Clancie said:
I guess I have a few complaints about this, reading through the whole rant. First, why doesn't he name the mediums? There are only a handful of possibilities anyway. Isn't it more fair to clairfy to the public which ones you are talking about? Why all of the innuendo and lumping everyone's "sins" in together?
Does JE name anyone he thinks are fake? No? Why is this not a problem?
Clancie said:
If JE was the one who said "No one's here" to a caller on LKL why not say it? If JVP gets info ahead of time, why not specifically mention the way JVP works? I don't like the innuendo.
LKL, Sept. 6th, 2002
CALLER: Oh, hi, Larry and John.
KING: How are you.
CALLER: Fine. I have got some questions. I was wondering about some people in my life that have passed. Lost my father.
KING: Go ahead.
EDWARD: I'm not -- I'm not getting anything from you.
KING: Anything specific, sir, your father...
CALLER: OK, my father...
EDWARD: I'm not connecting with you.
CALLER: My father.
EDWARD: I'm not feeling anything from him.
KING: I'm sorry, sir. Thank you.
EDWARD: Sorry.
KING: When that happens, how do you explain it?
EDWARD: I couldn't connect with them or they couldn't connect with me, or it's just...
Clancie said:
Since JE is the only medium regularly on tv now (plus, possibly Sylvia on Montel), it could be easy for someone to assumed that all GA's comments are describing him when they're not. That seems very unfair. (Also, why no mention of Sylvia, come to think of it? Plenty of room for criticism there and she is certainly another famous tv medium).
I'm puzzled by your statement here. Why are you assuming that GA does not talk about JE? Because he doesn't mention JE by name? Does JE mention SB by name?
Clancie said:
There's something about the tone of this that I don't like, kind of like, "I'm not so successful and famous as others, so I'm publicly saying it's because I'm more genuine and they're manipulating and bilking people in order to be sucessful."
Ah, sour grapes? Could very well be. It could also be that GA is real, and that he is pissed off at those who are not. He just has his way, as JE has his ways, especially when it comes to finding missing children. Just as Brian Hurst has his ways, too.
Clancie said:
I mean, if he does it better and more ethically than they all do--and if he cares more about grieving people than they do, as he claims--then he should be more present in the media, do more work to educate the public, not less. What's all this "I'm going to disappear" stuff? He should be front and center, showing people what "real" mediums, caring mediums, ethical mediums are all about. He should be helping people realize the difference themselves, by his example.
Should he? I don't see you criticizing Brian Hurst for not wanting to be a media star. Why is this a different case?
Clancie said:
Going into hiding "on principle"? To me, that makes absolutely no sense at all.
It does to him. In the world of mediums, that makes him right. Communicate, appreciate, validate.
Clancie said:
Additionally, it would have been nice if he'd gotten all the facts right (for example, that CO does have a grief counselor to talk with everyone who is read). His "one size fits all" criticism of "TV mediums" sounds like a huge dose of sour grapes to me, at least expressed in this particular way.
Where does GA say that CO does not have a grief counselor?
Clancie said:
(And, wasn't "Contact" all about celebrity/famous people being read? I don't remember it very well, but I remember very few readings in the hour and all had a pop culture/celebrity connection, I thought).
Is this a criticism of GA? I hope not, since JE has done his share of celebrity readings....
Clancie said:
Beyond that, we can't know one way or the other, but I'd be very surprised if GA actually wrote this himself. It just doesn't sound like him to me...not a "claim", just an unprovable "impression".....
It says "By George Anderson". It is on his website. I don't see any reason to doubt it was written by him. We would have to apply the same doubt to anything on JE's site, then.
Clancie said:
An interesting statement on his FAQ page. Of course, it makes you wonder...."considered it...by whom?" and "How can we tell the who the 'best medium in the world' is? Is there a certification process? An international contest?"
That is entirely up to the sitters to decide, remember? If they say they got good readings, then they got good readings. If you think JE has read more people than GA (and therefore have gotten more good readings), then please present your evidence hereof. However - and this is important, because you have used this argument before - that the longer a medium has been around (and not been caught), the more valid he/she is.
Has GA done readings longer than JE? If so, you got a problem.
Clancie said:
I don't know anyone who's been read by him, but Schwartz seemed more impressed by him than any others in Arizona (even reproduced the entire GA reading in his book--the only one he did that for).
Does that vouch for anything?
Clancie said:
There's an film of him giving a reading on the Linda Ellerbee Co. documentary for HBO, "Life After Life". I thought the reading he gave to the bereaved couple was very good, (but it would have been better if the director had somehow verified that GA had no prior information about the sitters. Its seemed to be assumed that this was true, but no one actually said it).
Where, on the CO show, does it say that JE had no prior information about the sitters? It could very well be in the signed agreements, but since you haven't seen those from the particular show, you don't know.
Clancie, you are very inconsistent:
- GA does not name the people he thinks are fakes, that's a problem.
JE doesn't either, but that's not a problem.
- GA does not want to be in the media, that's a problem.
Brian Hurst doesn't either, but that's not a problem.
- GA has something critical of JE on his website, it can't be GA who wrote it.
JE writes on his website too, but that doesn't mean he didn't write it.
- We are not told specifically by the producer that GA did not get prior information, that's a problem.
We are not told specifically by the producer of CO that JE does not get prior information, but that's not a problem.
(GA doesn't do much television--and the point of the article was that he's not going to do any).
