Hello from a non-skeptic

[Agatha]

Thanks Alice!

Oops, my mistake, sorry Charles. I admit to being muddled about your claims. However, my comment still stands - you owe Alice thanks for the work she's done on your behalf.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

What the hell does that mean?

Evidently I lack the gift of mediumnity to deem my argumentations correct. And to think that CHARLES' BOOK probably didn't have a proofreader...I fear for Big Les' sanity, I really do.

 

[Akhenaten]

Evidently I lack the gift of mediumnity to deem my argumentations correct. And to think that CHARLES' BOOK probably didn't have a proofreader...I fear for Big Les' sanity, I really do.

Ah well, who needs mediumnity when you've got outstandingosity?

 

[Alice Shortcake]

Ooooh, flattered by a Pharoah!

*blushes*

It was a shame that Charles went off in a huff (again). I would have liked to discuss the sources on which he based the new, improved Lady of Lawers tale, not to mention his explanation of how you can inherit royal blood by being the sister of a bloke who marries a king's daughter. The mechanism by which the latter took place (osmosis?) could have blown that newfangled "DNA" nonsense out of the water. No doubt thought-consciousness and spiritual realms explain it, as they probably explain everything difficult.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel, I did not post the link to the book here. A member did

So? You posted a lot of stuff completely unrelated to the question you claim to have come here to ask long before that link was posted. If you hadn't, the link would not have been posted - IIRC a quote from it was what enabled it to be found.

I admit that when coming here I had no idea of what the forum was really about.

What it's about is clearly described in the banner at the top of the page. Perhaps you should have read it before dumping a load of unsubstantiated anecdotes on us and then whining because the nasty sceptics didn't thank you profusely for showing them the error of their ways but instead politely explained what a load of old tosh it was.

I can guarantee it has been one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life...

Most of us had to get used to having our uninformed and unsubstantiated opinions questioned at a very early age. I have no idea how you escaped that, but if this was really your first experience of it then you should be grateful for the (much delayed) education.

As I said, what I wrote I did so merely with the intention of sharing.

Sharing your superior knowledge with us ignoramuses, yes. Unfortunately for your ego it turned out to be us who had the superior knowledge, and you who was the ignoramus.

And sharing something beautiful, I might add. That "life" is much more than just this which meets the eye.

I can absolutely guarantee that there is no-one who has attempted to engage you in discussion on this thread who does not know that. It's just that we know the ways to find out what more there is that actually work. You only seem to know how to fool yourself.

I honestly did not expect that in trying to do so I would have to encounter what I have.

You honestly did not expect that posting unsupported (and, for the most part, manifestly ridiculous) assertions in a condescending manner on a forum frequented by large numbers of intelligent sceptics would produce the response it did? Frankly I thought you got off very lightly.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

We should thank Charles for being one of the chewiest toys we've had for quite some time. DOC lost his flavour long ago, Rramjet didn't have much taste to begin with and most of the others fell apart too quickly to be much fun, but Charles was in a class of his own. He managed to combine the po-faced dottiness of George "Lobster" Simpson with the comparative literacy of...well, a comparatively literate person. Dammit, he's written a BOOK and was too modest to mention it! How rare is that?

 

[godless dave]

I still believe that each "individual entanglement of thought-consciousness" retains its individuality even after physical death, and dresses itself in whatever form of more fluidic matter the Spiritual Realms consist of. Apparently it is some form of "light". Can you again prove me wrong?

The lack of evidence for your postulate is what indicates it is wrong.

 

[godless dave]

How come? This is precisely the point: it still cannot be proven.

Then the only rational assumption is that it does not exist.

 

[carlitos]

psychographed letters

lolwut?

I still believe that each "individual entanglement of thought-consciousness" retains its individuality even after physical death, and dresses itself in whatever form of more fluidic matter the Spiritual Realms consist of. Apparently it is some form of "light". Can you again prove me wrong?

Charles

No Charles. You have to prove yourself right. No evidence for 'fluidic matter' in 'spiritual realms' is no evidence to 'believe' anything.

Pixel, I did not post the link to the book here. A member did, and I rode it through. I admit that when coming here I had no idea of what the forum was really about. I can guarantee it has been one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life...

Charles, some of the posts here seem to be treating you with kid gloves in hopes that you come back again to discuss your fictional peerage or whatever. This is not one of those. You are a *********** drama queen. It's not all about you, dude. If this was "one of the more unpleasant experiences of your life" and you live in *********** Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2010, you are one of the most fortunate human beings ever to have walked the planet earth. Fall on your knees and thank God that you are so fortunate. If you want to provide evidence for your claims, please come back. If not, this is no surprise, nor a great loss to the JREF Forum.

Dammit, he's written a BOOK and was too modest to mention it! How rare is that?

Fair point.

 

[FSM]

lolwut?


... snip

If you want to provide evidence for your claims, please come back. If not, this is no surprise, nor a great loss to the JREF Forum.

...snip.

With all due respect, carlitos, it might not be a great loss to the JREF, but it would be a great loss to me. I love having Charles on the forum... I particularly love when Alice and Charles chat back and forth. I wish he would have answered her question about the Lady of, what was that? Lawers?

When I saw Charles's's's name on the thread this morning, I almost stood up and cheered. Don't know if it's a sad commentary on my life, or on what I find interesting, but I want to watch this go down... so much, so much.

I like that we treat Charles with a sort of begruding civility- even when Alice has busted him on something, she keeps asking him to explain and he doe's the rest himself. Alice, I think, shows remarkable restraint and civility (more than I could) and the point's she makes' are usually regarding the research she's done instead of the person Charles is... In my opinion, that makes her one of the best of us.

I would be interested to know what charity the profits from Charles's's book, AKA
THE BODEN CODEX
are going to...

 

[carlitos]

With all due respect, carlitos, it might not be a great loss to the JREF, but it would be a great loss to me. I love having Charles on the forum... I particularly love when Alice and Charles chat back and forth. I wish he would have answered her question about the Lady of, what was that? Lawers?

When I saw Charles's's's name on the thread this morning, I almost stood up and cheered. Don't know if it's a sad commentary on my life, or on what I find interesting, but I want to watch this go down... so much, so much.

I like that we treat Charles with a sort of begruding civility- even when Alice has busted him on something, she keeps asking him to explain and he doe's the rest himself. Alice, I think, shows remarkable restraint and civility (more than I could) and the point's she makes' are usually regarding the research she's done instead of the person Charles is... In my opinion, that makes her one of the best of us.

You make some good points. Honestly, I think that I have treated him with civility, if a bit begrudgingly. But Charles Boden just flat-out lies, and then pouts and stomps his feet when we point this out. He said elsewhere that he came to "shake our pedestals" or whatever. His first post said:

Hello all,

I am aware that I will probably be torn to shreds here, but I came upon this forum thanks to a reference made by a member of Dr Carol Bowman's forum in a link I began there about the case of Jacqueline Pool, which has also been debated here on this forum (have tried to add the link to it but as a newcomer here this is still not yet possible).
...

Look forward to reading your views...

Charles

And his last post said:

Pixel, I did not post the link to the book here. A member did, and I rode it through. I admit that when coming here I had no idea of what the forum was really about. I can guarantee it has been one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life...

So, which is it? He's aware that this is a skeptical site, or he has no idea what the forum was really about? Did he really spend 20 years being skeptical, or was he all mediumnic or something? His posts read like a bunch of lies to me. Pixel42 alludes to more of this:

It was pointed out to you on page one that this was the wrong subforum for that question, and you were directed to the science subforum. Instead of asking the mod to move your thread, or starting a new one in the correct subforum, you chose to fill this thread with anecdotes about ouija boards, psychics and reincarnation. So you have no one to blame for the direction the discussion you initiated took except yourself.

He came here "with the intention of posing a serious question concerning the effect of consciousness on sub-atomic matter?" Or to "shake our pedestals?" Or do talk about his ouija board? Or to pimp his book by spreading fantastic tales of past royal lives?

I would be interested to know what charity the profits from Charles's's book...are going to...

As would I. However, as Mr. Boden's lies have reduced his credibility to nil in my eyes, I suspect that this claim is another blatant lie. Mr. Boden can correct my perception by posting PROOF in the form of EVIDENCE that he sends the proceeds of his book to charity. I am not optimistic that this evidence will be forthcoming.

As ever, there is education in these threads, and a protagonist such as Charles Boden does generate discussion from which I learn a lot. But Charles Boden needed his pedestal shaken a bit, in my humble opinion.

 

[AdMan]

Charles Boden just flat-out lies, and then pouts and stomps his feet when we point this out.

I have to agree with this. Charles misrepresented his intentions for coming to this forum, lied about being scared for his and his family's safety, IMO, and today lied about not knowing what this forum was really about when he first showed up.

I agree with carlitos that he's been probably treated much too civilly given the way he's treated this forum and its (it's? ) members.

 

[Apology]

Ooooh, flattered by a Pharoah!

*blushes*

It was a shame that Charles went off in a huff (again). I would have liked to discuss the sources on which he based the new, improved Lady of Lawers tale, not to mention his explanation of how you can inherit royal blood by being the sister of a bloke who marries a king's daughter. The mechanism by which the latter took place (osmosis?) could have blown that newfangled "DNA" nonsense out of the water. No doubt thought-consciousness and spiritual realms explain it, as they probably explain everything difficult.

We call that "royal by injection"

 

[Senex]

With all due respect, carlitos, it might not be a great loss to the JREF, but it would be a great loss to me. I love having Charles on the forum... I particularly love when Alice and Charles chat back and forth. I wish he would have answered her question about the Lady of, what was that? Lawers?

FSM is understating this carlitos. We all want Charles to stick around. If Charles can confront the truth there may be help for Sunniva

hehehe... Just kidding...I've forgotten all about Sunniva since you've posted into my life FSM

 

[FSM]

I have to agree with this. Charles misrepresented his intentions for coming to this forum, lied about being scared for his and his family's safety, IMO, and today lied about not knowing what this forum was really about when he first showed up.

I agree with carlitos that he's been probably treated much too civilly given the way he's treated this forum and its (it's? ) members.

I understand completely. (And it's not that I do a particularly great job of being civil and kind-overall...I tend to relish in my own stupor quite frequently...)

And I agree, Charles has been treated with fairness and restraint that he has not shown to us or our pedestals.

I just think that I would feel it a loss if Charles did not come back... maybe not a loss in the same way I would feel if, I don't know, the beloved Senex were to leave the forums... but a loss nevertheless, if you catch my drift. I selfishly would NEVER want Charles to stop posting here simply because I enjoy it too much.


ETA: And about that "threatening" garbage... it's all here, written down in teh internetz for everyone to see... how much we DIDN'T threaten. So I say, continue to post Charles!

 

[tsig]

To the best of my knowledge, it was Mary Campbell who married into the Stewarts of Appin. I would love to be able to find out more, but there are very few existing registries. IF John Stewart married Mary Campbell, it would probably have been at the Chruch of Lawers, of which no existing registries remain. This connection, seeing as there was no longer any nobility lineage to it, would not appear in the Burke's peerage, though John Stewart of Appin does, as does the info concerning the Lady of Lawers. I have a baptism record for John Stewart, son to John Stewart and Mary Campbell. Are they one and the same? This is something I am also trying to confirm, but it seems quite probable...

As for Janet Gordon, again to the best of my knowledge she was the daughter of Lord John Gordon and the daughter of Margaret Drummond and King James IV. As she married the 4th Lord of Appin, naturally the current Clan Chief would also be descended from the same. Again IF the connections are correct, for what it is worth I would also be descended of the following:



Your genealogy is very beautiful, Alice. It's great fun, isn't it? As I said, to the best of my knowledge the above is true unless proven otherwise. If it is proven to be incorrect, again I stand corrected and will make whatever necessary changes.

I came here with the intention of posing a serious question concerning the effect of consciousness on sub-atomic matter, not to divulge a book, as so many have thought and claimed. As I said to you all, my royalties are being donated to a charity institution, so feel free to have fun without worrying about filling my pockets. Who knows, you might learn something...

http://www.freado.com/book/7923/descendant-of-kings

You say I have not replied to your questions. But I have. I have given you all the indications as to where you might extend any serious research into the matter, including references to books and Chico Xavier's work. He did not condemn a murderer, but absolved an innocent from being unjustly accused. In his thousands of psychographed letters, he gave relatives huge comfort by providing them with details, nicknames and events known only to the family.

I still believe that each "individual entanglement of thought-consciousness" retains its individuality even after physical death, and dresses itself in whatever form of more fluidic matter the Spiritual Realms consist of. Apparently it is some form of "light". Can you again prove me wrong?

Charles

I believe you're whistling in the dark, can you prove me wrong?

 

[tsig]

Alice, you really do have a chip on your shoulder, don't you? I'll gladly invite you to look at my tree if you would like to and it is so important to you. And yes, I added the info on the Lady of Lawers as it deems correct.

Charles, you came here to "rock pedestals" remember? You started out with an adversarial stance so if someone checks out your story that's hardly having a chip on the shoulder.

Especially since we bought your Book.

 

[tsig]

Pixel, I did not post the link to the book here. A member did, and I rode it through. I admit that when coming here I had no idea of what the forum was really about. I can guarantee it has been one of the most unpleasant experiences of my life...

As I said, what I wrote I did so merely with the intention of sharing. And sharing something beautiful, I might add. That "life" is much more than just this which meets the eye. I honestly did not expect that in trying to do so I would have to encounter what I have. On my part, this discussion is indeed ended.

Charles

Charlie, Charlie, we hardly knew ye.

You are not a descendant or reincarnation of royalty. Sorry Charlie.

 

[kyra1985]

Sounds like cold reading. That's probably what's behind a lot of what's driven this thread, whether Charles accepts it or not.

Any other point that you're making?

That was just my response to the "hits" that Charles had brought up in the beginning of the thread. It's an example from a fraud medium that I think help explains these readings that appear too coincidental to be fake.

 

[tsig]

We should thank Charles for being one of the chewiest toys we've had for quite some time. DOC lost his flavour long ago, Rramjet didn't have much taste to begin with and most of the others fell apart too quickly to be much fun, but Charles was in a class of his own. He managed to combine the po-faced dottiness of George "Lobster" Simpson with the comparative literacy of...well, a comparatively literate person. Dammit, he's written a BOOK and was too modest to mention it! How rare is that?

It was almost as if he was ashamed to show his book to skeptics.