Psychic Kids on A&E

[roseglass]

I'm posting this link for this discussion too because I don't know who all have seen this show. Larry King Live - Psychic Kids.

http://www.truveo.com/Larry-King-Psychic-kids/id/1375660838

Includes John Edward, Char Margolis, Chip Coffey and Jillian (Age twelve)

And Larry King of course.

 

[CasaRojo]

You can google that phrase and it will come up with the poster's name on the A&E board.

I get one hit through Google (within the first five search pages) for the A&E board when I search for Chip Coffey is a crack addict and the link goes to a blank A&E page. And nothing if I use quotes. I did read on another board that someone had said that but I promise you that they're not from our camp. Occasionally some idiot will post something really stupid. If you see something like this again please make note of the poster an pass it along. If you've seen this fourteen times it should be easy for you to catch.Thanks.

 

[roseglass]

I get one hit through Google (within the first five search pages) for the A&E board when I search for Chip Coffey is a crack addict and the link goes to a blank A&E page. And nothing if I use quotes. I did read on another board that someone had said that but I promise you that they're not from our camp. Occasionally some idiot will post something really stupid. If you see something like this again please make note of the poster an pass it along. If you've seen this fourteen times it should be easy for you to catch.Thanks.

They may have already deleted the user - their name is displayed in the google listing.

 

[CasaRojo]

They may have already deleted the user - their name is displayed in the google listing.

I read right past it. Sorry, I've got it now. I've never seen this poster. Posting that kind of stuff really isn't helpful in the least an I can't imagine why someone would post it... 'course I can't imagine a lot of things.... ;-)

 

[roseglass]

More on the Internet front regarding Coffey and Psychic Kids;

I just read a post from Reagan Lee of Snarly Skeptics, a blogger who writes about critical skeptics, like Nye and now, Brian Thompson.

She posted a pretty scathing report about how skeptical people (lumps them together) are basically 'attacking' Coffey. Point in case for her, and she has some good points, is Brian Thompson's blog about Chip Coffey. However, she takes the basic skeptical defenses and arguing points, and twists them around to make her points about Brian's satirical rants on Coffey's show, Psychic Kids.

What bit does make sense on her blog, is often turned and transmuted into illogical points and conclusions about the skeptical uproar developing against Coffey by saying that skeptics allege 'Child Abuse', overly make fun of Coffey and can't prove their allegations against him. Brian, when he tried to argue those points (on her blog), he is simply told by her that (paraprase) 'Chip's making up information about being related to a Native American 'shaman' (and his use of the word in question), did not matter' because all people do it that way in Hollywood'. She also identifies herself as being descended from Native Americans.

No Native American person at this stage, if they have been educated about the New Age problem by their tribe or by those who are serious about their roots, accepts this notion, especially the use of the word 'shaman' - a Siberian term. From the Rainbow Family to Gabriel of Sedona, the greatest problem facing native culture isn't the government right now, but the New Age movement that is trying to co-opt various Native American traditions. This, in this case, also includes Mr. Coffey's story. Brian did good to point this out, as well as a factual error Coffey makes on his own testimonial page - listing this time, a reference with an address that does not exist.

That's part of the reason why I, when dealing with the A&E board, am pretty careful about what I say. I want people to understand there are very real holes in the bridge that is supporting the 'Psychic Kids' phenomenon. One can take a look back to James Randi's first shows in the UK - in my opinion, that's exactly how to handle paranormal claims, with wit, humor but most importantly, with factual truth.

 

[juryjone]

It's ridiculous to me that you have to watch your language on the A&E boards. It's not like you would drop the f-bomb in every sentence. You're just trying to shed some light on this character (and I use that word on purpose).

Knowing that he is an actor (which, according to Reagan Lee, gives him the right to lie egregiously) I knew that, even though he may be able to ignore the A&E boards, he'd never be able to ignore his IMDB listing and the comments there. A poster started a thread about the Million Dollar Challenge, which provided a link to a description of the challenge and an intimation that he wouldn't take the challenge if he was a fraud.

Coffey responded:

LMAO. All of you skeptics/disbelievers need to get some new material to "bait" psychics and mediums with. Daring us to take The "Amazing" Randi challenge is getting to be very old news.

As I have said before, I have nothing to prove to Mr. Randi or anyone, other than my clients, who seem quite pleased with the services I provide.

BTW, I've been called a fraud ... and much worse. I'm not losing any sleep over ignorant, often bigoted, comments that have been made.

I responded back:

Face it, you don't have to prove anything to your clients either. They're willing to believe no matter how lame the "help" you give them is. All you have to do is take their money, freely given.

How good it must feel to confirm people's feelings of how special they are, how "psychic" they are. Do you feel all warm inside taking children who think they've seen ghosts to a "haunted" inn or ranch? Confirming their delusions? To me it reeks of child abuse. But I guess I'm not special or "psychic" like you are.

Now I'm sure my response would be deleted on the A&E boards, and you may find it to be a little too confrontational. However, I do see PK as child abuse and coming at the subject obliquely seems to me to be a waste of time.

Coffey may come across as "nice" on TV (personally I don't see it), but elsewhere, like the post above, he comes across as arrogant and unfeeling.

I'm sure you know all this, but sometimes I like to do a little restrained venting.

 

[roseglass]

It's ridiculous to me that you have to watch your language on the A&E boards. It's not like you would drop the f-bomb in every sentence. You're just trying to shed some light on this character (and I use that word on purpose).

Knowing that he is an actor (which, according to Reagan Lee, gives him the right to lie egregiously) I knew that, even though he may be able to ignore the A&E boards, he'd never be able to ignore his IMDB listing and the comments there. A poster started a thread about the Million Dollar Challenge, which provided a link to a description of the challenge and an intimation that he wouldn't take the challenge if he was a fraud.

Coffey responded:


I responded back:


Now I'm sure my response would be deleted on the A&E boards, and you may find it to be a little too confrontational. However, I do see PK as child abuse and coming at the subject obliquely seems to me to be a waste of time.

Coffey may come across as "nice" on TV (personally I don't see it), but elsewhere, like the post above, he comes across as arrogant and unfeeling.

I'm sure you know all this, but sometimes I like to do a little restrained venting.

Agreed Juryjone - people approach this from the angle they feel best to do so. We say stuff on here that would never be allowed to see the light of day on A&E. The problem is, many of the people there don't even see it as a Child Abuse issue. Seeding the facts - while obliquely, backed by an emotional appeal to reason and just calling a spade a spade, is a true double edged sword with the same intent and purpose.

Maybe folks that are paying attention will figure it out.

 

[CasaRojo]

Agreed Juryjone - people approach this from the angle they feel best to do so. We say stuff on here that would never be allowed to see the light of day on A&E. The problem is, many of the people there don't even see it as a Child Abuse issue.

I just replied to this and lost the whole reply because I tried to post a link. Dadgummit! Basically what I said was that I find that PS and PK are definitely exploiting children and I think that's pretty easily proved, abuse a bit harder. However I do find it at least bordering on psychological abuse and very possibly medical neglect. And there'd no telling how many of their audience will forgo, at least medical inquiry in lieu of "psychic treatment".

The little boy's mom (her claim and seems believable enough) from the first epi of PS posted at the A&E PS board back in January. She posted in the ' Please Protect the little boy Matthew'. Her first post was # 21 (in the 'flat' view). Maybe you can copy and paste the link.---> boards.aetv.com/topic/Share-Your-Thoughts/Please-Protect-The/700011676

 

[roseglass]

I just replied to this and lost the whole reply because I tried to post a link. Dadgummit! Basically what I said was that I find that PS and PK are definitely exploiting children and I think that's pretty easily proved, abuse a bit harder. However I do find it at least bordering on psychological abuse and very possibly medical neglect. And there'd no telling how many of their audience will forgo, at least medical inquiry in lieu of "psychic treatment".

The little boy's mom (her claim and seems believable enough) from the first epi of PS posted at the A&E PS board back in January. She posted in the ' Please Protect the little boy Matthew'. Her first post was # 21 (in the 'flat' view). Maybe you can copy and paste the link.---> boards.aetv.com/topic/Share-Your-Thoughts/Please-Protect-The/700011676

Hey,

Thanks for trying to get that link posted, and in trying variations of that address, was unable to turn up the post.

 

[CasaRojo]

Hey,

Thanks for trying to get that link posted, and in trying variations of that address, was unable to turn up the post.

I just tried it and it works for me. Try putting H*TT*P*:*// in front of boards.aetv.com/topic/Share-Your-Thoughts/Please-Protect-The/700011676
Which is the same thing I posted ealier without the Hypertext Transfer Protocol colon forward slashX2 LOL! Jeeeze All I need is fifteen posts before I can post links? Right? Lemme know if this works. Don't forget to leave out the * . If that doesn't work, the thread is 'Please Protect the little boy Matthew' and was started on Jan 5, 2008 8:04 AM in the
AETV Community Center
»
Discussions
»
Paranormal State
»
Share your thoughts about Paranormal State
»
Please Protect the little boy Matthew.

And it's still there.... really.... I promise. Later Rose.

 

[CasaRojo]

ETA

And there'd no telling how many of their audience will forgo, at least medical inquiry in lieu of "psychic treatment".

LOL. I can't edit this for some reason. No edit button. I need a nap... What I meant was that some of the audience may favor the psychic route over looking to the medical community for answers.

I think it was the third epi that the one mother was afraid of loosing her daughter, that she'd be locked up if they sought psychological/psychiatric help. And I can see where some folks would think that she's right. And of course she may be but from what was presented, it didn't seem at all likely. And those statements were never addressed in the show. Nite all.

 

[imjohn]

More on the Internet front regarding Coffey and Psychic Kids;

I just read a post from Reagan Lee of Snarly Skeptics, a blogger who writes about critical skeptics, like Nye and now, Brian Thompson.

She posted a pretty scathing report about how skeptical people (lumps them together) are basically 'attacking' Coffey. Point in case for her, and she has some good points, is Brian Thompson's blog about Chip Coffey. However, she takes the basic skeptical defenses and arguing points, and twists them around to make her points about Brian's satirical rants on Coffey's show, Psychic Kids.

Actually, she has a lot of good points, and her response to Brian's response is well reasoned. This is a good example how we skeptics make the believers angry.

 

[juryjone]

CasaRojo: Here's your link to Please Protect the little boy Matthew. Just a few more posts (15 total) and you'll be able to give links yourself.

Actually, she has a lot of good points, and her response to Brian's response is well reasoned. This is a good example how we skeptics make the believers angry.

I would be interested in specific points she made that you agree with. Were they the bulk of the post, or would you agree with rosglass that she twists basic skeptical defenses?

 

[CasaRojo]

Includes John Edward, Char Margolis, Chip Coffey and Jillian (Age twelve)

And Larry King of course.

EDWARD: I just hope that it's something that, you know, she is not afraid of. And I think that any child who's having any experience like this really, really needs to find the balance of, as Char said, be the child.

I started doing this when I was 15. And if there was one thing that I could do differently, go back, I wouldn't have started doing this when I was 15 because you...

KING: Too young?

EDWARD: It's way too young. You give -- you give up a certain aspect of being because of what people -- not yourself, but what other people put upon you, the expectation.

KING: Do you agree, Char?

MARGOLIS: Yes, I do, because kids are innocent. And kids need to learn to play and be with their friends. The other little girl already is losing friends. And the other thing about this work is I have found that in the spirit world, there's good and evil, just like on the Earth, there's good and bad people.--snip---

Interesting that Edwards disses Coffey. At least Margolis and Edwards recognize a down side to sticking these kids in the spotlight.

 

[CasaRojo]

CasaRojo: Here's your link to Please Protect the little boy Matthew. Just a few more posts (15 total) and you'll be able to give links yourself.

YAY! Thanks juryone!

 

[roseglass]

The links worked for me, thanks Juryjone.

Actually, she has a lot of good points, and her response to Brian's response is well reasoned. This is a good example how we skeptics make the believers angry.

To make sure I wasn't getting this criss-crossed in my mind, because any rational personal could have seen these things. Given reasonable doubt, I went back and checked.

Well, it appears she's edited her blog without stating that she did so and removed Brian's third post from the comments in his defense.

[edit - no cache can't prove points] The blog is longer than the first time I read it.

I do not have a copy of her original blog and cannnot share

 

[imjohn]

The links worked for me, thanks Juryjone.



To make sure I wasn't getting this criss-crossed in my mind, because any rational personal could have seen these things. Given reasonable doubt, I went back and checked.

Well, it appears she's edited her blog without stating that she did so and removed Brian's third post from the comments in his defense.

[edit - no cache can't prove points] The blog is longer than the first time I read it.

I do not have a copy of her original blog and cannnot share

I'm not surprised that the blog has been edited -- that kind of thing happens a lot.

I do think that when we mock the believers we make it harder to convince them. We look like uncaring arrogant snots. this is why RSLancaster's work on Sylvia Browne is so brilliant. None of what he does could be considered condescending. He is unfailingly polite to all -- he simply points out the truth and let's the truth speak for itself..

 

[juryjone]

I'm not surprised that the blog has been edited -- that kind of thing happens a lot.

I do think that when we mock the believers we make it harder to convince them. We look like uncaring arrogant snots. this is why RSLancaster's work on Sylvia Browne is so brilliant. None of what he does could be considered condescending. He is unfailingly polite to all -- he simply points out the truth and let's the truth speak for itself..

I think Robert is terrific as well. He's done a wonderful job, and I try to tell him that as often as possible. Jonquill and roseglass have done a great job here in this thread, exposing the facts without using incendiary comments.

But the same approach is not useful for all people. Believers constantly use value judgements, yet come down on skeptics when they reciprocate. In its own way, "Coffey makes me happy too; I think he’s good and genuine" is just as guilty of avoiding the facts as "You've seen him on Paranormal State making bug eyes and waving his arms around as he pretends to be a psychic medium". I've had people tell me that I must not care about my position because I was just stating facts; I wasn't as "passionate" as those on the opposite side. So I believe there is room for occasionally coming down hard on the other side.

From my viewpoint, I do see an "uncaring arrogant snot" in this affair, and it isn't Brian Thompson. It's the man who's picking up the paycheck for scaring kids.

 

[CasaRojo]

I'm not surprised that the blog has been edited -- that kind of thing happens a lot.

I do think that when we mock the believers we make it harder to convince them. We look like uncaring arrogant snots. this is why RSLancaster's work on Sylvia Browne is so brilliant. None of what he does could be considered condescending. He is unfailingly polite to all -- he simply points out the truth and let's the truth speak for itself..

I have great respect for RSL's approach. I think there's room for all angles to be presented depending on the time and place of course. My only personal rule is that no matter what approach one is taking at any given moment, that one is honest and keep the facts straight. And not start yelling "crack addict" like that one idiot at A&E. I believe that a provocative stance is called for at times. Just my personal opinion and I'm old and tired. <G> I've found that sometimes ya just gotta yell and let them think whatever they fancy. The "Jane you ignorant sl*t" slant is totally appropriate, depending of course. ;-) And personally, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I gave that up a while back LOL. Please forgive me for jumping in here as I realize you weren't addressing me.

 

[CasaRojo]

From my viewpoint, I do see an "uncaring arrogant snot" in this affair, and it isn't Brian Thompson. It's the man who's picking up the paycheck for scaring kids.

LOL! But I think it's worse than just scaring kids.
I've not seen "snot" in my vocabulary lately. And when put with "uncaring" and "arrogant" it just feels, oh, so right and I find it to be a pretty accurate description of the ol' Chipperoo.