• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Montague Keen

CFLarsen said:
I didn't claim that you said no information could be found about you online.
Click to expand...

But of course you did, snookems! You did claim precisely that. Wait! Let me provide your exact quote for you to review:

(Claus)
"Before, there was no way you could have been leaving personal information lying about. Oh, no. But when faced with reality, you pronounce me a "bore". "
Click to expand...

Your very own words, CF. I NEVER said that there was no way I could have been leaving personal information lying about on the internet. I'm very well aware that I've discussed many different things while on-line. Like I said, your evasion, or rather, at this point, your downright denial and lying, is duly noted.

I still don't understand why you feel you must deny having said certain things, Claus, when your words are publicly recorded for all to see. Seems rather foolish to me. You'd come off more credible, and a bigger person, by just conceding that you did say what I said you did. You can always say, sorry, I misspoke. ;)

But I provided personal information about you that far outshines anything that John Edward has ever "read" about anyone - with the possible exeception of the Dateline example, of course.
Click to expand...

No offense, Mr. Skeptic, but you are just plain wrong there. John Edward has given some outstandingly accurate readings in the past, not the least of which was my own, the one where he brought through my deceased father-in-law, Tom, and mentioned my parents' last name, my daughter's baby nickname, and my own first name. I guess that doesn't qualify as a good reading in your view, but I'd have to disagree.

Do you dispute that John Edward knew about Tony's dead father before the taping of the actual show? Yes or no, please.
Click to expand...

No, I do not dispute that the cameraman had a conversation with JE earlier that day in which he mentioned that his dad had died. Why would I dispute that? I just don't see how that would then negate every additional thing that JE might bring up afterwards in a reading for the same man.

If Tony's father's spirit took the opportunity to come through later that day when JE was doing readings, so what? It's not all that rare for something like that to occur. JE has passed on information to his cameramen, his soundmen, his producers, and others on the set on any number of occasions. If he's giving someone a reading, and some other spirit then comes through with a message for another person, he just delivers the message as he gets it. Big deal.

Some mediums will ask the sitter right upfront who it is they were hoping to hear from. I don't really see anything wrong with that per se. Personally, however, I would prefer that the medium does not request that information. That way, when you do hear from the deceased, without any prompting, it serves as an additional validation for the sitter.
 
neofight said:
But of course you did, snookems! You did claim precisely that. Wait! Let me provide your exact quote for you to review:

Your very own words, CF. I NEVER said that there was no way I could have been leaving personal information lying about on the internet. I'm very well aware that I've discussed many different things while on-line. Like I said, your evasion, or rather, at this point, your downright denial and lying, is duly noted.

I still don't understand why you feel you must deny having said certain things, Claus, when your words are publicly recorded for all to see. Seems rather foolish to me. You'd come off more credible, and a bigger person, by just conceding that you did say what I said you did. You can always say, sorry, I misspoke. ;)
Click to expand...

I was talking about the information you mentioned. You have not mentioned your husband's father online?

Just yes or no, please.

neofight said:
No offense, Mr. Skeptic, but you are just plain wrong there. John Edward has given some outstandingly accurate readings in the past, not the least of which was my own, the one where he brought through my deceased father-in-law, Tom, and mentioned my parents' last name, my daughter's baby nickname, and my own first name. I guess that doesn't qualify as a good reading in your view, but I'd have to disagree.
Click to expand...

No offence, Ms. Gullible, but I guess you don't realize that your word is not evidence? Do you have a tape recording of this?

neofight said:
No, I do not dispute that the cameraman had a conversation with JE earlier that day in which he mentioned that his dad had died. Why would I dispute that? I just don't see how that would then negate every additional thing that JE might bring up afterwards in a reading for the same man.

If Tony's father's spirit took the opportunity to come through later that day when JE was doing readings, so what? It's not all that rare for something like that to occur. JE has passed on information to his cameramen, his soundmen, his producers, and others on the set on any number of occasions. If he's giving someone a reading, and some other spirit then comes through with a message for another person, he just delivers the message as he gets it. Big deal.
Click to expand...

"Big deal"? Neofight, John Edward cheated. He was caught red-handed. And you go out of your way to excuse what he did.

neofight said:
Some mediums will ask the sitter right upfront who it is they were hoping to hear from. I don't really see anything wrong with that per se. Personally, however, I would prefer that the medium does not request that information. That way, when you do hear from the deceased, without any prompting, it serves as an additional validation for the sitter.
Click to expand...

So, you don't see anything wrong with this scenario:

  • John Edward gets information from Tony that Tony's father has died.

  • John Edward later uses that information to convince Tony that John Edward can talk to the dead.

You are the reason why scum like John Edward can cheat vulnerable people.
 
Sorry, Claus, but I will not be playing your game. You tried to give the impression that I was not aware that I had given out some personal information over the internet. That was dishonest, since of course I am very aware that I have done so. So stick it in your ear. I can see I've given you entirely too much attention again, but that's about to be rectified, like, right now!
 
neofight said:
Sorry, Claus, but I will not be playing your game. You tried to give the impression that I was not aware that I had given out some personal information over the internet. That was dishonest, since of course I am very aware that I have done so. So stick it in your ear. I can see I've given you entirely too much attention again, but that's about to be rectified, like, right now!
Click to expand...


Running away, are you?

Not surprising, I guess.
 
neofight said:
Sorry, Claus, but I will not be playing your game. You tried to give the impression that I was not aware that I had given out some personal information over the internet. That was dishonest, since of course I am very aware that I have done so. So stick it in your ear. I can see I've given you entirely too much attention again, but that's about to be rectified, like, right now!
Click to expand...
Have you not mentioned your husband's father online? Just yes or no, please.

Do you have a tape recording of your reading?
 
neofight said:
I'm immune to goading/baiting, Grumpy. :)
Click to expand...
No, you're immune to evidence that your hero is a crook who exploits grieving people.

Have you not mentioned your husband's father online? Just yes or no, please.

Do you have a tape recording of your reading?
 
(what neofight said previously)
"In any case, from what my very faulty memory tells me, your FRIEND'S SISTERS, or at least one of them, (excuse me for not remembering your precise relationship) thought the reading she got from JE was quite good. Knowing how passionate you can be on this subject, I can only imagine (and that's not difficult to do) what you said to her to convince her it was not..."

Jeff Corey said:
Now that's the problem. What you imagine - and later convince yourself actually happened- isn't true. In this case you distorted a case where someone asked me for help with a crooked scam artist and turned it into a case of me bullying my friend into changing her beliefs. And now you imagine that I actually talked to the sister or sisters to get them to change their belief. Guess what. It didn't happen.
This illustrates some of the mechanisms the true believers use to protect their beliefs, including confirmation bias, data selection and distorted memory.
Click to expand...

I just wanted to get back to this issue to clarify something, Jeff. It seems that everytime someone brings up this story of yours, you accuse them of having a faulty memory. Correct? This is not the first time it's happened.

So just so everyone can actually see for themselves, I'm providing a couple of links from tvtalkshows, including the original post you made concerning John Edward, and your accusation that he "fleeced" your friend's sisters. Of course, this is just your own opinion, one which at least one of the sisters could not be convinced of.

<Crowunit>
TVTalkShows.com Visitor Posts: n/a

In Huntington NY. JE took thousands of $$ from people, first at his house on Little Plains Court, and then at offices on West Hills Road and Jericho Turnpike. People I have interviewed say he never told them it was for entertainment purposes only. Just that sometimes the spirits have difficulty communicating with the living and so sometimes they might have problems with the message. Sometimes! Yahoo!
This slimeball fleeced about $1000 from the family of a friend of mine and that got me started on this. Call it a crusade, but I want to see him crash and burn in the HELL I don't believe in.
Click to expand...

The rest of the discussion can be found here at the link that follows. It isn't very lengthy at all.

http://www.tvtalkshows.com/board/showthread.php?t=24462&page=6&pp=10&highlight=crowunit+sisters

Then, after accusing Gryphon (Clancie) of having a faulty memory (sound familiar?), atmytv (Bill) agreed with both myself and Gryphon that we were, in fact, remembering the story just the way you told it the first time. You just kept adding facts afterwards to conform with your new and improved version. THAT thread can be found here:

http://www.tvtalkshows.com/board/showthread.php?t=82886&page=1&pp=10&highlight=crowunit+sisters

One thing that you are consistent about, however, is that whenever someone questions something you said, you either rant and then disappear, or try to deflect further questioning by going off in a different direction, such as talking about the JE "disclaimer" or my use of the phrase "post hoc". I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here. ;)
 
Your false memories do not change the facts or what I actually posted. Where does it say I tried to convince the sisters that they were scammed or "bullied" them (your words). I met them once and had little interaction with them. They were adament that Edward was the real thing and they were going back again.
The fact is I dealt with their sister, my friend, who was extremely concerned that this slimy sleazeball -biggest douchebag in the universe- was stealing their meagre inheritence.
I definitely see a pattern here.
 
Last edited:
Jeff Corey said:
Your false memories do not change the facts or what I actually posted. Where does it say I tried to convince the sisters that they were scammed or "bullied" them (your words).
Click to expand...

Well, since you are being such a stickler for accuracy, Jeff, please be consistent. What I actually said was, "Sort of like, (or exactly like) peer-pressure AND/OR bullying. ;) Be precise!

Jeff Corey said:
I met them once and had little interaction with them. They were adament that Edward was the real thing and they were going back again.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So when you said that you NEVER talked to the woman, only her sister, you were not being exactly.....umm.....what was that word again? Oh! Precise! Right!

Jeff Corey said:
Not nitpicking. You distorted the whole story to make your point, which was that I convinced someone who had a reading by Edward that it wasn't true.
You used the word "bullied". I never talked to the woman, only her sister. You got none of the points right and were either forgetting and distorting what I actually said to fit your opinion. That is often the case with rabid believers. However, I will not take the Danish tack and say you are lying. I am fearful of a Fatwah being launched against me and my family, including the furry ones.
Click to expand...

Again, Jeff, all I wanted to do was demonstrate that your above comments were full of hyperbole. I didn't distort the whole story to make my point. Not at all. Like you, however, I will not take the Danish tack and say you are lying. :)

I made the tiny mistake of referring to your friend's sister as "your friend". BFD. So she's no friend of yours. That's irrelevant to this debate. Your friend's sister was satisfied with the reading that JE gave her, and so you, if not directly to her, then indirectly through your friend, tried to make the case that JE was using "parlor" tricks on them. That's what happened, and that's what I said happened. Talk about a distinction without a difference! Sheesh!
 
Jeff Corey said:
That's not what you said happened. You distorted what I said.
Case closed.
Click to expand...

Yes, Jeff. Whatever you say. Case is definitely closed, as our quotes speak for themselves, and are available to anyone who might give a ****, which is most likely nobody. :) Be well!....neo
 
Dogwood said:
Sigh. I've missed you guys.
Click to expand...

lol Mark! Do I detect a note of sarcasm there? ;)

I'm sending you a PM in relation to another matter, of which you will probably be able to guess the nature if you think about it for a second.
 
Should I watch Guiding Light, Young and the Restless, As the World Turns, or just tune in to the JREF board? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom