neofight said:
Yes, renata. I'm sure most of us are aware of the things that you have pointed out. We've seen the same programs, and have heard many people complain of having been duped by being quoted out of context. I realize that slick editing exists, and that some people are unscrupulous. Obviously you all believe this of JE. I'm sure it's no surprise to you that I disagree. 
My point, which by now I have given up on anyone ever understanding, is not that I can discern the type of editing that goes on, but that having witnessed plenty of unedited readings, I realize that JE gets these hits on a regular basis. His readings are usually quite accurate.
So if for instance, you watch a live reading, and observe the hits, then SO WHAT if they later shorten the reading and cut it down from fifteen minutes to twelve, or even ten? The hits are still hits, minus the superfluous footage that isn't necessary anyhow.
And I'm not saying to edit out all of the misses either, should there be any. I know for a fact, from talking with people who have gotten readings on "CO", that even some additional hits are sometimes edited out, to make the reading fit within the time constraints. Some skeptics don't want to hear that, but it's true. Some readings are just too long, and need to be trimmed. As long as the editing is not done in such a way as to change misses into hits, or remove misses entirely, then I have no problem with it.
Do I consider these readings to be proof that JE is communicating with those who are no longer with us? For the umpthteeth time, no, I do not. 
......neo
Given that the only documented proof we have of his performance are LKL readings, I hope you understand that we simply do not take your word for it. Especially considering the infamous Malibu shrimp alleged memory flip flop. And based on the only unedited readings we have, he looks like a cold reader. Oh, wait, you did not read LKL transcripts
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870039166&highlight=*snipp*#post1870039166
No, actually. Although I am very appreciative of all the work renata did on breaking down those LKL transcripts, I do not consider such reading "snippets" to be of much use in evaluating JE's mediumship abilities. So it's not that I didn't notice what messages were wrong, I just never checked out that thread, since it's basically useless, imo.
Of course on the rare occasion he actually got a hit, like the cigarettes, then you thought LKL was OK for spirit communication.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870105486#post1870105486
So, even though I still believe that the quick telephone readings are not the ideal format for mediumship readings, that doesn't mean that JE never gets accurate information from spirit.
The point is, Neo is that memory is unreliable. Sadly, notoriously unreliable. I have seen it with myself, and we have seen it with recollections of believers. And anecdotes are unreliable. And when people want to believe, when they have a reason to convince others of something, it is three times as unreliable.
So I am sorry, I do not think you are a dishonest person, but you seem to use different standards of evidence based on what results you find. Bad LKL readings- "snippets". Good hit- "spirit communication". Instig8r says you changed your recollection of Malibu shrimp seminar.
And now you want to convince us that based on some people you talked to who got readings on CO the readings are basically accurate. And then you say "So What" if they shorten (that is edit!) the reading. What do you think they cut out? Are you kidding here? Do you really come on a skeptical board hoping to convince anyone like this? Come on.
As an aside, I think this illustrates the lack of appreciation of great difficulty and complexity of science. People press a remote control button, the television turns on. Hell if I can explain how that happens. I stopped with college intro to physics, I am afraid. But there are dozens of people on that television peddling things that contradict the very laws that allow that television to be on. That was true for hundreds of years, and I find it ironic that now they have a greater audience due to the very reason we know they are impossible
. And I know it is said often, but while science moves forward, and we can point to many tangible benefits, the mediumship shtick is still the same, and the proof is still right around the corner.
......neo.......neo
