Online psychic reading for Darat

Hello Psychicuk,

I wonder whether you'd like to respond directly to Miss Anthrope's post? Or to any other of the members who has given feedback on your readings? Can you explain your misses?

You say you only want to give comfort to the people you read for, yet even I, a mild-mannered ruminant, would be pretty ticked off were I Miss Anthrope, say (though I don't want to put word in her mouth). I find it odd that, scatter smilies as you may, you haven't voiced a word of sympathy.

How do you explain your low hit rate here?

Cheers,
Moufflon
 
Last edited:
Perhaps she has a four-year waiting list, The Vampire. The others were just bumped up as a "Blessing."

Moufflon
 
Thank you Moufflon...I just found this site yesterday. I love it!

Alex...I don't think phsychicuk is online...she's the one who was doing the readings yesterday.
 
Mojo said:
Surely this isn't cold reading, as that uses feedback from questions disguised as statements to home in on something that fits. Here we just have a series of statements presented all at once, with no opportunity for feedback until afterwards.

And judging by the (lack of) accuracy of the statements, I don't think hot reading can be involved either.

It's just someone guessing.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, you're quite right. But the approach is identical to the set-up phase of a cold-reading, and since he/she is attempting to "read us" (hit upon apparently meaningful info) "cold" (without foreknowledge), then it could be described as such. Especially if (as I was expecting) they were to follow up each reading picking up on hits, fishing, forking and so on (which they don't seem to be doing).

It's the lack of follow-up that puts this into the "guess" category alongside the famous stock astrology script (which incidentally Derren Brown calls "cold reading").
 
I think at this time posting this video would be entirely appropriate. It's ten minutes long, but worth it. Especially if you are given to believing in psychic readings. "If we hadn't done the second part, I would have left here believing in psychic abilities."

 
Miss Anthrope...
I am not surprised by this video...people WANT to believe this stuff. The serious part of it all is some people have given their entire life savings over to these con artists. They shouldn't feel dumb though, as human beings we want to believe in the good. Scammers count on that. So sad.
 
Kim said:
Miss Anthrope...
I am not surprised by this video...people WANT to believe this stuff. The serious part of it all is some people have given their entire life savings over to these con artists. They shouldn't feel dumb though, as human beings we want to believe in the good. Scammers count on that. So sad.
Click to expand...

Agreed. People want to believe in something beyond the mundane. An answer that provides comfort to mortality and loss. A way to reach out into the unknown and have some kind of knowledge in which to make better decisions and have more control over our lives. While I do not fault anyone for desiring this to be true, there comes a time when we must grow up and see the "supernatural" for what it is: a person with a desire for "something more" and a person, or sometimes an industry, built around trying to offer wish fulfillment.

While I don't want people to feel "stupid", per se, some of my greatest intellectual and emotional growth has been the result of saying honestly "I was stupid", "I was behaving badly", or "I was wrong".
 
Last edited:
slyjoe said:
Maybe she is just a bad cold reader - and forgot the feedback part.
Click to expand...

Or, she's an amateur mentalist wanting to try out some good opening lines on the sceptics first. If any work on us, they're a dead cert in the wider world!
 
Ohh ooh ooh!

I want a reading too! Pleeeeeease? I promise to be nice.
 
my_wan said:
Hey dead on!!! Well except the G should be a C but that's probably a misprint since they look so much alike. Right Stellafane?
Click to expand...

Did I say "G"? I meant "C." In fact, I did say "C," you just misunderstood me. (That's known in the trade as "pulling a Sylvia.")

That'll be $700 please. (It would be funny if it weren't so true.)
 
I thought "pulling a Sylvia" was to rebuke someone that disagrees and demand that they "go back and look it up." As we all know, Sylvia is never wrong, so any negative response is obviously the ignorance of the person getting a reading.
 
Miss Anthrope...I do believe you're the first person I've ever talked to about these things who thinks like I do!! I agree with not wanting people to feel dumb and I also agree there comes a time when enough is enough. Unfortunately, these con artists prey on the very people who really just need a friend for comfort. Someone to tell them that the person that's gone knew they were loved, that there was nothing anyone could have done to keep them alive. Reassurance is what they're looking for but all they get are lies.
 
Kim said:
Miss Anthrope...I do believe you're the first person I've ever talked to about these things who thinks like I do!! I agree with not wanting people to feel dumb and I also agree there comes a time when enough is enough. Unfortunately, these con artists prey on the very people who really just need a friend for comfort. Someone to tell them that the person that's gone knew they were loved, that there was nothing anyone could have done to keep them alive. Reassurance is what they're looking for but all they get are lies.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed wholeheartedly.
 
Well, I've just totalled all the "readings" so far against the replies from the "sitters".

Not good, I'm afraid.

From a total of 54 statements, only 6 were acknowledged as correct.

11%

Now, if you were to "weight" the statements by appliying some (admittedly rudimentary) odds to them, ie a statement like "Grandfather figures", "mother or sister" - a hit would only score 0.5, but outright misses would score 2 against, the score is even worse.

From a total of 62 individual statements, a weighted succes of only 2 was achieved.

3%

Spreadsheet available at : http://uk.geocities.com/ehocking@btinternet.com/jref/psychicuk.xls
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom