True. Like I've said before, I never thought that sort of format, interrupted by commercial breaks, Larry's inane questions/comments, and multiple phone lines to contend with, was the most favorable for mediumship.
Montague Keen
- Thread starter arcticpenguin
- Start date
True. Like I've said before, I never thought that sort of format, interrupted by commercial breaks, Larry's inane questions/comments, and multiple phone lines to contend with, was the most favorable for mediumship.
How can you chide us for not spending money on these "sincere" mediums, if you never name them?
Because if you would go back to check regarding the Halloween special, (I think we discussed this in a thread somewhere) it took an hour or so of taping to come up with that precious minute or so of Rowland's "mediumship" ability that was fit to air.
Despite what Claus says, most of the readings on "Crossing Over" were aired, if not in their entirety, (although some most certainly were) at least in fairly long, continuous parts, unlike the extremely brief and choppy edits in the IR show.
And again, having attended seminars, (unlike Claus) I saw for myself what unedited readings looked like, and realized, as did others who attended live seminars, that those who claimed that JE's readings were heavily edited for content, didn't know what the hell they were talking about, plain and simple.
I believe Lurker attended one such seminar, and I think he might agree with me that the readings there, seemed quite indistinguishable from the readings shown on "Crossing Over". If I remember correctly, (Calling Lurker) that rather surprised him.
That fact that they used one minute doesn't mean that there was only one minute of useable material.
And I think I have Lurker's notes on a cd-rom somewhere. iirc he said when he left the theatre he and his partner felt sure they'd witnessed something remarkable, and it wasn't until they sat down and started reading through their notes that the number of misses and cold readig techniques became apparent.
I'm sure if one were inclined to find such a person, Claus, all one would have to do was to do a little asking around. I remember a couple of neophyte mediums who offered to do readings for free on tvtalkshows and JEfriends.
Hint: You would probably have to inquire in believers' circles. Not skeptic societies.
Hmmm. There was a database error, and I seemed to have lost my last post. Damn! I hate when that happens! Aaaargh!
Yes. I'm sure you're right.
And I guess that is another major argument against why I should never agree to finance a skeptic's personal reading, Ersby. Because even if the medium produced a number of very credible validations for them, the odds are, as in the case of Lurker and his wife, their cynicism would have them talking themselves out of the experience within a very short time.
"Kiss" member Gene Simmons is a great example of precisely that. I swear, I think I truly believe that some skeptics are simply hard-wired not to believe this sort of stuff.
And again, Ersby, I think Lurker was fair enough to acknowledge that the live readings he observed were pretty close to the readings he had seen on "CO". I appreciated that type of honesty from Lurker. He doesn't just tote the "party" line. Well, he may when debating politics. (Hi, Lurker!) lol
edited to add a "y" to the word "honest".
How is this different from cutting 19 minutes from a 30-minute reading? Steve Grenard has witnessed a reading where about 80% was cut.
How do you know this? This is impossible.
I have attended psychics seminars. Not by JE, but of others.
What happens to the remaining 19 minutes of a 30-minute reading?
Your memory has been shown not just to be flawed, but also notoriously unreliable. You have also changed your recollection of what happened during one JE reading. Malibu shrimp, yes.
And please answer the questions put to you.
I'm sure if one were inclined to find such a person, Claus, all one would have to do was to do a little asking around. I remember a couple of neophyte mediums who offered to do readings for free on tvtalkshows and JEfriends.
Hint: You would probably have to inquire in believers' circles. Not skeptic societies.
Give us some names. Why do you refuse to do that?
Like I said, Claus. I appreciated Lurker's honesty. He was not a stickler, and when a believer made a good point, or when we passed his test to see if we indeed could distinguish cold-reading from mediumship (which you've often acknowledged you cannot, and even refused to take Ersby's tests) he had the strength of character to say so. Ersby did as well, btw.
Because I am not in the market for a medium, Claus. Are you? I seem to remember a couple of years ago offering to get you the name of a medium in Mineola. One my two sisters-in-law use. Are you in the States at present? Let me know if you want her name and phone number, and I'll ask them for it.
BTW, if anyone is wondering why I don't respond very often to CFLarsen, you can find the explanation here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6638
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6638
Just the names of those psychics, please.
Over 500 posts, where you make accusation after accusation, but cannot back any of them up with evidence. I urge people to read the thread.
People could also read this thread: Questions neofight does NOT want to answer.
As we can see, you have already started to repeat some of your old claims, as if they hadn't been refuted before.
It won't work.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
I have no idea whether more condescention runs between skeptics in general and believers in general. I was talking about you and me. I realise, however, that your past experiences probably affect your attitude coming in to these conversations, as my past affects me.
Well, I didn't mean it to be any of those things, NoZed Avenger, but perception is everything I guess. As far as name-calling, however, I can see how my suggesting that you might not have the nerve to get a private reading could qualify as calling you a coward, so I apologize for that. I could definitely have phrased it better. Sorry.
I am glad to hear it. I appreciate the thought.
Well, up to your message, it hadn't actually been asked, had it?
You may not be intending to insinuate that I am dodging questions (the horror!), but let's be clear. I was never asked what exactly I had done nor why prior to your message. You jumped in with assumptions.
I had a friend a few years back that had a reading that impressed her from a specific medium. She is a well-educated and *very* smart lady. She came to me and asked my opinion regarding the reading, indicating that the medium had told her specific information that "she couldn't have known." She asked if I would come with her on susequent readings, so I did. Before going, however, I picked up some books on the subject so that I could better see whether anything was going on.
I did a similar thing for an Aunt and Uncle regarding a psychic that they had seen some time later. I performed a few readings of my own, including one in this thread that included some specific hits that, IMO, outdid anything turned in by the professionals:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=328264&postcount=39
So despite the fact that I have sat through readings with the exact same medium, the readings don't count somehow because I wasn't the one paying?
What makes that the crucial difference?
But see the difference here, neo (and why I brouhgt this up) -- I say that *I* have looked at the other side, but you have decided that, whatever I have done, I need to do more. If I see a psychic and am not satisifed, then I've gone to see the wrong one, or I've seen him on a bad day, or -- like you seem to be saying with Lurker -- I just refuse to see the truth. Different criteria are being used.
To make the point again, you seem very convinced of the power of psychics -- as long as it is someone else's money being used. How many readings must I go through before I can have an opinion. If you can't give me the name of a "registered" psychic (what does that mean, anyway?) that is acceptable, then why bother going at all. If I find him or her unconvincing, then you can simply say I went to the wrong one or to a "bad" one, or that I was too negative, and then say if I don't spend even *more* time and money, that I really cannot judge.
I've spent enough time and money on it. I've looked at professional transcripts, I've talked to enough people, I've experienced readings, given readings, and read transcripts of others. That was all on my dime. But that isn't enough to count as "investigating on my own."
Well, I am through jumping through hoops. I've done my time on this topic. Anything else, let's have someone else front at least part of the money.
Now, is it my imagination? Or did Claus just skirt the issue yet again by ignoring the good faith offer I just made, exactly as he did over two years ago? Can you say E V A S I O N? I'd appreciate a little backing here from the honest skeptics.
But why should I be surprised, when Valyou offered to actually pay your way to....was it California?.....to get a personal reading with a psychic medium, also to be paid by him/her, right? I believe you flatly refused the offer because you didn't trust Valyou to keep your identity a secret, or something like that.
Sorry, I'm bowing out now. Too muh deja vu. But I'm sure you'll do fine. If you see Clancy, tell her I said "Hi".
PS, can't find those notes by Lurker. Oh well.