying.

In fact I found dealing with him so aggravating that I didn't want to do it any more at all. When you offered to be the intermediary so I didn't have to deal with him, I was very grateful.

But at no time was it a document for him. It was clear all along that the only reason he was getting it from me (or via you) was so that he could put it online so everyone could see.

I don't understand how someone who kept pressuring me "two weeks! two weeks to get it here, Clancie" now is so lackadaisical about following through himself with his part.

After all, it was scanned in for him. How hard is it to host it at Skeptic Report as he claimed he wanted to do? :confused:

[Clancie]

Great, Leroy. That is much appreciated.

(And, Claus, you manipulated me in order to get the information I had received from Underdown solely for your own purposes, from what I can tell, despite your promise that your intent was sharing it here. Another interesting piece of the psychological CFL puzzle has been shown in this, imo....:( )

[Clancie]

And, just to keep the record straight

Here is the original thread ("John Edward Admits the Truth..."):

non disclosure agreement (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=24886&perpage=40&highlight=disclosure%20agreement&pagenumber=2)

On page 2 this was the agreement between Claus and me

Clancie:

I'll mail the pages to you, since you've promised to post them here (or link to it), verbatim for others to see and discuss. That's the agreement (just making sure. Not that I don't trust you or anything.... )


CFLarsen

Clancie,

Check your PM.


Clancie

(And, just to be certain, I'm assuming you agree with the above post, unless you explicitly say otherwise. I'll send it...and you'll put the whole thing up here, intact. Fine.)


CFLarsen

Fine. Two weeks. (meaning, yes, he agreed, and he wanted me to get it to him in 2 weeks).
So, no ambiguity at all, Darat.

[arcticpenguin]

So the nondisclosure agreement doesn't say anything about disclosing what's on the nondisclosure agreement?

[Mr. Skinny]

Hey Claus.....

Just post it please. No sense in having a long thread discussing this.

Seems pretty cut and dried.

[SquishyDave]

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
Just post it please. No sense in having a long thread discussing this.

Seems pretty cut and dried.
The tall and skinny guy and the fat and squishy guy seem to agree on this one.

[renata]

I am not sure I understand the cause of Clancie's frustration.
Is it because

Claus has not yet hosted the form, and Clancie perceives this delay as violation of their agreement

Or that he is writing an article about it, and Clancie believes that was not agreed upon.

Or both?

Or neither? :)

I would like to take a glance at the agreement, I am used to reading contracts :) Claus, please host it.

[RC]

It is clear why Clancie is frustrated. She expects Claus to honor his commitment to post the document. I'm sure she doesn't give a flying f**k if he is writing an article. He can easily post the document while writing it.

Claus, please post the document for our benefit.

Clancie, thank you for taking the time and doing the work!

[renata]

Originally posted by RC
It is clear why Clancie is frustrated. She expects Claus to honor his commitment to post the document. I'm sure she doesn't give a flying f**k if he is writing an article. He can easily post the document while writing it.

Claus, please post the document for our benefit.

Clancie, thank you for taking the time and doing the work!

Then I did not understand why she mentioned the article in her post :). But I am sure Claus will post it now that he has had several requests, right, Claus?

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

I did not understand why she mentioned the article in her post .
You didn't? Its because he now seems to be using the possibility of maybe writing an article as an excuse for reneging on what he promised to do if I sent it to him.
Posted by RC

It is clear why Clancie is frustrated. She expects Claus to honor his commitment to post the document. I'm sure she doesn't give a flying f**k if he is writing an article. He can easily post the document while writing it.
Right on all three counts, RC! Of course, I don't care if he writes an article or not. I do care that he promised to post the form so anyone here could read it. I sent it, as agreed, (with Linda and Darat's help), and now he's just making up an excuse to not do as he promised. Writing an article or not...it has nothing to do with posting the document, just as you say.
Posted by renata

But I am sure Claus will post it now that he has had several requests, right, Claus?
As the saying goes, renata, "from your lips to God's ear".

I certainly -hope- that he will honor his promise now.

[neofight]

I would like to see the "Crossing Over" non-disclosure form as well, Claus......neo

[CFLarsen]

Clancie, tell me something: If you don't keep your end of the bargain, why do you blame me?

You are the one who has kept these pages to yourself. You play coy for a LOOONG time, making all kinds of excuses not to post them yourself. Then, you promise to send them to me, then you don't want to send it to me (thereby breaking the agreement) anyway because of some imaginary insult. So you send it to Darat instead, with whom I have no "agreement".

Yet, you maintain that it is me who broke the agreement. Can you find no fault with yourself, ever?

You let your personal animosities interfere with a possibly worthwhile issue. It is very clear that you see no reason to let reality interfere with your crusade against my person.

I did not "manipulate" you in any way. You are beginning to sound more and more paranoid. You put me on and off "ignore", seemingly like the wind blows, and now, I'm back on "ignore" - simply because I showed you that you were wrong. But you haven't stopped addressing what I post! How ridiculous is that? If you want to talk, let's talk!

But I will ask you to stop filling up my inbox with wild accusations. Consider yourself warned.

The pages can be found here:

Page 1 (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/jerelease/page1.gif)
Page 2 (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/jerelease/page2.gif)
Page 3 (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/jerelease/page3.gif)
Page 4 (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/jerelease/page4.gif)

Fre' være med det!

[CFLarsen]

Darat,

No need to apologize to me. :)

[Clancie]

Well, I can't view the links, but hopefully others can. (And to those whose requests had an affect on you...thanks).

Claus,

Reading your post is quite an eye-opener, but I'll resist the bait because, quite sincerely, I think you have a problem and I admit that I don't understand it. The only comment I have to respond to is this one:
Posted by CFLarsen

But I will ask you to stop filling up my inbox with wild accusations. Consider yourself warned.
I have not "filled your mail box with wild accusations"...ever.

And I haven't PM'd you at all since I started this thread yesterday--an action I took solely because of your non-responsiveness to my question privately of when you were going to post the form.

After PM'ing you three or four times and getting three or four "answers" indicating to me that you weren't going to post it at all, I decided to start this thread. And that's the last you've heard from me privately.

As you know, I haven't PM'd you about it (or anything else) since then.

Nice smear tactic though.

[Thanz]

You know what? I don't think that Clancie and Claus like each other..... :p

Now that we habe the document, I'd like (if possible) to focus on it instead of the Clancie/Claus back and forth.

I have looked at the document, and to be honest I don't see anything that remarkable. It is obviously very one sided (in favour of the Producer) and contains broad releases and indemnities. It also contains strong language against the use of "ringers" or co-operating with JE staff to feed them info in any way. It seems that participants are free to talk about their experiences on the show, unless I have missed something (the jargon gets a little tired even for me after a while).

The document also contains the "entertainment" language that is in the disclaimer, but I would say that this disclaimer excludes JE from its protection. It covers the butt of the Producer and distributors, etc, but says that the statements are "opinions which belong solely to John Edward" in the run down of all the things that the statements are NOT.

So, I'd say that the document provides no evidence against the cold reading hypothesis, but some evidence against the hot reading hypothesis. Not great evidence, but some.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I can't view the links, but hopefully others can. (And to those whose requests had an affect on you...thanks).

Others can. Go ahead, play the victim, as always.

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus,

Reading your post is quite an eye-opener, but I'll resist the bait because, quite sincerely, I think you have a problem and I admit that I don't understand it. The only comment I have to respond to is this one:

I have not "filled your mail box with wild accusations"...ever.[/B]

That's a lie. Remember the posts from August 9-10?

Originally posted by Clancie
And I haven't PM'd you at all since I started this thread yesterday--an action I took solely because of your non-responsiveness to my question privately of when you were going to post the form.

Who said anything about "yesterday"? Stop misrepresenting what I said. You filled my inbox with wild accusations August 9-10. You want to repeat those accusations here?

Originally posted by Clancie
After PM'ing you three or four times and getting three or four "answers" indicating to me that you weren't going to post it at all, I decided to start this thread. And that's the last you've heard from me privately.

As you know, I haven't PM'd you about it (or anything else) since then.

That would be difficult, since you have me on ignore...wait, you don't have me on ignore...wait, you could possibly have me on ignore...sorry, Clancie, I kinda lost track of what the status is. Could you tell me what it is?

Originally posted by Clancie
Nice smear tactic though.

Nope, not "smear tactic". Utter truth.

[KelvinG]

Clancie
I think you might want to e-mail Hal or Linda to let them know your "ignore" function is not working. I've noticed you've stated repeatedly that you've placed Claus on ignore, but your responses to him continue.
You may want to see if it's some sort of software glitch or something.

[De_Bunk]

All these "Warnings" to each other...All these claims of "Deceptive" posts..

Grow up...

Post it here...and get done with it...

( Darat... you hold no blame for anything )

I cannot see how two interesting posters have gotten theirselves into this....

Im bewildered to see this thread turning into threats and bitterness...


Get real...

Claus...Im surprised at you for responding as you did...


DB

[Clancie]

Kelvin, Thanz, DeBunk....Okay! Okay! :rolleyes: I get the point. :(

Really.
Posted by Thanz


So, I'd say that the document provides no evidence against the cold reading hypothesis, but some evidence against the hot reading hypothesis. Not great evidence, but some.
Yes, it certainly shows there is no intent to perpetuate fraud through collusion, at least. And I think that actually seeing the document helps dispute some things that have been rumored about it in the past.

1. First, I meant to put "Non Disclosure" in quotes in the thread title. (Big goof, but oh well). It does NOT have a non disclosure or confidentiality clause, as has sometimes been alleged.

In fact, it shows that people who participate in CO readings are only asked to sign a straightforward, quite conventional, release form only. They are also not forbidden to talk with others (including media) about their readings. I think that's very important to understand.

2. Another important goal of the agreement is for sitters to clearly state that they have not colluded in any way with the producers and that they are not deceiving either the tv audience or the producers in their answers and participation.

That also seems very reasonable.

I looked for the "smoking gun" in the document, but didn't find anything remotely suspicious in it at all.

[Thanz]

Good lord. I think that the Claus/Clancie saga has now reached rock bottom.

There should be some sort of rule here (like Godwin's Law): Whenever De_Bunk becomes the voice of reason, the bickering has reached a level of pettiness unparalleled in the internet world and must come to an end.

Now that this thread has been De_Bunkified, can we please discuss what is actually in the document?

edited to add: Clancie posted her post discussing the substance while I was composing this message.

[Leroy]

Things that caught my eye on page 1


It shows that the person signing the agreement, agrees to allow him/herself to be photographed, filmed, taped, recorded - permission to use his/her name and biographical data.

He/she also agrees that he understands that this becomes the sole property of the producer. And he/she agrees that that, the producer shall have the unlimited right to EDIT, exhibit, use, distribute, etc, said material, in any way the producer desirers.

"it being understood that the program or any derivative works thereof may contain factual and/or FICTIONAL scenes, action and dialogue. "


"I waive any rights I might have to review, inspect or approve any uses of my paricipation in and appearance on the program in which I participate in or appear. "

"I represent and warrent that (i) I have not and will not take any action to deceive Producer and the listening and viewing public by advising employees or producer, any network, distributor or studio involved in the production of the program (or any person whom I know or believe to be in communication with such employees) any information about my "FAMILY TREE" or related to what I expect or hope to occur from any interaction with John Edward; (ii) I will not and have not engaged in any scheme for the purpose of prearranging in whole or in part my interaction with John Edward on the Program;

[renata]

Disclaimer ;)
a. I am not a lawyer and am not allowed to give legal advice or quote case law or such
b. I am utterly and entirely unfamiliar with case law in NY, but I am familiar with contracts, indemnity agreements and applications of such in California. What I have to say may not apply to NY at all, feel free to disregard it. But I can say that cases have turned on placements of "the" in contracts, so reading a four page documents and saying one did not see anything amiss in it..well, that is why we are not lawyers :)

I only glanced at this. But I saw a very nice Hold Harmless and indemnity agreement there. Whatever he is, he has some smart lawyers. It is a long explanation, but in general, these types of things is when they run you over with a truck and you pay them for dirtying their tires. I am exaggerating of course, but it is the crux of the agreement in my eyes.

"I further agree to indemnify, defend, release and hold harmless Producer's Companies And John Edward, his heirs, representatives and assigns, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, injuries, costs, and expenses, (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) of any nature whatsoever...." You sue them, you pay THEIR legal costs, no matter who wins, by contract. And, by the way, what that also means if anyone who signed this is alleged to slander JE, JE can sue them, and they will have to pay his costs, even if they win, by contract they signed, because he will get them for breach also. Once again, I am basing my suppositions on California public policy and case laws about indemnity agreements and breach of contracts, it could be that each state interprets it differently, and I am utterly unfamiliar with case law in NY.

Another smart move is the agreement to arbitrate. Now, being on the defense side I love arbitrations. They tend to stick to the letter of the law, and since in this contract the person waive everything and signs a strong indemnity agreement, this would be open and shut in favor of JE and the producers in pretty much any eventuality I can imagine. All arbitrations I was involved in were confidential, I do not know what is the custom in NY. That might be the reason why we never hear of a suit, but I do not know.

What also struck me was continued references to "entertainment only" "purporting to represent communications from and contact with deceased relativies". I also chuckled at the fact that whoever signed the agreement waived the right to object to having producers edit their voice, image or name in any way they wanted, so pretty much once you are there you could be agreeing be edited to say you dance polka with your dead aunt Nancy, and there is nothing you could do about it :)

Any lawyers want to take a crack at it? I think we have had enough of amateurs trying to figure it out :)

[Leroy]

btw, thanks for getting this Clancie, and thanks for posting it CFLarsen :)

MORE:

"(iii) I shall not mention any commercial product, service or venture on the Program, including the name of my employer; and (iv) neither I nor anyone acting on my behalf is giving or receiving monies or other valuable consideration to get me on the Program, to mention anything on the program, to rehearse or script my appearance or to otherwise prearrange the outcome of my appearance on the program.

I am aware that it may be CRIMINAL OFFENSE punishable by fine and/or imprisonment for anyone to do anything that would rig or anyway influence the outcome of the program with the intent to deceive the viewing public, and to offer or to accept any information or secret assistance in connection with the program. I agree that I will not participate in such acts or any deceptive or dishonest acts with respect to the program, and I shall immediately notify producer in the event I am approached to undertake any such acts."

More later

Any comments?

[Leroy]

What also struck me was continued references to "entertainment only" "purporting to represent communications from and contact with deceased relativies".

Continued references? How many times was "entertainment only" referenced in this agreement? I have only read 1 and 1/2 pages so far.

What pages are the "entertainment only" references made on?

I also chuckled at the fact that whoever signed the agreement waived the right to object to having producers edit their voice, image or name in any way they wanted, so pretty much once you are there you could be agreeing be edited to say you dance polka with your dead aunt Nancy, and there is nothing you could do about it

Can you believe it! Do these people really read these agreements before signing them? Probably not.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by renata
And, by the way, what that also means if anyone who signed this is alleged to slander JE, JE can sue them, and they will have to pay his costs, even if they win, by contract they signed, because he will get them for breach also.
Good post, Renata. I do have a question though. Where are you getting this from? Is there some "no slander" clause in the agreement? If there is, I missed it on my quick review.

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz

Good post, Renata. I do have a question though. Where are you getting this from? Is there some "no slander" clause in the agreement? If there is, I missed it on my quick review.

In my non lawyer reading of it there doesn't have to be a "no slander" clause. Slander and libel is actionable in itself. The beauty of the indemnity agreement is that the person who signs it agrees to indemnify and defend them out of any claim or legal action arising out of the show. A side effect of that may be that any comments after the show may have to be positive, if there is a thread of slander suit, which you will pay for one way or the other. In California we have had cases in which people were sued for negligence, and then got nailed with attorney fees due to strong indemnity agreements, but in California we have very interesting laws about indemnity agreements which may not apply in New York, so please please please do not rely on my reading of this. :) I know JREF is practically teeming with lawyers, where are they??



Leroy- yes, people frequently just glance at legalese and do not understand at what they sign away. I believe entertainment only type language was mentioned 3 times, perhaps "continued references" and that struck me.

[Thanz]

Renata -

I don't think that the indemnity is that broad. The first part deals with "any breach of my representations, warranties or obligations under this agreement", which interestingly would cover any person saying that they colluded with JE or his staff prior to the show, but not just saying "I was there and JE sucked".

The second part of the disclaimer MAY cover a slander suit by JE, but I think that it is really directed at any third party lawsuits (from people who did not sign the agreement). Basically, if uncle Fred sues JE because JE said Fred was a fall down drunk, whoever he was reading at the time foots the bill for JE's legal costs.

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz
Renata -

I don't think that the indemnity is that broad. The first part deals with "any breach of my representations, warranties or obligations under this agreement", which interestingly would cover any person saying that they colluded with JE or his staff prior to the show, but not just saying "I was there and JE sucked".

The second part of the disclaimer MAY cover a slander suit by JE, but I think that it is really directed at any third party lawsuits (from people who did not sign the agreement). Basically, if uncle Fred sues JE because JE said Fred was a fall down drunk, whoever he was reading at the time foots the bill for JE's legal costs.

Thanz, read the part I quoted in my first post

""I further agree to indemnify, defend, release and hold harmless Producer's Companies And John Edward, his heirs, representatives and assigns, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages, injuries, costs, and expenses, (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) of any nature whatsoever...."

Can't get much more broad than that, can you? While it goes on to discuss third party suits, it does not limit to them "including but not limited to those involving any charge by third persons..". I think this sentence is really a catch all. Whether it may be against public policy and perhaps unenforceable is a different matter entirely.

What I really need to do is print it out and read it with a pen about 10 times to understand it..and learn NY case law. No promises on the latter :).

Lawyers! We need you! :) You know, lawyers really hate it when amateurs discuss contracts. And if there is one thing that was beaten into me was to never discuss case law without a law degree- ever ever ever.

As to hot reading- I am not convinced it eliminates that possibility, I think it just shifts the responsibility unto the ringer from the producer.

Also from the indemnity agreement, another beauty "and from and against any and all claims or causes of actions asserted by third persons and arising out of my possible interaction with John Edward, the Statements, the negligence of any of the Producer's Companies, any false and misleading statements I may make during the course of the program. "

Emphasis mine. Whoever signs the form just took upon themselves responsibility for their own acts, but also took responsibility for negligence of the Producers, in suits against JE's show. Nicely hidden in the text, no? Smart lawyers. :)

[Thanz]

Renata -

You are missing the qualifying language that comes later in that brutally long sentence: "arising out of or in connection with my participation in and on the Program". One would have to say that the slander was in connection with the participation on the program - which may be easy to do, but may not considering the rest of the language that follows this part. I could see a fight over whether it would apply to a slander claim against the participant.

[CFLarsen]

On page 4, we read:

PLEASE CONTINUE ONTO THE NEXT PAGE

What comes after page 4? It says that there are 4 pages, so what does this mean? I cannot imagine that such a glaring error is allowed on a legal document.

I am aware that it may be a criminal offense punishable by fine and/or imprisonment for anyone to do anything that would rig or anyway influence the outcome of the Program with the intent to deceive the viewing public, and to offer or to accept any information or secret assistance in connection with the Program. I agree that I will not participate in such acts or any deceptive or dishonest acts with respect to the Program, and I shall immediately notify Producer in the event I am approached to undertake any such acts.

This effectively rules out any skeptics. As we know, skeptics have an ability to influence paranormal phenomena, such as necromancy. :D

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz
Renata -

You are missing the qualifying language that comes later in that brutally long sentence: "arising out of or in connection with my participation in and on the Program". One would have to say that the slander was in connection with the participation on the program - which may be easy to do, but may not considering the rest of the language that follows this part. I could see a fight over whether it would apply to a slander claim against the participant.


Thanz, yes, I just got a printer and have not hooked it up. It is hard to read contracts on screen, and I hope to print it out later today and examine which part of sentence belongs to what. Perhaps my interpretation will change! But I chuckle at " arising out of", about 20% of my job consisted of interpreting that phrase in various situations, there are about 20 cases on that pharse alone here. Law? Pedantic, detail oriented? Nahhhh.....

Long story short, I submit that arising out of would apply to anything having to do with the JE show. Had a person not been on the show, there would be no slander suit. Courts tend to interpret that generously, at least they have done so here. Perhaps in NY they have not. :)

[hgc]

Originally posted by Leroy
btw, thanks for getting this Clancie, and thanks for posting it CFLarsen :)

MORE:

...

I am aware that it may be CRIMINAL OFFENSE punishable by fine and/or imprisonment for anyone to do anything that would rig or anyway influence the outcome of the program with the intent to deceive the viewing public, and to offer or to accept any information or secret assistance in connection with the program...

...

Any comments? Just one question: What keeps JE out of jail?

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
On page 4, we read:



What comes after page 4? It says that there are 4 pages, so what does this mean? I cannot imagine that such a glaring error is allowed on a legal document.




Bigger screw ups have happened, it could be just a clerical error. But you remind me of a funny story. I was training this very green adjuster. Part of our job, first thing really is reading contracts. And the first thing we read is indemnity agreements- the crux of the contract. In our trade, there are always indemnity agreements, and our clients are always over the barrell. Sometimes, if we luck out, the clients did not do the job, or the contracts are lost and so we do not owe for contractual causes of action.

Anyway, she runs to me, breathless, says :"Guess what, I have this contract, it does not have an indemnity agreement in it! Do you know what that means!!!"
Heartless me: " Yeah, it means you are missing that page".
Like taking the air out of a baloon...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by hgc
Just one question: What keeps JE out of jail?

The fact that JE makes the audience sign this contract, not the other way around. He walks, simply because he absolves himself from all blame, and puts the onus on the audience.

By signing this, JE makes it a crime for the audience to rig the show. He makes sure that he can rig it, any way he wants. He can edit it to his pleasure, even present himself in a better light. And there is not a gawddurn thing anyone can do about it.

This should raise a VERY red flag, considering that he himself claims to - really - be talking to dead people.

Amazing that people cannot find anything remotely suspicious in it at all. Simply amazing.

It's a "Cover-JE's-Ass document", pure and simple. And his believers fall for it. Willingly.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
Bigger screw ups have happened, it could be just a clerical error.

Hmmm....could be, of course. However, I cannot find one single typo. This is weird...nothing damning, I think. Just weird.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...nothing damning, I think.

The document is damming enough without another page. :)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Hmmm....could be, of course. However, I cannot find one single typo. This is weird...nothing damning, I think. Just weird.
Just a guess, but it could be that they are instructing you to continue the list of contacts on to the next page if you run out of room in the space provided. If that is the case, however, it seems like a weird place to put that instruction.

So, I dunno either.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


The document is damming enough without another page. :)
How so, specifically?

[Clancie]

Posted by Thanz

Just a guess, but it could be that they are instructing you to continue the list of contacts on to the next page if you run out of room in the space provided. If that is the case, however, it seems like a weird place to put that instruction.
Is there speculation that a page is omitted? :confused:

I can't access the links (probably due to some Norton security feature) so I can't comment on the version that is posted. However, I sent Darat all the pages. They were complete, with no indication otherwise, exactly as I received them from Underdown. There was no indication that anything was continued on another page.

The easiest solution, if anyone has the slightest suspicion is to email Jim Underdown (CFI-West) and ask him to look it over and see if anything is missing.

That would resolve the whole matter...completely.

[Thanz]

Clancie -

At the top of page 4 of 4, it says (inblock capitals, underlined):

"PLEASE CONTINUE ONTO THE NEXT PAGE"

We are speculating why it would say this on page 4 of 4, when there would be no "next page".

If you have the originals, mayboe you can shed some light on this.

[Clancie]

Okay, Thanz, I see what you're talking about.

Since that is just the final page asking for Contact Information if needed, I assume that the direction"Continue onto the Next Page"" means to write on the back of the paper if you need more space to put your contact information (business/professional contacts that are asked for, if any).

I barely paid attention to that page, since it is basically just requiring people to disclose the details of anyspecfic relationships (if any) that they marked on the first three pages of the form.

I think the statement just means "use the back of the paper if you need more space to elaborate on this." (Probably in hard copy the words look a bit different than they would online. Looking at the document in person, the direction seems totally innocuous.).

But...if there's the slightest question of deception--or even that this isn't the full and complete document--I would recommend that someone email Underdown and ask him to have a look. My experience was he was very pleasant and prompt in responding.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
How so, specifically?

Signing that document would prohibit me from doing this (http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20020404) which would effectively discredit Edward and his powers. He knows this, so he's designed this defense against it.

If Edward is genuine, why would he need this document at all?

[Babylon Sister]

Originally posted by Thanz
Clancie -

At the top of page 4 of 4, it says (inblock capitals, underlined):

"PLEASE CONTINUE ONTO THE NEXT PAGE"

We are speculating why it would say this on page 4 of 4, when there would be no "next page".

If you have the originals, mayboe you can shed some light on this.

Is it possible that this is a printing error and that line was supposed to print on the bottom of page three?

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I am extremely suspicious of your claim that you cannot read the pages. You were able to download from that directory before. Now, you cannot.

And suddenly, it is a problem what "version" we are looking at.

I have posted the pages I got from Darat. Darat can confirm this. If you have concerns about what version it is, I can email you the pages. Not a problem. I am more than willing. My email is webmaster@skepticreport.com

That is the easiest solution. Not postponing this whole discussion by emailing Jim Underdown.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by TLN


Signing that document would prohibit me from doing this (http://www.pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20020404) which would effectively discredit Edward and his powers. He knows this, so he's designed this defense against it.
He doesn't want people to tell lies on his show and this is a bad thing? Don't we want the sitters to tell the truth?

If Edward is genuine, why would he need this document at all?
You don't think a genuine medium would want to prevent jokers from coming on his show and lying theur a$$es off to try and make him look bad?

Also, the document is much more about the Producer than JE himself. The producer has an interest in trying to make sure the claims of fraud are as reduced as possible.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
He doesn't want people to tell lies on his show and this is a bad thing? Don't we want the sitters to tell the truth?

Whoa...What "lies"? That JE is not talking to the dead? Sorry, JE has to prove that. Claiming that he is not is not a "lie".

That JE has been caught hot reading? Not a lie. He has.

What "lies" are you talking about?

Originally posted by Thanz
You don't think a genuine medium would want to prevent jokers from coming on his show and lying theur a$$es off to try and make him look bad?

If JE is a real medium, he could merely dazzle them with a few special hits for them.

Originally posted by Thanz
Also, the document is much more about the Producer than JE himself. The producer has an interest in trying to make sure the claims of fraud are as reduced as possible.

JE is also a producer. We have been through this.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]...snip...

I have posted the pages I got from Darat. Darat can confirm this. ....snip...



I can confirm that the links are to the pages I scanned that came via Linda from Clancie. As far as I can tell the pages have not been altered.

[Clancie]

Hi Darat,

It sounds like all four pages were posted exactly as sent. You have the hard copy, so what do you think of my comment above re: page 4 of 4?


Since that is just the final page asking for Contact Information if needed, I assume that the direction"Continue onto the Next Page"" means to write on the back of the paper if you need more space to put your contact information (business/professional contacts that are asked for, if any).

I think the statement just means "use the back of the paper if you need more space to elaborate on this."

They are asking sitters to elaborate if they said on the earlier pages that they had any prior connections to the show. It makes sense to give them the extra space on the back, if they need it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
I can confirm that the links are to the pages I scanned that came via Linda from Clancie. As far as I can tell the pages have not been altered.

Thank you.

Clancie, if you have any concerns about the "version" of these pages, you should contact Linda and ask her if she altered the contents of the pages.

Let us know what you discovered.

[Clancie]

One more thing....

It sounds like Darat received exactly what I sent and that Claus has scanned that in, all four pages.

But if there are any doubts that this is what Underdown got from CO--en toto--and what he sent to me--en toto--then...please! email him and ask him to take a look and see!

I feel convinced that these four pages are all there are--with sitters being given the option of writing more details on the back of p. 4, if needed.

I'm satisfied. :) But if anyone else feels suspicious, you definitely should...check...it....out at the source!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
It sounds like all four pages were posted exactly as sent.

Thank you. Your previous concern about what "version" was posted proved to be completely without merit.

Originally posted by Clancie
You have the hard copy, so what do you think of my comment above re: page 4 of 4?

Huh? You didn't keep a copy?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz
He doesn't want people to tell lies on his show and this is a bad thing? Don't we want the sitters to tell the truth?

Not at all the point. The point is, if I did lie and Edward was really talking to my dead relatives, he'd know. If I made up a completely ficticious relative, he'd know.

But the fact is he can't know, so he has to ask us not to play this trick on him.

[Clancie]

TLN,

You asked an interesting legal question on the other thread--what would happen if you went on CO and lied in order to discredit JE. Since NoZed Avenger, a lawyer, answered you, I wanted to put his post here, too:

Posted by NoZed Avenger (on "Questions for the Lawyers Among Us")

Ok. I briefly reviewed the pages.

If this holds up as a contract, then any person telling falsehoods could be liable for breach of contract.

A contract needs consideration from both sides -- they offer "publicity and exposure [that you MAY receive]" as their consideration. In return, they get the exclusive right to your photographs, image, likeness, voice, etc -- in perpetuity, throughout "the universe" -- "in connection with the development, production and/or exploitation of the program."

As they show doesn't commit to using you, there may be some question as to whether its consideration is merely illusory. The chance to appear, however, would probably be sufficient to make this binding.

That last bit of language quoted above is sloppy, by the way. There appears to be an argument available to the show that you could not write a book about your own story related to the visit -- as this would be a work "in exploitation" of the program. The show might then camp on your doorstep and demand the profits. If your book was unflattering, then it might try and shut you down based on that language.

NA

To answer your direct question, you would not go to jail unless the elements of fraud could be shown -- most unlikely, unless you lied to obtain money or something. You could, however, be forced to defend against a civil claim for breach of contract for money damages, plus attorneys fees. Oh, and you'd have to travel to New York to arbitrate it.

[NoZed Avenger]

Stream of consciousness points on this, after a brief perusal.

Warning: This is a quick look, only. Also, I do not practice in NY, whose laws may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

1. I don't see that this document helps or harms a claim for hot reading. The language of the document on not giving information to JE or the show (condensed to "JE" for the rest of this) is self-serving on that, but of course only JE can enforce the contract. Say the person gives information, but signs anyway -- it has, believe it or not, been known to happen.

Also, the form itself has 2 sections where such information is given, not counting the signature page, in which you give your name, date of birth, telephone numbers, and address. (By the way: Date of birth?! I am not familiar with any agreements or waivers - outside the medical field - where that is required. Why do they need a date of birth?)

On page 1, you can list if you've had conversations previously, listing the name and relationship of whomever was talked about previously. A handy reminder, if any such conversations occurred.

On page 4, (less likely to apply) you list any business or professional relationships. A nice source of information.

2. The person appearing on the show agrees to allow JE to use their image, voice, appearance, information, and etc. for all eternity all over the universe. The language here is sloppy, but it seems that the use is limited to what occurred on the show. The language of the contract could be argued (it is just hazy enough) that JE owns your image and likeness, period, but a court is unlikely to allow that interpretation. Certainly, JE is allowed to use your likeness for promos and shows any time and in any way he likes.

3. It is understood that the program or any related works may contain factual and/or fictional scenes. Oh, and you waive rights for slander or libel based on that.

While public policy considerations may not allow it, a literal reading of the first page, combined with the Hold Harmless language, would allow JE to edit scenes or create purely fictional ones using your name and likeness, and you would have no right to ensure that they final product was factually true or to demand that it be accurate. Moreover, you agree to hold JE harmless for defamation, libel or slander (even intentional).

So, your signature allows JE to edit and make purely fictional scenes up about you, while simultaneously agreeing that you will hold him harmless for defamation of your character. Nice.
Whether you ever think anything like this would ever happen, I would advise any client against signing this document based on that scenario, alone.

4. It is noted at least twice that the opinions being given by JE are not intended to be a form of advice, instructiuon, counsel, or factual statement in any way whatsoever, but is produced for entertainment purposes only.

This seems a bit of a stopper. You agree that nothing being said is meant to be factual?!

No one has a problem with that? Really?

5. You agree that you may find out different or additional facts later, but that this agreement remains in force, notwithstanding. This is part and parcel of no. 3, above -- even if you discover that something is untrue, the show can edit at will and has sole control over the information.

6. You agree to arbitration - you give up your right to court. Arbitration is private and the conflicts (and the results) are usually considered confidential. By the way, you also agree to appear in Manhatten for the arbitration and any related hearings.


That is my first run-through. I'd want to spend more time with it to actually parse the language in detail, but those are the points that drew my eye first.

NA

[renata]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger

That is my first run-through. I'd want to spend more time with it to actually parse the language in detail, but those are the points that drew my eye first.

NA

:clap::clap:

A real lawyer! Thanks for a great post, NoZed! I will run in shame now.

:D

Does anyone know when the contract is supposed to be signed? Right before the show, after the show or days or weeks before the show? The date of birth escaped me entirely, but now I am wondering.. if the contract is supposed to be signed prior to coming on the show, the producers will have a lot of information from the contract alone.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
TLN,

You asked an interesting legal question on the other thread--what would happen if you went on CO and lied in order to discredit JE. Since NoZed Avenger, a lawyer, answered you, I wanted to put his post here, too:

Thanks Clancie, though I think the far more interesting question is why Edward needs a legal document to prohibit me from trying this ruse.

[TLN]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
4. It is noted at least twice that the opinions being given by JE are not intended to be a form of advice, instructiuon, counsel, or factual statement in any way whatsoever, but is produced for entertainment purposes only.

This seems a bit of a stopper. You agree that nothing being said is meant to be factual?!

No one has a problem with that? Really?

I'm dying to hear a believer address this point.

[CFLarsen]

I would also want to hear about why a date of birth is needed.

What possible reason could the producers (of which JE is one) have for this?

[renata]

Originally posted by TLN


I'm dying to hear a believer address this point.

Hey, my favorite was" purporting to represent communications from and contact with deceased relativies"

Three guesses on whether the people who drafted this believe in JE...

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I would also want to hear about why a date of birth is needed.

What possible reason could the producers (of which JE is one) have for this?

The key would be when the contract is signed. If it signed right before the show, I cannot imagine it is much use. However if it is mailed in before the show, the potential for mischief is enormous indeed. Now would be a great time to e-mail Jim Underdown ;)

Have enough material for your article now? :roll:

[Ed]

I think JE is a fraud and should burn in hell. However I see nothing wrong with this contract. It (rightly) protects his intellectual property (of which your performance is a part) and gives up very little. There is no point in him avvering that what he does is factual, why should he? As far as the venue being NY, well, it has to be somewhere. As far as arbitration goes, I'd take that (and have) over going to court any day.

Move on folks, nothing to see here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
Have enough material for your article now? :roll:

Oh, I have no problems admitting that I was wrong and Clancie was right: This definitely should be debated before the article is written! :)

Funny that we haven't heard much from Clancie yet. She was the one wanting to see this published - almost to the point of badgering! Yet she keeps eerily quiet.

Perhaps she maintains that there she "didn't find anything remotely suspicious in it at all".

Uh-huh.

Originally posted by renata
The key would be when the contract is signed. If it signed right before the show, I cannot imagine it is much use. However if it is mailed in before the show, the potential for mischief is enormous indeed. Now would be a great time to e-mail Jim Underdown

You greatly underestimate the power of Internet database searches. It takes a few minutes, if you have the right scripts. No biggie.

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen



You greatly underestimate the power of Internet database searches. It takes a few minutes, if you have the right scripts. No biggie.


How long does each recording session last again? Does JE take breaks? Is there an introduction? I suppose it is possible that while people are sitting down and if there is an introduction, and during first few readings some searches are run. Assuming the tapings are long enough, and he takes breaks, and they have access to some databases thay can gather some info on some people. I assume only a portion of the audience is read. Of course from the few shows I myself have seen, all can be explained by cold reading anyway, but there is great potential for mischief. Interesting...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Whoa...What "lies"? That JE is not talking to the dead? Sorry, JE has to prove that. Claiming that he is not is not a "lie".

That JE has been caught hot reading? Not a lie. He has.

What "lies" are you talking about?
A sitter lying through his teeth about whatever he says to JE.

If JE is a real medium, he could merely dazzle them with a few special hits for them.
And if he is someone like TBK, they would be ignored and the sitter would continue to lie.

JE is also a producer. We have been through this.
He is not a capital "P" Producer as that term is defined in the Agreement.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Ed
I think JE is a fraud and should burn in hell. However I see nothing wrong with this contract. It (rightly) protects his intellectual property (of which your performance is a part) and gives up very little.


I don't think it proves anything about JE as a medium -- as I stated, I don't think that it favors either side in the hot reading debate.

I would still advise a client not to sign it, given the defamation and "fictional scenes" problem noted above. When reading a contract, I am not trying to decide if anyone is a good guy or bad guy -- I just look for language that could be used against you in the event that the person decides to use it against you. That language is unaccepatbly broad, IMO. I would not accept those conditions.

I do have a question about the "truth" language. while he may not be required to tout his truthfulness, that is a far cry from having someone sign a waiver admitting that they know you are not asserting anything as true.

I also question the large amount of information given - especially the date of birth. I do not say anything is being done with the inforation, necessarily, but I found it curious. If you were trying to ensure that no "hot" information was being given, you'd certainly limit this type of information.

NA

[CFLarsen]

renata,

According to Steve Grenard, it takes around 2 hours between people entering the studio and the taping starts. There are several breaks, but Steve claims that JE doesn't leave the stage. We do not know if this is something that happens during every taping.

When do they sign this contract? I don't know. I cannot for the life of me imagine that this takes place during the tapings, though. It has to be done well in advance before the tapings. How else are they going to prevent the people from attending a taping, who are not entitled to do so?

If they did it immediately prior to the taping, it would make a mockery of the whole legal document.

Steve should be able to tell us this. Unfortunately, Steve has gone missing since he got floored in his "Jacqui Poole Murder Case" thread.

Let's hope neither Steve or Clancie go missing for good. It would be a shame to lose such eloquent spokespeople for skepticism.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Thanz
The document also contains the "entertainment" language that is in the disclaimer, but I would say that this disclaimer excludes JE from its protection. It covers the butt of the Producer and distributors, etc, but says that the statements are "opinions which belong solely to John Edward" in the run down of all the things that the statements are NOT.


Ah - I thought I had read this, but could not find the post when I went back after looking at the documents. JE is definitely included in this. The sentence states that the opinions are his (and not those of the Producers, etc.), but then goes on to state that the opinions are "not intended to be a form of advice, instructiuon, counsel, or factual statement in any way whatsoever," but is produced "for entertainment purposes only."
Those clauses/limitations do apply to JE directly.

NA

[neofight]

Originally posted by renata

A real lawyer! Thanks for a great post, NoZed!

Yes, thanks NoZed Avenger. My eyes were glazing over reading that document. Not being a lawyer, I'm not qualified to say, but I have to wonder whether the language of this release form means anything one way or another. I guess formalities like this are necessary because we are such a litigious society, and everyone wants to cover every possible scenario.

Does anyone know when the contract is supposed to be signed? Right before the show, after the show or days or weeks before the show?

I thought that these releases were signed just prior to the show, but even if one were sent to the person who obtained the tickets, there are still another three people who may show up for the taping, and they would have to fill theirs out in the studio.....neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
A sitter lying through his teeth about whatever he says to JE.

But, as TLN said, wouldn't JE know this? He does say when the sitter is wrong. And, as we know, what JE says, goes.

Originally posted by Thanz
And if he is someone like TBK, they would be ignored and the sitter would continue to lie.

How come? JE insists that it is "psychic amnesia" and the miss goes unchallenged.

Originally posted by Thanz
He is not a capital "P" Producer as that term is defined in the Agreement.

Oh, please! He is an executive producer!! How big a "P" do you want???

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi Darat,

It sounds like all four pages were posted exactly as sent. You have the hard copy, so what do you think of my comment above re: page 4 of 4?



They are asking sitters to elaborate if they said on the earlier pages that they had any prior connections to the show. It makes sense to give them the extra space on the back, if they need it.

It looks as if they are meaning that if necessary continue the "Business or Professional....." section on anther sheet, however it isn't that clear, you’d normally expect something like that to be in parenthesis as a “(if necessary continue on a separate page)”.



Some comments about the release:


I have seen and used many releases but this one is rather excessive in the scope of the release it tries to obtain.

I'm wondering if the participants of Crossing Over are aware that if they want the "producer" could make a comedy show out of their tears and heartache, that if in future they deem it worthwhile they could make a show mocking the participants and they would have no recourse? I would normally expect to see some "substantially similar usage" restriction placed on the Producer. I for one would never sign such a wide ranging release.

(I've just talked to one of my legal team about this release and he agrees that it is very unlikely that a UK court would uphold the contract to the full extent of the release it tries to obtain, especially considering the circumstances under which the agreement would have been signed. )


(Edited to add)

I should have read the rest of the thread before I posted, I hadn't seen NoZed's response!

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
renata,
Steve claims that JE doesn't leave the stage. We do not know if this is something that happens during every taping.

Yes, this is what Steve has stated. Once John is out on stage, he stays out there. There's no reason to believe that the taping Steve attended was unique in this respect.

When do they sign this contract? I don't know. I cannot for the life of me imagine that this takes place during the tapings, though. It has to be done well in advance before the tapings. How else are they going to prevent the people from attending a taping, who are not entitled to do so?

They check your ID before you are allowed to enter the studio, Claus. If you've been read by John before, or if you've been to a taping within the past year, you are not allowed entrance.

Let's hope neither Steve or Clancie go missing for good. It would be a shame to lose such eloquent spokespeople for skepticism.

Yes, Claus, both Steve and Clancie can be quite eloquent. :p Of course, you would be sorely missed yourself, were you to go permanently missing. :roll: ......neo

[Ed]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger



I don't think it proves anything about JE as a medium -- as I stated, I don't think that it favors either side in the hot reading debate.

Welllll....Actually, if someone blows the whistle (ie. feeds him bad stuff) and writes an expose, he can sue. He can also claim "hey, look at the pains I go to to be on the up and up. Minor points, I think, but they are in his favor. Legal question, suppose I sign "Claus Larsen" and then write an expose? Did I tacitly agree to the contract under those circumstances? I suspect that avoiding signing and then attending is no defence..

I would still advise a client not to sign it, given the defamation and "fictional scenes" problem noted above. When reading a contract, I am not trying to decide if anyone is a good guy or bad guy -- I just look for language that could be used against you in the event that the person decides to use it against you. That language is unaccepatbly broad, IMO. I would not accept those conditions.

Problem is that these people are emotionally needy. If they don't sign they are told "take a hike". They'd never do that

I do have a question about the "truth" language. while he may not be required to tout his truthfulness, that is a far cry from having someone sign a waiver admitting that they know you are not asserting anything as true.

Why not ask for it? In the event of any weird suit JE can say "it was for entertainment"

I also question the large amount of information given - especially the date of birth. I do not say anything is being done with the inforation, necessarily, but I found it curious. If you were trying to ensure that no "hot" information was being given, you'd certainly limit this type of information.

SOP. Demographic info for marketing, advertising sales, etc.

NA

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, please! He is an executive producer!! How big a "P" do you want???

As executive producer and star of the show, I'd think JE could take a "P" anywhere he wants in the studio. Of any size.

Ed
Move on folks, nothing to see here.
I think there's much to see here. The "no factual statement" clause is a hoot. Unfortunately, it is legalese, and therefore, simply self-serving. (Look at your shrink-wrap license on many software packages you buy. The manufacturer does not warrant this product is good for any use. Of course, the courts generally disagree with these clauses when tort action starts.)

Putting together several of the clauses also builds a picture of CO protecting its rights to edit anything you or JE does to say anything JE or the producers want. Again, we could view it strictly as legalese. Then again, we could view it in light of those who've complained about editing to make ships passing on two different oceans look like a hit.

[Ed]

Originally posted by TLN


Not at all the point. The point is, if I did lie and Edward was really talking to my dead relatives, he'd know. If I made up a completely ficticious relative, he'd know.

But the fact is he can't know, so he has to ask us not to play this trick on him.

I think that you are approaching this from the wrong angle. Think of JE as a product, pure and simple. His corporation wants to do everything possible to protect the value of that product. We are, after all, talking big bucks.

[Ed]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


As executive producer and star of the show, I'd think JE could take a "P" anywhere he wants in the studio. Of any size.


I think there's much to see here. The "no factual statement" clause is a hoot. Unfortunately, it is legalese, and therefore, simply self-serving. (Look at your shrink-wrap license on many software packages you buy. The manufacturer does not warrant this product is good for any use. Of course, the courts generally disagree with these clauses when tort action starts.)

Putting together several of the clauses also builds a picture of CO protecting its rights to edit anything you or JE does to say anything JE or the producers want. Again, we could view it strictly as legalese. Then again, we could view it in light of those who've complained about editing to make ships passing on two different oceans look like a hit.

Maybe so. I just think that they are getting the most protection that they can. Hell, I would:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Yes, this is what Steve has stated. Once John is out on stage, he stays out there. There's no reason to believe that the taping Steve attended was unique in this respect.

On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that this has changed. Steve himself has stated that after O'Neill's criticism, the procedures were changed.

Originally posted by neofight
They check your ID before you are allowed to enter the studio, Claus. If you've been read by John before, or if you've been to a taping within the past year, you are not allowed entrance.

Yep, we know this. So, they have a database of people who have been read or even attended a taping. Does that make you wonder if this database could be used for Internet searches? As we have seen from Instig8r's research, this is very likely.

Originally posted by neofight
Yes, Claus, both Steve and Clancie can be quite eloquent. :p Of course, you would be sorely missed yourself, were you to go permanently missing. :roll: ......neo

I am aware of your fantasies about me, but I would rather you would suppress those. This is, after all, a family board.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Ed


Maybe so. I just think that they are getting the most protection that they can. Hell, I would:D

Absolutely true. But now look a bit closer, and keep in mind an attorney looks at all the possible legal pitfalls, and warns the client about them. That's because the law is his or her knowledge domain. But the client needs to inform the attorney about his knowledge domain to help the attorney identify the possible consequences of his client's intended actions. I think that may be part of the reason NoZed zeroed in on the "no factual" clause. What was the conversation behind the scenes behind that clause? What worried the client so that this unusual clause was inserted?

I'd be keenly interested to hear NoZed expound on these points.

Cheers,

[Darat]

One thing I do think this contract absolutely clarifies is that the programme "Crossing Over" has to be treated as if all the events are or could be fictional and we should not consider the veracity of any of the content to be a truthful representation of JE's ability to communicate with the dead.

(Consider the Producer has the right to do anything with the material they get, re-arrange it, put it back together again and so on and we can’t just assume that they don’t. Also don't forget that even if a sitter doesn't like what was done with their sitting we now can see that they have signed an agreement that tries to remove any rights to complain about it!)

So the only widely available material that we have (to date) no doubts about its veracity is the Larry King show transcripts; transcripts which have shown he seems not to be able to perform as well, even though he has agreed to the "terms and conditions" imposed by the LK show, as he does when he or his fellow producers can control how his “readings” are put together.


(Edited for a few typos.)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Darat
One thing I do think this contract absolutely clarifies is that the programme "Crossing Over" has to be treated as if all the events are or could be fictional and we should not consider the veracity of any of the content to be a truthful representation of JE's ability to communicate with the dead.

(Consider the Producer has the right to do anything with the material they get, re-arrange it, put it back together again and so on and we can’t just assume that they don’t. Also don't forget that even if a sitter doesn't like what was done with their sitting we now can see that they have signed an agreement that tries to remove any rights to complain about it!)

So the only widely available material that we have (to date) no doubts about its veracity is the Larry King show transcripts; transcripts which have shown he seems not to be able to perform as well, even though he has agreed to the "terms and conditions" imposed by the LK show, as he does when he or his fellow producers can control how his “readings” are put together.


(Edited for a few typos.)

We also have O'Neill's report about what happened to his reading on CO. That report specifically complains about these points. Hmmm.

Cheers,

[renata]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Absolutely true. But now look a bit closer, and keep in mind an attorney looks at all the possible legal pitfalls, and warns the client about them. That's because the law is his or her knowledge domain. But the client needs to inform the attorney about his knowledge domain to help the attorney identify the possible consequences of his client's intended actions. I think that may be part of the reason NoZed zeroed in on the "no factual" clause. What was the conversation behind the scenes behind that clause? What worried the client so that this unusual clause was inserted?

I'd be keenly interested to hear NoZed expound on these points.

Cheers,

All great points, Bill. By the way, don't you think this thread (except for the first dozen posts of useless bickering) would be a great candidate for a Laudie? NoZed's contributions are particularly valuable, but this seems to be another good example of a good skeptical group effort.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Ed
I think that you are approaching this from the wrong angle. Think of JE as a product, pure and simple. His corporation wants to do everything possible to protect the value of that product. We are, after all, talking big bucks.

That's exactly the angle I'm approaching it from. I just looked at another "product" right here on my desk, a bottle of Tylenol.

What would you say about a bottle of Tylenol if printed on the side was the message "Should in no way be considered a pain reliever"?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by renata


All great points, Bill. By the way, don't you think this thread (except for the first dozen posts of useless bickering) would be a great candidate for a Laudie? NoZed's contributions are particularly valuable, but this seems to be another good example of a good skeptical group effort.

Good suggestion, renata. I haven't even started the nominations threads yet this month. Gotta get crackin'...

Cheers,

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Absolutely true. But now look a bit closer, and keep in mind an attorney looks at all the possible legal pitfalls, and warns the client about them. That's because the law is his or her knowledge domain. But the client needs to inform the attorney about his knowledge domain to help the attorney identify the possible consequences of his client's intended actions. I think that may be part of the reason NoZed zeroed in on the "no factual" clause. What was the conversation behind the scenes behind that clause? What worried the client so that this unusual clause was inserted?

I'd be keenly interested to hear NoZed expound on these points.



I do not feel that I really get into the intent behind this too much -- it is possible that the author may have added those types of things without specific instructions, for example. I was really not attempting to look at what lies behind the language when I read through. Instead, I was looking at what the language actually promises (or what restrictions it places).

The paper itself was interesting simply because it expressly sets out that the person, by signing, accepts that the information being given to him is not factual, is not accurate, and may be later edited to change the meaning of the information at will.

I do not believe that the paper, by itself, provides any evidence for or against JE, except to the extent that the person signing certainly does seem to be supplying some information to JE/his staff prior to the show. That isn't evidence that the information is used -- it is just one reason why the shows cannot be considered any type of proof, and why only situations with proper controls should be used in testing this type of claim (IMO).

The "not factual/could be fictional" language is along similar lines. It simply shows that nothing on the show can be used uncritically or accepted as true -- not even JE is making the claim that it is accurate, it seems.

I hesitate to read anything more negative into the language, however. It may be that the intent is simply to avoid suits or claims involving people who later become dissatisfied with a reading or whose memory becomes faulty, for example. I do not find that argument very compelling, given the language used, but I am not prepared to say that there is no other explanation.

Of course, the explanation that the clause is a cynical addition because JE and his staff know they could get into real trouble without the "entertainment only" type of language is, IMO, a front-runner. But there is nothing conclusive here. The language raises questions, but I don't think that it provides any "smoking gun," to borrow a phrase from someone above (Clancie? Thanz?).

I do disagree with the one or two posters that indicate that the paper somehow makes hot reading less likely or reads in JE's favor. At best (for JE), I see the document as neutral on that issue. Creating a self-serving "paper trail" to look good is a long-respected and long-practiced art in the business world; this document is no different in that respect than dozens of other that are created for the same purpose -- CYA.

NA

[Clancie]

Quickly, here's a bit from the JREF Challenge application (emphasis added is mine):

from "Challenge" Application

Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the testing may be used freely by JREF in any way that Mr. Randi may choose.

When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes.

This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial, or professional, loss or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

JREF will not entertain any demand that the prize money be deposited in escrow, displayed in cash, or otherwise produced in advance of the test being performed. JREF will not cater to such vanities.
In other words...



Randi, like JE, insists on having no limits placed as to how he will use the image of the participant and their results;

Randi and JREF hold themselves not liable in any way for any damage or loss of any kind to participants, for any reason whatsoever;

Randi and JREF will not, for any reason, '"produce the money in advance of the test being performed".

The point?

That legal language is often needed in contracts to

(1) give the person in charge (CO producers or Randi) unlimited control over the images and information that result, with no guarantees for the participants;

(2) clearly protect them (CO or Randi/JREF) from being sued if a participant is embarrassed or hurt in any way; and

(3) re the money. Even innocent stipulations can look suspicious if one is intent on coming at them with a suspicious mindset.

[TLN]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
Creating a self-serving "paper trail" to look good is a long-respected and long-practiced art in the business world; this document is no different in that respect than dozens of other that are created for the same purpose -- CYA.

Can you clarify this for an audience with no business or legal sense?

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that this has changed. Steve himself has stated that after O'Neill's criticism, the procedures were changed.

Claus, sometimes you fail to make any sense at all. John describes in "Crossing Over", the book, how after that whole Times article came out, they made sure that those people attending tapings understood that they were not to talk about anything relating to whom they wanted to hear from, etc. So why on earth would he change the procedure in the other direction, by taking off-stage breaks??? In an effort to put an end to criticism, they were looking to *tighten* the controls, not loosen them. :rolleyes:

I am aware of your fantasies about me, but I would rather you would suppress those. This is, after all, a family board.

LOL Whatever it is you're smoking, Claus, I think you had enough! ;) ......neo

[Instig8R]

I'm glad that the "Appearance Release" was finally posted. I am not a lawyer, but I once worked in the legal profession. It is my un-professional opinion that this one-sided document falls into the “unconscionable agreement” category. The CO producers are in a superior position of power. Their attorneys drafted a document that is designed to force hapless audience members – without benefit of counsel - to agree to harsh and unfair terms.

The circumstances of execution are abominable, especially considering that (according to literacy surveys) nearly half of Americans have substandard reading skills. I have yet to observe a person read by JE in the CO Gallery that I would mistake for a Rhodes scholar. Even JE has diagnosed many of these people as having psychic amnesia.

It is sad that many of these folks are at a further disadvantage because of emotional vulnerability: They are at the studio, hoping to hear from deceased loved ones, and then suddenly have a 4-page agreement thrust into their faces at the last minute. They are pressured into signing. If they refuse to sign, they will be denied entrance to the studio and the chance of a reading.

The members of the CO gallery are not anonymous prior to the day they show up at the studio for taping. They should be, but they aren't. Given that a letter is sent by CO to designated ticketholders at least 2 weeks before the taping, why aren’t these Releases sent to them in advance, too? This would give people the opportunity to have the document properly reviewed, executed and brought to the studio on the day of the taping.

I find the Release to be way over-the-top and deliberately intimidating in many ways. I have seen less offensive documents set aside by the Courts as void and unenforceable. I would really enjoy seeing this one challenged.

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

I don't see you address this CO-agreement in a serious manner.

All you have done in this thread is brush it off, while admitting that you haven't really read it. You look for a smoking gun, but doesn't see the required birthdate as a candidate? Or the many mentions of "entertainment only"?

No, you raise doubt about another legal document, which we are not discussing here, and which does not purport to be either entertainment - or performing paranormal stunts, for that matter.

Why don't you address the CO-agreement and the points raised here by the posters? What is your opinion re. the required birthdate? You don't have a problem with the repeated statement that this is not spirit communication, but entertainment only? Do you see anything suspicious about the broad indemnity? Do you have a problem with JE allowing himself to edit the statements as he sees fit, and - if ppl sue - they pay his costs? Do you have a problem with the fact that the audience is - apparently - forced to sign this, moments before they enter the studio? Doesn't that put a very unfair pressure on the audience, especially for those (and they are the majority, let's not kid ourselves here!) under emotional stress to get in touch with their dearly departed?

How many people in the audience do you think reads this document? Given the very harsh conditions and the profound consequences hereof, do you consider this a fair document, especially when considering that JE actually claims that he is talking to dead people? Would you sign this document, now that you have learned its content and the consequences hereof?

You complain - loudly - that this agreement is not made public, so it can be discussed. Then, when it turns out that it is not as innocent as you immediately tried to assert, you clam up and try to redirect the discussion.

We are discussing the CO-agreement, not anything else. You started this thread. It would be so nice if you would join us.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by TLN

Can you clarify this for an audience with no business or legal sense?

I just mean that people who create forms usually draft them in their favor, and it is common for people to place self-serving language into them. The declarations here that no cheating has occurred, etc. are not, IMO, evidence of any nefarious intent -- buit neither should they be taken as some sort of positive evidence that hot reading is somehow less likely because the forms say so.

I was just surprised that one or two people took that language and came to the conclusion that the forms were somehow evidence against hot reading merely because the boilerplate says so. A "Well, its right there on paper - he doesn't get information from the people. If he just said it, we'd doubt it -- but dang it, he's gone and typed it; it MUST be true" kind of thing.

Again, I think Ed is largely correct when he says that this document is worthless as pro or con JE. I still think the document is slightly negative because of the "fiction" statement and the "entertainment" clauses. While not overpowering, it places a question mark on the whole deal. I think you're point about the Tylenol label is valid. Certainly, not anything definite, but a questionable bit of language used there.

[edited to add: I would not sign the form over the indemnity and waiver issues, personally -- this has nothing to do with JE as medium, I just don't like the whole editing/fiction/waiver thing.]

NA

[NoZed Avenger]

Claus, I think you're only being half-fair on this.

Clancie's point about the JREF document is a valid one, with regard to the use of the data and waiver issues. While not identical in language or effect, Clancie's point was that the reservation of rights language is not itself evidence of anything with regard to JE. While I find the language overly broad in the JE document, I tend to agree that the one section, objectionable or not, has little to do (by itself) with the mediumship issue.

I think you are right when you point out that the most troubling points regarding mediumship issues were not addressed, yet -- the fiction/entertainment only language, the personal information given to JE, and the editing with no recourse or claim to be truthful.

You may or may not get better results by simply asking specifically for Clancie or someone else to address that specific point. but you'd sure sound more reasonable asking for it in that manner.

I realize that you two do not get along* and that you both now react to the other's messages like fingernails are being scraped across a blackboard, and that makes it difficult for communication -- but lets try one more time?

NA

* Is there a special award for understatements on the forum?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
I realize that you two do not get along* and that you both now react to the other's messages like fingernails are being scraped across a blackboard, and that makes it difficult for communication -- but lets try one more time?

I don't have a problem with that, as I have repeatedly offered truces. I have even offered that Clancie could set the terms. She doesn't seem at all interested, though. You could ask her, of course. She might have changed her mind. That has been known to happen! ;)

[De_Bunk]

JE should keep it simple...

" This whole show is total fabrication...Sign Here"

Trouble is..people would still turn up even if he told them he was lying..

He's become that big he could say that and still make $$$$$


DB

[SteveGrenard]

Inst8r: why aren’t these Releases sent to them in advance, too? This would give people the opportunity to have the document properly reviewed, executed and brought to the studio on the day of the taping.

The document in question, 4 copies in fact, IS sent to the primary ticketholder (person who scored the tix with the phone in) several weeks in advance. It is up to the ticketholder who received them to distribute them in advance to the other 3 guests so they have time to read them. All copies can be signed in advance but they are handed in at the door on arrival. Nobody is required to return it in advance of taping date.

Hence 75% of the persons handing in their forms at the door are unknown to CO until that point which can be anywhere from 1.5 to 2 hrs before the taping begins .....a time frame in order for everyone to get their water/sugar fix and bathroom breaks in.

What you suggets Int8r is a means by which 100% of the attendees would be known in advance to CO. They do not do this. They obviously have to know who one such person is in order to get them out there in advance, however. Your comment doesn't make any sense. Perhaps one way to do this would be to have the document on the internet and ticket holders and their guests can download it anonymously .... of course then some net savvy critic would say when somebody does this they can be tracked through their e-mail address so that won't work. Then we can come back and say okay, have one non-attendee do the downloading and print out copies for everyone. Er..it starts getting complicated in the area of security insured by anonymity
by now.



Did I miss a comment somewhere above that nobody sees this document until they get to the front door? this is patently incorrect based on my own attendance at a CO taping. The agreements were in hand in advance, having been sent in the package to the identified ticket holder.

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Just a clarification: It is not "75% of the persons handing in their forms at the door are unknown to CO". It can be, but hardly likely, since we cannot rely on all of the primary ticketholders find 3 guests. So, the minimum percentage of known IDs is 25%. I'd say about 30-40%, probably not more.

However, when they are let in, they know the identity of each and every attendee, along with a birth date and addresses. That's 100%, Steve. And 2 hours is more than enough to do a few Internet searches.

Why do you think they need the date of birth, Steve?
What happens to those who don't hand in a signed agreement? They don't get in, do they?
Do you have a problem with JE stating that he is allowed to edit, any way he sees fit?

Just one of many relevant questions...which will probably ignored. That, in itself, will be answer enough.

[Garrette]

Steve:

Is your argument that since CO only knows 25% of the audience then hot-reading is impossible? If so, I disagree.

Is there any way to find out two things:

1) The average percentage of a given CO audience that is 'read'.

2) The number/percentage of those who are read who are also among the known 25% as opposed to the unknown 75%.

Further, your 25/75 breakdown rests on the assumption that every ticket is purchased as a bundle of four.

So it would also be interesting to know how many tickets are bought individually, how many in pairs, in triplets, and so forth.

I suspect that the breakdown would result in a larger percentage than 25% being known prior to the show.

[Garrette]

Oops. Claus beat me to it.

[Ed]

I don't believe that you can enter into a contract if you are under 18. Many web sites now ask for a DOB when you register.

I really don't think that the release is nefarious in any way. It is simply what a lawyer would construct to protect his client.

I really don't get why the "entertainment" thingie raises red flags. From a purely legal standpoint it just covers the client more.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ed
I don't believe that you can enter into a contract if you are under 18. Many web sites now ask for a DOB when you register.

Most I have seen ask you if you are under 18 or not. It is both easier for the user as well as for the programmer.

Take it from me, I've been designing interfaces for decades now... :)

If, however, the DOB means anything within the system, e.g. a clothes store, which can then conform the pages you see according to your age, then it makes sense.

Asking for DOB on CO? Big Red Flag. I haven't seen many young people on CO anyway. Most seem to be middle-aged women.

[juninho]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
[B]All copies can be signed in advance but they are handed in at the door on arrival. Nobody is required to return it in advance of taping date.


I'll accept that nobody IS required to return it in advance of the taping date but this doesn't mean they don't. Does the distribution to the ticket holders include a return address? Does it include a return envelope even, possibly a pre-paid postage one?



Hence 75% of the persons handing in their forms at the door are unknown to CO until that point which can be anywhere from 1.5 to 2 hrs before the taping begins .....a time frame in order for everyone to get their water/sugar fix and bathroom breaks in.


Which makes your assumptions above, coupled with Claus's comments, all the more unlikely.


Did I miss a comment somewhere above that nobody sees this document until they get to the front door? this is patently incorrect based on my own attendance at a CO taping. The agreements were in hand in advance, having been sent in the package to the identified ticket holder.


Why do they send them out in advance? Somewhat dodgy.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
All copies can be signed in advance but they are handed in at the door on arrival. Nobody is required to return it in advance of taping date.

Or looked another way, JE has the name , address, date of birth and telephone number of 100% of the studio audience hours before he steps out to begin the show.

Some argument against hot reading.

:i:

:id:

[Thanz]

I'd just like to clarify one point quickly as Claus has got it wrong twice now, and seems to not understand what "Producer" means in this document.

Look at page 1. In the very first sentence, "Producer" is defined as SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. That means that whenever you read the word Producer (capital "P") in the document it means the company - and no one else.

That is what I meant by capital "P" producer in this document. Clear now?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
I'd just like to clarify one point quickly as Claus has got it wrong twice now, and seems to not understand what "Producer" means in this document.

Look at page 1. In the very first sentence, "Producer" is defined as SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. That means that whenever you read the word Producer (capital "P") in the document it means the company - and no one else.

That is what I meant by capital "P" producer in this document. Clear now?

JE is not an executive producer? What is he a producer of, then?

Please explain this.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


JE is not an executive producer? What is he a producer of, then?

Please explain this.
I don't know and don't really care (for the purposes of this document) what JE is an executive producer of. I am just pointing out that "Producer" is a defined term in the agreement, and it is defined as SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. Using the term "Producer" just allows the drafter to avoid writing "SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC." over and over. If instead of using "Producer" they used "SIXTH AVENUE" it would mean the same thing.

In this document, when you see "Producer" it means SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. and nothing more.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

If you don't know, how can you flat-out state that I am wrong???

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

If you don't know, how can you flat-out state that I am wrong???

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?
You need to get off the word "Producer". In this document, it has NO MEANING other than SICTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC. Whether someone is a "producer" as that term is commonly meant makes no difference. It is a defined term of the document. The defining of the term means that you can take out the word "Producer" every time it appears and put in "SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIPONS,INC." and the document has the exact same meaning. Using a defined term just makes the document a little easier to read.

I am not sure how much more plain I can make it. In this document "Producer" does not mean anyone who may be a producer of the program - it means a specific company, and that is all.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

I asked you some questions. Could you please answer them?

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

I asked you some questions. Could you please answer them?

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?
I am trying to explain to you that your questions are irrelevant. The word "Producer" in the document does not have the ordinary meaning of producer that we use every day. It is a special defined term, a short hand way of referring to Sixth Avenue Productions Inc. They could have used the word "Sixth" and it would have been the same thing.

You are getting confused because you want to use the normal meaning of "producer" when you see "Producer". I am telling you that the normal meaning does not apply once it has been defined as "Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc." in the first sentence of the document. It is nothing but a short hand.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Let's try again: I asked you some questions. Could you please answer them?

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?

Are you a NY lawyer?

Please either:

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

[NoZed Avenger]

Thanz is correct. "Producer" as used in that particular document is defined within the document itself.

Definitions of what a producer is or who a producer might be -- in other circumstances or 'in real life' -- are irrelevant to the terms of the document. "Producer" -- within the document itself -- means only what the term is defined to mean within the document. The document's term excludes JE as "Producer" for the statements made in the document.

This is a non-point for both sides -- the only relevant language (IIRC) says that the opinions of JE are not necessarily those of the "Producer" -- i.e., they don't want you suing the business for things that he says.

It really has nothing to do with anything -- since the rest of that sentence says that the opinions are not necessarily factual and are for entertainment purposes only.

So the person signs off that the opinions:

(1) Are from JE,
(2) Are not from the "Producer" [the business],
(3) Are not meant to represent anything factual, and
(4) Are for entertainment purposes only.

Is this clearer?

NA

PS Yes, you're wrong on this, Claus.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

Let's try again: I asked you some questions. Could you please answer them?

Sixth Avenue Productions produces the show, right?
I imagine that they do.

JE is an executive producer of the show, right?
It doesn't matter for this document.

So.....how can I be wrong, Thanz?
I have explained this several times already. The word "Producer" (capital "P") does not have the oridnary meaning of "producer" in this document. It is only a short hand reference for SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

Are you a NY lawyer?
Not a NY lawyer, but I am a lawyer.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Thank you for your answers.

NoZed Avenger,

Why does the document's term excludes JE as "Producer" for the statements made in the document? I don't mind being wrong, I just want to know why.

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz

I imagine that they do.

[B]
It doesn't matter for this document.

[B]
I have explained this several times already. The word "Producer" (capital "P") does not have the oridnary meaning of "producer" in this document. It is only a short hand reference for SIXTH AVENUE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

[B]
Not a NY lawyer, but I am a lawyer.

Thanz, I did not know you were a lawyer! I might have argued less voiceferously yesterday! I still stand by my uneducated view of the indemnity language and "arising out of". You spend 5 years discussing additional insured claims and then talk to me what is and is not "arising out of":D

As to "Producers" The word is clearly definded in the document, you are right. But is it possible for John Edward to be a part of "Sixth Avenue Productions" in the first place in his capacity as executive producer? I think that is what Claus is trying to get at- I think he is confusing JE's job as executive producer and usage of "Producer" in the contract (amateurs! ;) ) , but it is possible he is not too far off in his questioning on that issue.


Oh, and Thanz- you can get a T Shirt made: I survived a mini Larsen list!:p

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
NoZed Avenger,

Why does the document's term excludes JE as "Producer" for the statements made in the document? I don't mind being wrong, I just want to know why.


The document has no effect on his status as a producer (little 'p') of the show.

For purposes of the obligations in the document itself, the author wants to separate -- in a legal snse -- JE the person from Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc.

The document is set up using the word "Producer" to refer to the business, only. This is merely a shorthand reference to the company so that the phrase "Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc." does not have to be written out every time that the company is referred to. They could have equally well chosen "Company" or "Sixth Avenue" or "Party of the First Part." The only reason for using the word is convenience in drafting the document -- it is easier to write and know precisely which person or entity is being referred to.

Under the law, JE is a separate legal entity from Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc. However, because he would be viewed as a representative or agent of the company, his statements and actions could cause the company to be liable for what he says/does. (Generally, a business is held responsible for the actions of its agents. Even if the person is not an actual employee, the business can be held responsible for the actions of a person if they create the impression that the person is speaking/acting for the business.)

In this case, the business (Sixth Avenue) is attempting to limit the liability of the company. They therefore state that the statements being made by JE are not those of the company itself.

If their disclaimer is valid (no opinion on that at the moment - not enough facts about the business relationship), then a person who sued JE for statements he made would -not- be able to successfully sue the company directly. While JE could be made to pay a judgment, this language is the company's attempt to keep its assets from being taken, as well, in such a suit.


Is that any clearer?

NA

[CFLarsen]

renata, et al.

Feel free to educate me why JE is not encompassed by "Producer".

What I fail to understand is how anyone can be called "producer" - executive, even - at the end of the show and not be a producer of the show.

[CFLarsen]

NoZed Avenger,

Yes, I think I get it. What I don't get is how JE can be separated from his own show? Are you saying that he is not producing CO? If so, what does his title mean?

[Ed]

Claus,

Think of the title as an honorific. One can be labeled "producer" and not have any legal standing. The owners of the property (CO) is 6th Avenue Productions, JE as "Producer" is seperate and distinct from that. Now, he might own a piece of ^th Avenue, in fact he might be a sole propriator BUT that is distinct from JE, the person, with the title of "producer".

[renata]

NoZed- Same question to you as Thanz:
Is it possible for John Edward to be a part of "Sixth Avenue Productions" in the first place in his capacity as executive producer? I think that is what Claus is trying to get at.

I know it has no relevance to the contract as is, because it is a different issue, because the contract separates the entities. But it appears to me we are getting entangles in several separate definitions of Producer here, and how they are used in this contract, and in the show.


Originally posted by CFLarsen
renata, et al.

Feel free to educate me why JE is not encompassed by "Producer".

What I fail to understand is how anyone can be called "producer" - executive, even - at the end of the show and not be a producer of the show.


Read the first paragraph of the contract. That is how "Producer" is defined within the contract. You are confusing the definition within the contract with the more conventional usage of the word "Producer" in the show. It could have been called "Purple Monkey Alligator" and meant the same thing in the contract. Get off the fact that they refer to themselves as such. :) But it is possible John Edward is part of Sixth Avenue Productions, so I am awaiting comment from NoZed and Thanz :)

[CFLarsen]

Ed,

Sure, it can be honorific. I want to know if it is.

Think of JE. Think about how he describes himself as a control freak. Think about the stakes here.

Nope, I am not convinced. Yet. :)

[De_Bunk]

Ren...

I was lost ages ago...

Maybe i shouldnt hang in this thread...Its getting beyond me..

:D

[Ed]

one of our legel friends migh be able to see the ownership of 6th Ave if they check with the Sec. of State for Delaware (I assume it is a Delaware company). Might make for interesting reading.

[NoZed Avenger]

The language in the document has no effect on his position with the show. The document has no effect on his job or actual title with the show or the company.

The word "Producer" was simply picked as a word to be used in place of the company name within this document. Any time you see "Producer" in that document (and no where else), simply read it as saying "Sixth Avenue Production, Inc." That's it. It really is just a common method to avoid repeating the same, long name of some business in drafting these documents.

For example, "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." may be one party in a contract. Under the law, you would want to use the full name of the company to make sure that the rights and duties in the contract all apply to the right company. But writing "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." every time that you want to say "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." or refer to "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co." is unwieldy -- see how hard it gets to actually read the terms?

So, at the first of the document, I would state that "NoZed Avenger Prime Bottling Co. is hereafter referred to as "Distributor" within the agreement. Now, all I have to do is type that Distributor agrees to provide x and Distributor promises delivery on y date. Much easier to read.

I, NoZed Avenger (personally), may have the title of distributor with the company -- but it is clear that "Distributor" in the agreement refers only to the company with regard to the rights and duties set out in the document itself. If "Distributor" in the document promises to deliver product by the first of the month, it is the company that can be sued for that failure -- not me personally. And, though I may have ten "distributors" working for me, none of them is personally resonsible for the delivery -- it is only the company as a whole ("Distributor" as defined by the contract) that can be sued directly.

In the same way, the person in the JE document agrees that "Producer" (read as: Sixth Avenue Productions, Inc.) is not responsible for the statements from JE, but JE will be. He is still a producer of the show.

The choice of the word "Producer" does not affect the "real world" definitions of what JE does for the show. It is perhaps unfortunate that they chose the word "Producer" to refer to the company, instead of "Company" or something similar.

NA

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What I don't get is how JE can be separated from his own show?

Are you saying that he is not producing CO? If so, what does his title mean?

The legal separation between JE and the company comes from incorporation -- not from the choice of words in this disclaimer document.

When incorporated, a business is considered a completely separate legal entity for purposes of owning property, paying taxes, suing, and being sued.

JE can be an owner of the business -- he may in fact be the sole shareholder -- but his personal assets and the assets of the company are separate and they are two separate legal entities in the eyes of the law.

This can sometimes be set aside if the corproation is a "sham" set up to shield someone from liability, as well as under as few other situations - but I really cannot get into a discussion on all of that.

NA

[CFLarsen]

NoZed Avenger,

I cannot for the life of me imagine that each and every word has not been twisted and turned to make the contract as safe as possible. JE a control freak? The show is claiming JE has paranormal abilities, yet describes it as entertainment?

It's possible that "producer" is poorly chosen, but very unlikely, IMNSHO.

I also have problems with JE being described as a producer, without him having producer-rights over the show - which is produced by SAP. The title has to have some legal "weight" (I don't know the English term here).

NZA, I understand your last point - JE being an owner, but is separate etc. But do we know this? From SAP being INC? Is that default under US Law?

JE is an executive producer. So, he must be in SAP INC. Right? Can an executive producer not be working for SAP INC?

Man, not only do I put woowoos on the line, I create a lot of work for lawyers, too! :D

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ed,

Sure, it can be honorific. I want to know if it is.

Think of JE. Think about how he describes himself as a control freak. Think about the stakes here.

Nope, I am not convinced. Yet. :)

Convinced of what? JE has no legal standing with respect to the property "CO". Does he exercise control? You betcha, and he would regardless of any title. I don't see the problem that you are having.

[CFLarsen]

Ed,

How can he exercise control without being legally...whatever the term is. Liable? That would make his title less than honorary.

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ed,

How can he exercise control without being legally...whatever the term is. Liable? That would make his title less than honorary.

But that is true of any corporation in which an individual is the product. It is true of Martha Stewart, too! :)

[neofight]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Did I miss a comment somewhere above that nobody sees this document until they get to the front door? this is patently incorrect based on my own attendance at a CO taping. The agreements were in hand in advance, having been sent in the package to the identified ticket holder.

originally posted by neofight:
I thought that these releases were signed just prior to the show, but even if one were sent to the person who obtained the tickets, there are still another three people who may show up for the taping, and they would have to fill theirs out in the studio.....

That would be me, Steve. My bad! My memory was not clear on this point, and I'm glad that you were here to set the record straight. :)

What about the people who end up getting read? Are they required to sign a second release form when they go back and do the post analysis taping? Or is this the only one? ......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata
But that is true of any corporation in which an individual is the product. It is true of Martha Stewart, too! :)

So, why is Martha facing jailtime? :)

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, why is Martha facing jailtime? :)

D'OH!! Bad example.... :D

She is not facing jail time for stuff with her company, but for insider trading of stock she personally owned. But I bet the company and her are separate even though she was CEO (I think she stepped down since). So even though she may be in jail, the brand may go on, and the company, the magazine, etc are not liable for her own misdeeds.

[Darat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...snip...

JE is an executive producer. So, he must be in SAP INC. Right? Can an executive producer not be working for SAP INC?

...snip...

"Executive Producer" is a very loosely defined term in the world of media. For instance I've been credited with being an "Executive Producer" on some media works without having an "official" link, connection or contractual rights with the production or development company that created the work.

It could be that JE's contract with Sixth Avenue means that he has approval or control on some aspects of the program, for instance it is not unusual for a "star" to have some control over how they appear in a program. On the other hand it could just be a recognition that he has some creative input into the programme or he makes suggestions.

The term "Executive Producer" doesn't tell us anything about the legal relationship that JE has with Sixth Avenue or what his input or control really is.

(Has anyone been able to do a search on the company’s ownership etc?)

[renata]

From "State and Main" By David Mamet- good movie!

Joseph Turner White: What's an associate producer credit?
Bill Smith: It's what you give to your secretary instead of a raise.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by renata


D'OH!! Bad example.... :D

She is not facing jail time for stuff with her company, but for insider trading of stock she personally owned. But I bet the company and her are separate even though she was CEO (I think she stepped down since). So even though she may be in jail, the brand may go on, and the company, the magazine, etc are not liable for her own misdeeds.

renata,

No, no...not "bet". We have to know.

Darat,

Could be, sure. We have to know.

[renata]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


renata,

No, no...not "bet". We have to know.

Darat,

Could be, sure. We have to know.

Oh, OK, Claus. I will just go over to her office, get the confidential contracts, incorporation papers, board meeting minutes and whatever other agreements they have and let you know!!

Sheesh!!:D

A corporation is a separate entity before the law than an individual, even if he owns it, separately protected. Indeed sometimes people incorporate themselves, so their assets belong to a corporation and are protected...and I know nothing about corporation law so I will just stop here.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, why is Martha facing jailtime? :)

She engaged in insider trading. Had nothing to do with her company.

[SteveGrenard]

Question:I'll accept that nobody IS required to return it in advance of the taping date but this doesn't mean they don't. Does the distribution to the ticket holders include a return address? Does it include a return envelope even, possibly a pre-paid postage one?

Reply: No return reply envelope. Nothing like that. Specific instructions require it be handed in at the door. You can't get in, as someone else said, without it. They do not require or ask for them in advance and you can't return them in advance. If you happen to do so you won't have it at the door and won't get in
unless you make a big deal out of it somehow. The instriction is explicit: bring the guest letter and agreement with you and hand them in at the door.


Question: Which makes your assumptions above, coupled with Claus's comments, all the more unlikely.

Reply: I agree that up to two hours elapses from the time the first one is handed in and the taping begins. I also never said it was not impossible to research some of these names during this time frame.






Question:Why do they send them out in advance? Somewhat dodgy.


Reply: Its quite the opposite of dodgy. It allows all who mght attend to see the agreement in advance, at their leisure, consult a lawyer (LOL) if they want to and decide whether they want to sign and go or not. Not dodgy at all, but the epitomy of extreme courtesy.

Its very amusing to see these arguments ... one arguing you dont see it until the front door of the studio (wrong) and the other saying it is dodgy to send it out in advance so people can read it. All 4 agreements (ticket holder and 3 guests) go to the ticketholder who then distributes them to the three guests.
In advance. Not dodgy.

I agree, that not all ticketholders bring unrelated or even related guests and that the stats of unknowns may be reduced for some groups, in fact even to 0% when no guests are brought.
However, on average they get a full house, and a full house translates to 200 people, 50 of whom (25%) are ticketholders and 150 of whom (75%) are unidentified guests of the ticketholder until 2 hrs or less before taping starts. I have yet to see a new gallery venue with many or any empty seats. Of course the empty seats can be edited out of the shot. Right?

I dont think there is any way to know if the person JE reads is a previouly identified ticketholder or one of the unknown invited guests except when such a guest brings this up in follow-up and they often do. It happens ..... but there is no way to base a statistical analysis of how often based on what we see of this.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by renata
Thanz, I did not know you were a lawyer! I might have argued less voiceferously yesterday! I still stand by my uneducated view of the indemnity language and "arising out of". You spend 5 years discussing additional insured claims and then talk to me what is and is not "arising out of":D
Hey - argue away. I don't want you to make a "non-argument due to someone else's supposed authority" fallacy (does that exist? I think it should) :)

Anywhoo, I am mostly a commercial litigator. Thankfully, I have not had to argue about these releases. If you want to know about the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw, 1929, as amended by the Hague Protocol, as amended by Montreal Protocol No. 4, then I'm your guy. :p

As to "Producers" The word is clearly definded in the document, you are right. But is it possible for John Edward to be a part of "Sixth Avenue Productions" in the first place in his capacity as executive producer? I think that is what Claus is trying to get at- I think he is confusing JE's job as executive producer and usage of "Producer" in the contract (amateurs! ;) ) , but it is possible he is not too far off in his questioning on that issue. Claus is definitely confusing the two. It matters not what JE's position is (for the most part) within Sixth Avenue, if he even has one. As NoZed has stated, there are some times when you go around a corporate shiled ("piercing the corporate veil") and others where Directors and Officers may be personally liable for some things, but we don't want to open those cans of worms. They don't really have anything to do with this document.

Oh, and Thanz- you can get a T Shirt made: I survived a mini Larsen list!:p
Don't tell anyone, but I think I have survive a couple. Shhh. The trick is to keep them mini.

[SteveGrenard]

neo: What about the people who end up getting read? Are they required to sign a second release form when they go back and do the post analysis taping? Or is this the only one? ......neo


Don't know as none of our group of 4 were read. However, there are folks around on various forums who were, so perhaps we can get an answer from one of them. I would think if they send a crew to the house or do a separate taping, it would require a separate release.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight

That would be me, Steve. My bad! My memory was not clear on this point, and I'm glad that you were here to set the record straight. :)

What about the people who end up getting read? Are they required to sign a second release form when they go back and do the post analysis taping? Or is this the only one? ......neo

Hi, Neo-- Thanks for clarifying that point. I still can't decide which scenario I think is worse: JE having access to people's personal information two weeks prior to their appearance at the CO Gallery -or- JE coercing people into signing a self-serving 4-page Appearance Release a mere two hours before the show is taped.

I guess it would be in JE's best interest to be able to show that the audience members had several weeks to contemplate signing the Release. If people have the documents in their possession for a couple of weeks, they can't reasonably claim that they were deprived of the opportunity to give it due consideration.

Still, not everyone gets advance notice of the Appearance Release. For example, unless Basil the Garage Guy knew that he would be summoned to the CO studio for a reading, he didn't have two weeks to contemplate his Appearance Release form. Likewise, the people who were read at Westbury Music Fair last year didn't get two weeks' notice either.

[renata]

Originally posted by Instig8R


Still, not everyone gets advance notice of the Appearance Release. For example, unless Basil the Garage Guy knew that he would be summoned to the CO studio for a reading, he didn't have two weeks to contemplate his Appearance Release form. Likewise, the people who were read at Westbury Music Fair last year didn't get two weeks' notice either.

Instig8R, that is a good point. Did you have to sign anything when you went to the seminar? Do you know if the people who were read had to sign anything?

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie
Quickly, here's a bit from the JREF Challenge application (emphasis added is mine):

In other words...



Randi, like JE, insists on having no limits placed as to how he will use the image of the participant and their results;

Randi and JREF hold themselves not liable in any way for any damage or loss of any kind to participants, for any reason whatsoever;

Randi and JREF will not, for any reason, '"produce the money in advance of the test being performed".

The point?

That legal language is often needed in contracts to

(1) give the person in charge (CO producers or Randi) unlimited control over the images and information that result, with no guarantees for the participants;

(2) clearly protect them (CO or Randi/JREF) from being sued if a participant is embarrassed or hurt in any way; and

(3) re the money. Even innocent stipulations can look suspicious if one is intent on coming at them with a suspicious mindset.

Hi, Clancie-- I understand the point you are trying to make regarding the necessity of protection from lawsuits. However, you are comparing the legalese in Randi's challenge for a challenger, to an "Appearance Release" by audience members who may or may not be potential recipients of JE's readings. These are unrelated situations and are not a good comparison.

However, if you want to really appreciate how much overkill is contained in JE's "Appearance Release", you should compare it to a standard Appearance Release form. I have frequently used them and signed them. I found a typical one online, and I am providing a link:

Standard "Appearance Release" Form (http://www.techtv.com/interact/netcamnetwork/story/0,23350,2556882,00.html)

JE's "Appearance Release" is quite unusual, IMO.

[neofight]

Originally posted by renata


Instig8R, that is a good point. Did you have to sign anything when you went to the seminar? Do you know if the people who were read had to sign anything?

Hi, renata. Instig8R and I went to that seminar together, and no, we didn't have to sign anything at all. Naturally, those audience members who ended up getting read were asked to remain after everyone else left, and the "CO" crew taped a post-analysis segment where they talked about their reading, at which time they also signed release forms......neo

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by renata


Instig8R, that is a good point. Did you have to sign anything when you went to the seminar? Do you know if the people who were read had to sign anything?

Hi, renata--

No, I didn't have to sign anything, because I wasn't read. Only people who received readings were asked to remain after the seminar ended, presumably for post-reading arrangements, and possibly to take care of the necessary paperwork.

Another thing that I find highly amusing is the fact that JE needs to maintain a database of people who receive gallery readings, to make sure that they don't get back into the gallery for another reading. When I went to Westbury Music Fair for the seminar, nobody cared to ask if I had ever been read before.

However, how did JE know that Basil the garage guy was never read in the gallery?

And, how did JE know that Russ Brunelli was never read before when he called him and read him on the telephone, when Chef Yan-Yan Leone was in the gallery?

And, why does the "Appearance Release" prohibit mentioning businesses on CO, and yet the Brunelli reading was all about Brunelli's Restaurant, and JE even did a follow-up at those premises?

[Clancie]

Posted by Instig8r

However, if you want to really appreciate how much overkill is contained in JE's "Appearance Release", you should compare it to a standard Appearance Release form....JE's "Appearance Release" is quite unusual, IMO.
But one could also say, of course, that what JE does is quite unusual. Personally, I read much of the language in the CO release form as being fairly typical protection from lawsuits for people who are volunteering advice to others (plus we've discussed the fortune telling law. And, I don't suppose you still have that NY phrasing handy from your original post way back, do you? :confused: )

Here's a website that says it uses experts, yet still has a disclaimer (bottom of page) saying, essentially, don't take this as more than entertainment. Couples Company Disclaimer (http://www.couplescompany.com/Advice/Submit.asp)

I think for Sixth Avenue Productions to protect themselves like this is actually very wise. And, if audience members find the agreement too oppressive it would be...for what reason?

That they don't want to give anyone the right to use their image in any way?

Well, that's called "being on television".

That they want the freedom to lie?

Well, why should they come on and lie. Do CO producers want to allow false statements that they could be held responsible for and knowingly permitting?

Or maybe the objection to signing would be that people feel a show on mediumship with a document that says its "entertainment" rather than "this is the bona fide real deal" isn't factual enough for them?

Well, g8r, imagine what would happen if producers instead said it was all factual, that it wasn't just "entertainment" at all.

How long do you think it would take before they're asked to "prove your claim that what JE does is all fact not fiction"?

Not long, I'm sure. So...why on earth would they set themselves up for that?

Frankly, I don't see any surprises or terrible disadvantages for CO audience members in all this legalese, but as Steve says, they have the document well in advance, it's short, and they can decide not to bother if the restrictions on lawsuits, the unlimited use of their image by producers bothers them, or the prohibition on lying to John or the producers really bothers them.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by SteveG
Its very amusing to see these arguments ... one arguing you dont see it until the front door of the studio (wrong) and the other saying it is dodgy to send it out in advance so people can read it. All 4 agreements (ticket holder and 3 guests) go to the ticketholder who then distributes them to the three guests.

I agree, Steve, and it's a good point. Not fair of us to complain both that he gives notice and that he doesn't give notice.

But in either case, he has information before the show in time to do some research.

However, on average they get a full house, and a full house translates to 200 people, 50 of whom (25%) are ticketholders and 150 of whom (75%) are unidentified guests of the ticketholder until 2 hrs or less before taping starts.

Having a full house or an empty house is irrelevant to the percentage of known audience members. He could have a full house and all 200 of them be known. 25% is the minimum, not the maximum; it therefore can't possibly be the average; it must, by definition, be less than the average.

I have yet to see a new gallery venue with many or any empty seats. Of course the empty seats can be edited out of the shot. Right?

Right, though it does nothing for or against either of our arguments.

I dont think there is any way to know if the person JE reads is a previouly identified ticketholder or one of the unknown invited guests except when such a guest brings this up in follow-up and they often do. It happens ..... but there is no way to base a statistical analysis of how often based on what we see of this.

When they "often do", what do they indicate? Do they say they are the primary ticket buyer or a guest? Can you mention specific shows?

I agree we can't base a statistical analysis on this due to lack of information. Which means your whole point that only 25% are known prior to the show therefore it's not hot reading, crumbles. Right?

[neofight]

Originally posted by Garrette
When they "often do", what do they indicate? Do they say they are the primary ticket buyer or a guest? Can you mention specific shows?

Hello, Garrette. Steve is referring to the several times that you hear a sitter, during their post-reading analysis, explain how they were invited at the very last moment to attend "CO" after some other person had to cancel for some reason.

This happens quite often, and since these tickets are very difficult to get, most people have no problem whatsoever finding three other people who would love to go.......neo

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...

I think for Sixth Avenue Productions to protect themselves like this is actually very wise. And, if audience members find the agreement too oppressive it would be...for what reason?

That they don't want to give anyone the right to use their image in any way?

Well, that's called "being on television".



I think I mentioned this earlier but this isn't a "standard" rights release. It tries to gain an incredible freedom of how and when the production company could use the material. Look at the telling phrase from the form Instig8R linked to:

Such right will be limited to use in connection with programming or content generally related to the subject matter of the original story and any derivatives of such story.

Sixth Avenue are trying to get the rights to do anything with the material they get from a participant, that is unusual, not bad not good, just a bit different from a standard appearance release.

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...
That they want the freedom to lie?

Well, why should they come on and lie. Do CO producers want to allow false statements that they could be held responsible for and knowingly permitting?


The answer to this is quite easy, to make a more entertaining i.e. sellable programme. This is more a matter of now knowing for a fact that there is a possibility that nothing we see on Crossing Over is an accurate portrayal of events. For instance we could see a clip of JE saying "Is there a Matilda here?", and cutting straight to someone nodding vigorously, yet the person shown nodding could have been answering any question and might not even be called "Matilda"!

We don't know if this happens or not, but we now have evidence that means JE’s claimed appearance of being able to communicate to the dead on Crossing Over can be explained by totally mundane theories i.e. clever editing.

Nothing that is shown on Crossing Over can now be considered evidence of communication with the dead, this release form quite simply puts the nail in the coffin for being able to say "on Crossing Over he gets hits, these form part of a reason for believing that he can communicate with the dead" because everything we are shown could be a total fabrication.

The only evidence we now have, that is available to a wide public, are the LK transcripts. Do these show someone who performs in such a manner that the most likely explanation is that he can communicate with the dead?

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...
Or maybe the objection to signing would be that people feel a show on mediumship with a document that says its "entertainment" rather than "this is the bona fide real deal" isn't factual enough for them?

Well, g8r, imagine what would happen if producers instead said it was all factual, that it wasn't just "entertainment" at all.

How long do you think it would take before they're asked to "prove your claim that what JE does is all fact not fiction"?


And your point being? Why shouldn't they have to prove what they claim is "factual" are you really saying that they have to put "entertainment" in the release so that they don't have to provide proof but it is still real? :eek:

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...
Not long, I'm sure. So...why on earth would they set themselves up for that?


Because it would be telling the truth? Do you think it is OK for people to lie because it's "easier"? That seems to be what you are saying.

The simple fact is that the Sixth Avenue have, through this agreement removed the show "Crossing Over" from being able to be used as any kind of evidence of anything to do with communicating with the dead.

Originally posted by Clancie
...snip...
Frankly, I don't see any surprises or terrible disadvantages for CO audience members in all this legalese, but as Steve says, they have the document well in advance, it's short, and they can decide not to bother if the restrictions on lawsuits, the unlimited use of their image by producers bothers them, or the prohibition on lying to John or the producers really bothers them.

I certainly don't consider a 4 page release form short, secondly it contains a threat that has nothing to do with the contract itself i.e. the "criminal offense", which it even puts in bold, thirdly it seeks the rights to do anything with the material it obtains which is unusual.

It would be very interesting to know when Sixth Avenue started using this contract - anyone know?

[Clancie]

Posted by neofight

Steve is referring to the several times that you hear a sitter, during their post-reading analysis, explain how they were invited at the very last moment to attend "CO" after some other person had to cancel for some reason.
Right, neo. In fact, that was how Michael O'Neill wound up at a CO taping.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
Right, neo. In fact, that was how Michael O'Neill wound up at a CO taping.

Fine, so for every person who cancels at the last minute and gives their tickets to someone else there are, what, maybe a dozen that go ahead as palnned? The point is totally moot. There will still be plenty of trackable people in the audience.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by NeofightHello, Garrette. Steve is referring to the several times that you hear a sitter, during their post-reading analysis, explain how they were invited at the very last moment to attend "CO" after some other person had to cancel for some reason.

Thanks, neo. Can you define "quite often?" I won't press the point too much--even one reference is enough to show it happens. Just interested in how you come to quantify it.

Is it your contention, neo, Steve, and Clancie, that the two hours before taping that the staff are in possession of the release forms of these unknown guests is insufficient time to allow any research?

[CFLarsen]

Instig8R,

Very good points.

How JE can waiver his demand that nobody previously read - or even attended a taping - can be allowed into a seminar - or even read - is a good question. Impractical? Why not just drop it altogether?

I looked at the appearance release form you linked to, and nowhere does it require a date of birth. They only ask you to confirm that you are 18+, and if not, get the guardian or parent to sign it.

Which is pretty standard indeed.

Things that make you go mmmmmm........

Clancie,

What is JE an "expert" of? Giving advice? Is he a grief counsellor? Or does he speak to the dead? If he is, indeed, an "expert" at this, then your argument falls flat, because fortune telling is illegal in NY.

Why do you skirt the issue of SAP demanding the right to edit people's statements to SAP's liking? Is that not a terrible disadvantage for the audience members?

[Lurker]

I also went to a seminar and can corroborate neo's and instig8tr's sworn testimony that no release was required of audience members.

I think the discussion on what percent of people are known to JE ahead of time is quite interesting. It would be interesting to compare these two percentages:

(people read known beforehand) / (people known beforehand)

vs

(people read not known beforehand) / (people not known beforehand)

All things being equal, these two percentages should be roughly equal. If we see the first percentage much higher than that might be indicative of JE selecting his targets because he knows information about them and thus can get a better reading with them.

Lurker

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Lurker

-snip-

I think the discussion on what percent of people are known to JE ahead of time is quite interesting.

-snip-


I was very suspicious of the fact that when Chef Yan-Yan Leone and his cousins from Brunelli's Restaurant on the upper East Side were read on CO, JE began making statements that Yan-Yan knew could be meant for his cousin, Russ Brunelli. JE then had Yan-Yan call Russ at the restaurant, and JE proceeded to read Russ Brunelli over the telephone.

We later learned (in a post-reading segment) that Russ was supposed to be at the CO gallery, and gave up his ticket because he claimed he was too busy at the restaurant. Funny how the reading still went to him, via telephone. (Hint: The restaurant bears his name.)

Something that made me more suspicious was the fact that this was a restauranteur who hired a public relations firm. The restaurant was the focal point of the reading... Great publicity on national television. The agent was working for them at the same time this reading took place, and I wondered if it could have been a prearranged reading as a favor. There was a follow-up, which again showcased the restaurant in a positive way. I am more suspicious now, because of the Release forms -- and I don't know what to make of the supposed prohibition against promoting one's business on CO.

The reading was not spectacular, except that JE saw his familiar symbol for the food business: "cornicopia". He also knew that someone had a double name ("Yan-Yan", the chef - whose picture appears online). JE also knew that Russ Brunelli honored his father somehow in the restaurant - His father's photographs are on the restaurant menus... also depicted online.

I'd like to stress, again, that except for the few hits that could be hotreading, this reading was as mediocre as the standard CO fare that needs editing in order to "flow".

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie

-snip-

And, I don't suppose you still have that NY phrasing handy from your original post way back, do you? :confused: )


Hi, Clancie--

I still have the Penal Law section. I'll locate it and will re-post. Please note, however, that the law specifically pertains to people who are being charged a fee for the reading. Therefore, according to NY law, the readings on CO do not require a "for entertainment purposes" disclaimer. This is because the audience is not being charged for their readings.

The anti-fortune-telling law in NY law is categorized with "theft of property" statutes. It is designed to prevent people from being cheated out of their money by fortune-tellers, psychics, mediums, etc. This is why "money" is central to the disclaimer issue. In all other instances, NYS couldn't care less if people go to mediums.

[Garrette]

He also knew that someone had a double name ("Yan-Yan", the chef - whose picture appears online).

I'm interested to hear how JE gets the idea of a double name.
I would think it's not clairaudiently; I don't see how it could be clairvoyantly. What image would he get? What sound would he hear?

Edited to add

Sorry. Don't want to hijack this thread. I'll pose the question somewhere else.

[Instig8R]

O.K., Clancie, here is the appropriate section of the NY Penal Law:

"§ 165.35 Fortune telling:
A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement."

Note: A violation of of this law is a Class "B" Misdemeanor.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Garrette


I'm interested to hear how JE gets the idea of a double name.
I would think it's not clairaudiently; I don't see how it could be clairvoyantly. What image would he get? What sound would he hear?

Edited to add

Sorry. Don't want to hijack this thread. I'll pose the question somewhere else.

Hi, Garrette-- That is a good point you made. The chef's name is Ignazio Leone, but his nickname is Yan-Yan. I don't recall how JE claims to have gotten the "double-name" information. I do know that according to neo, JE usually gets names clairaudiently.

[Garrette]

Yes, Instig8r, I know neo claims that. Except when it's better for him to have gotten it clairvoyently or clairsentiently or whatever.
I'm being a bit harsh without meaning to, but time is always short.

Anyway, I started another thread on this question so this one can remain focused on the release form.

[Clancie]

Thanks, g8r. :) I appreciate having that (emphasis added below):
"§ 165.35 Fortune telling

A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement."

Note: A violation of of this law is a Class "B" Misdemeanor.
I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

You do??? Really??

Since you emphasize the following:

guilty of fortune telling
holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters

you also admit that JE is doing this - but that he gets away with it by calling it "entertainment or amusement."

I have to admit that I am impressed with your candor here. You actually admit that JE is circumventing the law. You also admit that he is dabbling in "occult powers", something you took offense to earlier, when I referred to JE's actions as "necromancy".

How things change, depending on the circumstances.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

Clancie, wouldn't the simplest explanation be John Edward isn't really communicating with dead people and that’s why he needs this disclaimer?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie
Thanks, g8r. :) I appreciate having that (emphasis added below):

I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

"he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters"

In other words if a person is not the real deal, they are in violation of the law. It seems to me that the law only applies to "phony" psychics.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You do??? Really??

Since you emphasize the following:

guilty of fortune telling
holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters

you also admit that JE is doing this - but that he gets away with it by calling it "entertainment or amusement."

I have to admit that I am impressed with your candor here. You actually admit that JE is circumventing the law. You also admit that he is dabbling in "occult powers", something you took offense to earlier, when I referred to JE's actions as "necromancy".

How things change, depending on the circumstances.

Dammit, not quick enough on the trigger. Yeah, what Claus said.

[Clancie]

Posted by Ed

In other words if a person is not the real deal, they are in violation of the law. It seems to me that the law only applies to "phony" psychics.
Ed, I don't think the law is prepared to distinguish between "phony" and "real" psychics.

Hence, the need for the disclaimer...to be on the safe side legally.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Clancie

Ed, I don't think the law is prepared to distinguish between "phony" and "real" psychics.

Hence, the need for the disclaimer...to be on the safe side legally. [/B]

This is a potential minor thing that could result in 10000 posts and it sure ain't worth it.

My point is that the wording indicates that purporting to be a psychic (insert appropriate paranormal thing here) when in fact one is not is illegal. IE. real psychics are OK. I guess that the law was PC in it's day, not wanting to offend the "True" psychics.

If I were JE I'd probably opt for the "etertainment" out since it is legally simpler, ie. no demonstration of "powers". Between you and me, he also knows he'd screw the pooch if he were actually tested.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie

Ed, I don't think the law is prepared to distinguish between "phony" and "real" psychics.


Clancie, you are correct that the law doesn't care to distinguish between phony and real psychics. What the law does care about is if any money is paid to the psychic by the client.

When you bolded out the parts of the Penal Law, you neglected to place the emphasis on the key words:

"§ 165.35 Fortune telling:
A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to..."

As I tried to explain earlier, fortune-telling is a crime against property in New York. It is grouped with other types of theft in the Penal Code. I once posted (at TVTalk) the written Charges to the Jury from a NY fortune-telling case, which made it very clear that the issue was one of theft. The money is a vital element of the crime and, without it, no crime has taken place in NY.

Originally posted by Clancie

Hence, the need for the disclaimer...to be on the safe side legally.

Well, to be on the safe side, legally, JE doesn't need to give the disclaimer on TV-- he isn't taking money from the gallery or people viewing the program at home. (It is also questionable whether the program lives up to the word "entertainment", lol)

There were unconfirmed reports over at TVTalk that JE did not give the "for entertainment purposes" disclaimer prior to doing private readings at his Long Island office. If this is true, this is a blatant violation of NY law... This is because JE charges people $300 per reading, and not because he is phony or real.

(edited to correct a "quote" mistake)

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Ed


My point is that the wording indicates that purporting to be a psychic (insert appropriate paranormal thing here) when in fact one is not is illegal. IE. real psychics are OK. I guess that the law was PC in it's day, not wanting to offend the "True" psychics.


Hi, Ed-- These fortune-telling cases are only prosecuted when someone has been cheated out of a lot of money.

There is supposed to be separation of church and state, and there are many new age religions nowadays that use psychics, mediums, etc. Also, older religions, (like Spiritualists), may engage in mediumship, etc.

The State of NY has no interest in getting involved in trying to determine who is a real psychic-medium and who is not. They just don't want people to be bilked out of their life's savings by these people.

What is odd about JE's disclaimer on CO is the following: He is using a disclaimer to protect him against a criminal prosecution, when he really needs a disclaimer to protect him against civil litigation.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by Clancie

But one could also say, of course, that what JE does is quite unusual. Personally, I read much of the language in the CO release form as being fairly typical protection from lawsuits for people who are volunteering advice to others (plus we've discussed the fortune telling law. And, I don't suppose you still have that NY phrasing handy from your original post way back, do you? :confused: )

Here's a website that says it uses experts, yet still has a disclaimer (bottom of page) saying, essentially, don't take this as more than entertainment. Couples Company Disclaimer (http://www.couplescompany.com/Advice/Submit.asp)

I think for Sixth Avenue Productions to protect themselves like this is actually very wise. And, if audience members find the agreement too oppressive it would be...for what reason?

That they don't want to give anyone the right to use their image in any way?

Well, that's called "being on television".

That they want the freedom to lie?

Well, why should they come on and lie. Do CO producers want to allow false statements that they could be held responsible for and knowingly permitting?

Or maybe the objection to signing would be that people feel a show on mediumship with a document that says its "entertainment" rather than "this is the bona fide real deal" isn't factual enough for them?

Well, g8r, imagine what would happen if producers instead said it was all factual, that it wasn't just "entertainment" at all.

How long do you think it would take before they're asked to "prove your claim that what JE does is all fact not fiction"?

Not long, I'm sure. So...why on earth would they set themselves up for that?

Frankly, I don't see any surprises or terrible disadvantages for CO audience members in all this legalese, but as Steve says, they have the document well in advance, it's short, and they can decide not to bother if the restrictions on lawsuits, the unlimited use of their image by producers bothers them, or the prohibition on lying to John or the producers really bothers them.

Hey, Clancie-- I forgot to answer this post earlier. I went to the couples.com website. However, I don't see any correlation between the website and CO. Likewise, I see no parallel whatsoever between the couples.com Disclaimer and the JE's 4-page Appearance Release being discussed in this thread.

There is a big difference between CO, (a tv show), and a couples.com, (a website). The website actually invites people to e-mail personal questions to their experts for advice. The various experts (legal, medical, psychiatric, et al) actually respond with specific advice on marriage, finance, family law, health, etc. This website absolutely needs their disclaimer, and they have covered the liability issue nicely with their one paragraph Disclaimer.

CO, on the other hand, is a program that depicts JE supposedly communicating with spirits. However, everyone in his gallery has to sign an oppressive 4-page Appearance Release in which they give up all rights concerning the use of their own image, acknowledge that they are informed that the program is not factual, and assume responsibility for all damages that may occur due to their participation in what is essentially admitted to be a dishonest production.

I fail to see why you view the website's disclaimer and JE's Appearance Release as being on a level that they are comparable.

Are you confusing the JE's Appearance Release with his Disclaimer at the end of the tv show? :confused:

[neofight]

Originally posted by Garrette


Thanks, neo. Can you define "quite often?" I won't press the point too much--even one reference is enough to show it happens. Just interested in how you come to quantify it.

No problem Garrette. By "quite often" I mean that it is not at all unusual for someone who has been read to mention in the post-reading analysis how it is that they came to be at the taping.

To be more specific, I remember one woman who said that she was given a ticket or tickets by her neighbor, who had become ill just prior to the day of the taping. It turned out that she was read, and her son came through for her.

It was the reading where John mentioned to her that her son wanted her to know that the time she thought that she heard her son call out to her, it was not her imagination, and then she validated that by recounting the time, early in the morning, when she had heard her son's voice, clear as a bell, and had gone into the living room to look around and saw the votive candle next to his picture flare up just at that very second. She said that she had felt a very strong sense of her son's presence, and she sat down on the couch for a few moments to reflect.

And then, as Clancie says, Michael O'Neill was also given an extra ticket that someone had. He was not the one who called in for the tickets.

Is it your contention, neo, Steve, and Clancie, that the two hours before taping that the staff are in possession of the release forms of these unknown guests is insufficient time to allow any research?

Not at all, Garrette. I'm sure it would be enough time for someone to do a bit of research. I just don't believe that there's a need to cheat, when JE can just do his mediumship thing. :p

Besides, I very much doubt JE would find the sort of things that he told this woman, and countless other people, floating around on the internet.......neo

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight

Besides, I very much doubt JE would find the sort of things that he told this woman, and countless other people, floating around on the internet.......neo [/B]

I agree, but I reach a different conclusion. I remember the reading you are describing quite well. And I think cold reading could very easily apply. JE said nothing about getting up early in the morning or about the votive candle. He talked about the woman hearing her son call out to her. She filled in the rest.

Neo, I know you haven't had what you would call any kind of ADC experience, but there is nothing uncommon about this. Whether it's in our head, or true ADC, many people including me have reported hearing a spirit call out our name. I heard it the weekend after my partner died. If you have read the books about ADCs, you'll see that it is a very common experience.

There really is nothing very specific or compelling about what JE said, in my opinion. He is aware of what people who have lost loved ones have reported in terms of ADCs. I think it's possible that he just tossed it out as a guess.

Now, when we look at the readings where JE says the name "Vuola" or knew the sitter had met Gladys Knight, then I'd really like to know about the potential for hot reading.

[Garrette]

Neo, thank you for the answer. A follow-on question, though (as if you expected otherwise).

You say this:

To be more specific, I remember one woman who said that she was given a ticket or tickets by her neighbor, who had become ill just prior to the day of the taping. It turned out that she was read, and her son came through for her.

First, having the transcript would be helpful (no, I'm not asking for you to get it) before analyzing this hit.

Second, my real point is this:

If the original ticket-holder had not gotten sick and had instead gone to the taping, and JE had said the same thing he had said to the neighbor who DID attend, then it is reasonable, given hits from other shows, that the ticket-holder would have validated it as a hit, saying something like "Yes! That's my neighbor's son! She really wanted to come today!" (You could even leave off the last bit).

I think you and others would still have counted it as a hit.

Does that suggest anything to you? That the same information given to two different people would be counted just as strongly as a hit?

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC
I agree, but I reach a different conclusion. I remember the reading you are describing quite well. And I think cold reading could very easily apply. JE said nothing about getting up early in the morning or about the votive candle. He talked about the woman hearing her son call out to her. She filled in the rest.

Hi, RC. Yes, I think that's what I said. ;)

Neo, I know you haven't had what you would call any kind of ADC experience, but there is nothing uncommon about this. Whether it's in our head, or true ADC, many people including me have reported hearing a spirit call out our name. I heard it the weekend after my partner died. If you have read the books about ADCs, you'll see that it is a very common experience.

Well, exactly how common is 'very common', RC? We know that this sort of thing does not happen to everyone, so the fact remains that if JE had said this to the woman, and she told him that she had no idea whatsoever of what he was talkling about , he wouldn't have looked too good. The point is that he is very often so right about the things that he says. More often, IMO, than someone who is merely cold-reading.

There really is nothing very specific or compelling about what JE said, in my opinion. He is aware of what people who have lost loved ones have reported in terms of ADCs. I think it's possible that he just tossed it out as a guess.

Yes, RC. Of course, anything is *possible*.

Now, when we look at the readings where JE says the name "Vuola" or knew the sitter had met Gladys Knight, then I'd really like to know about the potential for hot reading.

Yes, those were good hits, but I don't know how you would check out the "hot-reading" angle. I wish there were a way, so you could finally know one way or another about those two hits, RC. :D lol ......neo

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by neofight

Well, exactly how common is 'very common', RC?

I'd say about the same as "quite often."

NA

;)

[neofight]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


I'd say about the same as "quite often."

NA

;)

LOL NA! Hey, I answered Garrette's question!

By "quite often" I mean that it is not at all unusual....

:D ......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
And then, as Clancie says, Michael O'Neill was also given an extra ticket that someone had. He was not the one who called in for the tickets.

Just a clarification. O'Neill was given an extra ticket from family members:

Given an extra ticket by family members hoping to hear from his deceased grandfather, O'Neill attended a performance and was singled out by Edward, who received what he claimed were communications sent directly from the dead grandfather.
Jaroff, Time Magazine

Dead grandfather comes through, no matter who in the family attended. Go figure.

Originally posted by neofight
Not at all, Garrette. I'm sure it would be enough time for someone to do a bit of research. I just don't believe that there's a need to cheat, when JE can just do his mediumship thing. :p

Incredible. Simply incredible.... :hb:

Originally posted by neofight
Besides, I very much doubt JE would find the sort of things that he told this woman, and countless other people, floating around on the internet.......neo

Nevertheless, we can find what he tells people, "floating around on the internet".

[neofight]

Originally posted by Garrette
Second, my real point is this:

If the original ticket-holder had not gotten sick and had instead gone to the taping, and JE had said the same thing he had said to the neighbor who DID attend, then it is reasonable, given hits from other shows, that the ticket-holder would have validated it as a hit, saying something like "Yes! That's my neighbor's son! She really wanted to come today!" (You could even leave off the last bit).

Garrette, reading that, I think it's a safe guess that you do not really watch the show all that often. ;) That's not exactly how it happens. Let me respond.....

Of course it is entirely possible that the woman's son would see an opportunity to get a message to his grieving mom, Garrette. This sort of thing happens all the time. But if that were to happen, John first would have had to come up with either the mom's name/initial or the son's name/initial, or possibly both. He might even have been shown how the woman's son died, so that the woman who got the reading would have been able to make the connection to her neighbor.

Without that additional information, I doubt it would have gone anywhere. There is no reason to even believe that this woman had told anyone else about hearing her son's voice. She could very well have kept that private, so if her son wanted to let her know that he was around, he would have had to come up with a few validations that the neighbor would have understood, otherwise it would have been meaningless.

I think you and others would still have counted it as a hit.

Does that suggest anything to you? That the same information given to two different people would be counted just as strongly as a hit?

I hope you are understanding what I am saying here. It's not a one size fits all type of thing. In either case, it would still be the same spirit coming through for his mom, either directly or indirectly.

If the spirit gave JE enough information to get the neighbor to understand who the message was for, (names, dates, cause of death etc.) then of course I would count that as a hit. It would be an excellent validation if the other pieces all fit.........neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Just a clarification. O'Neill was given an extra ticket from family members:

That's fine. What does it matter who gave him the ticket? His name was not known two weeks in advance was my point. No one knows who the other three people are until they get to the studio.

Dead grandfather comes through, no matter who in the family attended. Go figure.

Well, depending upon who was there, he may not have come through as a grandfather. If Michael O'Neill's grandmother was there, the spirit could have come through to her as a male figure to the side.

If Michael's parents were there, he could have come through as a father figure. What's your point exactly?


Incredible. Simply incredible.... :hb:


Come on, Claus! You call that head-banging? Put some feeling into it! Hit it a little harder! :D neo

[Garrette]

Dearest neo,

I beg to differ.

Garrette, reading that, I think it's a safe guess that you do not really watch the show all that often. That's not exactly how it happens. Let me respond.....

True for the last 9 or 10 months.

Not true before then. The total number of shows I have watched is at least 50, possibly as high as 80. But that's an estimate.

The transcripts I've read probably number about the same. Do they count?

And, yes, that is exactly how it happens.



Of course it is entirely possible that the woman's son would see an opportunity to get a message to his grieving mom, Garrette. This sort of thing happens all the time. But if that were to happen, John first would have had to come up with either the mom's name/initial or the son's name/initial, or possibly both. He might even have been shown how the woman's son died, so that the woman who got the reading would have been able to make the connection to her neighbor.

No.

For it to happen, we would only need (and I'm making this up, but if you insist it is not consistent with JE's method, then you're being disingenuous at best):

JE: Is there a male figure?

Sitter: {No response}

JE: I'm getting a male figure, to the side, or possibly a younger male figure. Do you understand?

Sitter: {hesitantly} Yeeess...

JE: Because I'm definitely getting a male, and a younger male, to the side. That usually means a brother or cousin or friend, unless it's younger, then maybe a nephew. It's very definite...

Sitter: I don't have a brother or cousin.

JE: But someone younger who's passed? A male?

Sitter: Possibly

JE: Because that's definitely there. A younger male who has passed, someone you knew?

Sitter: My neighbor's son died last summer.

And on it goes from there.

Now simply restructure JE's comments if the sitter was the neighbor instead and had not said "I don't have a brother or cousin" but had said:

Sitter: My son died

And voila.

Same 'spirit', same start, same degree of 'hit' regardless of the sitter.

This is Sitters' Bias. Forer Effect, maybe.

There is no doubt.

The same applies to the O'Neill reading, as CFLarsen demonstrated. The dead grandfather would have replied to any of the family members.

So the bit about tickets being given to unknown members does little to disprove warm or hot reading or sitter's bias.

People don't (or at least rarely do) go to a complete stranger with whom they have nothing in common and say "I can't go to CO today; want my ticket?"

They go to someone they know, i.e, someone in the same circle of acquaintences, someone possibly or probably with at least some commonality of relatives, someone with similar pool of knowledge regarding deceased persons and friends.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Neo
That's fine. What does it matter who gave him the ticket? His name was not known two weeks in advance was my point. No one knows who the other three people are until they get to the studio.

It matters a great deal. See my previous post.

[CFLarsen]

neofight,

As usual, you ignore the dangerous parts. In this case, JE being able to find the very same information he got through the spirits on the Internet.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Ed

My point is that the wording indicates that purporting to be a psychic (insert appropriate paranormal thing here) when in fact one is not is illegal. IE. real psychics are OK. I guess that the law was PC in it's day, not wanting to offend the "True" psychics.

I don't know how you get this interpretation from the wording used. To me, it seems clear that the law assumes that all "Psychics" are fake, and that without the "entertainment" wording, you can be prosecuted. As long as you "hold yourself out as", which would apply to "True" psychics and fakers. (How's that for a false dichotomy? :D )

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
As usual, you ignore the dangerous parts. In this case, JE being able to find the very same information he got through the spirits on the Internet.
That may be, but how likely is it? Does someone like JE actually have the time to do this himself? And if not, does he have someone that he can trust enough not to spill the beans here? It seems awfully risky to cheat in this way when you can do just fine with cold reading.

I think that the most logical explanation for what happens on JE is that he is cold reading the audience, and he can then edit whatever he gets to make up some good readings. The procedures in place - the "i have not cheated" parts of the release, the "no talking" rule, etc., are all smoke and mirrors to attempt to convince people that he is not cheating in a hot reading sense. I don't think that he is - or if he is, it is very sparing - and it just distracts from the fact that the whole act is a cheat.

Just my two cents.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Awfully risky?

The vast majority of his fans don't know that the information can be found. And those that do, ignore it. JE himself ignores any criticism whatsoever.

Where's the risk? All he needs is a special hit from time to time. Consider the many readings he does. Then, consider how many special hits there are. Not that many, eh? Those that are investigated turn out to be pretty mundane. A few can be explained by Internet searches.

He can get away with cold reading most of the time, but he needs those "stellar" performances to really make his audience wet their panties.

[Thanz]

If he can do the searches himself, then the risk is minimal.

However, if he has staffers doing research, then it is quite risky. Those staffers will have him over a barrel. It is not the kind of situation that he would want to be in. If just one of them gets angry at him, or develops a conscience, the he would be screwed. That is what I mean by risky.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Thanz
However, if he has staffers doing research, then it is quite risky. Those staffers will have him over a barrel. It is not the kind of situation that he would want to be in. If just one of them gets angry at him, or develops a conscience, the he would be screwed.

I don't think anything at all would change if a staffer spilled the beans. Believers would doubt him, doubters would believe him. I seem to recall reading about one of Uri Geller's former (disgruntled) assistants admitting to helping him cheat, and it didn't do anything to Geller's continued success.

[Clancie]

Posted by Futile Jester

I don't think anything at all would change if a staffer spilled the beans. Believers would doubt him, doubters would believe him.

:mad:
Hi Futile Jester,
I think of all the negative comments about believers, this is the one that always irks me the most, the idea that we are so desperate to believe that no revelation of cheating would sway us in the slightest.

You may not accept it, but I can tell you that isn't true. If it was a credible claim, with examples that made sense (i.e. not someone anonymously calling a radio station in Australia about it), I think JE's career would pretty much be destroyed. Certainly people like me would not "believe" in him any more and I think many would completely lose their belief in any medium.
Posted by Futile Jester

I seem to recall reading about one of Uri Geller's former (disgruntled) assistants admitting to helping him cheat, and it didn't do anything to Geller's continued success.
I've never heard this about Geller. Source? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
:mad:
Hi Futile Jester,
I think of all the negative comments about believers, this is the one that always irks me the most, the idea that we are so desperate to believe that no revelation of cheating would sway us in the slightest.

You may not accept it, but I can tell you that isn't true. If it was a credible claim, with examples that made sense (i.e. not someone anonymously calling a radio station in Australia about it), I think JE's career would pretty much be destroyed. Certainly people like me would not "believe" in him any more and I think many would completely lose their belief in any medium.

Clancie? Hello??

Does TONY THE CAMERAMAN ring a bell?

JE admitted to hot reading, Clancie. He was caught cheating.

Futile Jester is very correct. You close your eyes to flat-out fraud.

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz
If he can do the searches himself, then the risk is minimal.

However, if he has staffers doing research, then it is quite risky. Those staffers will have him over a barrel. It is not the kind of situation that he would want to be in. If just one of them gets angry at him, or develops a conscience, the he would be screwed. That is what I mean by risky.

Peter Popoff had staffers and his wife doing overt cheating, and they did not develop a conscience. And, he was busted, quite clearly and he enjoys a revival right now, so although some believers left him, there are some desperate enough they still follow the man who was taped cheating for heaven's sake.

Similarly, the people some believers here think are frauds- like Browne and van Praagh never had any staffers do an expose on them either. I seriously suspect the staffers sign a very interesting employment contract. Wouldn't we want to get our hands on that, right, Thanz? :)

[Thanz]

Originally posted by renata


Peter Popoff had staffers and his wife doing overt cheating, and they did not develop a conscience. And, he was busted, quite clearly and he enjoys a revival right now, so although some believers left him, there are some desperate enough they still follow the man who was taped cheating for heaven's sake.
I agree that there will always be some believers who will never be swayed, no matter what happens, as long as the fraudster promises to be better or denies the fraud or whatever. I am not sure that the show could survive such a scandal, but JE would still be bilking people off air.

Similarly, the people some believers here think are frauds- like Browne and van Praagh never had any staffers do an expose on them either. I seriously suspect the staffers sign a very interesting employment contract. Wouldn't we want to get our hands on that, right, Thanz? :)
I would love to see such a contract. Would make for very interesting reading, indeed!

As for Browne and Van Praagh, I don't have any experience with JVP so I can't comment. By Browne seems to be just so bad that it is hard to imagine believing in her. Also, she tends to make more predictions about the future - which turn out to be false, of course - so it is easier to spot the fakery.

[renata]

Originally posted by Thanz

I agree that there will always be some believers who will never be swayed, no matter what happens, as long as the fraudster promises to be better or denies the fraud or whatever. I am not sure that the show could survive such a scandal, but JE would still be bilking people off air.


I think some believers justify occasional cheating. Something like- he was tired, he was in bad form it was OK to cheat that day. Indeed I believe I had a similar conversation with SteveGrenard here, where he compared psi to baseball, and occasional revelation of cheating to a corked bat. So even if JE gets caught cheating, like I submit he did with Tony the cameraman, some believers will write that off. I also submit they make rationalizations to what I think are repeated abysmal performances on LKL. So, frankly I do not know what would be sufficient for a believer to become a non believer. You see, that has puzzled me from day one- some believers believe in this medium but not that, but to me they are all substantially similar.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869957751&highlight=cork%2A#post1869957751

posted by Steve Grenard, first part quoting me, then partial comment by Steve
Renata: I think I understand what you say. It is kind of like being an athlete but using steoroids to supplement performance. Having talent and then supplementing it to achieve a spectacular effect. But how will you ever know whether he has any ability at all, if you think his readings may be a combination of cold reading, hot reading and perhaps genuine ability.

Or a corked bat. Can we compare JE to Mickey Mantle? Why not?
If Mantle was at bat one year just ten times and got 8 hits, his average would be 80%. If he was at bat 300 times and got 100 hits then it would drop to 33.3%. In truth Mantle's performance varied considerably over the years .. in 1960 his hit rate was 27%.

According to Radin in his chapter on replication psi is like baseball.
He says all forms of human performance varies widely. I don't think anyone can disagree. Even a master pianist misses a note now and then. If you guys want to hold JE to a higher standard than Samy Sosa so be it.





I would love to see such a contract. Would make for very interesting reading, indeed!

Oh yes... Imagine the fine analysis that could be done there. I am trying not to salivate :)



As for Browne and Van Praagh, I don't have any experience with JVP so I can't comment. By Browne seems to be just so bad that it is hard to imagine believing in her. Also, she tends to make more predictions about the future - which turn out to be false, of course - so it is easier to spot the fakery.

And yet people shell out hundreds of dollars to be read by Browne, buy her books, she appears on Larry King, Montel, other shows. And believers in her also do not seem to be bothered by the fact that her predictions have not come true. And, of course, not a single expose from an employee. And, to be honest, to me what she does and what JE does look substantially similar- maybe she is doing a polka and he a samba, but it is still dancing. It is substantially the same thing, to me.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Clancie
:mad:
Hi Futile Jester,
I think of all the negative comments about believers, this is the one that always irks me the most, the idea that we are so desperate to believe that no revelation of cheating would sway us in the slightest.

You may not accept it, but I can tell you that isn't true. If it was a credible claim, with examples that made sense (i.e. not someone anonymously calling a radio station in Australia about it), I think JE's career would pretty much be destroyed. Certainly people like me would not "believe" in him any more and I think many would completely lose their belief in any medium.


Hi Clancie,

I admit I stated that in terms that were perhaps too absolute, for which I apologize. I'm sure many people will in fact be swayed by appropriate evidence, and I have no reason to believe you wouldn't be one of them. I believe I'm on firm ground, though, in saying that overall popularity can survive even repeated accusations of cheating. Geller's been popular for decades despite his repeated exposures (see below). And as Claus pointed out, JE is not free from insider accusations either.

I've never heard this about Geller. Source? :confused:
Here (http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/PaUriGeller.htm) is a bio which contains the following:
Further evidence that Geller falsely claimed to possess psychic powers came from his former manager Yasha Katz, who confessed on Italian TV to helping Geller cheat after being taught a gesture code using certain hand signals and a cigarette, and Hannah Shtrang revealed Geller’s methods to the press in Israel.
He's also purportedly actually been caught on camera cheating. And many still believe.

[Clancie]

Posted by renata

I seriously suspect the staffers sign a very interesting employment contract.
Well, not on CO, they don't.

According to Underdown (who has a friend who works on the show), there is no such agreement that CO staffers are required to sign.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
According to Underdown (who has a friend who works on the show), there is no such agreement that CO staffers are required to sign.

Anecdotal.

[Clancie]

Posted by Futile Jester

I admit I stated that in terms that were perhaps too absolute, for which I apologize.
Well, yes, but thanks for recognizing it. :)
Posted by Futile Jester

I'm sure many people will in fact be swayed by appropriate evidence, and I have no reason to believe you wouldn't be one of them.
You may be one of the few people at this board who feels that way, but I appreciate you saying it as I'm convinced that is the case.
Posted by Futile Jester

I believe I'm on firm ground, though, in saying that overall popularity can survive even repeated accusations of cheating.
Well, I agree that the tv show would be gone (read in CO, the book, how freaked out the parent company was by Jaroff's really weak story. An actual expose would be devastating--to the program.

But I agree with you that some people would continue to believe (Arthur Ford is a good example). And there are always new people who aren't familiar with the past exposes (I think this is somewhat true with Geller, for example--and thank you for the reference :) ).

And as Claus pointed out, JE is not free from insider accusations either.
Well, I assume you're referring to "Tony the Cameraman" which was not an "insider accusation". Tony was a "Dateline" cameraman (who apparently really liked his reading and did not think he was lied to). There are various interpretations of that incident...but lets not go into that for the umpteenth time!

Point is....no CO staffer has come forward with allegations of cheating (and turnover on television is quick with no real "whistle blowers" fears, especially for a show that most people probably feel is a fraud anyway).

But I agree with your basic premise--that some people will believe, no matter what. I just think it has to be recognized that not all "JE believers" would fall into that "blind follower" mold.

[SteveGrenard]

Posted by renata

I seriously suspect the staffers sign a very interesting employment contract.


Seriously and extremely anecdotal

[TLN]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Seriously and extremely anecdotal

She called it a "suspicion". She didn't state is as a fact.

[Clancie]

Posted by TLN

(The claim that CO staffers don't sign confidentiality agreements is) Anecdotal.
:mad:
See, TLN. That's the kind of lazy skepticism that really is annoying.

If you think there's such an agreement, why the heck don't you go and get a bleeping copy of it?????

How difficult would that be to settle once and for all, by simply producing such a document?????

Guess a lot harder than sitting at the computer typing in a 9 letter word of dismissal... "Anecdotal" :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

"§ 165.35 Fortune telling

A person is guilty of fortune telling when, for a fee or compensation which he directly or indirectly solicits or receives, he claims or pretends to tell fortunes, or holds himself out as being able, by claimed or pretended use of occult powers, to answer questions or give advice on personal matters or to exorcise, influence or affect evil spirits or curses; except that this section does not apply to a person who engages in the aforedescribed conduct as part of a show or exhibition solely for the purpose of entertainment or amusement."

Note: A violation of of this law is a Class "B" Misdemeanor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think this law explains the need for a disclaimer--both on the form and on the program.

Does John Edward claim to tell fortunes or manipulate evil spirits or curses? It looks to me that this law does not apply to "mediums" such as JE.

Also, the law seems to be very unfair as it seems to assume that such superpowers don't exist. If JE needs his disclaimer because of this law (although I don't think it applies in this case), maybe he should petition it and prove that he's real and superpowers are real. That way we can develop a standard test to weed out the charlatans from the real "mediums".

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Clancie


How difficult would that be to settle once and for all, by simply producing such a document?????


I think it would be pretty hard to get a hold of the internal documents of most profit-oriented companies.

[thaiboxerken]

"it being understood that the program or any derivative works thereof may contain factual and/or FICTIONAL scenes, action and dialogue. "

Now, why would JE want the right to produce FICTIONAL accounts of the readings done on his show? Hmmmmm.



"I waive any rights I might have to review, inspect or approve any uses of my paricipation in and appearance on the program in which I participate in or appear.

Non-disclosure.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
:mad:
See, TLN. That's the kind of lazy skepticism that really is annoying.

If you think there's such an agreement, why the heck don't you go and get a bleeping copy of it?????

Because I didn't say there was a one, I mearly said your contention there certainly wasn't was anecdotal, which it is.

You should read my posts with more care Clancie.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
:mad:
See, TLN. That's the kind of lazy skepticism that really is annoying.

If you think there's such an agreement, why the heck don't you go and get a bleeping copy of it?????

How difficult would that be to settle once and for all, by simply producing such a document?????

Guess a lot harder than sitting at the computer typing in a 9 letter word of dismissal... "Anecdotal" :rolleyes:


This, from someone who has never gone to see JE herself.
This, from someone who gets all her information from JE himself.
This, from someone who trusts JE completely, no matter what contrary evidence there is.
This, from someone who summarily rejects any kind of evidence that JE is not a real medium.
This, from someone who will not investigate for herself, but leaves it to - demands it of - others.
This, from someone who, after leeching the information, summarily rejects it, solely because it shows that JE is not a real medium.
This, from someone who habitually lies, cheats and misrepresents her critics' posts.
This, from someone who never misses an opportunity to cast doubt about her critics.
This, from someone who willingly closes her eyes to all evidence that JE is not a real medium.
This, from someone who without missing a beat tries to divert attention from the tough issues.
This, from someone who habitually avoids any tough questions.


Clancie...really...:rolleyes:

[RC]

Originally posted by neofight


The point is that he is very often so right about the things that he says. More often, IMO, than someone who is merely cold-reading.

[/b]

Hi Neo,

That's your point. :)

My point is that a lot of validations that you and other JE believers consider to be "so right" are really not that specific and in fact vague enough and applicable to such a wide net of people's experiences that it's really not impressive that it would resonate with a sitter in some way.

You offered the validation about hearing the son's voice as an example of something very specific that JE said to someone who got a ticket at the last minute. In other words, you were refuting the hot reading theory by saying that because JE could get a great hit like this for someone with no opportunity for advance research, then why bother hot reading.

My response is that this wasn't a great hit at all. As I said, a commonly reported ADC is hearing a spirit's voice in your head, so it isn't surprising to me at all that JE would ask someone this. Yes, this one connected with the sitter, but what about the times when it doesn't? I remember once when JE said "he's bringing up the time you were in the bathroom and you got a sign from him" and the sitter looked at JE like he was crazy.

[TLN]

Originally posted by RC
Hi Neo,

That's your point. :)

My point is that a lot of validations that you and other JE believers consider to be "so right" are really not that specific and in fact vague enough and applicable to such a wide net of people's experiences that it's really not impressive that it would resonate with a sitter in some way.

You offered the validation about hearing the son's voice as an example of something very specific that JE said to someone who got a ticket at the last minute. In other words, you were refuting the hot reading theory by saying that because JE could get a great hit like this for someone with no opportunity for advance research, then why bother hot reading.

My response is that this wasn't a great hit at all. As I said, a commonly reported ADC is hearing a spirit's voice in your head, so it isn't surprising to me at all that JE would ask someone this. Yes, this one connected with the sitter, but what about the times when it doesn't? I remember once when JE said "he's bringing up the time you were in the bathroom and you got a sign from him" and the sitter looked at JE like he was crazy.

An excellent point.

I'd be willing to go further and say let's throw out hot reading altogether. Everything Edward does is well within the confines of cold reading and some non-clever editing.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Garrette
Dearest neo,

I beg to differ.

Darling, you called me dearest! I can just feel the love! :D

True for the last 9 or 10 months.

Not true before then. The total number of shows I have watched is at least 50, possibly as high as 80. But that's an estimate.

The transcripts I've read probably number about the same. Do they count?

And, yes, that is exactly how it happens.

Well it does seem like you've watched enough shows then, Garrette. I still disagree with you that it happens that way though.

For it to happen, we would only need (and I'm making this up, but if you insist it is not consistent with JE's method, then you're being disingenuous at best):

JE: Is there a male figure?

Sitter: {No response}

JE: I'm getting a male figure, to the side, or possibly a younger male figure. Do you understand?

Sitter: {hesitantly} Yeeess...

JE: Because I'm definitely getting a male, and a younger male, to the side. That usually means a brother or cousin or friend, unless it's younger, then maybe a nephew. It's very definite...

Sitter: I don't have a brother or cousin.

JE: But someone younger who's passed? A male?

Sitter: Possibly

JE: Because that's definitely there. A younger male who has passed, someone you knew?

Now in most JE readings that I've seen, Garrette, John would definitely have had to give the sitter something a little more to go on than simply saying that he had a younger male. Upon seeing the sitter struggling initially, he would have asked the spirit to give him something more specific, such as a name.

Also, strictly fyi, in most cases, a younger male, meaning *below* the sitter, would not usually be a brother, cousin or friend, but a child, a nephew or a grandchild. "To the side" would indicate a contemporary to the sitter, like a husband, brother or cousin or friend, and not usually someone younger.

There is no doubt.

In your mind perhaps. ;)

The same applies to the O'Neill reading, as CFLarsen demonstrated. The dead grandfather would have replied to any of the family members.

Well, no, because as I said, if the spirit came through to O'Neill's parents for example, he would not have come through as a grandfather at all, but as a father figure. :confused: ....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
neofight,

As usual, you ignore the dangerous parts. In this case, JE being able to find the very same information he got through the spirits on the Internet.

Claus, then feel free to disregard anything that he says that is already out there on the internet. I mean, who cares? JE gives out a lot of specific personal references that are not to be found on the internet........neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by RC


Hi Neo,

That's your point. :)

Yes it is, RC, and I proudly take ownership. :D

My point is that a lot of validations that you and other JE believers consider to be "so right" are really not that specific and in fact vague enough and applicable to such a wide net of people's experiences that it's really not impressive that it would resonate with a sitter in some way.

You offered the validation about hearing the son's voice as an example of something very specific that JE said to someone who got a ticket at the last minute. In other words, you were refuting the hot reading theory by saying that because JE could get a great hit like this for someone with no opportunity for advance research, then why bother hot reading.

My response is that this wasn't a great hit at all. As I said, a commonly reported ADC is hearing a spirit's voice in your head, so it isn't surprising to me at all that JE would ask someone this.


RC, although it might be true that many people have this experience, as I pointed out, it is not true of everyone. It was true for this woman though, and so between that and the other pieces of information that JE gave her, she did feel that her son came through. This was not the only thing he told her.

Yes, this one connected with the sitter, but what about the times when it doesn't? I remember once when JE said "he's bringing up the time you were in the bathroom and you got a sign from him" and the sitter looked at JE like he was crazy.

I'd need more details to know what reading you are referring to, RC, but as I said, a reading usually consists of several pieces of information. Not just one. And we know that mediumship is an imperfect form of communication, and John is not always on target with his interpretation of something.

I know some will call that a copout, but I think you have enough understanding of the nature of telepathy to know that this could possibly be the case. At least, we can't rule it out altogether. :)......neo

[Garrette]

Originally posted by neofight

I know some will call that a copout, but I think you have enough understanding of the nature of telepathy to know that this could possibly be the case.

Please tell us what the nature of telepathy is.

I'm seriously interested, especially since I am among those who do not feel that its existence has even been established.

[Garrette]

Also, strictly fyi, in most cases, a younger male, meaning *below* the sitter, would not usually be a brother, cousin or friend, but a child, a nephew or a grandchild. "To the side" would indicate a contemporary to the sitter, like a husband, brother or cousin or friend, and not usually someone younger.

So a younger cousin would only come across as someone to the side and never as a younger male.

I'll make this the first tenet in your upcoming treatise: "The Nature of Telepathy"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Well, no, because as I said, if the spirit came through to O'Neill's parents for example, he would not have come through as a grandfather at all, but as a father figure. :confused: ....neo

If he comes through as a father figure, why can't that be a grandfather? If a grandfather is not a father figure, what is he then, in JE-terms?

Originally posted by neofight
Claus, then feel free to disregard anything that he says that is already out there on the internet. I mean, who cares? JE gives out a lot of specific personal references that are not to be found on the internet........neo

Have you ruled out hot reading? Have you ruled out the possibility that these references are neither specific or personal?

You may not care that JE tells the sitter information that can be found on the Internet, but you should. Doesn't that make you wonder, just a little bit? If he can cheat here, why not there?

Originally posted by neofight
And we know that mediumship is an imperfect form of communication, and John is not always on target with his interpretation of something.

I know some will call that a copout, but I think you have enough understanding of the nature of telepathy to know that this could possibly be the case. At least, we can't rule it out altogether.

It seems to me that you are arguing both sides here: That JE can get words, and JE can not get words:

TVTalkshows
(neofight) 205.188.209.176 09-21-2002 10:16 AM
(Fraudpa)
"Are you claiming that our minds survive death?"

Fraudpa, I do not want to get into a debate over semantics with you. I'm talking about mental telepathy, ESP, the ability to exchange thoughts with someone without words. I would not have thought that you were unaware of what the concept of ADC and mediumship entails.

Which is it? Does he get telepathic thoughts without words, or does he get words? If mediumship works by telepathy, and telepathy rules out words, how does he get words, then?

I would also like to know what the nature of telepathy is.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Garrette


So a younger cousin would only come across as someone to the side and never as a younger male.

I'll make this the first tenet in your upcoming treatise: "The Nature of Telepathy"

Hi Garrette

Just to save sometime Neo, viodx and myself (with Neo and voidx doing the hard work) discussed the Neo's claims for telepathy, and at the end the conclusion was :

In a post from Neofight


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by voidx

Will you acknowledge that since there seems to be no evidence so far of telepathy originating in the physical brain, that the other-wordly spiritual explanation should be your assumption until present with further proof? Or at the very least that if you still believe it to be part of the physical brain, that there seems to be nothing supporting that assertion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



voidx, what I will do is leave science, and scientific explanations, to the scientists. I do not know what, if any, research has been done to date that might give evidence of telepathy originating from the physical brain. If I come across any of the material that I've read in the past on the subject of the right temporal lobe and PSI, I will post it. .....neo



(I'm quite suprised to see her drop a reference to telepathy back into her posts reagarding JE. :confused: )

[Garrette]

Ummmm, thanks, Darat, I think...

I'm not sure I understand what you posted.

Voidx said (paraphrasing):

"Telepathy exists. There is no evidence it has a physical origin. Therefore its original is supernatural. Do you, neo, concede that this contravenes your belief?"

Neo responded (paraphrasing):

"Telepathy exists. I don't know where it originates. I've obviously said something inconsistent and unsupportable but will back off from it now with the disclaimer that I'm not a scientist. I will not, however, retract the claim itself."

Am I way close or way off?

[Clancie]

Maybe I'm missing something in all this talk of telepathy, but what's wrong with neo mentioning it? :confused:

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the "process", mediumship is often explained by its practitioners as telepathic communication with the surviving consciousness of the deceased, whereby the medium receives communication in the form of images, sounds, and feelings that they share with the living.

Whether one accepts telepathy as being real or not, it is usually assumed as part of the process of ADC.

[thaiboxerken]

Whether one accepts telepathy as being real or not, it is usually assumed as part of the mediumship process.

It's not real, that's the point. Neo asserts that it does, and yet admits that she believes it's real even though she knows of no scientific evidence for it. Basically, Neo only has faith that it exists and wants to convince others here that it exists based on her faith.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Garrette


So a younger cousin would only come across as someone to the side and never as a younger male.

I'll make this the first tenet in your upcoming treatise: "The Nature of Telepathy"

No, I didn't say that Garrette. What I said was that usually when John would bring up a younger energy, that would put the energy "below" the sitter, indicating that it was either their child, nephew, grandchild, or friend's child, etc. I do remember once or twice when it turned out to be a much younger brother, or a brother who had died before the sitter was even born, but I am talking about what is usual, not the exception or the variation from the norm.

Someone "to the side", as you stated in your hypothetical, would normally be taken to mean the sitter's contemporary. Husband, brother, cousin, friend, co-worker. Hope that helps. :) .....neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If he comes through as a father figure, why can't that be a grandfather? If a grandfather is not a father figure, what is he then, in JE-terms?

(sigh) Claus, if he came through to Michael, he would obviously come through as his grandfather, because he was his grandfather.

If, on the other hand, he came through to Michael's mom or dad, the energy would come through as their father, because in life, he would have been their father and/or father-in-law.

A grandfather can be considered a father figure, true, but he would not come through to Michael O'Neill as a father figure, unless his grandfather had a rather major role in raising him. Capisce?

Have you ruled out hot reading? Have you ruled out the possibility that these references are neither specific or personal?

You may not care that JE tells the sitter information that can be found on the Internet, but you should. Doesn't that make you wonder, just a little bit? If he can cheat here, why not there?

Do you, after two years of discussion, still not understand what I think, Claus? :rolleyes: Yes, I acknowledge that hot-reading in some cases would not be impossible for a fraud to commit. Do I believe that JE does it? Or even has the slightest need to do it? No, I do not. Chiaro?

It seems to me that you are arguing both sides here: That JE can get words, and JE can not get words:

Which is it? Does he get telepathic thoughts without words, or does he get words? If mediumship works by telepathy, and telepathy rules out words, how does he get words, then?

To which I say, ] Duh! Duh! and Duh!

You're the confused one, Claus. Not I. I am not arguing both sides. Let's try this again, JE gets images/impressions/emotions/thoughts etc. He sometimes gets words, but he hears them telepathically. If you were standing next to him, you would not hear what he hears, okay? How much clearer can I make it?

I would aso like to know what the nature of telepathy is.

In a sentence, it's the ability to communicate, one consciousness to another, without spoken words......neo

[Garrette]

Excellent, Neo,

then you no longer object to my point that the woman's son would be a hit both for her and for the neighbor, regardless which one showed up. JE could give the same reading to each and get a hit.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Darat


(I'm quite suprised to see her drop a reference to telepathy back into her posts reagarding JE. :confused: )

Why would I not mention telepathy, Darat. I'm not saying that I can scientifically explain how telepathy works, because we all know that I can't.

I can, and do, however, mention telepathy within the context of how mediums claim to communicate with those who have crossed over. :con2: Is the word verboten then? ;) ......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Garrette
Excellent, Neo,

then you no longer object to my point that the woman's son would be a hit both for her and for the neighbor, regardless which one showed up. JE could give the same reading to each and get a hit.

LOL Garrette. Why don't I mind these questions coming from you, but can't abide them when they come from Claus? I think my patience with Claus has been entirely exhausted. lol

Okay, let's do this once more. :)

Dearest Garrette, I never objected to the idea that the son's spirit energy could come through for someone other than for the mother herself. That's one point.

Another point is that I said that if JE brought through this son to the mother's neighbor, he would need to give her something a little more specific than, "I am getting a younger male that has crossed over." That is just a fact. You might not agree with it, Garrette, but I'm sorry. You are just flat out wrong here.

Consider this. What if this woman who had the neighbor who lost her son, also personally knew ten other people who had lost their sons? Now how the heck would she know which of these eleven mourning moms/dads to contact if JE never mentioned even a name or a cause of death???

Answer? She wouldn't. The information would be totally useless. Don't you understand that there has to be something solid to validate the identity of the spirit???? Get back to me on this! ;) ....neo

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by neofight


LOL NA! Hey, I answered Garrette's question!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By "quite often" I mean that it is not at all unusual....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yep. And I think that is -precisely- what RC meant by very common -- "not at all unusual."

I think you both used the same (kind of careless remark everyone makes in casual speech) expression to say that you has seen it happen before and therefore knew it was possible (or not unusual). I just thought it was funny that both happened so close to each other, and you asked "exactly" what RC meant by the phrase -- after being on the receiving end of a similar question, I am sure you know how he feels.

It just tickled my funny bone.
:)

N/A

[Garrette]

LOL Garrette. Why don't I mind these questions coming from you, but can't abide them when they come from Claus

Because I'm cute.:)

Another point is that I said that if JE brought through this son to the mother's neighbor, he would need to give her something a little more specific than, "I am getting a younger male that has crossed over." That is just a fact. You might not agree with it, Garrette, but I'm sorry. You are just flat out wrong here.

Consider this. What if this woman who had the neighbor who lost her son, also personally knew ten other people who had lost their sons? Now how the heck would she know which of these eleven mourning moms/dads to contact if JE never mentioned even a name or a cause of death???



Weeeellllll, now, little missy, I do disagree...

In my scenario, remember, I said younger male to the side. Are you saying that a sitter whose neighbor's son had died would NOT respond to that?

If you are, I think you're sorely mistaken.

But you knew that already.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
(sigh) Claus, if he came through to Michael, he would obviously come through as his grandfather, because he was his grandfather.

If, on the other hand, he came through to Michael's mom or dad, the energy would come through as their father, because in life, he would have been their father and/or father-in-law.

A grandfather can be considered a father figure, true, but he would not come through to Michael O'Neill as a father figure, unless his grandfather had a rather major role in raising him. Capisce?

Huh? Since when does this enter the picture? How big a role should a grandfather have, then?

Originally posted by neofight
Do you, after two years of discussion, still not understand what I think, Claus? :rolleyes: Yes, I acknowledge that hot-reading in some cases would not be impossible for a fraud to commit. Do I believe that JE does it? Or even has the slightest need to do it? No, I do not. Chiaro?

I am fully aware that you reject the cases where JE has been caught cheating. You even ignore it, although he forces his audience to sign a contract that allows him to cheat.

Originally posted by neofight
You're the confused one, Claus. Not I. I am not arguing both sides. Let's try this again, JE gets images/impressions/emotions/thoughts etc. He sometimes gets words, but he hears them telepathically. If you were standing next to him, you would not hear what he hears, okay? How much clearer can I make it?

Apparently, I am not the only one who is confused here.

Try explaining how an "emotion" can be "heard" the same way a "word" can be, telepathically. Is there no limit to what JE can get, telepathically?

Originally posted by neofight
In a sentence, it's the ability to communicate, one consciousness to another, without spoken words......neo

But isn't JE "hearing" words?? You are not clear at all.

[neofight]

Originally posted by Garrette


Because I'm cute.:)

I bet you are, too! ;)

Weeeellllll, now, little missy, I do disagree...

In my scenario, remember, I said younger male to the side. Are you saying that a sitter whose neighbor's son had died would NOT respond to that?

If you are, I think you're sorely mistaken.

But you knew that already.

lol But again, I think you are mixing your references. John uses the terms *below* the sitter to mean someone younger, *to the side* to indicate a contemporary, and *above* to represent someone older, a parent, grandparent, aunt or uncle etc.

You are combining those two things, younger, AND to the side. See what I mean?

And you didn't respond to my point that if this woman knew of more than one young person who had died, how on earth could she be sure this was her neighbor's son who was coming through????????? :) ......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Huh? Since when does this enter the picture? How big a role should a grandfather have, then?

Uh, like, since forever, dude! :D A grandfather comes through as a grandfather, that is, unless he has had a major role in the upbringing of the child. (the sitter). That means, in case you are still clueless, that the grandfather, if he came through to O'Neill as a "father" figure, which he did not do, btw, would have had a considerable "hands-on" role in raising that child. If not, he simply comes through as the grandfather.

I am fully aware that you reject the cases where JE has been caught cheating. You even ignore it, although he forces his audience to sign a contract that allows him to cheat.

*Cheating* is only some skeptics' idea of what happened in the "Tony the Cameraman" incident. John did nothing but read the man. The fact that Tony had already told him that he would like to hear from his dad does not negate all the rest of the messages that Tony got from JE. According to Tony, those other things that JE said to him were accurate.

Apparently, I am not the only one who is confused here.

Try explaining how an "emotion" can be "heard" the same way a "word" can be, telepathically. Is there no limit to what JE can get, telepathically?

Here's where I lose my patience with you, Claus. How many times do you have to be told that JE receives feelings/impressions/emotions via clairsentience, not clairaudience or clairvoyance? Can't you get up to speed and at least stop acting like you are hearing these things for the very first time, every time you hear them, regardless of how many times it's been? :rolleyes:

And if others are confused as well, then they must share your learning disability. I'm not saying they have to buy into these explanations, but at least try to be familiar with what JE says is how he gets these feelings. Sheeesh! I'm ready to throw in the towel with you, Claus........neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Uh, like, since forever, dude! :D A grandfather comes through as a grandfather, that is, unless he has had a major role in the upbringing of the child. (the sitter). That means, in case you are still clueless, that the grandfather, if he came through to O'Neill as a "father" figure, which he did not do, btw, would have had a considerable "hands-on" role in raising that child. If not, he simply comes through as the grandfather.

Please point to where JE describes/explains this. Sorry, but I have to be sure that you are not simply making this up.

Originally posted by neofight
*Cheating* is only some skeptics' idea of what happened in the "Tony the Cameraman" incident. John did nothing but read the man. The fact that Tony had already told him that he would like to hear from his dad does not negate all the rest of the messages that Tony got from JE. According to Tony, those other things that JE said to him were accurate.

JE cheated, neofight! He used previously obtained information to score a hit!

Originally posted by neofight
Here's where I lose my patience with you, Claus. How many times do you have to be told that JE receives feelings/impressions/emotions via clairsentience, not clairaudience or clairvoyance? Can't you get up to speed and at least stop acting like you are hearing these things for the very first time, every time you hear them, regardless of how many times it's been? :rolleyes:

No, no, no...you are so wrong: He specifically says:

KING: What -- do you see something, or do you hear? What...

EDWARD: I think a big misconception with this work is that people think that a psychic or a medium -- I'm seeing them like I'm seeing you.

And I can only speak for myself. I don't want to speak in broad strokes for every medium that's out there, of which there are many around the world that are equally as talented who might not ever sit in front of a camera or write a book or go on the radio, they just do their thing.

But I don't see them the way I'm seeing you, because they're not of the physical world. They're vibrating at a higher frequency. It's kind of like taking a helicopter blade, you know, when it's not airborne, you can look and see there's four or five blades. Once it takes off and those blades are moving at an accelerated rate, at a higher frequency, you can't really see it, yet we know it's still there.

It's kind of like that. And I will see images in my mind. I will hear things, thoughts in my mind. And I will get clear sentient feelings.

So basically I'm seeing, hearing and feeling energy that I'm interpreting in my own frame of references. Sometimes I get it right, sometimes I get it wrong.

He clearly gets it all, neofight. Do you have anything you want to recant?

Originally posted by neofight
And if others are confused as well, then they must share your learning disability. I'm not saying they have to buy into these explanations, but at least try to be familiar with what JE says is how he gets these feelings. Sheeesh! I'm ready to throw in the towel with you, Claus........neo

I suppose you want to re-familiarize yourself with what JE says.

[thaiboxerken]

Here's where I lose my patience with you, Claus. How many times do you have to be told that JE receives feelings/impressions/emotions via clairsentience, not clairaudience or clairvoyance? Can't you get up to speed and at least stop acting like you are hearing these things for the very first time, every time you hear them, regardless of how many times it's been?

Only in the minds of believers, Neo. Let's talk reality, JE is a cold-reader. He's just an entertainer.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


(sigh) Claus, if he came through to Michael, he would obviously come through as his grandfather, because he was his grandfather.

If, on the other hand, he came through to Michael's mom or dad, the energy would come through as their father, because in life, he would have been their father and/or father-in-law.

A grandfather can be considered a father figure, true, but he would not come through to Michael O'Neill as a father figure, unless his grandfather had a rather major role in raising him. Capisce?



This explanation is not satisfactory... I have frequently complained about the wiggle-room that JE invokes with his "above - to the side - below" semantics.

For example, I have noticed that JE will connect the sitter with someone "above" them... a parent, parent-figure, etc. Then, JE will say that he's getting another entity that he will describe as being "to the side".

However, JE doesn't indicate whether he is referring to an entity to the side of the sitter or to the side of the spirit of the parent, parent-figure previously mentioned.

This is really widening the net, and it seems to go unnoticed by believers. In most instances for the sitters on CO, it's pretty easy to guess that the parents of deceased parents will be dead. However, if the sitter also has a deceased brother, sister, cousin, friend, etc., JE gets an opportunity to make a hit that seems not as easy to guess.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please point to where JE describes/explains this. Sorry, but I have to be sure that you are not simply making this up.

No, Claus, I am most assuredly NOT making it up. :p JE explains this just about every time it comes up in a reading. If JE tells the sitter that he is getting a father or mother figure coming through, and the sitter tries to claim the energy as his grandfather or grandmother, JE always refuses to accept that answer, unless that grandparent had a vital role in bringing them up.

That is, the grandparent would have had to have raised them, lived in the same house as them, been there as though in a parent roll. Otherwise, it doesn't fly. Ask anyone who is familiar with the program, and they will verify this.

As a matter of fact, this very issue came up in the reading that JE did for celebrity Wayne Brady. JE brought through a mother figure, described by John as a "stern lady", but Wayne said that his biological mother was still alive. It did turn that he was raised by his grandmother, however, and not his natural mother, and the grandmother was the energy that was coming through for him, as "mom". Brady credited this stern woman with helping him become the man he is today.

quote]JE cheated, neofight! He used previously obtained information to score a hit![/quote]

I repeat, knowing that Tony's father was deceased, does not take away from the reading that JE gave the cameraman. It's not his fault that Tony mentioned his deceased father, okay? When the father energy came through, JE passed on information that Tony found to be meaningful and accurate, over and above the basic fact that he had lost his dad. :rolleyes:

No, no, no...you are so wrong: He specifically says:........He clearly gets it all, neofight. Do you have anything you want to recant?

You are being deliberately obtuse here, aren't you, Claus? You do realize that my answer was in direct response to your very specific comment, viz: "Try explaining how an "emotion" can be "heard" the same way a "word" can be, telepathically."

I am very well aware that JE is clairvoyant, clairaudient, and clairsentient. You had asked me to explain how he "heard" emotions, and I explained to you that he did not "hear" them, he "felt" them, clairsentiently, so please stop your attempts at
obfuscation. They are embarrassingly transparent, and quite irritating as well. Not to mention, inexcusable, Claus. Will you ever grow up? :mad: .......neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R

This explanation is not satisfactory... I have frequently complained about the wiggle-room that JE invokes with his "above - to the side - below" semantics.

Perhaps to you and some other skeptics, Instig8R. I find this explanation to be both satisfactory and consistent with how JE and even other mediums claim the process works.

For example, I have noticed that JE will connect the sitter with someone "above" them... a parent, parent-figure, etc. Then, JE will say that he's getting another entity that he will describe as being "to the side".

However, JE doesn't indicate whether he is referring to an entity to the side of the sitter or to the side of the spirit of the parent, parent-figure previously mentioned.

This is really widening the net, and it seems to go unnoticed by believers.

It probably goes unnoticed because the *widening of the net* that you bring up is just about non-existent. :) Perhaps if you could be a little more specific, and cite an actual example of what you are describing, we could all take a look at it and comment.

In any case, short of that, I think that it is usually taken for granted that when JE mentions "below", "to-the-side", or "above", he is speaking to the status of the spirit in relation to the sitter.......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
No, Claus, I am most assuredly NOT making it up. :p JE explains this just about every time it comes up in a reading. If JE tells the sitter that he is getting a father or mother figure coming through, and the sitter tries to claim the energy as his grandfather or grandmother, JE always refuses to accept that answer, unless that grandparent had a vital role in bringing them up.

That is, the grandparent would have had to have raised them, lived in the same house as them, been there as though in a parent roll. Otherwise, it doesn't fly. Ask anyone who is familiar with the program, and they will verify this.

As a matter of fact, this very issue came up in the reading that JE did for celebrity Wayne Brady. JE brought through a mother figure, described by John as a "stern lady", but Wayne said that his biological mother was still alive. It did turn that he was raised by his grandmother, however, and not his natural mother, and the grandmother was the energy that was coming through for him, as "mom". Brady credited this stern woman with helping him become the man he is today.

neofight...when I ask you to point to where JE explains this, I mean where it can be checked. Where, in his book "Crossing Over", does he describe this?

Originally posted by neofight
I repeat, knowing that Tony's father was deceased, does not take away from the reading that JE gave the cameraman. It's not his fault that Tony mentioned his deceased father, okay? When the father energy came through, JE passed on information that Tony found to be meaningful and accurate, over and above the basic fact that he had lost his dad. :rolleyes:

It doesn't "take away" from the reading? Would Tony have gotten the reading, had he not told JE about his dad? You really believe this?

Originally posted by neofight
You are being deliberately obtuse here, aren't you, Claus? You do realize that my answer was in direct response to your very specific comment, viz: "Try explaining how an "emotion" can be "heard" the same way a "word" can be, telepathically."

I am very well aware that JE is clairvoyant, clairaudient, and clairsentient. You had asked me to explain how he "heard" emotions, and I explained to you that he did not "hear" them, he "felt" them, clairsentiently, so please stop your attempts at
obfuscation. They are embarrassingly transparent, and quite irritating as well. Not to mention, inexcusable, Claus. Will you ever grow up? :mad: .......neo

neofight, please: Could you address the point, instead of attacking me personally? I pointed out that there was a clear conflict between what you claimed JE had said, and what he actually said.

Address this, and stop your incessant personal attacks on me, please.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight


In any case, short of that, I think that it is usually taken for granted that when JE mentions "below", "to-the-side", or "above", he is speaking to the status of the spirit in relation to the sitter.......neo


Hey, neo-- I have been keeping track of how often JE is vague about whether JE is referring to the sitter or to the spirit when he starts saying "above, to the side, and below". He is seldom as specific as you seem to be suggesting.

I am sure I can easily find a snippet from a transcript which will show that JE is vague as to the relationship between sitter and spirit.

I'll be back with one shortly.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


neofight...when I ask you to point to where JE explains this, I mean where it can be checked. Where, in his book "Crossing Over", does he describe this?

I'll repeat, he explains it every time such a matter comes up in a reading. People who watch the show will know this. If you cannot take my word for it, then don't. Perhaps RC and/or Clancie will chime in when they can and tell us if they've heard JE say this before. I know I have, and several times, not once, the latest example as I cited was the Wayne Brady reading. I hate when I have to repeat myself. :(

It doesn't "take away" from the reading? Would Tony have gotten the reading, had he not told JE about his dad? You really believe this?

Why in the world wouldn't he have? :rolleyes: If his dad wanted to come through, he'd have found a way, yes.

neofight, please: Could you address the point, instead of attacking me personally? I pointed out that there was a clear conflict between what you claimed JE had said, and what he actually said.

Address this, and stop your incessant personal attacks on me, please.

I did address the point, Claus. I responded in a very specific and effective manner, and it was ingnored by you, as per usual. When you begin playing the victim, it's always because I've made a good point, and you want to avoid addressing it. Ask me if I care?

Look, Claus! See that towel in the ring? Guess who threw it there????
..........neo

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R



Hey, neo-- I have been keeping track of how often JE is vague about whether JE is referring to the sitter or to the spirit when he starts saying "above, to the side, and below". He is seldom as specific as you seem to be suggesting.

I am sure I can easily find a snippet from a transcript which will show that JE is vague as to the relationship between sitter and spirit.

I'll be back with one shortly.

Thank you, Instig8R. That should help a lot. I'll try to check in again after my husband and I get back from dinner, or if not, later on tonight. :) .....neo

[Instig8R]

Here's one intance of JE being non-specific that jumped out at me:

JOHN EDWARD:

" - Um, I'm going to say that I have an older female that's coming through that to me would be like Mother, or Mother N Law. There's some type of acknowledgement that the month of Feburary has a connection or the 2nd of a month is either a birthday or an anniversary from what they are showing me. Either she is telling me that she has her son with her or she's got a younger male figure that has crossed over, but she's got the
younger male who's there. That to me would be like a younger brother, son, grandson. Younger male figure is connected to Mom from what they are showing me. So, I don't know if they are trying to tell me it's your Mother's who's passed, but they are acknowledging the older female. Do you understand that?"

The above doesn't depict the exact behavior that I was trying to describe in my earlier post, which is far less obvious than the above fishing expedition. If I can't find anything in the transcripts posted, I will write it down the next time I see it occur on CO.

In the meantime, if anyone wants a good laugh on this rainy Saturday night, visit JE's sci-fi site, and play the celebrity readings. :D

[Iamme]

Hi Instig8R---I am curious as to "if the shoe fit''. I tried the questions on me, as simple as they are. There is no fit, for anyone in my direct family. There is a lot of February connections and a birthday on the 2nd, but no correlating death of either an older female with a younger male joining her, or, just the death of a younger male.

It IS kind of fun, to play along with JE's readings, to see if you can ever make what he says, fit you and/or your family. Even if you include Aunts, Uncles and cousins that you feel are close to you in heart.

I think I'll just go out and get one of those shirts, that says, "Bite Me" on it.;)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
I'll repeat, he explains it every time such a matter comes up in a reading. People who watch the show will know this. If you cannot take my word for it, then don't. Perhaps RC and/or Clancie will chime in when they can and tell us if they've heard JE say this before. I know I have, and several times, not once, the latest example as I cited was the Wayne Brady reading. I hate when I have to repeat myself. :(

Don't you hate it even more when you don't actually answer the question? Where, exactly, in his book "Crossing Over", does he describe this? Or anywhere else, that we can check?

Originally posted by neofight
Why in the world wouldn't he have? :rolleyes: If his dad wanted to come through, he'd have found a way, yes.

The sheer madness of that statement leaves me stunned. You really are completely nuts, neo. This is not personally, it is simply stating facts.

Originally posted by neofight
I did address the point, Claus. I responded in a very specific and effective manner, and it was ingnored by you, as per usual. When you begin playing the victim, it's always because I've made a good point, and you want to avoid addressing it. Ask me if I care?

No, you did not address the point. You attacked me personally. Be that as it may, please address the point. Why does your explanation differ so violently from what JE says?

Originally posted by neofight
Look, Claus! See that towel in the ring? Guess who threw it there????
..........neo

So, you give up backing up your claim? As usual....

[neofight]

Originally posted by Instig8R
The above doesn't depict the exact behavior that I was trying to describe in my earlier post, which is far less obvious than the above fishing expedition. If I can't find anything in the transcripts posted, I will write it down the next time I see it occur on CO.

Instig8R, in that excerpt, there is no ambiguity whatsoever about who JE is referring to. Normally, when JE talks about a spirit's "below", "to-the-side" or "above" status, he is referring to the energy's relationship to the sitter. But here, JE is coming right out and clearly stating that the mother figure has a younger energy who has also passed with her. That could be a son/nephew/grandson/friend's son etc.

You're right, this is not a case that demonstrates your claim that JE is *widening the net*. If anything, he is narrowing it down to real specifics, saying that the mom has this younger male energy there with her on the other side.

In the meantime, if anyone wants a good laugh on this rainy Saturday night, visit JE's sci-fi site, and play the celebrity readings. :D

Hey, is the Wayne Brady reading there? Claus might be interested in hearing it if it is, since it addresses the "grandfather" coming through as a "father" issue, or more accurately, the "grandmother" coming through as a "mother" issue. ;) ......neo

[neofight]

No, I don't see Wayne Brady's reading there. Too bad. Well, maybe this week I'll make the time to transcribe just the relevant portion of his reading that relates to the grandma who raised him, who came through in his reading like his mom......neo

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by neofight
Claus might be interested in hearing it if it is, since it addresses the "grandfather" coming through as a "father" issue, or more accurately, the "grandmother" coming through as a "mother" issue. ;) ......neo

Actually, I am much, much more interested in learning where, exactly, in his book "Crossing Over", he describes how vital a role in upbringing a grandfather must have, before the grandfather is considered a father.

Not by example, but by his own explanation.

I would also like to know why your explanation differs so violently from what JE says.

[Instig8R]

Hi, CFLarsen!

I've watched plenty of episodes of CO, and what neo is claiming is accurate.

I have frequently heard JE state that if grandparents (or other individuals) have a big role in childrearing, then they appear to him as mother-figures or father-figures.

I don't recall reading this in OLT or in CO... but I have heard JE say it enough on TV. But then, he modifies his explanations as time goes on, because he is a "student" of mediumship... in the business for 18 years, yet still evolving. Get it? ;) (Hint: Wiggle-wiggle.)

IMO, this is just another one of his "widening the net" ploys.

[CFLarsen]

Instig8R,

Fine with me. What I want to know is just exactly how much involvement a grandparent has to have in a kids' upbringing, before this kicks in.

That is, as you say, merely wiggle.

[Instig8R]

Originally posted by neofight

Instig8R, in that excerpt, there is no ambiguity whatsoever about who JE is referring to. Normally, when JE talks about a spirit's "below", "to-the-side" or "above" status, he is referring to the energy's relationship to the sitter. But here, JE is coming right out and clearly stating that the mother figure has a younger energy who has also passed with her. That could be a son/nephew/grandson/friend's son etc.
O.K., then, in the excerpt used, who is the younger energy? Is it the mother figure's son/nephew/grandson/friend's son etc.? Or, is it the sitter's son/nephew/grandson/friend's son etc.?

The way that JE presents the information, it can be interpreted either way... and that's why I feel he is using "wiggle-room" by being deliberately vague.

Originally posted by neofight

You're right, this is not a case that demonstrates your claim that JE is *widening the net*. If anything, he is narrowing it down to real specifics, saying that the mom has this younger male energy there with her on the other side.


Really? You really feel that JE is being specific in the excerpt that I posted? Yikes!

From reading that excerpt, can you tell whether the mom has her son or her grandson with her? Or, perhaps it's the sitter's cat?
:D

I still plan on watching for the exact kind of vague statement that I'm really complaining about... but this will do for now, I guess!

[thaiboxerken]

What I want to know is just exactly how much involvement a grandparent has to have in a kids' upbringing, before this kicks in.

As long as it turns a miss into a hit, it doesn't matter to the believers.

It might not be too long until a dog counts as a parent figure in one of JE's readings.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

As long as it turns a miss into a hit, it doesn't matter to the believers.

It might not be too long until a dog counts as a parent figure in one of JE's readings.
Actually, tbk, if you ever watch the show, JE will typically bring through the "older male like a father", the sitter identifies grandfather and JE says something like, "That would only be the case if he was like a father to you, rasied you, like that. Did he?"

Same thing for mother=grandmother.

Not as vague as you think. Have a look sometime and see.

[neofight]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Actually, I am much, much more interested in learning where, exactly, in his book "Crossing Over", he describes how vital a role in upbringing a grandfather must have, before the grandfather is considered a father.

Who ever said that he mentioned it in "Crossing Over"? :confused: I said that I've heard him address it oftentimes on the show, "CO", during readings. Anyhow, he's said that the role must be "significant".

Not by example, but by his own explanation.

He's explained it many times.

I would also like to know why your explanation differs so violently from what JE [B]says.

Say what??? It doesn't. What are you talking about?........neo