Clancie:
Well, that's not my point. My point is to try to -find- good cold reading demonstrations. And I think that people who seem pretty well convinced that "mediumship=cold reading" should be making an effort to make many cold reading demonstrations available, for educational purposes.
I will take this opportunity to state, once again, for your benefit and for the benefit of the skeptics around, that we are mis-using the term
cold-reader.
Cold reading is one method to appear to obtain information via paranormal means. It is not the only method. When skeptics limit themselves to this term, then they weaken their argument when the possibility of cold-reading is lessened.
Cheating is, imo, the proper term to use. It includes cold reading but is not limited to it.
So, Clancie, I will clarify my personal position: mediumship = cheating.
My attempts to demonstrate fake mediumship (all of it, I think) will be attempt to demonstrate cheating, not just cold reading.
And, if you'll recall from long ago on tvtalkshows, I have tried to make them available. I'm one of the first to admit that they are difficult to find. I was surprised by this at the time, but not surprised in retrospect for reasons that have been repeatedly discussed here and repeatedly ignored, it seems, by you.
There are demonstrations. You've seen them. There are not many because of those reasons we've given.
Clancie:
No one suggested having a show, obviously. But a videotape (DVD) or two, for educational sale, would be helpful. The lack of such educational cold reading demonstrations (and apparently no interest in making them--I don't think raising the money through grants would be so hard) is, imo, puzzling.
No, it's not puzzling, it's rationally explainable which has been done. And there is not a "lack" of them; there is a paucity of them. They are not as numerous as demonstrations purporting to be of actual mediumship;
repeat the repeated reasons.
That being said, I agree it is worth pursuing. I have given thought to how to do it myself when I am once again in a position where I might conceivably do so.
Question: Assume that I or someone else puts on a demonstration (admittedly by cheating) which is, in all the relevant particulars, at least equal in quality to the average JE reading. But it's only one. Would you accept it as sufficiently demonstrable, or would you then revert, as you have done here, to the defense that it is "not a pattern" of success?
