I do believe people (majority of) who cold read the bereft, should be legally stopped. The Psychic who cold-read Amanda Berry's Mother, is culpable for her death.
Proof of Life After Death!!
- Thread starter Robin1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john edward mediums psychics
I do believe people (majority of) who cold read the bereft, should be legally stopped. The Psychic who cold-read Amanda Berry's Mother, is culpable for her death.
Pixel, this thread isn't about me, I can prove my situation by tonight. To people with hands-on, not stand-backs.
Let's follow that back for a moment shall we, given that you are so intent on evidence and have yet relied solely upon the anecdotes you derive in order to condemn us.
I assume the "egregious error" is in reference to my comment regarding how common drinking milk directly from the cow is. If not, please point out which error you mean. If so, then follow the train outlined below, please:
I said, in post 2260:
And me again, in post 2261:
You said, in post 2264:
desertgal said, in post 2280:
Then you said, in post 2286
To summarize the above:
1. I made two related claims:
a. Robin1 has ignored all the posters for whom drinking
from the udder would be a hit
b. We have therefore demonstrated that drinking directly
from the cow is not uncommon2. You said we have heard only anecdotes which, by skeptical standards, should not be counted as evidence
3. desertgal said only one person has acknowledged drinking from the udder
4. You took desertgal at her word and escalated my posting into “at best, mistaken,” later calling it an egregious error.
Now let’s look at the results of a bit of thread searching:
desertgal in post 2006:
She knew many people who drank “directly from a cow.”
Stellafane in post 2017:
“My family pretty much only drank milk ‘directly from a cow’…”
John Jones in post 2036:
“From the pail every morning, and a squirt in the mouth if we were around when the milking took place.”
Agatha in post 2037:
“…have drunk milk both direct from a milking pail and even squirted from the udder.”
bls in post 2103:
“…my wife has drunk milk straight from a cow.”
So to summarize this part:
There are six people (counting me) for whom drinking directly from the cow is a hit. At least three of those people (me, John Jones, and Agatha) count it as a hit even when specified as drinking from the udder. A fourth (bls) can be most reasonably interpreted as from the udder, though it is not definite.
Frankly, jiggeryqua, I find more value in engaging with Robin than I do with you. You rely upon an anecdote you could have easily checked in order to excoriate me for relying on anecdotes. You were wrong. And that’s without even getting into the more subtle but just as crucial points that I never claimed proof of the milk-drinking claims. I engaged Robin on the level of her own evidence. That being said, I will take any size wager you care to place about the commonality of drinking milk “directly from the cow.”
The kicker, though, was your response to my answer to your question about what I would regard as proof of Robin’s claim. You asked me the question. I asked you to define the claim; you redirected me to Robin. You are obviously not here for discussion, but to score rhetorical points. I find myself leaning in the direction that others have stated: you project your own shortcomings on us.
Last edited:
Good Lord...could you possibly be any more inaccurate?!
Let's try this again:
JE is talking to SPECIFIC people when he comes up with the STARTLINGLY SPECIFIC, UNIQUE, PERSONAL, UNKNOWABLE hits.
And if it were not for the STARTLINGLY SPECIFIC, UNIQUE, PERSONAL, UNKNOWABLE hits directed at a SPECIFIC person...NOT and let me emphasize NOT thrown out to the entire room...I too would believe JE was a fake.
Last edited:
With all due respect Robin, it's not helping your case that you are only giving vague replies to posts or not replying to some of the points at all. For instance you are still giving us the drinking milk from a cow anecdote even though that appears to have come from a tv programme. It's been pointed out that the programme is heavily edited and some have claimed is even edited so that misses appear to be hits. Have you read those posts and do you agree that a tv programme cannot be presented as evidence?
He doesn't, as has been repeatedly explained AND SHOWN to you.
You were wrong about your brother's connection to Valerie Harper; your memory was wrong about the tickets. You and your brother created the connection; JE did not.
I note that you refuse to address comments about the Prescott article. Prescott does what you repeatedly do, and the proof is right there in the article. Prescott asks: How did JE know X? Answer: He didn't. From Prescott's own words and quotations, JE said "Y," which the sitter and Prescott expanded into "X." And that's in the absolute best of circumstances using snippets from an edited television show, which Prescott himself says is an invalid way to do it.
What he does repeatedly is fleece people like you.
Shall we list the things you won't address and the things you ignore? Here's a partial list:
1. The Prescott article disproves itself by inflating what JE actually said into something larger and by doing it with snippets from an edited television show
2. John Edward considers Sylvia Browne to be legitimate
3. Drinking milk from the udder is not uncommon
4. You won't provide a link or other references to the milk drinking show so that we can find out what JE actually said (not that it matters; see #3)
5. Almost none of the other hits you keep listing are uncommon.
6. The two or three I have admitted were impressive still come from an edited television show and even if honestly depicted do not fall outside the law of large numbers
7. The Afterlife Experiments is an piece of crap study intended solely to appease the already convinced while ignoring every real control.
8. Admitted mentalists and magicians have REPEATEDLY (does it help that I capitalized it?) done more impressive things than John Edward ever has. You still don't want to talk about Kellar, do you?
eh, that's all I want to spend time thinking about now.
As I've said before, Robin, I don't care if you believe, and I don't care if you never change your mind. But you came here espousing proof; I do care that things which are not proof are put forth as if they were.
You have no case. None. John Edward is a fraud, a liar, a cheat, and a ridiculous SOB. Tell him I said so. Invite him here. There is nothing he has done or can do that I cannot replicate in the same circumstances. (Don't ignore that qualifier if you decide to take me up on it; it is my repeated experience that believers love love love to throw it out when allegedly accepting the challenge).
Last edited:
Cold reading doesn't necessary involve any conscious trickery. I suspect many amateur psychics are unaware of what they are doing, and, like the people they are reading, only remember the hits. (There's a member of the forum who joined in order to take the MDC, because she was convinced she had psychic abilities. She completely changed her mind when she listened to the explanations she got here.)
I don't think it's possible for someone such as John Edward or Sylvia Browne to be still so naive.
This is an extremely important point. I would guess (without any evidence whatsoever) that a sizable minority of those who charge for readings fall in this category and that a sizable majority of those who do not charge for readings do, too.
I haven't read your contributions to the forum yet but I will...I am curious as to your evidence...and I am open to consider it.
Last edited:
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
It's amazing Robin! Every bit as rock-solid as your evidence is. I know, you wouldn't think it possible, but believe me, it's the most valid proof of spirits since you opened this thread.
I just googled John Edward and cows milk and didn't find very much but came up with this transcript.
I love the way the caller is trying to find out if her husband has crossed over but he just wants to tell her about cows. Link here.
ETA At least he is a bit more canny than Sylvia Browne and wont tell someone that a family member is dead when they can embarrassingly turn up alive some time in the future.
I love the way the caller is trying to find out if her husband has crossed over but he just wants to tell her about cows. Link here.
ETA At least he is a bit more canny than Sylvia Browne and wont tell someone that a family member is dead when they can embarrassingly turn up alive some time in the future.
Last edited:
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
Last edited:
Thanks, greybeard. That transcript is obviously not the one being referenced, but it does demonstrate another point we've being trying to hammer home but which gets ignored.
Law of Large Numbers and all that. If JE says "cows" or "cows milk" or "directly from a cow" specifically to one person but he does it a hundred times, of course there is going to be a hit, and that hit is the one that will get written up by Prescott and referenced by Robin, but it proves exactly nothing.
So there you have it, Robin: the cow thing isn't a one time guess by John Edward.
P.S. As an aside, this transcript reminds me of one of the reasons I thought Larry King was an embarrassment and a money grubber. Powerful, personable, and superficially convincing and deep, but ultimately a willfully ignorant panderer.
Law of Large Numbers and all that. If JE says "cows" or "cows milk" or "directly from a cow" specifically to one person but he does it a hundred times, of course there is going to be a hit, and that hit is the one that will get written up by Prescott and referenced by Robin, but it proves exactly nothing.
So there you have it, Robin: the cow thing isn't a one time guess by John Edward.
P.S. As an aside, this transcript reminds me of one of the reasons I thought Larry King was an embarrassment and a money grubber. Powerful, personable, and superficially convincing and deep, but ultimately a willfully ignorant panderer.
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
Then why did you raise the matter of your "evidence"?
If you produce some evidence tonight it will be the first you have ever had. You do not have any at the moment, let alone "enough to sink ships".
Any evidence that is produced using an objective test protocol is evidence for everybody, your absurd categories of people notwithstanding.
Oops. Don't know how I missed you, pakeha, but thanks for straightening me out.
So, jiggeryqua, adding pakeha to the mix and still counting me, there are definitely four people and probably five on this thread who have drunk milk directly from the udder. All of whom posted before my "egregious error."
Last edited:
I posted it as well because people are asking in the thread why he doesn't answer important questions like where a murder victim is buried. In that transcript he was asked directly about whether her husband was dead or not. He completely ignored the question and kept chuntering on about cows. Long after she told him there was no connection.
jiggeryqua
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,107
Actually, I phrased it that way because either you or Desertgal made an egregious error. You've taken it upon yourself to claim I must have meant you specifically - perhaps because you've done the legwork to prove it was desertgal. Curiously, you'd rather take me to task for your erroneous assumption than upbraid desertgal for her counter-factual claim. To be fair, I did say (in what to my mind was quite clearly a playful take on the idea of an anecdote supporting an anecdote about anecdotes) that I was happy to take her word for it. We've established that you found no humour in that situation, and we have that confirmed now.
Yes, we've covered this. So was desertgal, but it's not the actual 'being wrong' that this is about, is it, or you'd be "frank" with her too. It's the being right elsewhere, the daring to question the thinking of the 'home side', the decision to stand next to the person you're dogpiling and express moral indignation at the treatment of another human being who has become 'the enemy' for the heinous crime of not sharing your value system. Do you fondly imagine that if a plane load of skeptics crashed on a deserted island, a la 'Lord of the Flies', that one half wouldn't be burning the other half at the stake eventually?
You, meanwhile, are not here to score rhetorical points, but instead to hunt down references to drinking milk from a teat because you saw no particular humour in the notion of an anecdote supporting an anecdote about anecdotes. Well played, sir, one-love to you! Would you not score an extra point for taking desertgal to task for her egregious error that mired you in this task? Should your not taking the opportunity to score that point count as evidence that you're here for discussion, even though you claim not to value discussion with me, yet spend so much time and effort
You directly state, just above, that you asked me to define Robin's claim...and then take me to task for declining to do that. It's not my claim. The issue appears to be that I ask you what evidence you'd accept for it, as part of the dismissal of your false dichotomy (deployed for the advancement of your Rhetorical Score, we must assume, though it may simply have been carelessness or ignorance, I suppose). That is, I questioned your claim, and in response you expected me to answer to Robin's claim. I'm surprised I'm still taking you sufficiently seriously to try and explain this.
The notion that one other has stated (egregious exaggeration, as if any number of supporters would validate your claim: it's not a vote), that I 'project my own shortcomings', was dealt with when that claim was previously made. I'm sure you could find my response to that, in less time than your comprehensive rebuttal of a trivial remark that failed to find your funnybone. Having shown it to be remarkably unlikely, if not patently false, I invited that poster to make a better case than a mere imputation. They have not. I welcome any attempt you may make to back up your repetition of the slur and also welcome being shunned by anyone willing to simply take your word for it.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Not according to the way you originally related some of the anecdotes ("I'm getting an 'ST' sound in the name" is NOT a "STARTLINGLY SPECIFIC, UNIQUE, PERSONAL, UNKNOWABLE hits directed at a SPECIFIC person...NOT and let me emphasize NOT thrown out to the entire room", especially when "Salvatore" is offered as the name with an "ST" sound in it).
Not according to videotapes of JE at "work", shotgunning audiences.
Baloney. You phrased it that way because you attributed it to me, and you are backpedaling now.
If that is not the case, then your entire discussion is valueless as you (a) consciously decided not to make plain what you considered the error was, and (b) if it was desertgal's error, then there was no substance to your initial comments on my post.
You retrofit masterfully, jiggeryqua, but not perfectly.
Well, no. I knew then as I know now that you aimed it at me, your furious backpedaling notwithstanding. My legwork was to ensure I had not made a mistake. I do make them, and I admit them when I do, but as it turns out, this was not one.jiggeryqua said:
desertgal made no imputations regarding motive, tactics, or argument, and the correction of you serves also as a correction of her. While her style is different from mine, I've no doubt that when she realizes her error she will own up to it. Unlike you.jiggeryqua said:
You are correct that I found no humor in it because no humor was conveyed. But let's grant you this point. Let's stipulate that you meant it humorously, and I simply missed it. Where does that leave us? Exactly where I have been stating all along: Robin ignored the postS about drinking directly from the udder; you claimed I was wrong both for using anecdotes as evidence and for misstating the quantity of such posts. I admitted the anecdotal nature at the beginning, and explained why they were sufficient here. You have yet to admit being wrong about the number of posts, instead falling back on the non-defense of humorous attribution.Garrette said:
See comments above.jiggeryqua said:
?jiggeryqua said:
And with this you demonstrate that you haven't the slightest factual inkling about me, my style, my stance, my position, or my responses. Get back to me when you actually have proof (or even real evidence) that I take issue with questioning of the "home side."jiggeryqua said:
And more proof. You have either not read or have not understood what I have posted here. Given that I have very recently taken Robin's side in this very thread (regarding the cyber stalking -- moved to AAH) could have given you a clue.jiggeryqu said:
Flights of irrelevant fancy with mistakenly dark implications of my thought process don't interest me.jiggeryqua said:
So you blame me for not being able to carry off a joke?jiggeryqua said:
See above.jiggeryqua said:
Your imaginings regarding possible motives for responding are limited. I've addressed this before.jiggeryqua said:
Robin did not ask me the question; you did. I do not know her specific claim. You apparently do. If you do not, fine, but if you want me to respond to you -- which I assume you did because you asked a question -- then you need to do the legwork. This is not a difficult concept, but it appears beyond you. And yet I did answer you, didn't I? I gave you an answer based on my general knowledge of her claim. An answer you have yet to acknowledge.jiggeryqua said:
No false dichotomy, though I admit a rhetorical abbreviation of my point.jiggeryqua said:
You did not question my claim. You asked me a question about Robin's claim. A question I did my best to answer up to the point of needing more information which you -- as the asker -- should make the effort to provide. Unless, of course, your object was simply rhetorical again.jiggeryqu said:
I'm not. It's consistent with your behavior to date.jiggeryqua said:
Now I'm lost. Having shown WHAT "to be remarkably unlikely, if not patently false" and repetion of WHAT "slur"?jiggeryqua said:
desertgal
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,198
Yup. I apologize for my error, as well.
Aside from that, all your picking nits is pointless, jiggeryqua. The bottom line is that, anecdotes aside, it doesn't take a genius to determine that drinking unprocessed milk is not an uncommon thing. JE can, and does, use it with the knowledge that there is a good possibility he will score an "impressive" hit within an audience.
And, Jaysus, "egregious"...really? An egregious error is letting a child play in traffic. Lighten up, huh?
Done. Slide off into another tangent. I'll just watch.
Last edited: