CONNIE SONNE, Dowser

[erlando]

Prediction: If or when Connie fails the test she will claim that the test was rigged / there was bad vibes from testers / she was feeling ill / <insert generic applicant excuse here>.

Judging by her replies up until now nothing will be learned.

Now prove me wrong.

Good luck with the test. (Yes, that is a sincere wish.)

 

[dann]

I don't mean that I wish she will succeed, because I find that very unlikely,

Isn't that an understatement? Do you actually only find it "very unlikely"?

but I wish her a good and constructive experience. (I doubt that also, but that's another matter)

For her it is bound to be a "constructive experience": She will interpret her failure as a step towards universal enlightenment. She already does:
"If I had managed to get Maddie out, which, by the way, I tried to do alone a couple of times, I would NEVER have discovered the other things."
"Yeah, no matter what is going to happen, I will never make a doubt about my abilities."

And you don't just doubt that Connie Sonne will be successful in the test! But, of course, wishing her a "good and constructive experience" is vague enough to mean almost anything.

 

[Pixel42]

Prediction: If or when Connie fails the test she will claim that the test was rigged / there was bad vibes from testers / she was feeling ill / <insert generic applicant excuse here>

I think it's pretty clear from what she's already said that she will claim that whatever cosmic power she thinks is the source of her powers has decided the time is not yet right for those powers to be revealed to the world.

 

[dann]

Exactly! Absolutely nothing is gained from this!

 

[chillzero]

ok, we get the point. You don't believe that the MDC will ever be won. You think people should just stop deluding themselves. You don't have to keep following this thread, you know.

I'd prefer to be able to discuss each step with each applicant, no matter what the outcome.
I'd prefer to read their viewpoints, and experiences, without all the sideline sniping which acheives nothing positive.

 

[dann]

ok, we get the point. You don't believe that the MDC will ever be won. You think people should just stop deluding themselves.

And my guess is that we don't even disagree about this, do we? I don't think that you expect the MDC to be won before its expiration date - or that it would have ever been won if it had continued indefinitely. I also don't think that you are in favour of people deluding themselves.

You don't have to keep following this thread, you know.

Yes, I know that I don't have to. Did I hint at any obligation to do so anywhere? I know that you are a moderator, but I don't know if that puts you under any obligation to follow it either. Does it?

I'd prefer to be able to discuss each step with each applicant, no matter what the outcome.

Nobody prevents you from doing so!

I'd prefer to read their viewpoints, and experiences, without all the sideline sniping which acheives nothing positive.

Well, nobody prevents you from reading their viewpoints and experiences, and if you would prefer not to read my posts, please don't!
I don't understand your reference to "sideline sniping".

 

[chillzero]

Nobody prevents you from doing so!

Actually, when people make it difficult for any claimant to participate in a thread with civility, they often do.

Well, nobody prevents you from reading their viewpoints and experiences, and if you would prefer not to read my posts, please don't!

Although I'm not contributing here as a moderator, but as a emember, I'm not permitted the luxury of putting anyone on ignore. However, it is not my eraction to your comments I was referring to, but the fact - as initially mentioned by Jeff - that people don't need to be so rude to claimants. It's the reaction of claimants when confronted by nastiness instead of people trying to patiently assist them through testing that bothers me. We'll never know if Ms Sonne's responses would be different if people hadn't been 'barking' at her from the outset.

I don't understand your reference to "sideline sniping".

It refers to making snarky comments, instead of focussing on advice about how best this claim could be tested, and the kinds of protocol that could be submitted with the JREF.

I created a thread for Connie Sonne so we don't unnecessarily pollute this subforum.

Thank you.
That saves the mod team from intervening to get people back on topic.


Connie,
I asked earlier if you were undertaking any self testing, and if so, would you please give us updates here on what you are doing, and theresults of the testing. I mentioned later that I was confused as to whether you had responded to me or not. It seems that you have said you don't need to do any testing until the MDC - is this correct?
If not, could you please respond to my question and let us know about any preliminary testing, or 'practice sessions' if you prefer?
If so, I would like to ask that you reconsider, and if you could do some practice runs for the MDC to try out your proposed testing protocol I would be very interested to read about them.

(It would be helpful if you could use the 'quote' function I mentioned earlier to clarify who you are responding to)

 

[chillzero]

Hi Agatha....it was NOT the Psychics who started with Maddie, it was the medias.
And for Chillzero... I`m sorry, that I did forget to answer you, but here it comes.

It is right, what you mentioned...It`s all right going for the test without practice. As I told above(somewhere), dowsing is only a little part of it, so I do know what`s behind me and the pendulum.

Connie,
To keep this thread on topic to your proposed MDC claim for dowsing, could you please tell us what your protocol is?

I think you are saying here that you are not going to do any practice runs before testing with the JREF. I think that's an error, as people in any walk of life will usually practice before a major event - just to finely tune their skills, or at the very least to confirm that the test will go exactly as they expect because they've tried it out beforehand. However, it is certainly your choice to make.

Then, to enable this discussion to continue, could you please tell us what the test protocol is that you have defined with the JREF?

 

[CFLarsen]

In post #19, Connie Sonne agreed to the protocol proposed by JREF.

 

[dann]

Although I'm not contributing here as a moderator, but as a emember, I'm not permitted the luxury of putting anyone on ignore. However, it is not my eraction to your comments I was referring to, but the fact - as initially mentioned by Jeff - that people don't need to be so rude to claimants. It's the reaction of claimants when confronted by nastiness instead of people trying to patiently assist them through testing that bothers me. We'll never know if Ms Sonne's responses would be different if people hadn't been 'barking' at her from the outset.

It refers to making snarky comments, instead of focussing on advice about how best this claim could be tested, and the kinds of protocol that could be submitted with the JREF.

You can ignore me without putting me on ignore, can't you?
You now add "nastiness" and "snarky comments" to the accusations of rudeness, abuse, hostility and intimidation. I'm sorry, but rereading my posts in this thread I couldn't find any of those.
Could you be more specific, please?

 

[chillzero]

In post #19, Connie Sonne agreed to the protocol proposed by JREF.

I was hoping to try and engage Connie in a discussion of the protocol. Yes, I see she accepted it, I'd like to see what she believes she agreed to do for the test.

 

[CFLarsen]

Asking what the protocol is, and discussing it, are two different things.

The applicant in this case has already made it clear, in post #16, that she considers the test, and hence the protocol, a matter between her and JREF.

 

[chillzero]

Asking what the protocol is, and discussing it, are two different things.

Semantics. However, as I mentioned, I am interested in what Ms Sonne's perception of the protocol is. This thread is supposed to be disussing her MDC, and I would think it obvious that the protocol would form a major part of that discussion.

The applicant in this case has already made it clear, in post #16, that she considers the test, and hence the protocol, a matter between her and JREF.

Well, that's a shame, because it seems there's nothing more to be discussed in this thread, if we can't discuss the protocol. We'll just all have to wait and see the outcome when the JREF test her.

 

[CFLarsen]

We can discuss the protocol all we like. If some have chosen not to do it, that is their choice, and should be respected.

 

[Darat]

As far as I can tell discussions regarding "Maddie" are not part of the MDC so I'm moving posts about them to the thread that erlando started. If you wish to continue to discuss those claims and related issues please do so in that thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Marcus]

Good luck with your test, Connie. I hope you will discuss things with us here afterwards, whatever the outcome.

You might want to keep in mind that it won't be easy to find reasons if the test fails. Your powers will have to be functioning properly in the open test before the closed test can go forward.

 

[al_capone_junior]

PS Do you guys actually believe in the good luck that you wish Connie Sonne? Or are you just putting a good face on it?

Well I'm new here, but there are some who know me.

Overall, I tend to feel that as someone who's quite skeptical of extraordinary claims, I find the illogical and fallacious arguments of the uneducated or deluded to be quite frustrating. However, I've learned (albeit slowly, with many failings) that it's better to maintain one's cool, rather than get confrontational.

Even if someone's a complete jerk, you look better if you keep your cool. If they decide to get personal with you, keeping your cool is even better.

Image counts. It sucks, but it counts. For skeptics as well as anyone else.

"luck" is simply a word for the statistical measure of the standard deviation

so wishing someone good luck on the challenge is sort of like saying "I hope you win it by pure chance, as a statistical fluke/outlier rather than by your actual abilities"

So I do not wish connie "good luck" on the challenge.

 

[steenkh]

so wishing someone good luck on the challenge is sort of like saying "I hope you win it by pure chance, as a statistical fluke/outlier rather than by your actual abilities"

Well, chances are involved in more than one way. I am, for instance, perfectly able to ride a bike. Nevertheless, I had a nasty bike accident recently when one of my pedals broke of its own accord. This was a chance that was a statical fluke, particularly concerning the awkward moment when it happened.

If I was going to be tested for my ability to ride a bike, it would be a statistical fluke like this one that could prevent from passing the test.

This shows that there is nothing odd about wishing people good luck for showing their abilities, if they actually have the ability.

 

[dann]

It is not my impression that the MDC would give you just the one chance of proving your paranormal ability to ride a bike. However, if you fall off the bike ten times out of ten, it would probably be considered statistically significant.
If I had reason to believe that you tend to fall off your bike ten times out of ten, I wouldn't wish you good luck with the test. I might recommend that you use a helmet, though.

 

[steenkh]

If I had reason to believe that you tend to fall off your bike ten times out of ten, I wouldn't wish you good luck with the test. I might recommend that you use a helmet, though.

Quite

In a sense, it seems to me that Connie is already wearing a helmet. She has already declared that a possible failure will not shake her world view!