Lucianarchy and remote viewing

[dingler44]

The topic.



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.

endoplasm

 

[Lucianarchy]

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

Yes.

Now Fu*k off.

 

[renata]

Yes.

Now f*ck off.

You crack me up

Upset that my RV powers are better than yours?

 

[Lucianarchy]

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.

Claus, you are transparent.

Wake up.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

Errr....yes. I'm sure there's a joke somewhere, and if there is, it's on you!

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.

It's not about insults or grudges. It's about censorship. Take it very seriously.

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.

Oh, I am perfectly aware of what Steve is looking for.

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

Not a problem with me.

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.

I don't see this as a "mudwrestling". I see this as exposing closemindedness and bigotry.

Are you patronizing me, Dane?

Wouldn't dream of it!

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!!)

Shurrup!

I know some history better than you. Don't make me have to spank you in flame wars.

Challenge me officially, and I'll crush you!

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

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

I'll do better. I'll hit the sack!

 

[Lucianarchy]

You crack me up

Upset that my RV powers are better than yours?

No, I think they are wonderful, well done, you should be pleased to have helped the understanding of science in such a selfless way. The significance of it all is phenomenal.

I just don't care much for disigenuous little ◊◊◊◊-stirrers, that's all.

 

[renata]

Errr....yes. I'm sure there's a joke somewhere, and if there is, it's on you!

Halleluja! You and Lucyanarchy agree on something! I knew I could achieve that. Poor spelling, most likely

It's not about insults or grudges. It's about censorship. Take it very seriously.

But when you degenerate into old offenses, it appears to be about grudges. Some things should be self evident, we do not need to be hammered on the head to see them.

Not a problem with me.

OK..thanks. Try as long as you can, please!

Wouldn't dream of it!

There may be hope for you yet...

Shurrup!

Or maybe not...

Challenge me officially, and I'll crush you!

I thought I just did? Or would you like an order of Hooked on Phonics to help with your reading comprehension?

(she jabs first, and it connects!)

Just so you know, my credibility when it comes to challenging European men in anything ain't that great after that hoax I pulled with glee...

 

[TLN]

I just don't care much for disigenuous little ◊◊◊◊-stirrers, that's all.

Then how do you deal with that schmuck in the mirror?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Let's read between Larsen's lines:

L: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!

Reply: Provide evidence of all of the above, Back-stabbing below the belts, the whole LOOOONG list. Whose back have I stabbed?Whose below the belt did I hit? How long is my history? I have been here for .... months. Is it that long? Is it 10 years, 20, 40? How long Claus is that "long" history you refer to? Please answer,


L: 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.

Reply: This is because Larsen says, and has said: there is no such thing as the paranormal so there can be no evidence for it. I am, indeed, looking for explanations. Using the laughing stock of the thinking world is just another ad hominem. Yet another to add to the list above. Renata: is this or is this not ad hominem?
Anyone else care to weigh in on this question or are you all scared of Larsen?

L: 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.


Reply: And who exactly am I intimidating? You? For bringing up the lawsuit which I explained. Are you saying that Ed Dittus DID NOT slander myself and Pam? If so, this makes you a de facto liar.
I asked for evidence to back up your claim that I threatened you with a lawssuit? Why not post all the e-mails you sent me asking when I was going to sue you and my responses, which was "Never." You were not worth suing but you were like a kid locked out of the candy store. You were not a party to that lawsuit, Ed Dittus was its primary focus. It has been resolved. You want to bring it up over and over again, you will get the same response. Your choice.

L: 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.

Reply: How many ad homs do you count in this one? It proves my point. But is it wrong to be a prude when accused of cheating on your wife? Or how about having your life threatened, even with
your home address published and an invite to anyone interested. You actually think this is funny? This was in the days not so long ago when the cowardly Larsen was hiding behind a pseudonym, Cantata, and using Yahoo as his e-mail address.
Dont worry. Yahoo would give you up in a heartbeat if asked by the authorities. They don't like cyberstalkers who harass and threaten people. Neither does AOL when pseudonyms like crow birds do the same.

And what do experiments have to do with the lawsuit? Or the death threat? And what experiments have I done? What have I published? I have asked you before to provide evidence I have done experiments. If you call having personal experiences experiments then okay. We all do experiments then. However, you have just crossed the line and called me incompetent
as well. Another ad hominem. Anybody counting how many this
person can get in a single post?


C: 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.

Reply: Yup. I would prefer not have people who never met me, don't know me, accuse me of having illicit relations with a person I never met living 1000s of miles away. I would also prefer if that person was not called a whore and I don't
appreciated Corey's death threat and subsquent action either.
So call me a prude. Comstockian in that respect, absolutely.
I also stood up for moderator Linda when someone no longer allowed on this board also called her a very vile name as well.
Larsen defended that banned person.

So is this attitude of mine what's bothering you Claus? From the looks of it, it is.

C: 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.

Reply: Free speech does not equate with ad hominems and it does not equate with filthy language. You can learn to say whatever it is you want and criticize people on the issues without resorting to meaningless name calling or accusing them
of immoral acts you have no idea occurred. Are you now the self-appointed spokesperson for skepticism on this? I see that you think you are.

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

Reply: I have given the history. However, Renata, as a PI you know why my attorney does not want the evidence of this matter published here. The offensive material has been removed but it is archived privately. Clearly from the above Claus has revealed himself as a purveyor of ad hominems and someone who feels that bad language is acceptable and equates it with free speech and, by some stretch, with skepticism. Weird.

C: 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.

Reply: If that's the case why did you bring up the same old tired b.s. you resurrect about every two weeks? Everybody knows you have no real arguments and that you resort to ad homs because that's all you have. You have proved that repeatedly.

You want to see a day in the life of Claus Larsen posts?

"Evidence? Show me evidence? Liar. Smear campaign, Liar, Liar.
Stupid. Lawsuit. Promised a lawsuit. Experiments that never occurred and being incompetent about them."

This is your entire repetoire. All ad homs.

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

Reply: Are you going to refrain from calling people liars? from accusing them of anonymous campaigns, of saying they did experiments that they did not conduct, or question lawsuits that were settled privately without you involved and to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs? Ed was a man about it and made up. His apology was accepted. You are the one to keep bringing this up. Yes or no?

So are you going to stop bringing this b.s. up? Yes or no. Its up to you.

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

Reply: Feel free. Lets see how long you can do it without uttering a single ad hom. Start the clock. I didnt bring all this up, you did.....

 

[Dogwood]

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.........

Steve,

My apologies. I didn't see where you edited your post to include the link to the paper. Do I understand then that this is the paper you are offering for discussion? If so, I'll read it this weekend and perhaps we (and others interested) can begin next week.

I've only glanced at it, but it seems to mainly be a summarized history of ganzfeld and the meta-analysis. The only data I saw involved sums of each of the studies? But as I say, I haven't read it yet. Please let us know if this is the one you intended, and thanks.

 

[renata]

No, I think they are wonderful, well done, you should be pleased to have helped the understanding of science in such a selfless way. The significance of it all is phenomenal.

I just don't care much for disigenuous little ◊◊◊◊-stirrers, that's all.

You are right. Surely endless bickering over year old offenses is a much better way to conduct an intelligent conversation. irvine.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think Luci is upset because no one is impressed with his ladybrook RV claim. Probably because one word means nothing. Post hoc predictions aren't impressive in the slightest.

 

[renata]

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

Reply: Feel free. Lets see how long you can do it without uttering a single ad hom. Start the clock. I didnt bring all this up, you did.....

Terrific! Let's start the clock right now.

No ad homs, personal attacks and reminiscing about past issues. Let's see how long it will last. I predict at least 8 hours, as Claus went to sleep.

 

[Lucianarchy]

You are right.

Thankyou.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I'm in. I assure you I will not attack anyone on this thread anymore.

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's read between Larsen's lines:

Yeah, let's interpret a bit, instead of actually reading what it says....

Reply: Provide evidence of all of the above, Back-stabbing below the belts, the whole LOOOONG list. Whose back have I stabbed?Whose below the belt did I hit? How long is my history? I have been here for .... months. Is it that long? Is it 10 years, 20, 40? How long Claus is that "long" history you refer to? Please answer,

Backstabbing? Try Rain and dogwood, whom you blamed for the abysmal failure of your experiment, although it was only due to your extremely poor design.

Below the belt? Try me, Steve: Why did you make that remark about pedophelia and me moving back to Denmark?

How long? A couple of years now, Steve.

Reply: This is because Larsen says, and has said: there is no such thing as the paranormal so there can be no evidence for it. I am, indeed, looking for explanations. Using the laughing stock of the thinking world is just another ad hominem. Yet another to add to the list above. Renata: is this or is this not ad hominem?
Anyone else care to weigh in on this question or are you all scared of Larsen?

Strawman. I have never said that there is no such thing as the paranormal so there can be no evidence for it. Quite contrary, I have always said that the possibility exists - there is just no evidence of it. And that's what I am looking for, evidence.

I doubt very much that I "scare" anyone here. Why does everything have to be about fear, Steve?

Reply: And who exactly am I intimidating? You? For bringing up the lawsuit which I explained. Are you saying that Ed Dittus DID NOT slander myself and Pam? If so, this makes you a de facto liar.

You have been threatening me and others here with lawsuits. You have run your own SS-board into the ground for trying to enforce a cowardly rule of censorship. You even banned people for being on JREF, too, as well as banning people for breaking rules they were not allowed to see.

If you think Ed slandered you and Pam, sue them.

I asked for evidence to back up your claim that I threatened you with a lawssuit? Why not post all the e-mails you sent me asking when I was going to sue you and my responses, which was "Never." You were not worth suing but you were like a kid locked out of the candy store. You were not a party to that lawsuit, Ed Dittus was its primary focus. It has been resolved. You want to bring it up over and over again, you will get the same response. Your choice.

Sure. Not a problem.

Reply: How many ad homs do you count in this one? It proves my point. But is it wrong to be a prude when accused of cheating on your wife? Or how about having your life threatened, even with your home address published and an invite to anyone interested. You actually think this is funny? This was in the days not so long ago when the cowardly Larsen was hiding behind a pseudonym, Cantata, and using Yahoo as his e-mail address.

Steve, I have never - ever - denied who I was. You write as sgrenard (and sometimes "Jeanne", let's not forget that! ), I write as Cantata.

Dont worry. Yahoo would give you up in a heartbeat if asked by the authorities. They don't like cyberstalkers who harass and threaten people. Neither does AOL when pseudonyms like crow birds do the same.

Hey, go ahead, Steve! Report to me to Yahoo! Why don't you, instead of making one threat after another....

And what do experiments have to do with the lawsuit? Or the death threat? And what experiments have I done? What have I published? I have asked you before to provide evidence I have done experiments. If you call having personal experiences experiments then okay. We all do experiments then. However, you have just crossed the line and called me incompetent as well. Another ad hominem. Anybody counting how many this
person can get in a single post?

You have conducted experiments online, with people from TVTalkshows. You have conducted experiments where you work. These were not personal experiments, Steve:

Experimental Volunteers Wanted as Controls
Dr. Gary Schwartz and myself are doing an experiment involving obtaining information non-locally using 4 mediums and 5 research sitters from different backgrounds, cultures and parts of the U.S.

As part of this project, we would like to test the generalization hypothesis by having as many control (non-sitters) as possible rate the information that applies to the intended sitters.

What this involves is receiving an e-mail each day with a list of activtiies accomplished in the past 24 hours which applies to one or more of the intended sitters. You will be asked, on a scale of ** to Zero to +3 to mark each activity as if it applies to you with +3 being strongly applicable and totally true, and ** being totally not true and impossible.

For example:

1. for breakfast: ate eggs
2. ate ham
3. with hasbrowns
4. with english muffin
5. you went to work
6. you had car trouble
7. you had 2 martinis for lunch
8. you had a fainting spell

etc. Only major identifiable activities will be listed ... no
thoughts or feelings.

So if you ate eggs, its a +3, if you had bacon and not ham, it might be a **; if you has frenchfries instead of hash its a +1 but
if you had no potatoes its a **. In fact if you didnt have any
of the items listed, just grits or cereal, each would be a **.

This starts Monday and involves a comittment of doing this for five consecutive days. You also need to keep notes for each
day on what you did from arising to retiring.

Anyone is welcome to apply, skeptics, and acceptors;
the control's honesty will be assumed.
Of skeptics, we ask
that they be open-minded and respectful and willing to commit five days of an hour or so doing this each day.

the controls will have no way of knowing if the activity information they receive is the true information so it would
be best to answer honestly. This would prevent any one
control from biasing the test. This part is being used only to
test the genralization hypothesis.

The primary objective is to determine whether the consciousness of departed persons with whom mediums purport to communicate can watch and report on the activity of strangers which will be the sitters.

The Protocol/Design
The objective is to determine if the surviving consciousness (aka: spirit) of a deceased person can observe and report on the activities of daily living (ADL) of a set of strangers (experimental sitters). We frequently hear from high profile mediums e.g. on television that surviving conscounsesses provide evidence that they know of events and changes that ocurred after they have crossed over.

There will be 5 sitters to whom all but Schwartz and myself will be blinded to. Two surviving consciousnesses, one known to Schwartz and one known to me will be asked on different days to observe the activtities of a particular sitter or "watch them."
The sitters names will be selected at random by the investigators as to the day (or order) their activtiies will be evaluated.

Then the participating mediums, who don't know the sitters, will be asked to contact the two suriving consciousnesses with respect to their watching the anonymous sitters and report that Sitter A did whatever it is they did on, say, Wednesday, June 17th, 2002. The sitters have agreed to provide a report of their activities for their particular day to the researchers.

The mediums and sitters will be blinded to each other. The study will be done non-locally with reporting via private via e-mail
to the investigators.

The mediums will not ask any questions, know who the sitters are nor will they be able to obtain any information other than as a result of their purported and claimed ability to **way communicate with surviving consciousnesses.

The control phase is an add-on suggested by Grenard based on James Randi's proposed testing of Sylvia Browne. Narrowly, this procedure would serve to falsify or validate the generalization or specificity hypothesis, depending on how you look at it. We will ask each of the volunteer controls to rate the inventory of ADLs
for the intended sitters as if it were true or false for them. This would need to be done on the specific day it ocurred for the intended or targeted sitters.

******************
Steve Grenard

Is that your post, Steve? "Dr. Gary Schwartz and myself are doing an experiment"...only for personal experiences???

True, you have never published anything. You never do, it's all in "progress".

I have "crossed the line", Steve? Now, what happens? Another threat??

Reply: Yup. I would prefer not have people who never met me, don't know me, accuse me of having illicit relations with a person I never met living 1000s of miles away. I would also prefer if that person was not called a whore and I don't appreciated Corey's death threat and subsquent action either.
So call me a prude. Comstockian in that respect, absolutely. I also stood up for moderator Linda when someone no longer allowed on this board also called her a very vile name as well.
Larsen defended that banned person.

I did?? Where? Time for you to show evidence, Steve.

So is this attitude of mine what's bothering you Claus? From the looks of it, it is.

It bothers me that you abhor free speech and wants to enforce your wacko beliefs on others, yes.

Reply: Free speech does not equate with ad hominems and it does not equate with filthy language. You can learn to say whatever it is you want and criticize people on the issues without resorting to meaningless name calling or accusing them of immoral acts you have no idea occurred. Are you now the self-appointed spokesperson for skepticism on this? I see that you think you are.

Actually, Steve, free speech does equate whatever you want to say. There is nothing in, say, the American Constitution, that says you have to be polite.

Where did I accuse you of "immoral acts"? Evidence, please.

Reply: I have given the history.

"History", Steve. Not your history. It's not all about you.

However, Renata, as a PI you know why my attorney does not want the evidence of this matter published here. The offensive material has been removed but it is archived privately. Clearly from the above Claus has revealed himself as a purveyor of ad hominems and someone who feels that bad language is acceptable and equates it with free speech and, by some stretch, with skepticism. Weird.

Weird, especially because you don't refrain from "bad language" yourself.

Reply: If that's the case why did you bring up the same old tired b.s. you resurrect about every two weeks? Everybody knows you have no real arguments and that you resort to ad homs because that's all you have. You have proved that repeatedly.

It's there, for all to see. I don't see you post any evidence of your claims, Steve.

You want to see a day in the life of Claus Larsen posts?

"Evidence? Show me evidence? Liar. Smear campaign, Liar, Liar.
Stupid. Lawsuit. Promised a lawsuit. Experiments that never occurred and being incompetent about them."

This is your entire repetoire. All ad homs.

You "omitted" the most crucial: I ask for evidence. This, you do not want to give.

Reply: Are you going to refrain from calling people liars? from accusing them of anonymous campaigns, of saying they did experiments that they did not conduct, or question lawsuits that were settled privately without you involved and to the satisfaction of the plaintiffs? Ed was a man about it and made up. His apology was accepted. You are the one to keep bringing this up. Yes or no?

No, I will not refrain from calling people liars, if they lie. And I will not stop bringing up your threats, either.

So are you going to stop bringing this b.s. up? Yes or no. Its up to you.

It's not b.s., Steve. Those were your threats.

Reply: Feel free. Lets see how long you can do it without uttering a single ad hom. Start the clock. I didnt bring all this up, you did.....

Fine with me. Whoever makes the first personal attack on anyone loses.

Start the clock.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Larsen: Backstabbing? Try Rain and dogwood, whom you blamed for the abysmal failure of your experiment, although it was only due to your extremely poor design.

Below the belt? Try me, Steve: Why did you make that remark about pedophelia and me moving back to Denmark?

How long? A couple of years now, Steve.

Reply: I did not design the experiment. I recruited the controls. It was not my experiment. It was totally blinded. The blinding was broken by rain and dogwood by their publicly discussing it on this forum before the expeirment was finished. I took the responsibility for not fully explaining to these two out of 15 controls what blinding is and why they shoudn't discuss it publicly before the trial was complete. My bad. I already said so. The other 13 housewifes and businessmen somehow knew about blinding and did not discuss it publicly or violate the protocol. But clearly for those two it was my fault and I accept that repsonsibility.

Larsen defended vigorously books that promote, defend and exonerate sexual relationships with children (pedophilia) on the basis of free speech. These were titles published by Prometheus Press and I said I felt their presence on their list tarnished their entire operation. I wonder how many incidents of
pedophilia resulted from the reading of these titles seriously defending the practice which you defended? You actually did not defend pedophilia but said you defended the right of the authors and publishers to defend it. You have a serious problem with priorities, cause and effect and consequences.


Larsen: Strawman. I have never said that there is no such thing as the paranormal so there can be no evidence for it. Quite contrary, I have always said that the possibility exists - there is just no evidence of it. And that's what I am looking for, evidence.

Reply: I beg to differ with you. Every request you make for evidence fails to state what that evidence is and you have said, categorically, there is no evidence because it does not exist. This is why it is useless to discuss anything with you.

C: You have been threatening me and others here with lawsuits. You have run your own SS-board into the ground for trying to enforce a cowardly rule of censorship. You even banned people for being on JREF, too, as well as banning people for breaking rules they were not allowed to see.

If you think Ed slandered you and Pam, sue them.

Reply: We contemplated a lawsuit but achieved a desired result in other ways. I am sure Ed and JREF will now enjoy your uninvited participation in this matter. You were NEVER considered a target of any legal action. Furthermore your irrational behavior has already been marginalized by many reading what you post and how you non-respond to simple requests like what do you consider evidence. The SS Board was not mine. However the statements of Ed on JREF caused the board to close it and close it I did. They did not feel it was worth engendering the kind of muck Ed lied about . You helped destroy that effort so should be very proud of yourself. The effort is elsewhere, on the internet, but is closed to you anyone else of that mind-set. Sorry it is a "party" where you are not and never will be welcome.


Reply: You know full well that those are not the e-mails. I refer you to the series of short paranoid rantings you sent me on my private e-mail. My responses to each of them was that you were not being contemplated as a target of any legal action. This was after research indicated you directly were not involved in the slander. In fact it was not you who uttered the slanderous complaint, you merely played defender again. You agreed that Ed was within his rights to utter those remarks. You agreed that Corey was within his rights to utter a death threat, in writing, toward me and to publish my home address as a follow-up. Ed or you gleefully also published Pam's home address while both of you cowardly hid behind pseudnyms such as Cantata and God and used fake e-mais such as Yahoo. Boy wass Ed Dittus ever upset when I decided to publish his last name. LOL. I dont remember which of you two did that to Pam but it was way out of line, however. And you, Larsen, defended the right of pedophilia to exist as a subject to be extolled in books and publications or on the net. Free speech, remmeber?

C: Steve, I have never - ever - denied who I was. You write as sgrenard (and sometimes "Jeanne", let's not forget that! ), I write as Cantata.

Reply: Would you like to meet Jeanne. She would like to meet you. Come back to NY. No, better yet, drop me a private e-mail where you can be reached in Denmark in October and she will give you a ring. For a period Cantata appeared and nobody knew who that was. It is a pseudonym, plain and simple. Yahoo is a fake e-mail address used by people who think they cannot be traced if they do so. Who were you? Cantata? Cantata1001? or CFLarsen or Claus F Larsen or Claus Larsen? CFLarsen is the same as sgrenard, is my real name and is my standard e-mail address for more than 5 years.

C: You have conducted experiments online, with people from TVTalkshows. You have conducted experiments where you work. These were not personal experiments, Steve:


Reply: Thank you for verifying my role in that experiment. I recruited the controls. I was blind to everything else. This
was not my experiment, was not done at work, but at home,
and is the only experiment I have ever been involved in and it was not mine but was designed and run by many others.

If I ever do an experiment or design one that is performed, I
will be sure and let you know afterwards. I actually have no wish to do any experiments but I am interested in the results of others. My specialty is critical care and sleep medicine and I occupy 100% of my time in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of people with sleep disordered breathing. You do not know me and you lie constantly because you think you do.

C: Is that your post, Steve? "Dr. Gary Schwartz and myself are doing an experiment"...only for personal experiences???

Reply: The target audience for recruitment as controls only needed to know this. They were subsequently contacted by a research assistant. I said above what my role was. I did not design the experiment, I recruited the controls. Period.

C: True, you have never published anything. You never do, it's all in "progress".

Reply: I personally have nothing in line for publication that's in progress. You refer to remarks made about the research of others such as Keen on the Poole murder case or Robinson and Roy's third paper. I am as interested in these as anyone else here except perhaps you.

You have just added yet another ad hominem, trying now to destroy my professional reputation. It won't work. But it is definitely a threat by me to cease or desist or you will be found
in whatever alley you are inhabiting in Denmark and dealt with
legally. The fact that you are using this board to do this is also a problem and the moderators need to be made aware of it as well.
I am not a public figure, I did not do any of the work you contend I did, you do not know me, you lie constantly about me and others, you accuse me and others of lying which is a favorite trick of liars to cover themselves. Everyone knows this.


C: I did?? Where? Time for you to show evidence, Steve.

Reply: In matters related to this, I am enjoined from re-publishing evidence. You can try and provoke this but it will not happen. You have tried before and failed. Doesnt bother me.

C: It bothers me that you abhor free speech and wants to enforce your wacko beliefs on others, yes.

Reply: You must be omnipotent. You now crawl inside my head and know what my beliefs are. This is a rather chilling indictment of yourself and your mindset. You know nothing of my beliefs.
You hypothisize and hallucinate that you know them. I have never stated my beliefs to you or anyone else. I do belief in truth, however. I know sophistry exists and that you use it on a daily basis to advance your agenda. I know that you distort, lie, misattribute, deliberately or non-deliberately misunderstand and misquote people in order to achieve points in some bizarre game you play with yourself. I know that your idea of free speech includes the use of the words on the banned list here and elsewhere and that you defend the right of a serious academic publisher to hire a self-admitted pedophile as an editor and to publish books defending pedophilia. That professor, formerly of SUNY Buffalo is now in California.


C: Actually, Steve, free speech does equate whatever you want to say. There is nothing in, say, the American Constitution, that says you have to be polite.

Reply: See above. There is nothing in MY constitution (you are not an American so it does not apply to you) that does that but you forgot that there is something in my constitution that says the
Supreme Court and lower courts can make laws and interpret that document. Check out some of those concerning the areas you defend and find out whether MY constitution effectively deals with these issues or not. I take great offense that you, a foreigner, says that MY constitution permits pedophilia and
filthy language. Your use of ad hominems such as liar is indeed protected in MY country (try it in some countries in Europe and see what happens) but crosses the line of civilized debate, dragging it into the mud. You go there, I won't.

C: Where did I accuse you of "immoral acts"? Evidence, please.

Reply: If you defend the right of someone to utter slanderous remarks, you go there. You've done that rather nicely.

C: You "omitted" the most crucial: I ask for evidence. This, you do not want to give.

Reply: I very much included your demand for evidence. I also included the question for you as to what constitutes that evidence? You have never answered that question because
you probably cannot. Just admit it, you don't know what it is you are asking for.

C: No, I will not refrain from calling people liars, if they lie. And I will not stop bringing up your threats, either.

Reply: Fine. Now everyone knows your position, your willingness to use ad hominems and my contemplated but settled (for now) lawsuit for being slandered and my decisive action regarding the uttering of a death threat by one of your buddies.

C: It's not b.s., Steve. Those were your threats.

Reply: They are b.s. because you were not a part of them as much as you wish you were. I will legally threaten anyone who slanders myself or my friends and colleagues. I will threaten anyone who utters death threats at myself, my family and my friends includin friends I made here. Not everyone apparently is willing to do that but somebody has to.


C: Fine with me. Whoever makes the first personal attack on anyone loses.Start the clock.

Reply: I started that clock last night. You lost.


__________________
conclusion:

So there you have it folks. Larsen will not stop uttering ad homs which HE considers truthful. He will ressurect lawsuits and projects of years back over and over again for no apparent purpose other than to hear himself or rather see himself write.
He will pour salt on wounds for no apparent reason other than to stifle debate and or because he disagrees with you. He will argue new issues by example and comparison pointing to old issues. How boring and unimaginative. He will continue to defend the American Constitutional right to utter filthy language such as those words banned here because as a great constitutional scholar he thinks he is he feels this is protected. And he will defend the right and not criticize Prometheus Books and its publisher, Paul Kurtz and CSICOP from publishing books that extol pedophilia. For those not familiar with the Prometheus catalog they also publish a multi-volume set of porno film listings and reviews. So next time you pay your dues to CSICOP consider what you are supporting. So I tell you what I will do. I will go out and get those books and send them to FOX and see if anyone is interested in doing a story on CSICOP. This is dirty
laundry that has been kept in the closet long enough. Its beginning to stink and needs to be aired out.

Is that a threat? You bet it is. Do you think CSICOP will like this idea of mine? I doubt they will. But its free speech you know.
It works both ways. They can thank Claus F. Larsen for bringing this up and threatening to bring it up over and over again. He said he will. I was more than happy not to have to hear this Larsen whining over and over again but no such luck.

Have a nice day Larsen. I am done with you. And, BTW, thank you. You are now on ignore. I have gotten what I came for.

 

[CFLarsen]

Reply: I did not design the experiment. I recruited the controls. It was not my experiment. It was totally blinded. The blinding was broken by rain and dogwood by their publicly discussing it on this forum before the expeirment was finished. I took the responsibility for not fully explaining to these two out of 15 controls what blinding is and why they shoudn't discuss it publicly before the trial was complete. My bad. I already said so. The other 13 housewifes and businessmen somehow knew about blinding and did not discuss it publicly or violate the protocol. But clearly for those two it was my fault and I accept that repsonsibility.

Steve, you are not making a very good case here. You explained the controls to each of the 15 people individually? How can you open up for the possibility of error this way? I can understand why Rain can screw up, but dogwood? He knows more about controls than you do, and he took you to task for this experiment. How can the other 13 "somehow" know about blinding but not dogwood? Do you really expect people to believe that?

You are a poor, sloppy experimenter, Steve. And yes, it was your experiment.

Larsen defended vigorously books that promote, defend and exonerate sexual relationships with children (pedophilia) on the basis of free speech. These were titles published by Prometheus Press and I said I felt their presence on their list tarnished their entire operation.

Please point out the books from Prometheus that "exonerate sexual relationships with children".

Prometheus Books is an American publisher, therefore protected by American law.

I wonder how many incidents of pedophilia resulted from the reading of these titles seriously defending the practice which you defended? You actually did not defend pedophilia but said you defended the right of the authors and publishers to defend it. You have a serious problem with priorities, cause and effect and consequences.

I have no idea if any "incidents of pedophilia" has resulted in reading books that are freely available to the American public, Steve. You tell me, you seem to have a vivid interest in this.

Can you make up your mind? First, I defend pedophilia, now I don't? You seem very confused.

Reply: I beg to differ with you. Every request you make for evidence fails to state what that evidence is and you have said, categorically, there is no evidence because it does not exist. This is why it is useless to discuss anything with you.

Steve, this is not correct: I constantly point to scientific evidence, and you know it. This is why is it useless to discuss anything with you: You constantly misrepresent what people say.

Reply: We contemplated a lawsuit but achieved a desired result in other ways. I am sure Ed and JREF will now enjoy your uninvited participation in this matter. You were NEVER considered a target of any legal action.

If I were never considered a target of any legal action, why did you feel it was pertinent of you to mention New York as well as Florida, when you spoke of the lawyers?

Furthermore your irrational behavior has already been marginalized by many reading what you post and how you non-respond to simple requests like what do you consider evidence.

Appeal to popularity. You have to name these people, or nobody will believe you.

The SS Board was not mine.

Yes, it was, Steve.

However the statements of Ed on JREF caused the board to close it and close it I did.

It's not "your" board, but you can close it?

They did not feel it was worth engendering the kind of muck Ed lied about . You helped destroy that effort so should be very proud of yourself. The effort is elsewhere, on the internet, but is closed to you anyone else of that mind-set. Sorry it is a "party" where you are not and never will be welcome.

Yes, that famed "closed" area where you tried to build a place where remote viewers could solve crimes. What ever happened that...?

Reply: You know full well that those are not the e-mails. I refer you to the series of short paranoid rantings you sent me on my private e-mail. My responses to each of them was that you were not being contemplated as a target of any legal action. This was after research indicated you directly were not involved in the slander. In fact it was not you who uttered the slanderous complaint, you merely played defender again. You agreed that Ed was within his rights to utter those remarks. You agreed that Corey was within his rights to utter a death threat, in writing, toward me and to publish my home address as a follow-up. And you defended the right of pedophilia to exist as a subject to be extolled in books and publications or on the net.

Huh? Those are not the emails?? Then please publish those emails you are talking about, Steve, because I am utterly confused here.

Reply: Would you like to meet Jeanne. She would like to meet you. Come back to NY. No, better yet, drop me a private e-mail where you can be reached in Denmark in October and she will give you a ring.

She can email me through webmaster@skepticreport.com. Then, "she" can tell me a phone number I can call her.

(Steve, you're not kidding anyone here - you posted as "Jeanne" at TVTalkshows. I still have the evidence. Wanna see it?)

For a period Cantata appeared and nobody knew who that was. It is a pseudonym, plain and simple. Yahoo is a fake e-mail address used by people who think they cannot be traced if they do so. Who were you? Cantata? Cantata1001? or CFLarsen or Claus F Larsen or Claus Larsen? CFLarsen is the same as sgrenard, is my real name and is my standard e-mail address for more than 5 years.

Sure Cantata is a pseudonym. So is Gryphon2, neofight, Rain, dogwood, Crowunit. I sure don't hear you complain about those, Steve.

Yahoo is not a "fake" email address, used by people who want to be anonymous. Many people use these, especially if they are on the road, and not able to access their email from anywhere in the world.

Reply: Thank you for verifying my role in that experiment. I recruited the controls. I was blind to everything else. This was not my experiment, was not done at work, but at home, and is the only experiment I have ever been involved in and it was not mine but was designed and run by many others.

Was this a personal experiment, Steve? Really? How do you define one that is not?

If I ever do an experiment or design one that is performed, I will be sure and let you know afterwards. I actually have no wish to do any experiments but I am interested in the results of others. My specialty is critical care and sleep medicine and I occupy 100% of my time in the clinical diagnosis and treatment of people with sleep disordered breathing. You do not know me and you lie constantly because you think you do.

I know you well enough to know that you will go on denying reality. It really is amazing how you can switch horses in the middle of everything. And think nobody notices....

Reply: The target audience for recruitment as controls only needed to know this. They were subsequently contacted by a research assistant. I said above what my role was. I did not design the experiment, I recruited the controls. Period.

Nobody said anything about you designing it, Steve. You "did" an experiment, with Schwartz. You clearly gave the impression that you and Schwartz were doing it together.

Reply: I personally have nothing in line for publication that's in progress. You refer to remarks made about the research of others such as Keen on the Poole murder case or Robinson and Roy's third paper. I am as interested in these as anyone else here except perhaps you.

What about those experiments with the psychics (some over the Internet) you conducted?

You have just added yet another ad hominem, trying now to destroy my professional reputation. It won't work. But it is definitely a threat by me to cease or desist or you will be found in whatever alley you are inhabiting in Denmark and dealt with legally. The fact that you are using this board to do this is also a problem and the moderators need to be made aware of it as well.

Steve, why not just do it now? Go ahead, try to slap me with a lawsuit. You will find it very different than the US, I can assure you.

Heck, you can even do it in the US, if you like. Go ahead. Nobody is holding you back.

I am not a public figure, I did not do any of the work you contend I did, you do not know me, you lie constantly about me and others, you accuse me and others of lying which is a favorite trick of liars to cover themselves. Everyone knows this.

Yep. And everyone can see how you lie, again and again.

Reply: In matters related to this, I am enjoined from re-publishing evidence. You can try and provoke this but it will not happen. You have tried before and failed. Doesnt bother me.

I see. You refuse to show your evidence. Maybe in court?

Reply: You must be omnipotent. You now crawl inside my head and know what my beliefs are. This is a rather chilling indictment of yourself and your mindset. You know nothing of my beliefs. You hypothisize and hallucinate that you know them. I have never stated my beliefs to you or anyone else. I do belief in truth, however. I know sophistry exists and that you use it on a daily basis to advance your agenda. I know that you distort, lie, misattribute, deliberately or non-deliberately misunderstand and misquote people in order to achieve points in some bizarre game you play with yourself. I know that your idea of free speech includes the use of the words on the banned list here and elsewhere and that you defend the right of a serious academic publisher to hire a self-admitted pedophile as an editor and to publish books defending pedophilia. That professor, formerly of SUNY Buffalo is now in California.

Huh?? Who are you talking about, Steve? This is a very serious accusation, and you better be prepared to back it up with evidence.

Reply: See above. There is nothing in MY constitution (you are not an American so it does not apply to you)

Actually, when I lived in NY, it did.....

that does that but you forgot that there is something in my constitution that says the
Supreme Court and lower courts can make laws and interpret that document. Check out some of those concerning the areas you defend and find out whether MY constitution effectively deals with these issues or not.

Sure! Please point to the Supreme Court rulings that state that you can't say dirty words in public.

I take great offense that you, a foreigner, says that MY constitution permits pedophilia and
filthy language.

Pedophilia, no. Dirty language, yes. And you may want to save those "foreigner" remarks. People might think you don't like non-Americans...

Your use of ad hominems such as liar is indeed protected in MY country (try it in some countries in Europe and see what happens) but crosses the line of civilized debate, dragging it into the mud. You go there, I won't.

When I call you a liar, Steve, it's because I can back it up with evidence. Therefore, it is not ad hominem. Which means that even in dreaded Europe, I am not punished.

Reply: If you defend the right of someone to utter slanderous remarks, you go there. You've done that rather nicely.

That's "immoral", Steve?? Someone exercising their constitutional right is "immoral"?

Reply: I very much included your demand for evidence. I also included the question for you as to what constitutes that evidence? You have never answered that question because you probably cannot. Just admit it, you don't know what it is you are asking for.

Oh, I think I am on pretty solid ground here. You want a discussion about what constitutes scientific evidence? I'm game.

Reply: Fine. Now everyone knows your position, your willingness to use ad hominems and my contemplated but settled (for now) lawsuit for being slandered and my decisive action regarding the uttering of a death threat by one of your buddies.

Fine. What happens next, Steve? Nothing? Thought so.

Reply: They are b.s. because you were not a part of them as much as you wish you were. I will legally threaten anyone who slanders myself or my friends and colleagues. I will threaten anyone who utters death threats at myself, my family and my friends includin friends I made here. Not everyone apparently is willing to do that but somebody has to.

So why don't you?? Why don't you go ahead with those legal threats you are so fond of throwing around?

Reply: I started that clock last night. You lost.

Who gave you the right to determine the rules, Steve?

_________________
conclusion:

So there you have it folks. Larsen will not stop uttering ad homs which HE considers truthful. He will ressurect lawsuits and projects of years back over and over again for no apparent purpose other than to hear himself or rather see himself write. He will pour salt on wounds for no apparent reason other than to stifle debate and or because he disagrees with you. He will argue new issues by example and comparison pointing to old issues. How boring and unimaginative. He will continue to defend the American Constitutional right to utter filthy language such as those words banned here because as a great constitutional scholar he thinks he is he feels this is protected. And he will defend the right and not criticize Prometheus Books and its publisher, Paul Kurtz and CSICOP from publishing books that extol pedophilia. For those not familiar with the Prometheus catalog they also publish a multi-volume set of porno film listings and reviews. So next time you pay your dues to CSICOP consider what you are supporting. So I tell you what I will do. I will go out and get those books and send them to FOX and see if anyone is interested in doing a story on CSICOP. This is dirty
laundry that has been kept in the closet long enough. Its beginning to stink and needs to be aired out.

Is that a threat? You bet it is. Do you think CSICOP will like this idea of mine? I doubt they will. But its free speech you know.
It works both ways. They can thank Claus F. Larsen for bringing this up and threatening to bring it up over and over again. He said he will. I was more than happy not to have to hear this Larsen whining over and over again but no such luck.

(applause) Steve, that was....(sniffles)...touching..... Very eloquent, very deep emotions here.

Let's see if CSICOP survives this mortal blow from you. Keep us informed how the press handles this.

Have a nice day Larsen. I am done with you. And, BTW, thank you. You are now on ignore. I have gotten what I came for.

You came here to ignore people? You came here to feel insulted?

Oh, well...we all have our own little peculiarities, I guess....

 

[SteveGrenard]

PrometheusBooks

While one can make a case for the veiled use of academic study for sexology and the obvious interest of this publisher in all types of sexual subjects, both normal and abnormal, one wonders how they can publish a 7 volume porno movie guidebook and titillating "sexual autobiographies" and at the same time try and disguise the pedophilia issue under academic interests. I have no problem with the publication of any of this. What I have a problem with is that the publisher who brings us James Randi, Michael Shermer and many other excellent books on skepticism and the paranormal also publishes this drivel. I have a problem understanding the internecine relationship between CSICOP, a non-profit and this profit making publisher. Is it an arm of CSICOP? If so, do CSICOP members know that they are supporting the dissemination of this material?

Thus for anyone who is interested in seeing what Prometheus and CSICOP is up to in addition to defending our skepticism and right to question the paranormal, I provide the following URL:

www.prometheusbooks.com/site/cat.html


Now some instructions. You have to go into subject categories.
You will find the material I described distributed in several:

Human Sexuality

and

Sexual Autobiography

You can click on the titles and get a thumb-nail description of what they are about.

Edited to add: Larsen is free to defend the publication of this kind of literature which he has done; he brought up the subject in the first place again today or yesterday. I am also within my right to question the underlying motivation of a publisher and reprinter of many great academic titles and popular modern science titles with the need to publish a 7 volume directory of porn flics and ask myself who would use such a compendium to their own best interest? You can be certain that in a comprehensive set of books like this there is no shortage of illicit pedophilia films or videos under review.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: PrometheusBooks

While one can make a case for the veiled use of academic study for sexology and the obvious interest of this publisher in all types of sexual subjects, both normal and abnormal, one wonders how they can publish a 7 volume porno movie guidebook and titillating "sexual autobiographies" and at the same tyime try and disguise the pedophilia issue under academic interests. I have no problem with the publication of any of this. What I have a problem with is that the publisher who brings us James Randi, Michael Shermer and many other excellent books on skepticism and the paranormal also publishes this drivel. I have a problem understanding the internecine relationship between CSICOP, a non-profit and this profit making publisher. Is it an arm of CSICOP? If so, do CSICOP members know that they are supporting the dissemination of this material?

Why do you have such a problem with free speech and a free press, Steve?

Thus for anyone who is interested in seeing what Prometheus and CSICOP is up to in addition to defending our skepticism and right to question the paranormal, I provide the following URL:
www.prometheusbooks.com/site/cat.html

Now some instructions. You have to go into subject categories.
You will find the material I described distributed in several:

Human Sexuality

and

Sexual Autobiography

You can click on the titles and get a thumb-nail description of what they are about.

I did, Steve. Where is that support for pedophilia?? Can anyone find it??