Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

[Fade]

Xouper:

You however are more squishy and lovable than I had thought upon first meeting you.

I think I am starting to understand you more and more.

 

[neofight]

You continue to interject your irrelevant politick into every single thread you post in, with few exceptions. Time and again people have attempted to correct your misconceptions, but you repeat the same anti-Skeptic, anti-Atheist, anti-Everythingyoubelieve in philosophies that don't have anything to do with rational thinking.

And you are talking about whom??? RC??? You think this diatribe of yours is describing RC? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Now that's pretty lame!......neo

 

[Fade]

Speaking of lame.

 

[RC]

You continue to interject your irrelevant politick into every single thread you post in, with few exceptions. Time and again people have attempted to correct your misconceptions, but you repeat the same anti-Skeptic, anti-Atheist, anti-Everythingyoubelieve in philosophies that don't have anything to do with rational thinking. Why are you here? You are obviously credulous enough to believe in obviously fake mediums (most likely because you enjoy believing in such things and it vindicates yet other portions of your belief structure), and can't stand the fact that we aren't.

You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics. You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you, and try to draw paralells that don't exist, so that you can feel like a big fat martyr.

You aren't caustic, and you are generally pleasent. That doesn't excuse your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics. I have nothing against you personally, but you are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet. You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like. You coat your words with ulterior motives. You try to make yourself feel important. You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.

You are lazy. You are a brick wall of incompetence.

That is my problem with you.

I appreciate this reply. I know that there is no purpose in engaging in discussion with you about this as your mind seems pretty made up. I will say, that it is clear that you don't really read many of my posts, as I have never once made an anti-atheist comment in my life. I was an atheist for 32 years and for the last two years, I'm an "I have no idea". I challenge you to find evidence to back up these claims. I demand the same from skeptics that they demand of me.

I also have changed my position on mediums and I now don't endorse any as authentic. That has been made clear since December of last year.

I'm very comfortable with my politics, but if you choose to hate people because they share different political views, like I said before, that says more about you than anything.

This forum is described as one for skeptics and believers. I came here as a believer because I enjoy discussing mediumship. I stayed because I found a lot of people that I enjoy chatting with.
I must ask who the hell are you to ask me why I'm here. You don't run the board.

I'm definitely not lazy and anyone who knows me can confirm that.

Actually, you do have something against me personally. Otherwise you simply wouldn't attack me the way you have for going on a year now. I still don't really know what it is that makes you have such a visceral and personal reaction against me, but your post does confirm to me that you just don't like me and you haven't really thought through why.

 

[Fade]

Renata, for someone who blasted Clancie yesterday because she chose to (in your words) make a big deal out of something that you found not to be germane to the thread topic, you sure don't practice what you preach!

This is what I am talking about, RC.

I don't buy your guise of pleasentry. You too vociferously defend Clancie to not be indebted to it's position in some way. Clancie has shown time and again that it isn't willing to open up reasonable communications with anyone on this forum. Claus, on the other hand, has, time and again.

Why do you persist in this effort to defame Claus, Renata, and anyone else in that set?

I can only assume that you happen to agree with Clancie.

Your act doesn't fool me.

 

[neofight]

RC and Clancie, thank you both for taking up for me in my absence. Your support is much appreciated! Man, I go away for a few days and all hell breaks out!

WooBot and De_Bunk, ditto! Thank you both as well for your good common-sense remarks, and anyone else that I may have missed. ......neo

 

[WooBot]

RC and Clancie, thank you both for taking up for me in my absence. Your support is much appreciated! Man, I go away for a few days and all hell breaks out!

WooBot and De_Bunk, ditto! Thank you both as well for your good common-sense remarks, and anyone else that I may have missed. ......neo

Much ado about nothing, and then more ado about the ado, then several perfectly intelligent people end up wading in ado-ado.

 

[RC]

Well Fade, I completely disagree with your perception of Clancie's behavior on this board (who is a she by the way) and it solidifies for me that you really aren't paying much attention to a lot of these conversations.

You don't like me because I speak my mind about Claus and Renata. That's fine with me. I just wanted to understand what the insults were all about.

I clearly have no "agenda" on this board and you certainly haven't been able to describe one, let alone find any evidence of such an agenda. I came here as a believer to defend John Edward. I went away for a while and came back to tell everyone that I don't really believe in him anymore. What kind of anti-skeptic agenda is that?

 

[Clancie]

RC,
How typically nice of you to continue to try to engage Fade in civil conversation. For myself, I'm still laughing over the bizarre rant above:

Posted by Fade

You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics.

You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you

...your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics.

You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like.

You coat your words with ulterior motives.

You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.

You are lazy.

You are a brick wall of incompetence.

LOL!

But, on a serious note, I'm just sorry, RC, that you had to put up with a rant like that just for having the temerity (sorry, Fade, that means "boldness") to mention Claus's notorious name-calling (something even he has admitted to) and gone on to raise the issue of inconsistent criticism with renata (a valid issue in general which is often raised here, by all sides, in all sorts of discussions).

Fade obviously has numerous anger issues that are completely unrelated to you, RC, or anything you've posted (now or ever). He also is obviously completely unfamiliar with your posts, your ideas, or your determination to always speak up for the truth as you see it (whether politically, on issues of mediumship, or in any issue at this board that you feel strongly about).

Fade, you seem to pride yourself on some kind of "critical thinking", but in reality, your post seems to be all about people having to see it your way or else be excoriated (that means, Fade, "verbally abused").

Fade, you could learn a lot from RC (not the least of which is how to write down your thoughts more coherently and back them up with facts rather than wild-eyed emotions). I have no idea what in the world you're trying to say with the first sentence of the following (and the second one is an outright lie):

You too vociferously defend Clancie to not be indebted to it's (sic) position in some way. Clancie has shown time and again that it isn't willing to open up reasonable communications with anyone on this forum.

And then there is this rather hilarious gem of hysterical overstatement from you, Fade:

...You are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet.

rofl!!!!
Some people just aren't worth bothering with.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You continue to interject your irrelevant politick into every single thread you post in, with few exceptions. Time and again people have attempted to correct your misconceptions, but you repeat the same anti-Skeptic, anti-Atheist, anti-Everythingyoubelieve in philosophies that don't have anything to do with rational thinking. Why are you here? You are obviously credulous enough to believe in obviously fake mediums (most likely because you enjoy believing in such things and it vindicates yet other portions of your belief structure), and can't stand the fact that we aren't.

You shout from the rooftops about your halfwitted ethics. You vomit out comments aimed at people like Renata, when she isn't talking to you or about you or about anything remotely having to do with you, and try to draw paralells that don't exist, so that you can feel like a big fat martyr.

You aren't caustic, and you are generally pleasent. That doesn't excuse your uncritical thinking, your pointless barbs, and your hopeless politics. I have nothing against you personally, but you are the embodiment of every single lame mind that exists on the planet. You don't attempt to reason through anything, rather you accept what you like. You coat your words with ulterior motives. You try to make yourself feel important. You stir up drama (which I have called others on as well) because it makes you feel as if your life had some meaning.

You are lazy. You are a brick wall of incompetence.

That is my problem with you.

Oh give it a rest Fade. Try to be nice for once in your life.

 

[neofight]

Much ado about nothing, and then more ado about the ado, then several perfectly intelligent people end up wading in ado-ado.

LOL That about sums it up, WooBot, and very succinctly, too I might add! .....neo

 

[Darat]

LOL That about sums it up, WooBot, and very succinctly, too I might add! .....neo

Neofight - I wanted to avoid getting embroiled in any of these emotional exchanges but I am surprised that you consider it "much ado about nothing".

Your comments caused Ian to make a post to correct any false impressions he believed your post could have caused! I would suggest it was anything but "much ado about nothing" for Ian.

And unless I've missed it I've yet to see a "sorry" from you to Ian.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Hi Ian and welcome to the board.

Some time ago I wrote you and so did Dr. Gary Schwartz to ask if you would be interested in serving as a control for cold reading in any future mediumship studies where you would be available.
I know you must get a lot of e-mail so I understand why you may not have replied.

However if you would private message or e-mail me, I would be happy to give you Gary's home telephone number so you can talk with him about the above possibility.

Thanks in advance ....

Steve Grenard

 

[CFLarsen]

Hi Ian and welcome to the board.

Some time ago I wrote you and so did Dr. Gary Schwartz to ask if you would be interested nin serving as a control for cold reading in any future mediumship studies where you would be available.
I know you must get a lot of e-mail so I understand why you may not have replied.

Strange how you change your attitude. When Ian made a splash with his ABC performance, this - among lots of other comments - is what you had to say about Ian on the TVTalkshows board:

sgrenard 64.80.161.18 10-31-2002 11:52 AM
I didn't see it but some of the readings taped on Monday already have appeared on GMA this morning with more tonight on Primetime.

The name of the cold reader was Ian Rowland. He was one of those I wrote to to ask if he would be willing to submit his palaver to a test under lab conditions against a genuine medium. Others wimped out. They also wimped out on Schwartz. This guy never answered.

and...

sgrenard 24.168.117.31 10-31-2002 09:37 PM
PS; Thanks for comparing Rowland to JE psi. But remember...we are still waiting for one of these high profile cold readers to agree to be tested as well.

The fact is no cold reader including Rowland can get with JE gets because they are frauds and fakers using tricks. There is no use arguing. Let them put up or shut up. So far they talk a lot but don't put up.

What cold reader has ever been tested? What cold reader has stepped forward and asked researchers to pit him against a genuine medium? None. Schwartz asked 7, I asked 5. Rowland refused to even answer me.

and...

sgrenard 24.168.117.31 10-31-2002 10:21 PM
What a bunch of crap. Well if Rowland is busy, JE is fifty times busier. Get
real ... ROFL....

and...

sgrenard 24.168.117.31 11-01-2002 01:14 AM

Anyway folks, so there this huge outcry from the close minded skeptics we all know and love that Schwartz and everyone else must not fail to include controls in the form of cold readers to see if they can rate as good as the mediums being evaluated. So very politely G2 Schwartz goes out and tries to recruit some; I do likewise via e-mail. PS: I revealed before that anyone who didn't answer is no longer anonyomous and that includes Mr. Rowland. He did not answer.
Penn answered and would've remained anonymous save for the fact that he was nasty and ended up "cursing" out GS using the memory of his dead grandmother so I don't mind revealing that to the public. Like I am sure he cares. Fact is all the cold readers who could have served as controls wimped out. Thats the bottom line G2. You have seen it here with members who say they can do this as well. SO forgive me for calling them a bunch of hot air, that's what they are.

and...

sgrenard 64.80.161.18 11-01-2002 09:45 AM
I have just reviewed the article on ABC's website where Rowland's says he revealed who he was ... a fake. The next morning a number of people who were there didn't seem to know this. There is proof of this which obviously I cannot share.

Clearly this was a partial to a complete lie by IR. A number of people who were there and have reported indicate this is not true as originally reported. In addition, as information comes in, the post interviews were cut off and heavily edited as a number of people stated they didn't believe a word of it and thought he was a fake. This material was edited out based on the first hand testimony of those who made these remarks.

I personally am beginning to think that you all should not discuss this based on the few minutes you saw and on such a heavily chopped up piece. There will be repercussions from the people who were misreported by ABC and it will reflect negatively on their credibility as if what else is new?

The full threads are available here.

However if you would private message or e-mail, I would be happy to give you Gary's home telephone number so you can talk with him about the above possibility.

Thanks in advance ....

Steve Grenard

Let's do a quick recap, shall we?

"So far they (coldreaders, including Ian Rowland) talk a lot but don't put up."

"Rowland refused to even answer me."

"Fact is all the cold readers who could have served as controls wimped out. Thats the bottom line G2. You have seen it here with members who say they can do this as well. SO forgive me for calling them a bunch of hot air, that's what they are. "

"Clearly this was a partial to a complete lie by IR. "

So, Steve, you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air".

I'm sure Ian is real anxious to work with you now, Steve.

 

[De_Bunk]

I don't think it helps that Mr Grenard is a bit of a "fruitcake", at times...

Oh dear...

DB

 

[SteveGrenard]

Ian Rowland gave only a 90 second demonstration on air of cold reading, hardly enough to draw any conclusions one way or the other. I base any remarks on this demonstration on the brevity of what was shown. If he has a copy of all the of his reading then I am sure a lot of us would be interested in seeing it. However, more importantly, would be to use cold reading in a controlled situation, not on a TV show. In other words, the same sitter or sitters being read by both the purported medium and the cold reader with ratings done by the sitters and third parties as well. Now that would really be interesting. If anyone has any additional ideas on how this could be designed let's hear them here as well.

The claim has been made that purportedly genuine mediums cold read. Ian has claimed that he could do as well as these purportedly genuine mediums. Such a test would be necessary to validate that claim.


It is interesting that the spoilers here now want to quash any sincere effort to enlist him as a participant in a future study of mediumship. I wonder why that is? And by the way, he won't be working with me...he'll be working with a group including Schwartz, at the University of Arizona including a funded doctorial student there.

..... the above posts are definitely keepers.

PS: To set the out of context remarks straight quoted from me, the cold readers who wimped out were 7 (not Rowland but CFL neatly makes that inference) with whom Schwartz met in Los Angeles. Penn Jillette was there as well and was nasty and made derogatory remarks, effectively mimicking what you guys say above in order to prevent a sincere effort to pit cold reading against a purportedly genuine medium and settle that argument. Insofar as Ian Rowland is concerned, I already said above that contact with him was attempted and ignored and I offered a possible explanation. That hasn't changed. Inasmuch as he posted here hopefully he will read and respond to this. If not, then all I can say is ... well he failed to respond...again.

 

[TLN]

And by the way, he won't be working with me...he'll be working with a group including Schwartz, at the University of Arizona including a funded doctorial student there.

Gee, I wonder if Schwartz will let us see his testing protocol this time.

 

[SteveGrenard]

TLN: Gee, I wonder if Schwartz will let us see his testing protocol this time.

Better yet, I just invited you to suggest a design or contribute to one that would use the cold reader as a control. Yes, so far a lot of talk but no menaingful suggestions.

 

[TLN]

[BYes, so far a lot of talk but no menaingful suggestions. [/B]

Well, I'm not a scientist, but would you like a meaningful suggestion?

Get Schwartz to show us his Edward experiment.

Speculate on why he won't do this.

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

Do you deny that you called Ian Rowland a liar, someone who "wimps out", and someone who is full of "hot air"?