Proof of Life After Death!!

[ynot]

But you'll notice that Person A hasn't claimed to understand how Ability X operates.

Utter rubbish! Person A (Robin1) has stated repeatedly in this thread that Person B (JE) can do X because he can talk to dead people. Whether or not Robin1 believes she knows how JE can talk to dead is irrelevant to her belief that he can.

Do you have some reading and comprehension difficulties?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Really? Then give and example in this thread where a Person C invents some imaginary reasons why Person B should be able to do Y.

Person C asks Person A that if Person B can do X because of an ability to talk to dead people (as claimed by Person A), then why can’t person B also do Y using the same ability. Person C invents nothing.

Utter rubbish! Person A (Robin1) has stated repeatedly in this thread that Person B (JE) can do X because he can talk to dead people.

Do you have some reading and comprehension difficulties?

I can see how, given that some posters get so worked up, that carlitos would regard my posts as 'trolling'. So, let me take this slowly, and you can try imagining for a moment that just because you thought of something that seemed quite clever to you, it may not be the perfect 'gotcha' you believe it to be.

Robin (Person A) has claimed that JE (Person B) can receive messages from the dead (Ability X). We know, from the detail of those claims, that those messages are limited. For your 'gotcha' to have any validity, 'talking to the dead' (Ability X, which you and I and everyone but Robin agree is not an actual ability) would have to take a very similar, if not identical, form to 'talking to the living' (an ability which you and I and everyone including Robin would surely agree doesn't always get us the answers we want anyway).

Robin (Person A) has not made any claim as to the nature of Ability X. Asking Person A how Ability X works is futile (and little more than trolling, when you know that Ability X is fraudulent and invent claims for it that have not been made by the fraudulent claimant Person B).

So let's sum this up again:
Person A says Person B can receive some curiously limited messages from the dead (Ability X).
Person A lays no claim to understanding the mechanism by which Ability X operates.
Person C (that's you) invents some additional claim that Ability X should include Activity Y.
Person C insists Person A must answer for the absence of the hypothetical Activity Y in the Ability X of Person B.
Person j (that's me) patiently tries to point out to Person C that C's argument isn't as clever as C thinks it is.

Have you read and comprehended that, or are you still having difficulties?

 

[Garrette]

Person A claims that Person B can do X.

Person C invents some imaginary reasons why Person B should be able to do Y.

Person C asks Person A why Person B can't do Y.

Now, I'll grant that the middle step seems appealing. It's all nonsense anyway, so why shouldn't any other old tosh be attached to it? If 'Ability X' exists, why shouldn't it include laser vision, superspeed, invisibility and an adamantium skeleton?

But you'll notice that Person A hasn't claimed to understand how Ability X operates. We can safely assume that Person A's understanding of Ability X is limited, and that Person A understands (if you'll permit the word) that Ability X is limited. After all, that's very much your point - that Ability X is presented as 'limited' (though in your presentation it seems churlish to describe it as 'limited' when it doesn't do something you just imagined it might be able to do. Of course, it doesn't do what it claims to do either, but that's beside the point insofar as your point goes.)

Anyway, let's suppose you get an answer from a secondary source. It would be one of two things:
a) a simple, honest, "I don't know", or
b) a convoluted attempt at rationalisation that will be as deplorable, to your mind, as the original claim.

What would either answer achieve? Nothing. What would be added to the 'conversation'? Nothing. So, an irrelevant question, however much you think it fits the 'conversation'.

Now this has merit. I have only a moment, though, so a full response will have to wait, possibly until tomorrow, but I will say this:

1. Person A (Robin) has said in response to other questions something along the lines of It doesn't work that way despite being shown instances where it apparently does work that way and despite never revealibg how it does work or how she knows that.

2. There are reasonable assumptions one can make about claims which, if ultimately untrue, underline the likely falsity of the claims. The fact that some assumptions do not fall in that category does not change the fact that the category exists.

Example: if you claim you can repair any rusted heap from the junkyard it is reasonable for me to ask why none of your cars have left the mechanic's shop. It would be unreasonable to ask why your cars never fly, but the fact that your allegedly repaired cars never actually carry passengers on the road is a red flag.

 

[ynot]

So let's sum this up again:
Person A says Person B can receive some curiously limited messages from the dead (Ability X).

Yes – But no so limited as to indicate that a simple message giving the location of a missing body would be any more difficult or out of the question than any other information claimed to be given.

Person A lays no claim to understanding the mechanism by which Ability X operates.

Perhaps – But if so this would also mean Person A also lays no claim to how the mechanism by which Ability X doesn’t operate. She can’t say “It doesn’t work that way” if she doesn’t know how it works.

Person C (that's you) invents some additional claim that Ability X should include Activity Y.

No – I only ask why information that isn’t any more complex than the waffle that is given isn’t given. Ability X is the claimed ability to talk to dead people. Receiving information Y from a dead person would merely be using ability X. There isn’t anything invented or additional required. Y is not an action, it’s information.

Person C insists Person A must answer for the absence of the hypothetical Activity Y in the Ability X of Person B.

No - Requesting isn’t insisting. Feel free to quote a single post where I insist. Information Y would be no more or less hypothetical than any other information from a dead person.

Person j (that's me) patiently tries to point out to Person C that C's argument isn't as clever as C thinks it is.

No – You preoccupy your posts with accusing other members of behaviour that more reflects your own instead of addressing the issues.

 

[carlitos]

Yeah, I'm all worked up here. Very astute observation.

 

[Stray Cat]

But then person RIP who was DOA who's body was MIA was subject to an APB by the FBI and the CIA in the USA may have been abducted by ET in a UFO.
Then person JE would need more than ESP to RSVP from any request by Person A.

 

[carlitos]

QFT, er, QED

 

[ynot]

Yeah, I'm all worked up here. Very astute observation.

Think "all worked up" was addressed to me. Apparently my bolding of some words means I’m getting all worked up. I wonder if when I talk louder so a deaf person can better hear me it means I’m getting all worked up as well?

 

[jiggeryqua]

Yes – But no so limited as to indicate that a simple message giving the location of a missing body would be any more difficult or out of the question than any other information.

Contrariwise, the messages are precisely so limited as to indicate that that simple message is more difficult or out of the question, hence your need to ask the question. What you ask about is absent from those 'messages', the subject of your query is that precise limitation. Given that you're asking a believer, who is not suddenly going to have the scales fall from their eyes, what could you hope for from that question? You're not going to accept or be satisfied with any possible answer anyway.

Perhaps – But if so this would also mean Person A also lays no claim to how the mechanism by which Ability X doesn’t operate. She can’t say “It doesn’t work that way” if she doesn’t know how it works.

Has she said "It doesn't work that way"? I hesitate to question a claim made by a skeptic, but given that we've uncovered at least one egregious error in this thread, I'd expect some evidence, if only to give context. "It doesn't work that way" is not the same as "I understand all the ways in which it works". I confess I'm largely ignorant as to the intricate functionality of my TV set, but I can say "It doesn't work that way" if you ask me to tune in to last week's edition of BGT. You, meanwhile, could ask "If this so-called 'television' of yours transmits 'messages from another place', why does it only show dismal soap operas, fatuous game shows and risible sitcoms? Where are the live broadcasts from the Queen's bathroom? Huh??"

No – I only ask why information that isn’t any more complex than the waffle that is given isn’t given. Ability X is the claimed ability to talk to dead people. Receiving information Y from a dead person would merely be using ability X. There isn’t anything invented or additional required.

Which only makes sense if you get to define how Ability X works. We see it operate as 'exclusive of Activity Y'. We can reasonably assume it operates exclusive of Activity Y (well, we can reasonably assume it doesn't operate at all, but you take my point). Yet you ask why? The invented or additional part of Ability X that you bring to the table, and on which your clever gotcha depends, is the bit that is, on the available evidence, not part of Ability X. If it's not part of Ability X, but you bring it up anyway, can we agree that you invented it as an additional part?

No - Requesting isn’t insisting. Feel free to quote a single post where I insist. Information Y would be no more or less hypothetical than any other information from a dead person.

Pfft. 'Quote a single post'? The insistence is in your repeated postings, with larger fonts in case Robin has somehow not noticed it in a regular font.

No – You preoccupy your posts with accusing other members of behaviour that more reflects your own instead of addressing the issues.

Let me see - I've certainly described the behaviour of several posters as akin to a witch-sniffing mob, so fired up with righteous hatred that anyone not in their mob is assumed to be the enemy (although, as I've said, Robin managed to work out that I didn't share her support of JE. But because I didn't join in the abuse, some 'skeptics' decided I must. Not smart, not skeptical.) So if I 'accused' other members of that, did it in fact reflect my own behaviour? Of course not, I'm not in a mob and I'm not accusing anyone of being a witch.

Perhaps you mean the occasional observation of less than impeccable skeptical thinking? Well, they're all backed up and evidenced in the posts I comment on, so when you say 'accusing' I think you really mean 'noticing. I would have thought posters here would be used to being picked up on for deploying anecdotal evidence, strawmen, false dichotomies, unsubstantiated claims and the like. I suppose any given poster might have been under the impression that the house rules were that we only care about that those things if 'the enemy' posts them and that we should turn a blind eye to 'our own side'. Alas, I've never subscribed to such binary thinking (it's a false dichotomy, funnily enough).

As for addressing the issues, which issues am I allowed to address? Because we're discussing an issue you raised, and yet you've wandered off to have a pop at me. Poor form, really, though probably scraping just inside the MA. If you're determined to go down that route, do try to remember to back up your claim - you know you're going to be asked to, right? Right.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Think "all worked up" was addressed to me. Apparently my bolding of some words means I’m getting all worked up. I wonder if when I talk louder so a deaf person can better hear me it means I’m getting all worked up as well?

For the record, learning your local sign language or speaking clearly without exaggerated lip movements are generally more helpful to the deaf than shouting at them. Meanwhile, we have no indication that anyone here is 'deaf', such that bolding or using a larger font is likely to improve your communication. It just makes your message look a little strident.

 

[ynot]

but then person rip who was doa who's body was mia was subject to an apb by the fbi and the cia in the usa may have been abducted by et in a ufo.
Then person je would need more than esp to rsvp from any request by person a.

O i c. R u yy 2 b a 6 u l d v 8?

 

[Stray Cat]

O i c. R u yy 2 b a 6 u l d v 8?

I sense a trip to AAH.

 

[jsfisher]

So, has Robin1 expressed her opinion of why John Edward never gets answers to important questions, refrigerators and show tickets notwithstanding?

 

[ynot]

For the record, learning your local sign language or speaking clearly without exaggerated lip movements are generally more helpful to the deaf than shouting at them. Meanwhile, we have no indication that anyone here is 'deaf', such that bolding or using a larger font is likely to improve your communication. It just makes your message look a little strident.

I have lost the desire to continue communicating with you. You can delude yourself that this is some form of victory for you if it makes you feel better.

 

[ynot]

I sense a trip to AAH.

But can they decipher it?

 

[ynot]

So, has Robin1 expressed her opinion of why John Edward never gets answers to important questions, refrigerators and show tickets notwithstanding?

No. She seems to have finally left the thread as she often indicated she would (I could be wrong tho).

The thing is the important information isn't any more difficult than the mundane. "There's a tooth in that pocket over there" - "My dead body is in that container over there".

 

[Stray Cat]

But can they decipher it?

Only through EVP.

 

[tsig]

No. She seems to have finally left the thread as she often indicated she would (I could be wrong tho).

The thing is the important information isn't any more difficult than the mundane. "There's a bone in that pocket over there" - "My dead body is in that container over there".

And the container is near water.

 

[desertgal]

Jiggeryqua's tone trolling is productive as ever, I see.

I've grown fond of the way he mandates what people mean and intend, and deflects responsibility when he's incorrect.

Upstanding guy.

 

[Sherman Bay]

P.S. I actually saw the JE episode involving the man drinking milk straight from the cow.
JE meant, in that case, drinking milk straight from the cow's udder. As in taking the udder and squirting the milk directly in your mouth.

You mean the way every farm boy does? Why is that so unusual?

James Van Praagh does not come up with those unique, specific, unknowable, personal, hits...which are directed to specific people, not the entire room.

And JE does come up with them...REPEATEDLY.

And we have here a real fan. With blinders on.