John Edward - The Real Deal?

Interesting. I thought it was one of those palms to the forehead sort of things, also accompanied by a "d'oh!".
 
JE lobbied mightily to produce a show wherein he would comfort the survivors of 9/11 victims. Thankfully, decency prevailed among the TV/Cable operators.

There are few more despicable than JE. Just a turd!
 
Southwind17 said:
You see, I think you're wrong. People who go to see mediums go to receive comfort, and that's generally what they get. Yes, there's a strong inference, often explicit, that underpins it, but you just watch their faces when they're fed a reassuring snippet. I think many people just want to put an old ghost to rest, and that's what a medium does for them. Still not defending them, mind!
Click to expand...

They may generally want and get comfort but not all the time; see http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com/ for some of the damage this crook has caused. Any "comfort" for some has to be balanced by the harm for some. Again, my sig states my position.
 
No way John Edward believes his spiel.His whole "frame of refernence" jargon tells you that.
I watch him form time to time and the other day he came out with this"Who's French? whose got the French connection..cos theyr'e showing me Pepe Le Pew..when I see that I know they want me to reference France!"

What if they want to reference Pepe Le Pew? On ly people of a certain age bracket will know Pepe Le Pew so it can't be a reference in general as he says.WHy not just show him a French flag? A string of oniions? The word "France/French" in big letters?!

His dumbass symbolisms get on my nerves.
 
In other words, Bull. Surely you get what he's trying to say? He may not have been technically accurate in that description, sure, is that all you mean? Perhaps male-bovine would have been better?

not trying to pick at you Tricky, you are, after all, the Language Dictator ;)
 
Last edited:
Southwind17 said:
You see, I think you're wrong. People who go to see mediums go to receive comfort, and that's generally what they get. Yes, there's a strong inference, often explicit, that underpins it, but you just watch their faces when they're fed a reassuring snippet. I think many people just want to put an old ghost to rest, and that's what a medium does for them. Still not defending them, mind!
Click to expand...


My big problem with the comfort they receive, is just how devastated would these people be if they knew that everything they have been told is just lies. Blatent lies at the end of the day.

I'm on some woo forums, and there are people there who, especially in their older years, admit that they need to believe just to live without the fear of dying. The same people don't understand cold reading even when it is blatently pointed out to them, they interpret things like several people picking up on the same message from a psychic as proof of his powers as opposed to deliberate cold reading.

I wonder how ethical it is to lie to these people long term. If psychics weren't making a penny from their activities, then I could possibly see an argument for, but as it is, many psychics (in the UK at least) are making an awful lot of money from perpetuating this myth.
 
Garrette and FarSideOfTheMoon have responded more succinctly than I could. However, let me also give you some background on why I think 1) John Edward is a fake, and 2) he knows he is...

(By the way, I have said this before in previous threads, but I don't want to waste time digging through all my old posts.)

A friend of mine is a dance instructor here on Long Island, and has known JE for several years (they used to move in the same circles). Back then, JE wasn't well-known, but was "working his craft". As I recall, he didn't blatantly announce to all that he could talk to the dead, but word travelled that he had some kind of "gift", and did "readings".

At one point, my friend and JE were watching a psychic/medium do his thing on TV, and there were comments on how cheesy the guy was. At that point JE said to my friend something like, "I could do that so much better". The implication being that JE's "act" was better. This made my friend think, "But I thought you were real."

I know this is all hearsay, but it gave me a little more insight into the mind of John Edward.

(I've tried to get my friend to visit randi.org, and join the forum, but he is an old school luddite. Sorry.)
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I could see his rationalization being that what he's really offering is entertainment. It's not that much different than a lot of other crap on TV.

ETA: I forgot to add: John Edward is a douche!
Click to expand...

I noticed that it is easy to assume a tacit understanding that it is just elaborate roleplay if you play psychic for fun. It is probably a false assumption with many people, but it makes it tempting to simply forget the 'for entertaining purposes only'-disclaimer, and it would serve well if he indeed would rationalize this way.
 
blauregen said:
I noticed that it is easy to assume a tacit understanding that it is just elaborate roleplay if you play psychic for fun. It is probably a false assumption with many people, but it makes it tempting to simply forget the 'for entertaining purposes only'-disclaimer, and it would serve well if he indeed would rationalize this way.
Click to expand...

I think there's plenty of stuff done on the shows themselves to show that the "for entertainment purposes only" disclaimer is a charade.

However, I meant that I could see an obvious con-artist like Edward (that is, it's clear from his behavior that he isn't a believer himself) use that as a justification in his own mind.

After all, a magician entertains people by trickery. It'd be nice if all magicians kept it nice and tidy and clear that what they're presenting are illusions or tricks and not actual feats of magic, but that's not always the case. Nowadays we even have guys like David Blaine really blurring the line between conjuring and actual stunts.

I've also once saw a small-time Christian magician use the term "miracles" for his illusions. It was clear from the context and presentation that he didn't mean they were actual supernatural miracles, though.

There are idiots who believe that what David Copperfield does onstage is proof of paranormal or supernatural powers. How much responsibility does Copperfield bear to disabuse them of that notion?

Still, John Edward is a douche.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
However, I meant that I could see an obvious con-artist like Edward (that is, it's clear from his behavior that he isn't a believer himself) use that as a justification in his own mind.

Still, John Edward is a douche.
Click to expand...

From what I read about him. I agree on both points.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
However, I meant that I could see an obvious con-artist like Edward (that is, it's clear from his behavior that he isn't a believer himself) use that as a justification in his own mind.
Click to expand...

There is another point to it that I think serves as justification. As a psychic on this scale you have a lot of people who believe strongly in your abilities and would suffer considerable stress if they had to convince themselves otherwise.

John Edward couldn't ever admit to only doing entertainment,even if he wanted to, because it would mean to let his fans down.
 
blauregen said:
...

John Edward couldn't ever admit to only doing entertainment,even if he wanted to, because it would mean to let his fans down.
Click to expand...

Even if he did, there would be many (if not most) who wouldn't believe him. They'd still think he was psychic.
 
I watched this guys "show" on tv this evening, despicable (5 mins is all i could stomach). By a combination of fishing and suggestion, he had the audience volunteering to confirm his vague guesses and ignore his complete misses.

Whilst I would suggest that a minority of the small-time deluded mediums are sincerely deluded, all of those making money are doing it in full knowledge that they are liars, frauds and cheats.

How else do you explain the use of blatant and sophisticated psychological techniques to manipulate large numbers of individuals? How else do you explain that not one of them EVER gives a correct, specific detail whilst pertaining to have real and direct contact with the deceased?

i think we, as a skeptical bunch, should be making more of an effort to disrupt the activities of these liars and manipulators. Picket your local spiritualist "church" in the style of Pastor Phelps (perhaps a few "God hates Frauds" posters are in order).:p

rant over :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom