Ian Rowland is a Friendly Guy

[SteveGrenard]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. They [the producers of the programme] were willing to take the experiment seriously, and to observe the relevant protocols. You can imagine the problems of trying to get an audience of 20 people ready, and at the same time make sure that I, while in the same building, have NO information whatsoever about any of them (not even what any of them look like).


My information comes from two sources: people in the group who were there and from watching the program. It also comes from my disucvssion with the production assistant handling the show. Sorry did not read Rowland's description of his own performance.

I asked this question because Ian addressed one of the audience members by their first name or "got" their first name. Assuming he isn't psychic, and I have no problem with him using information from the production in an effort to demonstrate hot reading fraud, I was wondering about this.

As far as how seriously they were willing to take the experiment, an independent observer was suggested to them a week before the taping and they declined having any outsider observe the set-up. For those selected, they had to be in a certain age range and had to supply a questionnaire they wanted completed as well as sign the requisite TV release forms, etc. which is SOP.
The only thing that disturbed me was the age discrimination......

 

[xouper]

BillHoyt: I've got to ask. Is anybody else laughing as hard as I am at this latest outburst from Luci? Wow.

I have Luci in my ignore list, but from the quotes I've seen, yes, they are hysterically comical.

 

[xouper]

SteveGrenard: We have proved once again that when push comes to shove, the cool reading camp can't produce.

You have proved no such thing. I would expect better logic and/or rhetoric from you than that.

But more importantly, the "cold reading camp" as you call it, is not required to participate in any of Schwartz's experiments designed to test mediums. Especially considering the gag order in the contract.

Having coldreaders as controls is insufficient to prove that mediums can comminucate with dead people. I though we already covered that. Or do you disagree?

 

[xouper]

Whodini: Here is a good example of those excuses I was talking about.

Well, you can call them excuses if you want, but to me they are valid objections.

jj, we don't want your theories, we want you or any cold reader who says there are flaws, that cold readers can duplicate it, etc., to shut up and do what you claim you can do. Sound familiar?

Using coldreaders as controls in an experiment to test mediums is not necessary nor is it sufficient to prove that mediums can comminicate with dead people. Asking coldreaders to put up or shut up in this context is a red herring.

 

[jj]

It is obviously aparent by now that Mr Rowland's is not responding to a request for contact so he can serve as a
cold reading control as he's has logged on several times since I made this offer.

It's up to you to prove your claims of the paranormal. Get with it, Steve. Why would Ian want to deal with somebody like you who has been shown to say abusive things, mislead people about obligations, and in general engage in a smear campaign about anyone who doesn't explicitly support your particular hero?

I certainly wouldn't have anything to do with any experiment you run or have any relationship at all with, given your performance here.

I suspect that a great many people who actually care about their credibility feel the same way I do.

 

[Lucianarchy]

And then there's this gem:

That, is simply not my quote. And you know it. It was made on some website by the sort of people who are unable to refute evidence and try to discredit me by deceptive means. You, are the sort of person who takes these 'net quotes and tries to perpetuate the deception still further. And you wonder why I don't bother to respond to your silly demands?

Why can't you just nominate a cold reader for the research challenge?

 

[jj]

I have Luci in my ignore list, but from the quotes I've seen, yes, they are hysterically comical.

You're far too kind. Laughable, but hardly comical, I think.

 

[SteveGrenard]

The problem xouper, which I thought you understood, is that everyone from Hyman on down have criticized the existing control which was a control for generalization in the original studies and have literally screamed that a cold reader control should be instituted. Now I already know your position on this but your opinion holds no weight with Hyman et. al. who have called for a cold reading control. Schwartz tried to enlist just 1 or 2 out of 7 cold readers. They all declined. He wrote and I wrote to Rowlands and he never answered. Hence ...still waiting .....

I don't disagree with your point of view. However Hyman and anyone who supports that includes most of the skepticoids here,
do disagree and think such a control should be instituted.

Any cold reader who participates can negotiate any gag order
including inspecting his own ratings and those of the mediums pitted against him. I don't know of any gag order other than not to release the personal details of the sitters who are ordinary people off the street who have lost loved ones and agreed to volunteer. The cold reader, obviously, would not be in posession of such information anyway. Show me evidence for any gag order other than the above mentioned category of information?

 

[jj]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jj, we don't want your theories, we want you or any cold reader who says there are flaws, that cold readers can duplicate it, etc., to shut up and do what you claim you can do. Sound familiar?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.

Using coldreaders as controls in an experiment to test mediums is not necessary nor is it sufficient to prove that mediums can comminicate with dead people. Asking coldreaders to put up or shut up in this context is a red herring.

(Quoted as reported by xouper. Whodini is second on my ignore list.)

I see that Whodini is still stalking me, and still using deliberately deceptive and illicit claims in an attempt to cause harm to my professional reputation.

I will capture the original quote so that it can not be deleted or hidden, thank you, Xouper.

 

[TLN]

That, is simply not my quote. And you know it. It was made on some website by the sort of people who are unable to refute evidence and try to discredit me by deceptive means. You, are the sort of person who takes these 'net quotes and tries to perpetuate the deception still further.

Right, it was some other poster named Lucianarchy done well before your posting here. Of course...

And you wonder why I don't bother to respond to your silly demands?

Oh, I don't wonder; one question into any debate between us would immediately demonstrate your complete lack of evidence, and you know that.

Of course, any time you're ready to present some evidence on your many, many claims feel free to take me up on my challenge and prove me wrong. It wouldn't be the first time...

 

[Lucianarchy]

I have Luci in my ignore list, but from the quotes I've seen, yes, they are hysterically comical.

Hi, Xoup.

I find it interesting that you, like TLN, admit to suffering from hysteria when you react to some situations. Perhaps hysteria is a psychological trait of the pseudo-skeptic.

 

[Ian Rowland]

It is obviously aparent by now that Mr Rowland's is not responding to a request for contact so he can serve as a
cold reading control. / We have proved once again that when push comes to shove, the cool reading camp can't produce. But that's okay, we can wait.

1. Your assertion that I have 'ignored' Dr. Schwarz is incorrect. After the Prime Time piece was aired, I exchanged several emails with Dr Schwarz. As I recall, these were all perfectly polite, good-natured and mutually respectful.

2. I am on the road right now, so I can't spend much time checking my emails or replying to them, and I don't have access to all my past emails. However, I'm not sure Dr. Schwarz ever got to the point of actually making me a formal offer to participate in any of his tests. If he did, and if I'm in error over this, then I will be corrected. But to the best of my recall, as I sit here in the Vegas sunshine, this never happened.

3. Some people here seem to think you have said nasty or ignorant things about me elsewhere. I don't know if this is true, and nor do I care one iota. Peace to you. I'm don't get involved in arguments, rows or slanging matches. Never have, never will. I'm good at making friends, but never really got the hang of making enemies or getting drawn into that kind of unpleasantness. Life is too short, and the rewards of friendship too great, for that kind of nonsense to appeal to me.

4. It's true that, based on what I know of Gary Schwarz's work, I don't see any useful role that I could play in his research, nor am I interested in participating. But maybe that's because I'm not a trained scientist and can't understand these things. But this is not said with any disrespect to Dr. Schwarz, who has always been perfectly polite and approachable in his personal email to me, and I wish him and his team the very best with their research.

- Ian

 

[Lucianarchy]

Right, it was some other poster named Lucianarchy done well before your posting here. Of course...

Yes, of course. Please have the courtesy of apologising, and deleting your deception.

You should be lucky that I am against your suspension for violating the rules in such a blatant way. It's actually better that people read how pseudo-skeptics like you behave.

 

[TLN]

Yes, of course. Please have the courtesy of apologising, and deleting your deception.

It's no deception so I see no need to apologize.

You should be lucky that I am against your suspension for violating the rules in such a blatant way. It's actually better that people read how pseudo-skeptics like you behave.

So suspend me. Or ban me.

So, you're the skeptic, avoiding evaluating your belief systems and answering direct questions, and I'm the pseudo-skeptic, who's asking you for evidence. Is this right?

Luci, you're too absurd to be taken seriously. You must be here simply to enrage people. Admit it. What other reason would a skeptic have for avoiding evaluating his belief systems? Is that skeptical of you, saying "I'm 100% right and refuse to evaluate how I got here"?

I win our debate by forfeit. You won't step up, so I'll step down. When you're done trolling and want to evaluate your claims, try me. Until then, you're just a child poking people with a stick in an effort to anger them and amuse yourself.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I've been following most of the John Edward discussion here for quite a while, but one thing I don't understand is whether the two sides with dogs in this fight have ever agreed on a double blind (or triple blind, for that matter) testing procedure. If so, could someone point me to it?

I don't know much about testing, but it did occur to me that it might be nutty for Ian Rowland to volunteer here in this thread to be a cold reading control, even if he wanted to. Wouldn't that "unblind" the test? Wouldn't additional cold readers then be required in order to prevent sitters from having a 50/50 chance of picking between Ian and a medium?

Also, would the reader and sitter communicate via computer terminal? I, for one, think I could recognize JE's voice.

Anyhow, I'd rather see more discussion on what the test would be, should everyone come to a decision, rather than who would ultimately participate in it.

Just my two cents from the bleachers.

 

[Guest]

Asking coldreaders to put up or shut up in this context is a red herring.

So my red herring against jj's obvious excuses. Which wins?

lol

-Who

 

[Lucianarchy]

It's no deception so I see no need to apologize.

You presented that quote as a quote from the author of these words. It wasn't. You were deceptive in willfuly making that illusion. You used the same quote that others have used here in an attempt to discredit me through deceptive means.

Please, I am asking you politely. Edit your post to link to where you found the quote, so people can make up their own mind.

 

[xouper]

TLN: Luci, you're too absurd to be taken seriously.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[BillHoyt]

LOL, moving the goal posts...

You obviously didn't know what a triple blind is, then when informed, you say 'Oh, in the context of mediums and sitters.', etc. A triple blind is a triple blind is a triple blind. The context is irrelevant.

In fact, Bill, Sir, you asked:

" Please tell us what a "triple blind" experiment is, and why Schwartz should considered suspect for having suggested such a thing. Please follow any claims of its existence as a protocol with five citations from peer-reviewed journals of experiments having used "triple blind" protocols."

Are you in such desperation to prove the assertion that skeptics don't admit mistakes that you a) don't acknowledge that fact and b) attempt to build it into something so much more? How petty.

Let me teach you a little bit about evidence versus jumping to conclusions:
o Read the first sentence. I mangled it completely. "should be considered suspect" when clearly I meant "shouldn't be considered suspect".
o Look at the time stamps, sir. Do you honestly expect people here to believe that, within nine minutes' time, I a) read your post, b) re-read mine (since you did not quote it completely), c) looked up triple blind to educate myself on it, d) convinced myself it was real and e) post a reply to you? In nine minutes? Perhaps I should be more flattered that you think I can perform such feats while also performing my many duties at work. I should wear a red cape.

I mangled my sentence. I apologized for that. I meant to ask what a triple blind study means in this context. I did not ask you nor expect you to figure out the context of that statement, given that I mangled it. But neither do I expect you to not acknowledge that I acknowledged the error. And I certainly don't expect you to jump to conclusions, impugn the state of my knowledge and go off on rants about it after I have acknowledged an error.

Cheers,

 

[TLN]

Please, I am asking you politely. Edit your post to link to where you found the quote, so people can make up their own mind.

It was originally uncovered by a JREF poster simply performing a Google search on "Lucianarchy." The post was from another message board. I don't know which poster made the discovery or which message board it came from as those JREF posts have been lost. Further searches don't produce this quote anymore. Perhaps the message board where is was originally posted is now out of comission, I don't know. I do remember seeing the original post at the time, as I'm sure many others do.

I guess this is a job for Claus' archives. Claus, can you tell me where this quote originally came from?