Re: Underdown and Release Form (name changed at request of thread starter)

[Leroy]

Clancie, this is your latest drum beat across many threads. It's simply not true. You have indeed been shown cold reader who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success; you simply choose to ignore it.

Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

 

[Leroy]

posted by FutileJester - Well, maybe there are two kinds of people in the world. Those who think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who grew up.

Or those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who are more educated than to believe that.

I am always amused when I meet people who think in black and white.

 

[Leroy]

This is a purely subjective standard of measure. Do you understand, Clancie, that no person will ever compare to JE because you have an infactuation with him? If JE didn't make you wet between your legs, you would think he's fake too. [/B]

Speaking of people who base their beliefs on emotions, you make judgement calls based on your emotions. Here you are saying that Clancie has an infatuation with JE - where do you get off making a statement like that? You base that on your own biases toward her for being a believer. You shouldn't allow your emotions to rule your life like that

 

[Leroy]

posted by thaiboxerken - If JE didn't make you wet between your legs, you would think he's fake too.

posted by Sundog - Skepticism at its finest, folks.

You have to understand that Thai doesn't ('think'), he ('reacts') emotionally to the things that he reads.

 

[neofight]

Anectdotal evidence may be worthless to you, but not worthless to serious investigators.

That is what I would like to see, live, not on television. With time and funds permitting, I plan to do that in the future.

Hey, Leroy! I think that's really great, and I'd love to see someone as open-minded as you or Mike D., Loki, Mark Tidwell, Sundog and certain other skeptics, take up a serous project like this...... .....neo

My apologies to the fair-minded skeptics that I neglected to mention. I know there are plenty more out there.

 

[TLN]

Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

I'm afraid one of the other posters will have to point this out to you as I don't remember the actual thread names. We've reviewed many cold readers here though.

Now, comparing those cold readers to Edward is problematic to say the least since the only Edward content we get is edited, save for Larry King Live.

 

[Leroy]

TBK,

I also think an apology to Clancie is in order. We don't know if she is among those women who finds JE attractive. Be a true skeptic and admit your mistake.

Thank you CFLarsen, just when I think you are all BS, you do something like this and make my day! You can't be all bad

Thai's response to apologizing is "BITE ME." I guess we can expect that kind of immaturity from him He isn't quite mature enough to apologize directly to Clancie. I think his emotions rule his life.

posted by thai - Insult noted and filed.

Whoa there, you're counting insults. What was that wet between the legs insult you spat at Clancie? An insult.

 

[TLN]

Thai's response to apologizing is "BITE ME." I guess we can expect that kind of immaturity from him He isn't quite mature enough to apologize directly to Clancie. I think his emotions rule his life.

Remember, it's your choice as to which posters to focus on.

 

[neofight]

At least you are not basing your entire opinion on JE from the shows. But even going to seminars, unless I had personal readings from JE I don't think I could put much faith in the readings others received, especially those who were desperate to hear from a someone they'd lost.

I am still willing to listen, with an open mind.

I would like to read what you have on the Philly seminar, go ahead and PM them to me please. I don't get online every day, but will read them whenever I return.

Hi, Leroy. I could simply send you the thread from over at tvtalkshows, (but that's an awful lot of reading) or I when I have a few extra minutes, I will summarize my own experience for you and PM you with it. Your choice. Or perhaps I will do both. ...neo

 

[TLN]

Hey, Leroy! I think that's really great, and I'd love to see someone as open-minded as you or Mike D., Loki, Mark Tidwell, Sundog and certain other skeptics, take up a serous project like this...... .....neo

I see. So, anyone you wish to ignore isn't "open-minded", correct?

neo, does it bother you that none of the above mentioned skeptics believe in John Edward's powers?

 

[Dragon]

Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

As you wish -

John Edward
........................................................................................................

Cold reader

 

[neofight]

Where can I find this? I'd like to see a comparison of a cold reader and John Edward.

I'm afraid one of the other posters will have to point this out to you as I don't remember the actual thread names. We've reviewed many cold readers here though.

Well, Leroy, I'm not sure which threads TLN is referring to either. I know the 90 seconds of Ian Rowland's performance was heavily edited, down from 30 full minutes, and Neill's on-line attempt at cold-reading was done over a time span of a few days, with some internet researching, so neither of those are really worth anything in the way of being "comparable" to a JE reading, even a LKL JE reading.

Now, not for nothin', but I feel compelled once again to point out the double standard that believers are subject to here at JREF. TLN just made a claim here........

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TLN


Clancie, this is your latest drum beat across many threads. It's simply not true. You have indeed been shown cold reader who can replicate what Edward does with the same degree of success; you simply choose to ignore it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if I had made a similar claim, or had Clancie done so, the skeptics would demand from us that we back up our claim immediately, or face incessant badgering, and the threat of having a new thread begun, with our name in it, listing what claims or questions we had not addressed to their satisfaction.

Just wanted to point that out. .......neo

 

[TLN]

There's no double standard here neo. I'd be happy to use the search function and find the threads myself and post them here so you can ignore them again.

 

[neofight]

I see. So, anyone you wish to ignore isn't "open-minded", correct?

What? Didn't I apologize to those fair-minded skeptics that I may have left out? They know who they are.

neo, does it bother you that none of the above mentioned skeptics believe in John Edward's powers?

No it does not. Should it? It's enough that they are fair, and that they are interested in researching the possibility that he could be real. Look what ridicule Dr. Schwartz is subjected to because he is perceived as someone who either already did, or badly wanted to, believe. What is your point exactly? .....neo

 

[TLN]

What is your point exactly?

My point is none of them think there's a possibility that Edward might be real.

So tell me, what makes them open-minded and another skeptic not?

 

[Leroy]

What serious investigators?
Shirley, you're joking.

When doctors use experimental drugs and treatments on patients, they rely on anecdotal evidence from these patients to see what side effects, if any, the patients suffer.

How could they evaluate without the use of anecdotal evidence?

They rely on the 'testimonies' of the patients to find out if a drug causes pain, or nausea. If 88% of these patients taking the same drug, are experiencing nausea, than the anecdotal evidence is beneficial. It may not 'prove' anything, but it is not useless.

Anecdotal evidence is used often and is the source of much of our knowledge of synthetic medicines.

and stop calling me Shirley!

 

[Leroy]

Now, comparing those cold readers to Edward is problematic to say the least since the only Edward content we get is edited, save for Larry King Live.

You're right. Why can't we use the LKL transcript?

Remember, it's your choice as to which posters to focus on.

Yes it is my choice.

Thai represents the skeptical side of the board, which means he is representing the skeptics. As a skeptic I do not want to be associated with that kind of behavior.

If I employ someone to represent my company, and that person is rude to customers, they have set a bad example for the company. That person makes the entire company look bad. If I don't speak out against that behavior than I am silently supporting it, and I don't support it.

 

[TLN]

You're right. Why can't we use the LKL transcript?

We can and have. Renata's already done an extensive thread on those.

 

[Leroy]

Hi, Leroy. I could simply send you the thread from over at tvtalkshows, (but that's an awful lot of reading) or I when I have a few extra minutes, I will summarize my own experience for you and PM you with it. Your choice. Or perhaps I will do both. ...neo

I'd rather have the summary of your experience - thanx!

 

[Leroy]

As you wish -

John Edward
........................................................................................................

Cold reader

I spit out my coffee when I saw that!