Is there a Larsen List in your name?

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And I think you have just backed down.

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

Quote:

Why not? Is that impossible?

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

Argument from evidence, right?

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

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

Quote:

Which I have answered.

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

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

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


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

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

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

Also fair enough.

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

[thaiboxerken]

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

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

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

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

Yes, I have. Go check.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Please either:

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

[voidx]

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

Agreed. Exactly what I'm trying to stop.

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


Agreed. Exactly what I'm trying to stop.

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

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

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

Strawman: Have I said otherwise?

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


Strawman: Have I said otherwise?

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

Nonsense. You need to reread my posts.

[Thanz]

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

Yes, I have. Go check.

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

Quote:

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

Sure I have. Twice. You may not like the answers.......

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[neofight]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


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

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

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

Quote:

Neo, could you answer my central question please?

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

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

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

[TLN]

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

[neofight]

Quote:

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

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

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


Nonsense. You need to reread my posts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

I have done no such thing.

Quote:

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

I agree.

Now, what's the problem here?

[Cleopatra]

Quote:

Originally posted by neofight


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

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

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


I have done no such thing.



I agree.

Now, what's the problem here?

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

The burden of proof in on him, not us.

It's a yes or no question Neo.

[TLN]

Quote:

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

*cough*

[Sundog]

Here, watch this:

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

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

Thank you in advance.

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


*cough*

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

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

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

Fine. Your utter and complete retreat is noted.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Please either:

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

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

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

The same thing goes for our host, James Randi.

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


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

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

The same thing goes for our host, James Randi.

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

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

Neo is free to choose her conversation partners.

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

[thaiboxerken]

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

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


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

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


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

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

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


Neo is free to choose her conversation partners.

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

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

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

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

I'm not diplomatic? F*ck you!

I'm not mellow? F*ck you!

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

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

[TLN]

Quote:

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

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

[neofight]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra


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

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

[voidx]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

[CFLarsen]

Quote:

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

I know. Hope springs eternal, though.

[neofight]

Quote:

Originally posted by Sundog
Here, watch this:

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

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

Thank you in advance.

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

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by neofight


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

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

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

We'll speak again, I'm sure.

[voidx]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


Neo is free to choose her conversation partners.

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

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