Lucianarchy and remote viewing

[SteveGrenard]

Re-Directing to Lardsen

Correct. Right. Zero. Therefore, I am:

Re-Directing this comment to Claus Lardsen since thaiboxkenneth lost track of the fact that it was Lardsen who brought up the ad hominem accusations to which I was responding. Please
get your accusations straight or you'll end up like him, a claus clone.



T: What's this have to do with the discussion of paranormal or Luci's claim of having superpowers? It seems that you are a pompous ass that just wants to get all those that don't agree with you tossed in jail or worse.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Corbin .. I nominated a paper. I even found a full text version on the web and placed the url in a message. I am waiting for feedback on that or some discussion. I read the paper, I agree with the conclusions. Now MT or whomever can try and refute those conclusions. Wasn' t this the game? So who are we waiting for? I am confused.

I hope you didn't expect me to discuss it with myself.........

 

[CFLarsen]

Steve,

This juvenile name-calling only serves to show what a petty person you are. Do you honestly think anyone takes you serious after such a childish post?

Sheeeeeeesh......whattamaroon....

 

[SteveGrenard]

LRDSEN:

Why don't you dredge up the 27 paranoid e-mails you sent me asking if I was going to sue your sorry butt....and my answer, which was NO, I wasn't. You were not the guilty party. You managed to inject yourself nicely into the middle of that situation. Your harassing e-mails should be published for posteriority along with the answers.

As I announced above everytime you bring up your filthy lies about Ed Dittus's disgusting, slanderous remarks, I will respond. This brings you closer and closer to having some culpability as well. Are you going to apologize?

 

[CFLarsen]

LRDSEN:

Ah, you are soooo funny....not.

Why don't you dredge up the 27 paranoid e-mails you sent me asking if I was going to sue your sorry butt....and my answer, which was NO, I wasn't. You were not the guilty party. You managed to inject yourself nicely into the middle of that situation. Your harassing e-mails should be published for posteriority along with the answers.

Please do.

As I announced above everytime you bring up your filthy lies about Ed Dittus's disgusting, slanderous remarks, I will respond. This brings you closer and closer to having some culpability as well. Are you going to apologize?

For what? What is my crime, Steve? How should I be punished?

 

[renata]

Gentlemen,

Allow me to stick my nose in. Feel free to disregard this comment from a spectator.

I feel I can learn so much from a civil conversation between you two, a conversation that does not descend into who called who a whore somewhere a year ago, who did not complain to moderators, and who reported who to INS. The flame war section is a few down. Please settle old grudges there.

I look forward to an interesting discussion on the paranormal.

 

[SteveGrenard]

CL: For what? What is my crime, Steve? How should I be punished?

Harassment. Check the law... you are using the internet to not only harass me but a number of others as well. A simple apology will do plus a pledge to refrain in the future. Thank you.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Allow me to stick my nose in. Feel free to disregard this comment from a spectator.

I feel I can learn so much from a civil conversation between you two, a conversation that does not descend into who called who a whore somewhere a year ago, who did not complain to moderators, and who reported who to INS. The flame war section is a few down. Please settle old grudges there.

I look forward to an interesting discussion on the paranormal.


Reply: Agreed. However, then please request Larsen then to refrain, completely, from using ad hominems and harassing me as well as a few others here. You may not know this but since he brought up lawsuit...read Larsen BROUGHT it up, I am then compelled to dredge up why a lawsuit was contemplated, against whom (Dittus) and what the result was: JREF removed the offending post and Dittus apologized privately. Apparently this very civilized end to this unfortunate episode is lost on Larsen who continues to bring it up. His problem and it will be a problem,
believe me.

 

[CFLarsen]

Harassment. Check the law... you are using the internet to not only harass me but a number of others as well. A simple apology will do plus a pledge to refrain in the future. Thank you.

What law is that, Steve? How do I "harrass" you? What happened to that evidence you were going to post?

You will not threaten me - or others - into silence, Steve.

 

[CFLarsen]

Reply: Agreed. However, then please request Larsen then to refrain, completely, from using ad hominems and harassing me as well as a few others here. You may not know this but since he brought up lawsuit...read Larsen BROUGHT it up, I am then compelled to dredge up why a lawsuit was contemplated, against whom (Dittus) and what the result was: JREF removed the offending post and Dittus apologized privately. Apparently this very civilized end to this unfortunate episode is lost on Larsen who continues to bring it up. His problem and it will be a problem,
believe me.

That may be, Steve. However, it does not change the fact that you threatened me - as well as others - with lawsuits. As well as all your other sneaky attempts at silencing your critics.

Where is that evidence of yours???

 

[renata]

Reply: Agreed. However, then please request Larsen then to refrain, completely, from using ad hominems and harassing me as well as a few others here. You may not know this but since he brought up lawsuit...read Larsen BROUGHT it up, I am then compelled to dredge up why a lawsuit was contemplated, against whom (Dittus) and what the result was: JREF removed the offending post and Dittus apologized privately. Apparently this very civilized end to this unfortunate episode is lost on Larsen who continues to bring it up. His problem and it will be a problem,
believe me.

I respect Claus quite a bit. I have no doubt he would continue this discussion without any personal attacks, if asked. Claus?

But you BOTH have to stop it. I do not care who started it, and I doubt anyone else does. Just...stop it. Right now.

And, neither one is obligated to escalate once it is started. A simple "I will not get personal" response will make your point and prevent this from going further.

I am sorry, but so many great threads degenerate into old score settling and who started it, and minutae. Just stop. I know from my own experience that personal attacks and fighting, even if one is 100% right can only detract from one's credibility.

Once again, apologies for interfering. One should never get involved in the middle of an old fight, both parties hate the intruder.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Renata: I agree with everything you say. You may be in for a surprise regarding this statement, however:

"I respect Claus quite a bit. I have no doubt he would continue this discussion without any personal attacks, if asked. Claus?"


Let's see his reply shall we?

I actually never threatened Claus with a lawsuit and ask him to provide evidence of that. I did, however threaten Ed Dittus and JREF and Andrew Harter (now gone from this forum) with a lawsuit if they did not remove the offensive post regarding me cheating on my wife with someone I never met as well as the tangential remark that Pam was a skank which is a slang for town whore. Ed said these things. Jeff Corey, another good ole buddy of Claus Larsen's, told me to die and then published my home address in cased anyone wanted to take me out. Yup.
And this is a Professor of Pychology who teaches critical thinking. These are the mentalities you are dealing with here.

So Renata, thanks for getting involved. Now you know what you are dealing with here. And if you still respect Larsen I just dont know what to do. I do agree with you, however, that Larsen should stop harassing me re these matters and an apology would be nice for his harassment.


edited to add: I think I detect you backing out so maybe my thanks for your intervention was premature. Lets see what happens anyway.

 

[renata]

Renata: I agree with everything you say. You may be in for a surprise regarding this statement, however:

"I respect Claus quite a bit. I have no doubt he would continue this discussion without any personal attacks, if asked. Claus?"


Let's see his reply shall we?

I am an appalling judge of character, I am afraid. I always thinks people are more reasonable and patient than they turn out to be.

But in this case, I think Claus will be happy to continue a discussion on issues and not taking it to a personal level. Twice before he agreed to do so with Clancie, but it did not proceed forward for other reasons.

So yes, I have hope


Edited to say- I see Steve added more to his post.

I actually never threatened Claus with a lawsuit and ask him to provide evidence of that. I did, however threaten Ed Dittus and JREF and Andrew Harter (now gone from this forum) with a lawsuit if they did not remove the offensive post regarding me cheating on my wife with someone I never met as well as the tangential remark that Pam was a skank which is a slang for town whore. Ed said these things. Jeff Corey, another good ole buddy of Claus Larsen's, told me to die and then published my home address in cased anyone wanted to take me out. Yup.
And this is a Professor of Pychology who teaches critical thinking. These are the mentalities you are dealing with here.

I am sorry, but like I said previously- I simply don't care. This happened long ago, and I am sure the people you mention will have a different take on this. This has nothing to do with the discussion. I will not take a public position on offenses and threats and perceived offenses of the past.

I just want it to STOP. All of it.

So Renata, thanks for getting involved. Now you know what you are dealing with here. And if you still respect Larsen I just dont know what to do. I do agree with you, however, that Larsen should stop harassing me re these matters and an apology would be nice for his harassment.

I am not sure you understood me. I am not calling for admission of guilt or apology from either of you. Just STOP.

edited to add: I think I detect you backing out so maybe my thanks for your intervention was premature. Lets see what happens anyway.

I am not sure what you mean by backing out. Mine was simply a "stop the insanity" post. I do not intend to hold your hand, I do not intend to arbitrate who offended who, and I cannot intervene between two grown men.

I just want a real discussion on real issues. I am tired of the bickering.

Can't both of you simply declare amnesty, stop demanding apologies and start with a clean slate, right now? That is all I want to see.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Where is that evidence of yours???

'ladybrook'

 

[CFLarsen]

rentata,

I understand where you are coming from, and you are (most likely) right. However, Steve has a long history of deceit, back-stabbing, below-the-belt accusations, innuendos, lies....well, the list is long, as you can imagine!

Steve is trying very hard to establish himself in the paranormal world. He sucks up to Schwartz and is a willing accomplice in the sloppy design and experiments we see so many of. If Steve wants to destroy his own reputation is one thing. If he wants to be the laughing stock of the thinking world, that is his choice.

But I cannot sit back and let him intimidate people, or see him trying to silence his critics. I will not sit back and see him abuse people for his own purposes. And when he makes threats, I speak up. You bet, baby. Because he has frightened some people here, whom I respect and admire. Only because he thought they were guilty of not doing what he wanted them to do.

Steve's a vicious prude, a pompous ass, with absolutely no credibility whatsoever. He is incredibly incompetent and that - not his mean spirit - will be his downfall. It is easy to point out the flaws of his experiments and argumentation. It is, however, necessary to point out when he wants to silence his critics.

Censorship is what Steve wants. He loathes the idea of people being able to speak their minds. He has expressed this many times, and we have to be careful what his kind is prepared to do. He is a modern-day Comstock.

Yes, I am very direct - that's the way I am. I call'em as I see them. And as I see it, skepticism can only exist in a free-speech world. When it is up to those, who want to push an agenda of Medieval thinking, to decide who can say what, then we are heading straight into the abyss of ignorance and suppression.

Think I am overreacting? Think again. Read a bit of history, and you might understand my point.

I have no problems concentrating on the issues. In fact, I prefer it. But that is not how Steve plays. If he plays straight, I play straight. If he plays dirty, I point it out. No restraints.

As I see it, it is all up to Steve.

Let's discuss issues! I wonder what Steve is going to do....

 

[CFLarsen]

'ladybrook'

What are you talking about? I was addressing Steve, not you.

Am I to understand that a word, taken out of the blue (but most likely, lifted off a police radio or news wire), is "evidence" of your paranormal powers?

 

[Lucianarchy]

What are you talking about?

The topic.

Am I to understand that a word, taken out of the blue (but most likely, lifted off a police radio or news wire), is "evidence" of your paranormal powers?

It is certainly beyond normal to have an uncommon word running around in your mind with an urgency that compels you to record it in an opening post on a thread which was taunting my RV ability and to have that recorded word named as the place where a terrorist attack occured within an hour and a half of its recording on this forum. 'Ladybrook' is an extremely uncommon word, I have seen the other cynics and their jokes about 'new yourk, houston and grass fires, car crashes etc, but eveyone knows that ladybrook is far more uncommon than any of those places and the event, a terrorist attack far more important than grass fires and power cuts. The event also took place within a very short space of time of impression bieng recorded. This perception replicates many other instances I have experienced and together with the extraordinary experiences with Dr Steinkamp, I cannot rationaly put all this down to 'luck' or 'chance' anymore.

So yes, I believe that the perception was paranormal. I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened.

 

[Diamond]

So yes, I believe that the perception was paranormal. I have always remained skeptical though open-minded and I have no mundane explanation for what happened.

 

[CFLarsen]

Lucianarchy,

O..............K.

Then, please explain why renata does not have paranormal powers. Or the other people who posted much more accurate "predictions" that you.

 

[renata]

rentata,

Why do so many people call me renTata? Is this some sort of joke I am not getting??

I understand where you are coming from, and you are (most likely) right. However, Steve has a long history of deceit, back-stabbing, below-the-belt accusations, innuendos, lies....well, the list is long, as you can imagine!

Let me tell you the same thing I told him. It does not matter. If you guys continue, we will have a dozen more threads each going into a dozen pages, each with insults and threats and grudges. You may think that is fine, but I bet many people here want to see an issue debate, want to learn.

As some know, part of my job involves being a negotiator. I deal with people on opposite sides of long standing feuds ALL the time. One thing I learned is that half the battle is trying to determine what the other side really is looking for, and acknowledging it.

But I cannot sit back and let him intimidate people, or see him trying to silence his critics. I will not sit back and see him abuse people for his own purposes. And when he makes threats, I speak up. You bet, baby. Because he has frightened some people here, whom I respect and admire. Only because he thought they were guilty of not doing what he wanted them to do.

Fine, whoever starts slinging mud first gets a time out. But can't you guys at least TRY..for a day or so?

Yes, I am very direct - that's the way I am. I call'em as I see them. And as I see it, skepticism can only exist in a free-speech world. When it is up to those, who want to push an agenda of Medieval thinking, to decide who can say what, then we are heading straight into the abyss of ignorance and suppression.

If you knew me better, you would know that I also call them as I see them. But your audience is not just Steve- it is dozens of posters here. And like it or not, credibility and respect for all parties in a mud wrestling match decreases. Don't believe me- start a poll.

Think I am overreacting? Think again. Read a bit of history, and you might understand my point.

Are you patronizing me, Dane?

Don't tell me to learn history. I know about censorship and free speech-from real life, not internet board. I know history. Indeed as has been amply proven (Pindar!!) I know some history better than you. Don't make me have to spank you in flame wars.

I have no problems concentrating on the issues. In fact, I prefer it. But that is not how Steve plays. If he plays straight, I play straight. If he plays dirty, I point it out. No restraints.

As I see it, it is all up to Steve.

Let's discuss issues! I wonder what Steve is going to do....

Fine, point it out. Don't escalate it.

Now, both of you- deep breath, continue on the issues!

Thanks in advance