Okay so i finally found the courage to research psychic abilities and came across this site i have to say im still jolty. Basically i need to know if i have psychic abilities of any kind or if im eligible to have them. about a year or two ago i had extreme sensations of deja vu almost regularly everday and every week. Now im not having deja vu no where near as much as i used to have it im only getting it say once per month. If someone could offer me an explanation as to why that happened i would appreciated. Also whenever i have deja vu it feels as if not that ive been there or done the thing before but it feels as if ive experienced it in a dream yet i have no recollection of having any of those dreams. The dreams i do remember are very strange they all relate to something in my life but have other aspects of them that make them strange. anyway i realize i may be ridiculed but i basically have an urge and extreme curiosity to find out more. id like for some people to tell me where to start im willing to be patient and if my age is necessary then ill tell.

Eligible to have psychic abilities? You mean like, fill out a government form and hope you qualify? :) I'll leave this to the professionals...

Deja vu?

Deja vu?

Our mind tends to take in things and relate them to what it knows. The most common example of this is when a person finds themselves reading a completely unfamiliar word and pronouncing it as a familiar word. For example, I was in a pet store looking at a kind of fish called a "Bird Wrasser". The person next to me read it carefully and out loud "Bird Wrestler". She consistently called it this even when I pointed out that there was no T or L in the word anywhere. She still carefully and deliberately said "wrestler".

With deja vu you will most likely find that you are in a situation or place that your mind subconsciously relates to a memory of a similar situation or place and sends of messages of familiarity. There are even sensory cues that can affect you on the subliminal level that fill in even more detail of that particular situation/place which can seem like "I knew what was behind that wall before I looked!"

Then there's the phenomenon of false memory. I can clearly recall taking my two nieces to a park right behind our house when they visited us one summer in Prescott, Arizona. One problem. They NEVER visited us while we lived in Prescott. I NEVER showed them that park. Yet the memory is as clear as the memory of the dinner I just finished. I started to think that maybe I had just dreamed it, but I am a lucid dreamer and am very familiar with my own dream patterns. This memory is not from a dream.

If you've just started researching the world of the psychic, I'm going to offer some advice. Exhaust all mundane possibilities before going to the strange stuff. If you jump to paranormal conclusions too readily, you pretty much get clumped with the gullible whackos.

I've investigated ghosts and have encountered very few events that didn't have their origins in the mundane. The ones that I couldn't track to the mundane I still pursue, but I have less and less time to run this stuff down. (I know a cool "breeze" can come off of stone exposed to the right conditions, but how strong can that "breeze be when emanating from a solid 3'X3' area?)

Good luck on your research. Use the scientific process when you can and don't be afriad to ask a lot of questions. Some of the people here really want to help, others are pretty much just out to have fun (often at someone else's expense ;)). Just don't accept an answer as god-given truth just because it's what you want to hear. Criticize your own research just to keep yourself honest.

Good luck!

When it comes to researching "psychic abilities," you're really just looking at human behavior and belief and neurology, not actual "special powers."

Déjà vu is brain chemistry and a normal cognative function, not ESP. A fair bit of research has been done that relates to it because epileptic patients experience déjà vu or déjà vécu responses with chemical and electrical stimuli. Stimulation of the entorhinal cortices consistently resulted in déjà vu, whereas stimulation of perirhinal cortices resulted in reminiscence of memories (Bartolomei et al 2004).

Why do I bother with learning such things? I have a spouse with epilepsy. That's not to imply that one who experiences "strong feelings of déjà vu must have epilepsy... I've had such feelings and never a seizure. My wife has a Gray Matter Heterotopia, which causes seizures but has never reported any strong feelings of déjà vu. I've seen her stumble over trying to remember the correct word for the color blue or for one of the four round things on a car that meet the pavement though, which are memory related. No probs as long as she takes her meds.

Bartolomei, F., Barbeau, E., Gavaret, M., Guye, M., McGonigal, A., Regis, J., Chauvel, P. (2004). Cortical stimulation study of the role of rhinal cortex in deja vu and reminiscence of memories. Neurology 63: 858-864

thnx for your replies but does anyone have a clue as to why i stopped having feelings of deja vu? and by eligible i really just meant if i would be able to get some of the psychic abilities the people on these forums are talking about. telekenisis and i forgot the other ones.

I think anyone can gain psychic abilities. Deja Vu is not a psychic ability. I have never heard it classified that way.

Nobody can, apparently, "gain" "psychic abilities." They've not been proven to exist. No one has been able to replicate or produce on demand these alleged "abilities." They are but another psychological condition that some humans are afflicted with.

thatmexdude,

I donno about deja vu but here is a great site that has techniques to develop such abilities. www.psipog.net

There are alot of really good books on this type of stuff available everywhere. I started studying my abilities a couple of years ago and I can't even tell you how neat it is. I really like working with crystals and I have gotten pretty good at viewing auras too!

All I can say is keep with it and you will be amazed!
:)

Crystals, auras, "developing psi...." it's all bunk. None has been demonstrated to be anything more than imagination.

If that site has any testable or reproducible evidence that you can show, then I'll be more than happy to revise my statement. Otherwise, thatmexdude, you'll be better off studying the neurology and psychology associated with such beliefs. It is there that things really become fascinating. It would seem that the human mind has a need to find patterns and provide explanations of "why?" and when the explanations aren't forthcoming, the mind is satisfied with spurious data and made up explanations. With a properly disciplined mind, however, one can seek answers to questions without becoming a mystery-monger or significance-junkie.

Skinwalker, are saying that there is nothing in the universe that science can't explain fully? That all the answers are already known? That there is nothing left to learn?

Just because something is viewed as foolish or mystical doesn't mean that it isn't true!!

All kinds of things that were once thought of as mystical or evil ar witch craft are now a part of our day to day life. If you were to go back in time with a laptop and lighter, they would probably burn alive!! These things are common now, and we know how they work. I'm sure that given enough time we will figure out how psychic powers and abilities work too! Skepticism can be a good thing, but blind obeidience to it leaves you no better than us "fools" that believe in mysticism!!
:)

so basically i wont be able to read minds? or sens emotions one of the things im extremely interested in is astral projection also reading minds or telling the future. i would also like to study dreams.

I agree with you Lucycat. Well said!! It is true that there are people out there who prey on the gullible or those who are looking for attention. Personnally I will search for the answers by practicing meditation, energy work and concentration to develop such powers. I think that these powers are the next step in our evolution.

Psychic abilities don't exist. No matter what websites or books you may read, the truth is, nobody has such powers. If you ever try to find a real demonstration, or real proof that someone has special powers, you won't be able to. That is because they simply don't exist, and therefore cannot be proven.

Sorry if this is a let down. But it had to come eventually.

thatmexdude,

You can do anything, unless you believe you can't

Psychic abilities don't exist. No matter what websites or books you may read, the truth is, nobody has such powers. If you ever try to find a real demonstration, or real proof that someone has special powers, you won't be able to. That is because they simply don't exist, and therefore cannot be proven.

Sorry if this is a let down. But it had to come eventually.
hah! go tell the Illuminati

I would like to see anyone who claims to have these powers reproduce them under laboratory conditions. In fact, I even offer myself up as someone to experiment on under less than ideal conditions. Does anyone here who claims these powers feel up to a test? My integrity in this matter can be counted on. Let's set something up.

If it matters, my background involves both hard science and the occult. I'm not being sarcastic, either. I really would like to see something proven. Unfortunately, it usually comes down to "you can't just make it happen, it has to happen naturally", or "the aura in the lab is interfering" which sounds more like a cop out. But come on. Let's try something that satisfies both sides for conditions.

What can we do that doesn't involve travel (unless you want to come to Modesto some weekend)? What conditions do we need?

Skinwalker, are saying that there is nothing in the universe that science can't explain fully?

I'm saying that there's nothing in the universe that science cannot potentially explain.

That all the answers are already known?

Why would I say that? That's a non-sequitur.

That there is nothing left to learn?

Another non-sequitur.

Just because something is viewed as foolish or mystical doesn't mean that it isn't true!!

Much of what is considered "mystical" is pure bunk. Show me the evidence. That's where the mystics fall flat on their silly faces.

All kinds of things that were once thought of as mystical or evil ar witch craft are now a part of our day to day life. If you were to go back in time with a laptop and lighter, they would probably burn alive!!

An appeal that simply doesn't work. People have always claimed to have powers of divination and psychic abilities. Iron has been invented, technology has given us the power of the computer, we fly to the upper atmosphere and even space. Yet the ignorant and undereducated that claim some "msytic" abilities haven't evolved. They still see themselves as "special members of the human race" -and none can prove it. When proof is demanded, the argument resorts to a cowardly response of pseudo-altruism: "the true psychic doesn't seek recognition." Yet mystery-mongers and significance-junkies claim them to be true as if it truly mattered to them. And it does. Hope springs eternal to those that want to believe. Belief is both a human failing and a blessing at the same time.

but blind obeidience to it leaves you no better than us "fools" that believe in mysticism!!
:)

"Blind obedience" to what? I believe in nothing that cannot be demonstrated or logically inferred and deduced from observation and experience. Mysticism and the paranormal shit people want to believe in falls into the "cannot be tested" category because it DOESN'T EXIST.

Fools that believe in mysticism are 'fools' because the fool themselves. They cannot explain, so they invent. They cannot reason, so they fanasize.

hah! go tell the Illuminati

Please, please don't bring the illuminati into this thread

Illuminati Illuminati Illuminati......!
how do ya like THAT? bossy boots
Skin.....oh myyyyy, what a great member of the positivist science brigade you are. and you give good ad

but you are rathe old ashioned i have to say. not cool

ok, te subjct of psychic power. one poster her said they ha an interest in the occult. i am curious. in wat regard if you dont believe in psychic phenomena....?

Skin and others who believe solidly in materialistic science. i tend to believe you have what i might term ...conveyor-belt-minds regarding this subject. i.e you imagining that errr 'psychic activity' could be made to order, and patented??

ahahaaaa there is a pattern i see. bet you dont/wont/cant......it is te TRICKterishness of not only UFO/abduction phenomea, but also psychic events inc;uding OBes etc that evades your invading 'scientific' eye. as tho it's takin te piss outta your method of approach. which, lets be fair, is rather clinical laboratory and cold

Ok Skin...got my crystal ball here....a lookin in it......i am askin it to tell me about your beliefs......it tells me you tink consciousness is an emergent property of matter/energy. is this TRUEEEEE???

Great news for those with psychic powers.. You can win a million dollars!!

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Great news for those with psychic powers.. You can win a million dollars!!

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html
hah...how crass! ...and a if yer'd even get it outta that 'flim-flam man'....read on andsee what a bullshiter yer father christmas lukalike guru is....:


'A Skeptical Look At James Randi'
http://www.skeptikalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

.....and agaion
http://www.akepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

hhhahaaaa...promise it;ll work this time...here goes. sorry
A Skeptical Loot At James Randi
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

fingers crossed?

Great news for those with psychic powers.. You can win a million dollars!!

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

Your comment tells us all about you. Did you know that? You are a person who thinks money is the only important thing in the world. You think psychic powers are a lottery ticket that is used to win 1 million dollars.

You don't think too good.

You ever wonder what happens to people who show up saying they are psychic and want the million? They get the check, then security escorts them away as they wave to the TV cameras. Security keeps right on escorting them out the back door and into the waiting FBI van. The FBI van takes them to a nice scientific facility where they will be tortured until the people find out what they want. In these days of detention without charge, no one will ever know what happened to you. They will believe you are on an island with your million somewhere instead of in a small room with people with power tools.

You ever wonder what you could do if you were psychic? If you were psychic, why stop at 1 million? You can go reveal yourself at that website, or you can go to casinos and win 10's of millions. You can play the stockmarket and make billions of dollars. You can basically do anything you want. 1 million dollars is small potatoes for people with small minds.

That website is a trap for the unwary and the naive. Anyone who tries for the 1 million is going to be marked down in a computer database somewhere. You know for a fact that there are real psychics there testing and reporting on every person who goes there.

Psychic abilities don't exist. No matter what websites or books you may read, the truth is, nobody has such powers. If you ever try to find a real demonstration, or real proof that someone has special powers, you won't be able to. That is because they simply don't exist, and therefore cannot be proven.

Sorry if this is a let down. But it had to come eventually.

I could never understand a person who says "This doesn't exist" with absolute conviction. How do you know? Just because you cannot do it? You are 1 man out of 5 billion or so. You don't think that one of those 5 billion can do things you cannot?

I finally decided on fear or envy. People deny that psychic power are possible because they have done something they feel guilty about and do not want any mind readers to know. Or they are envious because they are a regular person with nothing. You know. The envy of poor people for rich people.

You may as well get over your fear. You are busted. There are all kinds of people that can read minds. Someone somewhere already knows about all of your bad deeds. You cannot escape. That is the impetus behind religious, cultural and moral edicts telling people to be good. You don't want to be good to please god or some ephemeral religiuos edict. You want to be good because people can read your mind and they will know when you have been bad.

If psychic abilities don't exist, then why did the US secret services employ 'Remote Viewers' during the cold war. These people sat in a lab in America and 'watched things happening' in the USSR... in their minds!

duendy "ok, te subjct of psychic power. one poster her said they ha an interest in the occult. i am curious. in wat regard if you dont believe in psychic phenomena....?"

I'm guessing you're talking about me. I did not have an "interest" in the occult. I used to practice it. I've been there, done that. None of it has stood up to the scientific process (with one exception). Yes, my heart was in it. Yes my divinations often bore themselves out. Yes, I scored high with Zener cards (not consistently, but more often than not). Yes, I was actually with a group that practiced mind-reading and telekinesis. Nothing occured that didn't owe itself to either good playing of the odds or near-imperceptible clues in the environment. There's also the problem with people who so desperately want to believe that they will look for the slightest clue that such things are true and go on that as solid evidence.

For example, tarot cards. Just a psychological tool. You mention something like "an influential, older woman is holding you back", and your client will dig through their mental files until they find someone who fits that purpose. The hardest part about tarot reading was getting the client to shut up. I did cold readings, no knowledge of the client's past, or even wanting to know what their question was. Too many clues can be given away with the voice, let alone body language.

Had a strange event with a ouija board once, but that was it. I still study ghosts and I choose to believe in reincarnation (for lack of solid evidence one way or the other), but all of the psychic and paranormal phenomena I grew up with (yes, I grew up with this stuff and started putting it to the test at age 8 when I wanted to see how my family's religion worked) has failed to pass any test of validity past "good playing of the odds or near-imperceptible clues in the environment" with only one exception that I intend to get back to when I can get things set up again.

I'm not someone who discovered the occult in her teenage years and got into it because the imagery was cool (it is cool, I'll give you that) or because it freaked out my parents. Au contraire, I was raised on this stuff. We put up a Roman Catholic front when my dad's family visited, but he and my mom were really into this. My skepticism stems from the fact that the paranormal lacks the mystical allure for me because I grew up with it.

That's why I feel qualified to be the subject of a test. I don't want to hammer away at an event until I can force it to fit into a mundane explanation. That's no better than claiming that everything you can't readily explain must be psychic phenomena. I want to see if any of it holds up under mutually agreed upon conditions (scientists vs. psychics).

Let's try something easy. Remote viewing. Above the light switch in my computer room is a drawing that a friend of mine made for me. There are three elements in this drawing, each with distinctive features. The subject matter is something I have never discussed either on this board or anywhere on the internet except through e-mails to my brother, who does not have his own computer, using only the one at his local library for e-mail access. To my knowledge (and because he would insist I join him if he did), he does not visit forum sites at all.

Scientists-How many of the three elements must be described and to what level of accuracy?

Psychics-There is an item very near the picture that is pretty distinctive itself. Should I move it, or can you distinguish between the picture and the object?

All-Is this test acceptable at this point? Again I declare that my integrity on this matter can be counted on.

hhhahaaaa...promise it;ll work this time...here goes. sorry
A Skeptical Loot At James Randi
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

fingers crossed?
So instead of discussing the fact that no one has been able to demonstrate the abilities that they claim to have you post a link that criticises James Randi.
Ad hominem duendy? that's unlike you....

I will read it tomorrow.

Your comment tells us all about you. Did you know that?

Yes you've got me all figured out...


You are a person who thinks money is the only important thing in the world. You think psychic powers are a lottery ticket that is used to win 1 million dollars.
Actually I don't think money is that important. I don't think psychic powers are a lottery ticket. I'm yet to be convinced that they exist.


You don't think too good.
Thanks but I do ok.


You ever wonder what happens to people who show up saying they are psychic and want the million? They get the check, then security escorts them away as they wave to the TV cameras. Security keeps right on escorting them out the back door and into the waiting FBI van. The FBI van takes them to a nice scientific facility where they will be tortured until the people find out what they want. In these days of detention without charge, no one will ever know what happened to you. They will believe you are on an island with your million somewhere instead of in a small room with people with power tools.
The test are not hidden away in a military facility. The jref does not have a special forces security team overlooking the tests.

It sounds like you are making excuses..


You ever wonder what you could do if you were psychic? If you were psychic, why stop at 1 million? You can go reveal yourself at that website, or you can go to casinos and win 10's of millions. You can play the stockmarket and make billions of dollars. You can basically do anything you want. 1 million dollars is small potatoes for people with small minds.
So why aren't all the psychics millionaires then?


That website is a trap for the unwary and the naive. Anyone who tries for
the 1 million is going to be marked down in a computer database somewhere.

Other than the jref database? What is your source for this?

You know for a fact that there are real psychics there testing and reporting on every person who goes there.
I don't know for a fact that there are real pychics.


Sorry about the arrogance but it's 6am and I've had a lot to drink.

If psychic abilities don't exist, then why did the US secret services employ 'Remote Viewers' during the cold war. These people sat in a lab in America and 'watched things happening' in the USSR... in their minds!
If remote viewing works then why was the project closed down?

The cold war ended. But... how can we be sure that such projects are still not in existence?

duendy
Psychics-There is an item very near the picture that is pretty distinctive itself. Should I move it, or can you distinguish between the picture and the object?



I know I'm not psychic, but the picture elements that come to my mind include flowers or plants, a pot or urn and something like a rainbow. The object near the picture could be a clock or a speaker.

psychic activity involves magick doesn't it?...i had a go at it a while back--chaos magick. BUT i got cold feet. why?......i didn't like idea of magick circle as a means to keep 'evil' out, etc etc. i also didn't like te attitude of some 'Chaotes (ie., people who do chaos magick). seemed a bit cold. can only to say for a few, not all

.....it seemed to me the MYTHOLOGY of magick as its generally known anyhow is patriarchal.......and when i found about about the Illuminati and their occultic pursuits--POST 7/7, it very much made me realize that psychic POWER can be a dangerous thing unless EARTHED. that first before any kind of exploration there must be a deep love for Nature. oterwise it becmes very ugly indeedo. like the CIA being interested in 'remote viewing' kind of ugly!

tablariddim-I sent you a private message regarding the experiment. Hopefully doing that will keep things from delineating into a guessing game. You know, people look up what was already posted and start a process of elimination.

All Next Saturday I'll post the picture (if I can figure out how. In all the time I've been on this board I've never posted an image!). Is that enough time for everybody?

The cold war ended. But... how can we be sure that such projects are still not in existence?
Project Stargate was closed down in 1995 because it was not working.

Sure its possible that there are others in existence. If so, they haven't had much luck with Bin Laden .

psychic activity involves magick doesn't it?...i had a go at it a while back--chaos magick. BUT i got cold feet. why?......i didn't like idea of magick circle as a means to keep 'evil' out, etc etc. i also didn't like te attitude of some 'Chaotes (ie., people who do chaos magick). seemed a bit cold. can only to say for a few, not all

.....it seemed to me the MYTHOLOGY of magick as its generally known anyhow is patriarchal.......and when i found about about the Illuminati and their occultic pursuits--POST 7/7, it very much made me realize that psychic POWER can be a dangerous thing unless EARTHED. that first before any kind of exploration there must be a deep love for Nature. oterwise it becmes very ugly indeedo. like the CIA being interested in 'remote viewing' kind of ugly!
The illuminati, magick and psychics all in the same post! Is there anything you don't believe in duendy?

hhhahaaaa...promise it;ll work this time...here goes. sorry
A Skeptical Loot At James Randi
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

fingers crossed?
The link at the bottom of the page has a rebuttal from Mr Randi. This hardly shows that he is a liar.

Interestingly most of the arguing is about the Geller tests. Duendy do you thing Uri Geller is genuine?

Project Stargate was closed down in 1995 because it was not working.

Sure its possible that there are others in existence. If so, they haven't had much luck with Bin Laden .
the trouble with you--as'skeptic'--asis shared by others of your persuasion on these boards issssss, you are politically
UN-savvy. ie., you dont see the irony of what you said above about Bin Laden....doyou?

The illuminati, magick and psychics all in the same post! Is there anything you don't believe in duendy?
mockers NEVER learn!....they just mock, wit a sticker on their backs saying 'fool'.......of course they dont KNOW this

The link at the bottom of the page has a rebuttal from Mr Randi. This hardly shows that he is a liar.

Interestingly most of the arguing is about the Geller tests. Duendy do you thing Uri Geller is genuine?
ohhhhhhh, how you defend this conman. LOL till my ears drop off

I am curious duendy. Do you believe Uri Geller is genuine?

I am curious duendy. Do you believe Uri Geller is genuine?
actually i cant fukin stand the man....always grabbing peple by the hand and patronizing people to be 'positive'

you want me to say yes, and then throw moree skeptical stuff at me...my cynical side tells me, no?
i am moreinterested in two scientists Randi lied against.....tell one fib, more follows. after all, old Randi's got a reputation to keep up, AND dont want to be givin away no dosh

actually i cant fukin stand the man....always grabbing peple by the hand and patronizing people to be 'positive'

you want me to say yes, and then throw moree skeptical stuff at me...my cynical side tells me, no?
i am moreinterested in two scientists Randi lied against.....tell one fib, more follows. after all, old Randi's got a reputation to keep up, AND dont want to be givin away no dosh
.. and where did Randi lie?

I mean be specific. Randi has a response for the accusations.

.. and where did Randi lie?

I mean be specific. Randi has a response for the accusations.
oh maaaan, yer soo naive, seriously...like oh NO your precious randi, why he'd NEVERlie would he, to back up his mission to totaly debunk ALL ever reports of any 'anamolous' activty....? get real dude. cant you see it??

of course thre will be charlatans to be exposed. fine. agreed. but old Randi writes off ALL. even offering 1million smackers to prove his religion. of bleedin course this dude is off on one, and will most certainly corrupt dATA to push his agenda. if yo cant see this ...well, sorry fo you

oh maaaan, yer soo naive, seriously...like oh NO your precious randi, why he'd NEVERlie would he, to back up his mission to totaly debunk ALL ever reports of any 'anamolous' activty....? get real dude. cant you see it??

Duendy you think you are able to tell if someone is lying by watching them. Which one of us is naive?

I asked you to point out where he lied. You did not do this. All you have done is found a web page where someone says something negative about James Randi. You desperately cling to this because if you can discredit Randi you therefore prove that psychic powers are more likely to exist. That isn't a logical train of thought but then again you are not a logical person. You seem to be emotional and artistic but not logical.



of course thre will be charlatans to be exposed. fine. agreed. but old Randi writes off ALL. even offering 1million smackers to prove his religion. of bleedin course this dude is off on one, and will most certainly corrupt dATA to push his agenda. if yo cant see this ...well, sorry fo you
Ah so you are saying Randi has rigged the tests?

Duendy you think you are able to tell if someone is lying by watching them. Which one of us is naive?

me::actually you can...it is seeing body language, deflection in tone of voice, intuition etc. but am not sure where i said that regardig old hairy-face

I asked you to point out where he lied. You did not do this.

me::;oh goooood. did you read the article? do i have to quote from it...?

All you have done is found a web page where someone says something negative about James Randi. You desperately cling to this because if you can discredit Randi you therefore prove that psychic powers are more likely to exist. That isn't a logical train of thought but then again you are not a logical person. You seem to be emotional and artistic but not logical.

me::::hahaha....you project on me dear young sire. i could say Xactly the same about your metod. finding nearest article to discredit any talk or 'weird' events.......no? hah
what i say though is this, please listen this time, ....ready? sittin comfortably? gooood. what i say is that the onus is on old randi, precisely becaus of hs stance. which is? his missionary zeal t expose ALL EVER and PRESENT and FUTURE reportts of 'weid' phenomena. do----you----get ----me? what is difficlt to dig LOGICALLY what i am saying here.



Ah so you are saying Randi has rigged the tests?
i a saying he is a sly old bugger. yes!

It seems readily apparent that woo-woo's (the mystery-mongers and significance junkies) hate James Randi because her rubs their collective faces in the excrement of nonsense that those who make wild and unfounded claims about the paranormal spout.

I've yet to read an attack on Randi that has any actual supporting fact or criticism that can actually be demonstrated. The only real criticism that woo-woo's can level at Randi is that he doesn't believe their nonsense.

Then you have the woo-woo's quick post links to anti-Randi diatribes, but rarely do you have a woo-woo with the guts to actually comment on any specific points. Its as if it is good enough to them that someone else said "Randi is full of shit" and therefore it must be so and simply linking to it is evidence enough. But then, this is the failing of the woo-woo crowd to begin with. They believe without seeing any evidence or applying critical thought.

Perhaps Randi is wrong. I would argue that if that is the case, he is right far more times though, again, I've yet to see a valid criticism of him. And we're left with woo-woo's who haven't the courage to quote significant passages from a link to discuss.

The bottom line: Randi exposes the scams that the so-called psychics and proponents of ESP and the like cite as factual and even charge money for "seminars" and "classes." Randi has a million dollar challenge that NO ONE has been able to take him up on. Rather than try to meet the rigors of the test, the woo-woo's whine and cry that he renigs. They want the standard to be reduced to meet their lies rather than demonstrate their claims meet the challenge. Either they have the power or they don't.

If you claim you have ESP, precognition, telekinesis, remote viewing ability, or any of that other poppycock you have to provide the evidence of your claim -otherwise you are a liar. Its as simple as that.

me::actually you can...it is seeing body language, deflection in tone of voice, intuition etc. but am not sure where i said that regardig old hairy-face
I'm not saying that you did. I am responding to the comment that I am naive. You seem to believe in everything that is paranormal or anti-science and find it hard to believe that someone could lie or make a mistake regarding an experience. Yes there are small body language give aways but I think you underestimate how good people are at lying. Anyway my point was that I think the pot was calling the kettle black. Not important.

me::;oh goooood. did you read the article? do i have to quote from it...?
I suspect that you didn't even read the whole article. You just thought that you found something that validated your preconcieved notions regarding Randi.


me::::hahaha....you project on me dear young sire. i could say Xactly the same about your metod. finding nearest article to discredit any talk or 'weird' events.......no?
I generally don't post I link unless I am prepared to discuss what it says.


hahwhat i say though is this, please listen this time, ....ready? sittin comfortably? gooood. what i say is that the onus is on old randi, precisely becaus of hs stance. which is? his missionary zeal t expose ALL EVER and PRESENT and FUTURE reportts of 'weid' phenomena. do----you----get ----me? what is difficlt to dig LOGICALLY what i am saying here.
Randi exposes the deluded and the fraudulent and he done a very good job doing so. If you are a real psychic then you have nothing to fear from Mr Randi. In fact he would be very excited to meet you. Of course, one has not has not surfaced yet....

Like many believers you are trying very hard to twist this to make Randi look like an evil fanatic out to smear the name of innocent people or something. Doing this helps you explain away why no one has passed the test yet.


i a saying he is a sly old bugger. yes!
Of course he is. That's why he can pick the frauds.

But that is not what I asked. Are you saying he has rigged the tests?

Read the previous post by skinwalker. ..twice.

no, i dont have to read twice and meticulously study what either one of you--you or Skin, says. justa glance over both your posts is much of a muchness. an accusatory attitude which totally discounts its own ineptitude regarding examining evidence etc.......you Skin for example make out you know every 'expose' Randi has ever done......yeah sure kid, dont try to kid a a kidder. you just look up to him like some kinda guru which proves toyou your delusion about the primacy of materialistic science....THAT

again and again i sayshit, and neithere on of yus listens. whats that way to me? that boooy i bet they can really invesigate evidence etc? NO. it shows you neither listen nor care.

so...thanklessly--cause feel you wont hear me again--i repeat.
i have no doubt that Randi has exposed charlatans. i have seen it myself. i say a docu about the Indian guru Sai Baba, who many Hindus believe is like a god. and we could see him doing magic tricks, swift of hand etc. he gies ashes to te poor and jewels to the rich...that shoulda been a hint!
so, dont put me down as some alround gullible. i admit when somethin is phony. riiiiight? got that?

but YOU lot. no. you are quite prepared to believe old Randy has and singlehandedly discounted all known --implying for ever in the past--'paranormal events' abduction experiences, etc. nowhere do you say or admit that he cold be wrong, or that any experience reported could be true, tho you dont understand it. ie., showing a humility befpre the unknown. tis shows your utter immaturity and amateurishness.....

you aint te only skeptics i have met you know. true skeptics aren't lik Randi and PSYCOP and yous, the real skeptic is asking QUESTIONS. not concluding and calling people--some they have never heard--taken the time tolisten to/know---LIARS

you'll are like a granite wall of knowyness and smugness. this is constructive criticism. take it or leave it

Skin for example make out you know every 'expose' Randi has ever done......yeah sure kid, dont try to kid a a kidder. you just look up to him like some kinda guru which proves toyou your delusion about the primacy of materialistic science

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I've read all Randi has written, etc. I've only read a few of his articles and one of his books. What I was saying is that I've yet to see a criticism of Randi that holds up.

Woo-woo's offer up many, but all I've seen had major flaws. If you want to discuss the fine points of a critique of Randi (or any other skeptic), I'd be happy to participate.

But if you are simply a cowardly, woo-woo or lying claimant of "special abilities," you can resort to just leaving undiscussed links and making pejorative comments.

you are quite prepared to believe old Randy has and singlehandedly discounted all known --implying for ever in the past--'paranormal events' abduction experiences, etc. nowhere do you say or admit that he cold be wrong

Of course he could be wrong. I've just yet to see it. I've read a lot of criticisms of Randi et al, but none demonstrate successfully that he was wrong or dishonest. Moreover, I've no misconceptions about Randi "singlehandedly discounting" the paranormal. Indeed, his challenge is an invitation for the paranormal to come to him to demonstrate singlehandedly that it is true. This has yet to occur. Instead, the woo-woo crowd bitches and cries that his challenge is unfair. Unfair? Why? Because he demands that the test be under controlled conditions? That's how science is done you silly git (see, I speak a little Brit :cool: )

true skeptics aren't like Rand[i] and [CSI]COP and [each of you], the real skeptic is asking QUESTIONS. [N]ot concluding and calling people--some they have never heard--tak[ing] the time to listen[;] to know---LIARS

I'm calling anyone who claims they have paranormal "powers" (psi, telekinesis, precognition, teleportation, etc) liars if they refuse to offer evidence. Some might be unintentional liars, in that they truly believe they have these "gifts," but liars nonetheless. Randi and the people who are members of CSICOP are, indeed, true skeptics. Woo-woo's like to make the statements that imply "true skeptics believe silly shit like ESP" without evidence, but I'll contend that Randi and CSICOP members (as well as other criticized skeptics) do ask questions. The problem is, the question very often offends the claimant. Like: "where's the evidence?"

Where's the evidence? If you can't produce it, you are a liar if you make the claim. Don't be a liar, and repeat claims for which you have no evidence. My statement here is provocative and intentionally so. I think we deserve not to have a science board, even in the pseudoscience sub-forums, overrun by woo-woo's and kids saying, "is my dream a preminition(sic)?" Or, "I have this gift I didn't ask for... blah, blah, blah."

If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you should have some extraordinary, or at least some prosaic, evidence for us to examine. An anecdote isn't good enough.

Randi and the people who are members of CSICOP are, indeed, true skeptics. Woo-woo's like to make the statements that imply "true skeptics believe silly shit like ESP" without evidence, but I'll contend that Randi and CSICOP members (as well as other criticized skeptics) do ask questions. The problem is, the question very often offends the claimant. Like: "where's the evidence?"

csicops - a pseudo skeptic cult (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2002/jun/m03-007.shtml)

Yet another woo-woo posts a link without discussion.

It would be interesting to see one of these many woo-woo's, for a change, act as though they have minds of their own. Are you capable of actually extracting one or two of the key points at that woo-woo site which are worth discussing. The points that demonstrate that, indeed, a "pseudo-skeptic cult" exists.

Bear in mind, that you'll have to demonstrate two things: 1) that the members of CSICOP aren't actually skeptics (hence the word 'pseudo,' or 'fake'), and 2) that a cult is established. I should think that the latter would be easier than the former and I could conditionally agree given an appropriate definition of the word "cult," but you will need to bear in mind that will include EVERY SINGLE WOO-WOO and then some.

Yet another woo-woo posts a link without discussion. .

justify the derogatory "woo woo" label.
i dare you

Randi and the people who are members of CSICOP are, indeed, true skeptics."

and another fanatical armchair debunker, a brainwashed cult member of csicops, defends his faith and church

"true sceptics"

such unabashed adoration of the mutts over at csicops
how fucking needy

now just look at the filthy fucking hypocrisy of skinwalker

Hmm.. if that's the quality of discussion this thread might have to offer, perhaps I'll refrain as I did from the "where's the evidence" thread.

yet when his faith is challenged, the pseudo sceptic shows his true colors...

Yet another woo-woo..........

pathetic

Bear in mind, that you'll have to demonstrate two things: 1) that the members of CSICOP aren't actually skeptics (hence the word 'pseudo,' or 'fake'), and 2) that a cult is established.

well well
let all things have a logical progression ja?

let those who first claim without substantiation begin

demonstrate to me that the members of csicops are "true sceptics"
define terms if you have to

ps: this outta keep you busy for the rest of your agenda ridden and dishonest life

frauds exposed at the church of csicop (http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html)

its a dog eat dog world over at your friendly neighborhood church of csicop (http://www.discord.org/~lippard/Bakerchronology.html)

"true sceptics!"

/puke

so ahh
why did truzzi defect from the church?

Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers.(truzzi)

the church of csicop - an overview

After the true skeptics had been purged from the committee, CSICOP and its magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, degenerated into little more than a propaganda outlet for the systematic ridicule of anything unconventional. Led by a small, but highly aggressive group of fundamentalist pseudoskeptics such as chairman and humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz, science writer and magician Martin Gardner and magician James Randi, CSICOP sees science not as a dispassionate, objective search for the truth, whatever it might be, but as holy war of the ideology of materialism against "a rising tide of irrationality, superstition and nonsense".

Kurtz and his fellows are fundamentalist materialists. They hold the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as an article of faith, and they cling to that belief just as fervently and irrationally as a devout catholic believes in the Virgin Mary. They are fighting a no holds barred war against belief in the paranormal, and they see genuine research into such matters as a mortal threat to their belief system. Since genuine scientific study has the danger that the desired outcome is not guaranteed, CSICOP wisely no longer conducts scientific research of its own (such would be a waste of time and money for an entity that already has all the answers), and instead largely relies on the misrepresentation or intentional omission of existing research and the ad-hominem - smear, slander and ridicule. (borner)

and this is what our resident pseudo skeptic skinwalker, puts on a pedestal and prostrates himself to so abjectly and with such fanatical devotion

"true skeptics!"

yeah, find another sucker to peddle your irrational beliefs to

Bravo Bravo

If you want to make an extraordinary claim, you should have some extraordinary -or at least some prosaic- evidence for us to examine. An anecdote isn't good enough.

well come on skinwalker!

show me that the "true skeptics" over at csicops are beyond reproach.
and yes
"prosaic evidence" would do.

First, Gustav has yet to define "pseudo-skeptic," a very obvious play on words with "pseudoscientist" and meant to be a counter-pejorative. Woo-woo is also a pejorative, but one based in phonetics of the term. "Woo-woo" is the sound a train makes to get attention. So the term, "woo-woo" is an analogy to the attention-seeking mystery-mongers and significance-junkies. But since it obviously offended Gustav, who appears to have taken it very personally, I'll refrain from future use of it. Instead, I'll refer to mystery-mongers and significance-junkies as mystery-mongers and significance-junkies, even though it is a lot more to type.

Second, let me recommend this link as a decent critical review of CSICOP: http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm

The article (Hansen, 1992) is, however, incomplete, but I think the majority of it is present minus the conclusions and bibliography.

Third, I'd like to add that I couldn't begin to comment "The Baker Affair" link, since I've never read it, but I am familiar with the ancient "Mars Effect" criticisms.

James Randi (http://www.randi.org/jr/041103.html)
"The misrepresentation of the CSICOP involvement in the Gauquelin matter has been discussed numerous times before, and that accusation is quite false. CSICOP's only fault there lay with the reluctance of astronomer George Abell to consider Rawlins as a competent authority on the subject of astrology, and they — and Abell, personally — apologized for that fact, quite adequately. There was certainly nothing "fraudulent" nor "engineered" on the part of CSICOP. In any case, the entire Gauquelin matter has faded into obscurity with the other bits of pseudoscience, having failed attempts at replication."

Absolute Astronomy.Com (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Ma/Mars_effect.htm)
"Zelen's (and Kurtz's and Abell's) rebuttal was poorly written. Read it a second, third, or fourth time, though, and you will see that the initial appearances are deceptive. Zelen split the sample not to examine the Mars effect, but primarily to examine the randomness of the subsample of 303 champions. And it turned out that the Gauquelins did not choose their subsample randomly."

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/klass-crybaby.htm ( Philip J. Klass
" Were it possible to turn back the clock, undoubtedly Kurtz, Zelen and Abell would try to be more precise in defining test objectives and protocol and would do so in writing. And more time would be spent in more carefully phrasing articles dealing with such tests. But all CSICOP Council members and Fellows have other full-time professions that seriously constrain time available for CSICOP efforts.

[...] FATE and McConnell have demonstrated the intrinsic flaw in the basic approach of those who promote claims of the paranormal -- THEIR EAGERNESS TO ACCEPT CLAIMS OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS WITHOUT RIGOROUS INVESTIGATION. Neither FATE nor McConnell contacted CSICOP officials to check out Rawlins' charges. This demonstrates why CSICOP is so sorely needed.

Richard Kammen
" "Crybaby" was written by Councilor Philip Klass. Although it offered to refute the cover-up charge, it ignored practically every specific point that Rawlins had made. Instead it offered blatant ad hominem attack on Rawlins' motives and personality, bolstered with rhetorical ploys--including crude mis-quotation.

Believing that a full understanding would still get this fiasco straightened out, I sent in a 28-page report called "Personal Assessment of the Mars Controversy." I came to three conclusions: (a) the scientific errors were gross, (b) Paul Kurtz was not guilty of a cover-up on grounds of lack of statistical understanding, (c) CSICOP was guilty of a cover-up by not taking Rawlins seriously, while "Crybaby" was a disgrace.

*************

So there's a few links of Rawlins-'Mars Effect' articles that give varied perspectives on the issue.

Personally, I've never been a big fan of Klass –though I have to agree with some of his points. I think he was a bit over-the-top in his ad hominem statements, but he had a point. I'd be willing to accept that CSICOP was a bit sloppy in their methodology, but I'd also argue that this was early in their existence and that they've learned from it. The work that CSICOP does is, today, top notch and their journal, The Skeptical Inquirer is well written and referenced.

The principles that CSICOP holds are worthy and meaningful and they serve the purpose of questioning the extraordinary claims of those that would attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting public.

So... does Gustav and the other woo-woos... uh, ahem... mystery-mongers and significance-junkies have any recent criticisms of CSICOP and skeptics at large? Something that could be considered current events?

What those who crave all-things-mysterious and find significance-in-any-spurious-correlation really hate about skeptics is that they ask questions that cause them to fall flat on their faces in the excrement of their own beliefs.

Without evidence to back their wild, speculative claims, they amount to nothing but liars. Harsh, but true. Instead of addressing the issue of evidence, they look for excuses to engage in ad hominem wars and toss insults back and forth. They also make unfounded attempts to level many of the same criticisms against skeptics that skeptics have long since leveled in their direction, such as the question of cult-like behavior and misguided beliefs.

Beliefs are fine, but need to be based on the wisdom of evidence. Otherwise, they're meaningless.

NONE of Gustav's criticisms hold true. He is good at quoting the rhetoric of others from many years ago, but seems to have difficulty forming his own critical analyses. Perhaps he can overcome this failing... we shall see. I'd like to see Gustav give us what he thinks instead of just quoting/repeating rhetoric. I've done my share of quoting others above, but I also offer my own commentary and opinions on the subject and I don't consider CSICOP completely innocent with regard to bias. But I do believe this is an organization that has worked hard to avoid it since and has used the experience to grow.

But, when you have someone questioning your beliefs, I suppose it's easier to redirect blame at them than consider that they might actually be right. Why not simply bitch and cry, eh?

In the mean time, I offer the following about CSICOP: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

Here are some links to some choice articles in Skeptical Inquirer and on the CSICOP site.

Out of Balance, by Chris Mooney - (http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/ufos/)a critical review of the ABC Primetime special: Seeing is Believing.

Critical Thinking About Energy, - by Thomas R. Castan and Brennan Downes - (http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-01/energy.html) The Case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity

Should We Teach the Controversy, by Jason Rosenhouse - (http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/controversy.html) a critical look at the desire by some to teach 'Intelligent Design' in our public schools.

The Columbia University 'Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud, by Bruce Flamm - (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html) regarding the much hyped study of the power of prayer that ended up scamming a major peer-reviewed journal.

Pranks, Frauds and Hoaxes from Around the World, by Robert Carroll - (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-07/hoaxes.html) from the writer of the book, Don't Get Hoaxed.

Complete Index of available online articles. (http://www.csicop.org/si/online.html)

About CSICOP (http://www.csicop.org/about/)

CSICOP encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public. [click link above for more details]

Council for Media Integrity (http://www.csicop.org/cmi/)

An educational outreach and advocacy program of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) [click link above to see details and accomplishments]

Agitprop is very correct when she accuses CSICOP of being biased and 'one-sided' in its attempts to pressure media to monitor its sloppy presentations of "facts" and "data" in shows and news stories that portray pseudoscience and the paranormal as reality or established fact. It is CSICOP's position that the media takes advantage of the gullibility of the public in much the same manner as Miss Cleo -siphoning ratings the way she siphoned 900# minutes- and, therefore, CSICOP acts as an informed and skeptical voice of reason in holding the media accountable for this, but rewarding it when it does right.

CSICOP members are, and have been, distinguished:

Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo
James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto
Susan Blackmore, psychologist, Univ. of the West of England, Bristol
Richard Dawkins, zoologist, Oxford Univ.
Kenneth Feder, professor of anthropology, Central Connecticut State Univ
Philip J. Klass,* aerospace writer, engineer
Bill Nye, science educator and television host, Nye Labs
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and director, Hayden Planetarium, New York City
Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist, executive director, National Center for Science Education
John Maddox, editor emeritus of Nature
John R. Cole, anthropologist, Dept of Anthropology, UMass-Amherst; Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, UMass
Carl Sagan, Astronomer, Cornell University, co-founding member of CSICOP, author.
Stephen J. Gould, co-founding member and fellow of CSICOP, author, Paleontologist, author, Harvard University.
Issac Asimov, author.

<img src="http://www.csicop.org/giftshop/decal/decal-icon.jpg">

References:
AbsoluteAstronomy.com (2005). The Mars Effect. Found at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Ma/Mars_effect.htm

Hansen, George (1992). CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86:1, pp. 19-63.

Kammen, Richard (1982). The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality (http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html#csicop) Zetetic Scholar, issue 10, pp. 50-65.

Klass, Philip J. (1981). Crybaby (http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/klass-crybaby.htm). Non-published: submitted and refused by Fate magazine in 1981.

Randi, James (2003). More Attacks/Lies Launched, Megalogophobia, Einstein Wrong, Ephedrine Bombed, The Guardian & Science, Bogustry, More Fish, Remenance, 666=393, and "Dowser Brand" Water (http://www.randi.jr/041103.html). Swift: the online newsletter for JREF, April 11, 2003.

evidence for us

sciforums very own pseudo skeptic cult being referenced....."us"!

*bolding mine

/rotfl

well come on SkinWalker!

Patience. Rather than simply quote the rhetoric of others or offer simple banter, I try to offer some of my own thoughts or discussion about the comments of others. Indeed, the juvenile banter you seem to value is of little interest to me.

But since it obviously offended Gustav, who appears to have taken it very personally, I'll refrain from future use of it. Instead, I'll refer to mystery-mongers and significance-junkies as mystery-mongers and significance-junkies, even though it is a lot more to type.

no problem
you are intent on labeling me
so go ahead
justify those too

proves toyou your delusion about the primacy of materialistic science

Duendy, obviously you do not believe in "the primacy of materialistic science". So far, however, the only computers I have used, cars I have driven, medicines I have taken, etc. have been the fruits of such science. I eagerly await a journey in the first mentally-powered aeroplane or a look down the first remote-view telescope.

Patience. Rather than simply quote the rhetoric of others or offer simple banter, I try to offer some of my own thoughts or discussion about the comments of others.

ahh like... i agree with that...i dont agree with this... correct but......?

lets see the "thoughts or discussion"

Personally, I've never been a big fan of Klass –though I have to agree with some of his points. I think he was a bit over-the-top in his ad hominem statements, but he had a point. I'd be willing to accept that CSICOP was a bit sloppy in their methodology, but I'd also argue that this was early in their existence and that they've learned from it. The work that CSICOP does is, today, top notch and their journal, The Skeptical Inquirer is well written and referenced.

pathetic excuses and no new thoughts

Agitprop is very correct when she accuses CSICOP of being biased and 'one-sided' in its attempts to pressure media to monitor its sloppy presentations of "facts" and "data" in shows and news stories that portray pseudoscience and the paranormal as reality or established fact. It is CSICOP's position that the media takes advantage of the gullibility of the public in much the same manner as Miss Cleo -siphoning ratings the way she siphoned 900# minutes- and, therefore, CSICOP acts as an informed and skeptical voice of reason in holding the media accountable for this, but rewarding it when it does right.

parroting and no new thoughts

thats it!

the rest of the post is nothing but ad homs and red herrings.
plus atempting to get off the hook on a technicality

ie: it is not happening now

the issue here is "true skepticism" as lauded by skinwalker
this quality is attributed to the org known as csicops
it has a history of fraudulence

and yet, skinwalker has absolutely no problem with miraculously giving it a clean bill of health.

does he really think i will buy his smattering of carefully vetted articles and appeals to authority as proof of csicops integrity?

no! :D

it is far more logical to hold the org to be suspect in its pronouncements
i know of institutional biases and corruption
why should csicops be exempt?
there are priors
i will not ignore
unlike skinwalker

besides, what makes him an authority on csicops? dispassionate observer, biased member or fanatical devotee?

you have...

*hate about skeptics

*fall flat on their faces in the excrement of their own beliefs

*wild, speculative claims, they amount to nothing but liars

*excuses to engage in ad hominem wars and toss insults back and forth

*unfounded attempt

vile, rude and untrue accusations by skinwalker all because an unfounded assertion of his was questioned

/hurt and traumatized

First, Gustav has yet to define "pseudo-skeptic," a very obvious play on words with "pseudoscientist" and meant to be a counter-pejorative.

disingenuous and an obvious red herring

i was never asked for a definition

/rotfl

disingenuous and an obvious red herring

i was never asked for a definition

/rotfl

Not asked. But if you look at this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=908775#post908775), last paragraph. It follows that if you want to accuse the members of CSICOP or other skeptics as being "pseudo-skeptics," you must define exactly what that means as opposed to other skeptics.

more disingenuity
you are the one that started this crap with your "true skeptic"

now
it is implicit that a definition is known due to usage
it is then also implicit that its opposite is also known

so answer your own question
provide your own definitions

what is a "false skeptic"?

useless red herrings and devious diversionary tactics
skinwalker, a veteran of the pseudo science (what could this mean exactly?) forums, begging for definitions

/rotfl

Sorry... not interested in juvenile banter... you can join the rest on my ignore list.

Sorry... not interested in juvenile banter... you can join the rest on my ignore list.
...is Skin Walker...sulking...?

Duendy, obviously you do not believe in "the primacy of materialistic science". So far, however, the only computers I have used, cars I have driven, medicines I have taken, etc. have been the fruits of such science. I eagerly await a journey in the first mentally-powered aeroplane or a look down the first remote-view telescope.
understanding the LIMITS of materialistic science does NOT mean your precious computer, car, and medicines will suddenly
'mentali-ize'...dear. what i mean is tat materialistic science is limited and dismisses FEPTH, and tus is trashin plaet, other peoples human freedoms, and...did you know tat all te gadgets you love shit?...oh yes. there is shit. and heyyyy...guesswhat? its not te good organic shit neither. its toxic shit. and you know who is chosen/forced to live on top of it and near it?...in U.S. in this instance?...why Native Americans, Blacks and Ethnic peoples is who!......materialism hey?...wonder if THEY could mentalize it away. nope

"dismisses DEPTH"...!

Sorry... not interested in juvenile banter... you can join the rest on my ignore list.

Hey Skin, i gotta ask, im i still on 'it '? And if you immaturely dont respond as a way of replying, then your still the stubbon old fool i insulted a year ago, if not, "Hi"!! :D :m:

This discussion has degraded a little.

It seems csicop did not handle the evaluation of the Mars Effect research very well. This was nearly 30 years ago and csicop had only just been founded then. I don’t agree that their actions were ‘fraudulent‘. Perhaps there was some bias though.

Just curious, if PEAR, SAIC, SRI or a similar organisation released test results in the 70s that contained experimenter bias (they may have, I don’t know) should I then label them as a fraudulent organisation and rule out all further results from them?

If they had new, extremely positive results for psychic activity and I refused to look at it because they were ‘fraudulent’ 30 years ago I would labelled scared by the believers.

By the way I have only read a handful of articles by csicop although I thought they were well written. So don’t accuse me of worshipping them.


What I am seeing is that believers need to accept that Randi and csicop are fanatical liars (whether or not it's true) to help them explain away the debunking that these guys do.

This discussion has degraded a little.

me:::::only wish your beloved materialistic PRODUCTS would degrade....sheeeesh. ....but actually this discussion is magnificent. when reading Gustav's handling of the 'real sceptic' Skin...i culd cut it out and frame it...THAT good! makes you glaaaaad to be Ah-LIVE!!!!

It seems csicop did not handle the evaluation of the Mars Effect research very well. This was nearly 30 years ago and csicop had only just been founded then. I don’t agree that their actions were ‘fraudulent‘. Perhaps there was some bias though.

me:::yeah bless em .maaaaybeee they 'd jest had a bad hair day huh?

Just curious, if PEAR, SAIC, SRI or a similar organisation released test results in the 70s that contained experimenter bias (they may have, I don’t know) should I then label them as a fraudulent organisation and rule out all further results from them?

me:::no love. yer missin the point. we are not saying mistakes cant be made. w are exposin the slavering fundamentalism of te materialistic tremple which is PSYCOP. shit...dont the very choice of name give you crusty untuition juices some give?

If they had new, extremely positive results for psychic activity and I refused to look at it because they were ‘fraudulent’ 30 years ago I would labelled scared by the believers.

me::but i actually do see you that way. maybe you dnt see yu like i see you. this is a prob or many people who have images of themselves

By the way I have only read a handful of articles by csicop although I thought they were well written. So don’t accuse me of worshipping them.

me:::::you DO seem to use them as a reference Bible. who else do you use, as a matter of interest?


What I am seeing is that believers need to accept that Randi and csicop are fanatical liars (whether or not it's true) to help them explain away the debunking that these guys do.
no, fanatical materialists. more to say bout tis beeeeelow

(From now on i am gonna call you people here who like to be seen as 'skeptics', materialists. thsis inspired by the link i give below.
the very first time i hit tese forums i called you 'pseudosceptics, which is also tru, but materialists hits the mark better i feel....Weelllllll..dont look like that. yous call US woo woos init?)

'WARNING PSYCHICS'
The following is essential information when dealing wit cosed minded skeptics/materialists. It is taken from some ten years of content analysis of debates...between 'skeptics' and psychics...
First, the word 'skeptic' is beingused too loosely these days. A 'skeptic' is one who questions and doubts BUT always allows for future possible confirmation. Many of te important psi..empiricists are openminded skeptics. The professional media skeptics are better called 'materialists' because it is very clear that a materialist is someone who ABSOLUTELY refuses to accept thre can ever be and psi or the paranormal or the afterlife. You will be doing these materialists a big favor if you call them 'skeptics'. DON'T.
Nearly all debunkers who apprear on television and radio are professional materialists. It's teir income, theirliving and their reputation which is at stake each time they appear...
When confonted by materialists/debunkers during some media session be informed that they will try to dominate, manipulate and misrepresent; they will try to lie, cheat, mislead, bully - anything to score a cheap point at your expense. Don't ever trust them anytime!
If and whenever they come across as saying something in your favor. It's like the hangman praising your neck!
....When a materialist is confronted wit highly persuavive evidence for te psi/afterlife the materialist will deny it immediately because the evidence will elicit anxiety. Increase his blood pressure, sweat etc. Denial will follow. The materialist will become angry, hostile, and even aggressive. He will try toreduce anxiety by denyin information.
Because it gives them anxiety they don't study the best evidence...
...Materialism is a fundamentalist religion with many priests but no congregation.
Richard Milton said that. On CSICOP:
...First, this CSICOP is NOT scientific. The study of its origins shows that tose genuine scientists resigned from it because they saw CSICOP NOT as 'scientific' but as negative active propaganda against the parnormal. CSICOP's president Paul Kurtz, was NOT a scientst but a philosopher. As a professor he uttered a most unscientific statement that he 'believes that the paranormal does not and cannot exist'." (read on about old Randi ff:!!!! http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/warningtopsychics.htm

me::::nly wish your beloved materialistic PRODUCTS would degrade....sheeeesh. ....but actually this discussion is magnificent. when reading Gustav's handling of the 'real sceptic' Skin...i culd cut it out and frame it...THAT good! makes you glaaaaad to be Ah-LIVE!!!!
We are well aware of your admiration for gustav duendy, although that seems a little over the top. :p

Skinwalker left because he got sick of the rubbish that gustav was posting. Clearly you take that as some sort of victory. Sounds a bit desperate to me..


me:::no love. yer missin the point. we are not saying mistakes cant be made. w are exposin the slavering fundamentalism of te materialistic tremple which is PSYCOP. shit...dont the very choice of name give you crusty untuition juices some give?
No you are missing the point. Did you ignore the analogy I was trying to explain or did you not understand it? You have not 'exposed' anything.

The acronym is csicop not psycop. Do you understand that it is an acronym and has nothing to do with cops? :p


me::but i actually do see you that way. maybe you dnt see yu like i see you. this is a prob or many people who have images of themselves
Yes yes my fragile little brain couldn't handle living in a world where psychic powers exist...

I have not ruled out psychic ability I have just yet to see any compelling evidence for its existence. What I am seeing is a religious like belief that it exists even though no one is able to prove it with any reliability.


me:::::you DO seem to use them as a reference Bible. who else do you use, as a matter of interest?
I posted one link to a csicop article because it was very relevant to the discussion. This was regarding the ufo sightings in mexico last year.

Does that make it my reference bible? Don't talk nonsense.


no, fanatical materialists. more to say bout tis beeeeelow
As I am typing this I see you are using Victor Zammit as a reference now. :rolleyes: oh please. Thats it im off to bed.

We are well aware of your admiration for gustav duendy, although that seems a little over the top. :p

me:::he gves good. your missin out. but then agin, yer on the wrong side aren't yo? whose fault is that...? hmmmmmm?

Skinwalker left because he got sick of the rubbish that gustav was posting. Clearly you take that as some sort of victory. Sounds a bit desperate to me..

me::::no, it is a thang that Victor Zammit (the author of the article i forewarded seemed to miss in his analysis of hows you materialists beHAVE...so let me fill the missing points. also yous tend to sulk when you meet your match. Gstav is very meticulous and minimaist (tho i dont wanna dictate his style) and cutting and like a rapier cuts througth BS masquearading as SCIENTIFIC endeavour...I a really dry funny way. love him/her...dont cur.......you have no sense of art video games dude


No you are missing the point. Did you ignore the analogy I was trying to explain or did you not understand it? You have not 'exposed' anything.

me::::you stand exposed. i can see your willy!

The acronym is csicop not psycop. Do you understand that it is an acronym and has nothing to do with cops?

me:::do you understand cryptic exposure....?????thought not!


Yes yes my fragile little brain couldn't handle living in a world where psychic powers exist...

me:::i know

I have not ruled out psychic ability I have just yet to see any compelling evidence for its existence. What I am seeing is a religious like belief that it exists even though no one is able to prove it with any reliability.

me:::no. yo are in denial. and what TIME do you HAVE to prperly look into the vast paranorml, abduction etc ewtc files etc. yer too bizy wid em video games....! i've seen them on them. they take u over.houres go...days go byyyyy


I posted one link to a csicop article because it was very relevant to the discussion. This was regarding the ufo sightings in mexico last year.

Does that make it my reference bible? You are talking nonsense.

me::::::see? you accuse ME of aviding questions . here you dodge me askin you: what other references besides PSY_COP do you use to debunk AL known pRANORMAL phenomena. simple question


As I am typing this I see you are using Victor Zammit as a reference now. :rolleyes: oh please. Thats it im off to bed.
always runnin off to bed

Don't worry, Shaman. I didnt' leave, I simply put Gustav on my ignore list. Looking at his posts in this and other threads, his goal isn't serious discussion, but rather juvenile banter and one-liners. That sort of endeavor is fine, I just prefer not to see it muck up a thread. The ignore list cleans that sort of thing up rather nicely. It is unfortunate, however, because Gustav started and participated in several threads that I had an interest in. I avoided them because of the interactions he had with other members and the trolling nature of his posts.

I didn't put him on ignore because I disagree... hardly. If that were so, I'd have placed duendy on ignore ages ago :) But I like duendy. Indeed, he offers his own, thought out opinions on many matters (even if I think he's wrong) and doesn't simply quote rhetoric or link posts.

The criticisms about CSICOP are fair. I read Skeptical Inquirer on a monthly basis (as well as Skeptic and a dozen or so science journals & magazines) and think they do a very good job. Indeed, there are those within CSICOP that occasionally disagree with each other. They've evolved into a very well-run organization and publication. I'd recommend looking at a few recent issues and their treatments of not only the supernatural and paranormal, but politics and the like as well. Their goal is to inspire critical thinking and questioning.

And, for the record, I don't disregard the possibility of psi, etc. I simply maintain that it hasn't been demonstrated. I also maintain that those that claim they have the ability but fail to show the evidence are liars.

It seems csicop did not handle the evaluation of the Mars Effect research very well. This was nearly 30 years ago and csicop had only just been founded then.

lots of the ufo cases, investigations into them, the players, are similarly old.
whats the point? should we refrain from saying anything simply because of antiquity?

Don't worry, Shaman. I didnt' leave, I simply put Gustav on my ignore list. Looking at his posts in this and other threads, his goal isn't serious discussion, but rather juvenile banter and one-liners.

i think you just wanna get away with your own useless rhetoric unchallenged and unquestioned

exactly what is useful about asserting csicops as the true faith?
it is nothing but a red herring intent on provocation
as usual. when you get the desired result, you go all limp
too bad but entirely expected
au revoir
enjoy your little dogmatic and safe little world

Skinwalker left because he got sick of the rubbish that gustav was posting.

witness the vile ad homs as employed by skinwalker
you seem to have no problem with that

well i do
i retaliate
the shit is not one sided.

skinwalker iniated this debacle

Yet another woo-woo posts a link without discussion.

go on. look at the sequence and dates of posts

i retaliate
he strikes again..

What those who crave all-things-mysterious and find significance-in-any-spurious-correlation really hate about skeptics is that they ask questions that cause them to fall flat on their faces in the excrement of their own beliefs.

Without evidence to back their wild, speculative claims, they amount to nothing but liars. Harsh, but true. Instead of addressing the issue of evidence, they look for excuses to engage in ad hominem wars and toss insults back and forth. They also make unfounded attempts to level many of the same criticisms against skeptics that skeptics have long since leveled in their direction, such as the question of cult-like behavior and misguided beliefs.

now shaman

do you want to comment some more?
while i have absolutely no pretensions as to my shit
skinwalker obviously does
which is why it is absolutely retarted of him to go around this board slandering others

Woo-woo is also a pejorative, but one based in phonetics of the term. "Woo-woo" is the sound a train makes to get attention. So the term, "woo-woo" is an analogy to the attention-seeking mystery-mongers and significance-junkies.

i challenge anyone here to substantiate this bogus definition
poor gutless skinwalker
he knows he means crackpot
i do too

:D

Skinwalker left because he got sick of the rubbish that gustav was posting.

can you not stand on your own two feet ?
challenge the rubbish
it is that simple :eek:

Don't worry, Shaman. I didnt' leave, I simply put Gustav on my ignore list. Looking at his posts in this and other threads, his goal isn't serious discussion, but rather juvenile banter and one-liners. That sort of endeavor is fine, I just prefer not to see it muck up a thread.

well somebody better explain what all this is about
looks like vile personal attacks, ja?
serious discussion indeed
hypocrisy anyone?


*But if you are simply a cowardly, woo-woo or lying claimant of "special abilities," you can resort to just leaving undiscussed links and making pejorative comments

*Instead, the woo-woo crowd bitches and cries that his challenge is unfair.

*That's how science is done you silly git

*Where's the evidence? If you can't produce it, you are a liar if you make the claim

*Yet another woo-woo posts a link without discussion.

*Are you capable of actually extracting one or two of the key points at that woo-woo site which are worth discussing.

*include EVERY SINGLE WOO-WOO and then some.

*Instead, I'll refer to mystery-mongers and significance-junkies as mystery-mongers and significance-junkies, even though it is a lot more to type.

*So... does Gustav and the other woo-woos

*What those who crave all-things-mysterious and find significance-in-any-spurious-correlation really hate about skeptics is that they ask questions that cause them to fall flat on their faces in the excrement of their own beliefs.

*Without evidence to back their wild, speculative claims, they amount to nothing but liars

*Instead of addressing the issue of evidence, they look for excuses to engage in ad hominem wars and toss insults back and forth.

*Looking at his posts in this and other threads, his goal isn't serious discussion, but rather juvenile banter and one-liners

me::::..so let me fill the missing points. also yous tend to sulk when you meet your match. Gstav is very meticulous and minimaist (tho i dont wanna dictate his style) and cutting and like a rapier cuts througth BS masquearading as SCIENTIFIC endeavour...I a really dry funny way. love him/her...dont cur.......you have no sense of art video games dude
Because I don't enjoy childish arguments about who insulted who first therefore I have no appreciaton of art? Yes that makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

Again duendy, I am well aware of your admiration for gustav. You have repeated yourself several times now. Congratulations you are the first member of the gustav fan club!


me::::you stand exposed. i can see your willy!

So you didn't understand the situation I was illustrating... Forget it. :rolleyes:


me:::do you understand cryptic exposure....?????thought not!
Explain to me what cryptic exposure has to to with csicop. This should be interesting...


me:::no. yo are in denial. and what TIME do you HAVE to prperly look into the vast paranorml, abduction etc ewtc files etc. yer too bizy wid em video games....! i've seen them on them. they take u over.houres go...days go byyyyy
Oh no, now that you know my dark secret I can never win an argument against you :p



me::::::see? you accuse ME of aviding questions . here you dodge me askin you: what other references besides PSY_COP do you use to debunk AL known pRANORMAL phenomena. simple question

No I have never accused you of avoiding questions. I have prompted you to answer a question if you did not the first time. There is a difference.

Surely you are not are trying to paint me as a hypocrite... I assure you that not answering was an accident.

Which reminds me, you have not answered my question "Are you saying that Randi has rigged the tests?"

Now your question, "what other references besides PSY_COP do you use to debunk AL known pRANORMAL phenomena." Well this is a straw man as I do not debunk all known paranormal phenomena. I have only ever discussed psychics and ufos with you.

I assume what you are after are some links to evil materialist psuedosceptic sites.

http://skepdic.com/ is good.

can you not stand on your own two feet ?
challenge the rubbish
it is that simple :eek:
Actually I can stand just fine.

The 'rubbish' that I was referring to were your posts regarding ad hominem and hypocrisy. I have no intention of challenging them as I find them to be immature and extremely boring. That is not why I visit sciforums. I assume skinwalker felt the same.

It looks to me like every person in this thread is name-calling...

I am not referring to your initial posts although they were somewhat arrogant, oh wait so are most of mine.

I am getting used to being called a materialist psuedosceptic. If being called a woo woo really bothers you I suggest you stop posting in this forum.

let me ask you a pertinent question shaman.....do you have a blind spot?

do you ONLY notice Gustav's contributions at these forums, and mine? yet not your comrades in arms? are you now aware of THEIR/and your snide remarks etc.....in fACT IT IS always COMING FROM THEIR/YOUR SIDE....all th innuendos, insulting remaks, put-downs, condescendingness, patronization.....remember when ya called my crazy etc?

so, my shaman sir. do you have a blindspot. is this question goona also invlve your blindspot?

i suggest you observe,and listen right

let me ask you a pertinent question shaman.....do you have a blind spot?

do you ONLY notice Gustav's contributions at these forums, and mine? yet not your comrades in arms? are you now aware of THEIR/and your snide remarks etc.....in fACT IT IS always COMING FROM THEIR/YOUR SIDE....all th innuendos, insulting remaks, put-downs, condescendingness, patronization.....remember when ya called my crazy etc?

so, my shaman sir. do you have a blindspot. is this question goona also invlve your blindspot?

i suggest you observe,and listen right
No I did not call you crazy. That was your interpretation.

Page 9 of "where is the evidence for alien visitation?"

shaman - Shoddiness? haha You aren't even able to use the quotes properly. Your posts are often a mad ramble!

duendy - oh::beautiful......now i am crazy....perfect?"


Page 10
shaman - No. I was not saying anyone was crazy.

duendy - :good




As I said in the previous post - It looks to me like every person in this thread is name-calling...

'everyone'....well...good-ish. i ta you say everyone...but, as Gustav rightly reveals, the name callin is neary ALWAYS intitiated by the materialists.

and notonly aimed at your opposite camp--us--but also at people 'you' hav never met who you call eiter LIARS or MENTALLY ILL, or FAME-HEADS etc

tat aint science and also aint cool...orrrrrrrmatuuuuure

let me ask you a pertinent question shaman.....do you have a blind spot?

do you ONLY notice Gustav's contributions at these forums, and mine?

Em... duendy? In casting ones eyeballs upwards you'll note the multiple block of Gustav posts literally constipating the original discussion to a halt - how exactly is one not supposed to notice the man?

He's just managed to get you're own discussion thread locked down using the same process.

Y'can't actually have discussion anymore once his nibs decides to grace us with his presence.

and notonly aimed at your opposite camp--us--but also at people 'you' hav never met who you call eiter LIARS or MENTALLY ILL, or FAME-HEADS etc

tat aint science and also aint cool...orrrrrrrmatuuuuure

I'm sorry you don't like it, duendy, but I think being blount is what is needed in topics like this. This is a 'science' board. Not a paranormal board, or a religious board, or a UFO board, or a psychic board, etc.

I call people who make claims to special powers but refuse to provide evidence liars. People who have claim to some special insight to knowlege that they refuse to quantify/qualify with data, liars. A lie is a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth. If they or their defenders perceive it to be ad hominem, then they need only demonstrate the truth of their statements and I will gladly revise my characterization and issue apology. And eagerly so, since I would welcome the evidence that humans have some special power.

With regard to my use of myster-monger and significance-junkie, I don't think they are pejorative nor ad hominem. How are we to refer to those that appear to find significance in spurious correlations and random facts? What term do we apply to those that seem to defend the "mystery" without regard for evidence?

Threads like this can be discussed with far more critical tone without resorting to the juvenile banter and one-liner/zinger posts of attention-seekers like Gustav. While I've rarely agreed with you, duendy, I've always admired the fact that you stick it out and post your own thoughts on topics rather than simply seek out a flame-fest, which is what Gustav appears to do. I'm actually quite disappointed in your apparent admiration of him/her. I thought you much better than that.

Characters like Gustav don't seek discussion, they seek attention. On some level we all do, but to stoop to the level Gustav does for it is appalling. I don't mind pejorative characterizations (if I did, I'd have let you know ages ago). I also don't mind criticism of my posts, indeed, I welcome them. But Gustav's interests aren't in discussion as evidenced by each and every thread he's been a part of and the result of them all. He wants to feed his ego with the attention it craves.

This is the only post I'll make on this and I made it here because very clearly the topic is destroyed already and you're reading it. If you wish further reply, PM me. Indeed, I'll not speak of Gustav beyond this post either. He/she no longer exists to me...

Em... duendy? In casting ones eyeballs upwards you'll note the multiple block of Gustav posts literally constipating the original discussion to a halt - how exactly is one not supposed to notice the man?

He's just managed to get you're own discussion thread locked down using the same process.

Y'can't actually have discussion anymore once his nibs decides to grace us with his presence.
Be honest....your gripe wit Gustav is tat he contradicts you. ad does it in a very swift and minimalist and wtty and intelligent way. i trust my review-manship

also...he doesn't post in block type. the kinfds of posts i hate are ones hijackin my 'whatis consciousness?' tread....Gustav's are prooundly more...ZEN!

I'm sorry you don't like it, duendy, but I think being blount is what is needed in topics like this. This is a 'science' board. Not a paranormal board, or a religious board, or a UFO board, or a psychic board, etc.

me))))))))never claimed i didn't like it as such...it was shaman_'s stance of ONLY noticing Gustav's--well only emphasizing Gustav's 'attitude'. but i am not seeing it thatway as i said. to rpepeat, Gustav reveaaaaalls whats going on. thatits you lot who instigate flaming-ness-ness

I call people who make claims to special powers but refuse to provide evidence liars.

me))))))))wich is: anatgonistic, abusive, uncalled for, and UNscientific.

People who have claim to some special insight to knowlege that they refuse to quantify/qualify with data, liars. A lie is a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth.

me))))))))WHO's 'truth'?? i will tell you. your materialistic bias which you BELIEVE is 'the truth and the only possible truth' is what

If they or their defenders perceive it to be ad hominem, then they need only demonstrate the truth of their statements and I will gladly revise my characterization and issue apology.

me)))))))))no mate .haha. yu make te law too huh? it IS ad hominem, and also very insulting, and can only breed resentment

And eagerly so, since I would welcome the evidence that humans have some special power.

me::::so you say. but i do not believe you for several reasons. one--you are staunch materialist, 2, tere DOES exist vast proofas any real skeptic-scientist would tell you and 3, you dont have the humility to really explore about tis. ou have too much of an axe to grind dear boy

With regard to my use of myster-monger and significance-junkie, I don't think they are pejorative nor ad hominem. How are we to refer to those that appear to find significance in spurious correlations and random facts? What term do we apply to those that seem to defend the "mystery" without regard for evidence?

me((((((((you deny your beHAVIOUR like you deny the evidence.......! your criteria for evidence is whooly limited nd old fashioned, and ALSO, like i said therer is evidence but you. like many oter materialists--fearful of losing worldview, and face---dont even go tere. your...'evidence-need' is a cop-out, a ecurity-blanket you shroud your self with ...pokin one eye out everyonce in a white, like one-eyed cat at te fish store

Threads like this can be discussed with far more critical tone without resorting to the juvenile banter and one-liner/zinger posts of attention-seekers like Gustav. While I've rarely agreed with you, duendy, I've always admired the fact that you stick it out and post your own thoughts on topics rather than simply seek out a flame-fest, which is what Gustav appears to do. I'm actually quite disappointed in your apparent admiration of him/her. I thought you much better than that.

me::::::::;no. TRUST me. i am not baackin Gustav cuase he is errr on my side. i am saying hs she is VERY intelligent and tat is whatndisturbs you and the otehers. he can see right through what you do, and does it swiftly with few words. some shit i read...exchanges between hir/him and thematerilaists here have given me thrills of delight. UNDERSTANDyour need to scapegoat hir is your fear of exposure. well he done already don it

Characters like Gustav don't seek discussion, they seek attention. On some level we all do, but to stoop to the level Gustav does for it is appalling. I don't mind pejorative characterizations (if I did, I'd have let you know ages ago). I also don't mind criticism of my posts, indeed, I welcome them. But Gustav's interests aren't in discussion as evidenced by each and every thread he's been a part of and the result of them all. He wants to feed his ego with the attention it craves.

me:::::again no no no. that is you seeing it throgh your security blanket. is it a coincidence tat all te wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding Gustav's faily minimailist but powerful posts are coming from THE MATERIALISTS......huh? what do you say. coincidence? magick?

This is the only post I'll make on this and I made it here because very clearly the topic is destroyed already and you're reading it. If you wish further reply, PM me. Indeed, I'll not speak of Gustav beyond this post either. He/she no longer exists to me...
now, do you see what i mean....that last sentence is wholly dramaTIK....ustav has rumbled someting very deep for you dude. seriusly i am asking you to be aware of this.
i am very very very aware that tese forums
are NOT mere playthings. people worldviews CAn be shaken. that is learning and needs exploring without hiding away

how do you feel i have felt when i have 'felt' i hae been attcked, yet nver have i pu anyone on my ignore list....am i jeeeeesus or WHAT?????

shaman

The 'rubbish' that I was referring to were your posts regarding ad hominem and hypocrisy. I have no intention of challenging them as I find them to be immature and extremely boring. That is not why I visit sciforums. I assume skinwalker felt the same.

so if someone engages in fallacious argumentation you do not call them on it?
your characterizations as immature and extremely boring" are irrelevant.
what is important is...are my charges of ad hom and hypocrisy borne out by evidence?

If being called a woo woo really bothers you I suggest you stop posting in this forum.

justify the label. back the allegation up. assertions with evidence.
are these concepts foreign to you

do that and i will happily get woo woo branded on my ass

can you?

Y'can't actually have discussion anymore once his nibs decides to grace us with his presence.

oh you can
just not the kind of disingenious crap that you seem to favor :)

Indeed, I'll not speak of Gustav beyond this post either. He/she no longer exists to me...

mmm
a hysterical and traumatized skinwalker

/rotfl

Be honest....your gripe wit Gustav is tat he contradicts you. ad does it in a very swift and minimalist and wtty and intelligent way. i trust my review-manship

also...he doesn't post in block type. the kinfds of posts i hate are ones hijackin my 'whatis consciousness?' tread....Gustav's are prooundly more...ZEN!

Mmmmm.... (looking up)

So, Gustav doesn't multiple spam then, eh? Impirical... ;)

Mmmmm.... (looking up)

So, Gustav doesn't multiple spam then, eh? Impirical... ;)


3 posts replying to 3 different people
justify the "multiple spam", boy!

how desperate must mr anonymous be to score brownie points that he has to invent new definitions for spam

why going by his def....

mmmm....(looking up)
so mr anonymous does not "single spam" then eh?

:cool:

No I did not call you crazy. That was your interpretation.

Page 9 of "where is the evidence for alien visitation?"

shaman - Shoddiness? haha You aren't even able to use the quotes properly. Your posts are often a mad ramble!

duendy - oh::beautiful......now i am crazy....perfect?"


Page 10
shaman - No. I was not saying anyone was crazy.

duendy - :good

shaman

this is your moment of truth. you squeak by on a technicality but i rather you be honest with duendy. what is "mad ramble" usually associated with?

mad ramblings of a nutcase...crazy ramblings of a lunatic, ramble on like a crazy person...etc

when duendy made the link, would you say it was not entirely irrational on his part?
ie: you called him crazy

3 posts replying to 3 different people
justify the "multiple spam", boy!

Certainly. Which particular part of your own sentance there are you having the greater problem with - the numercy aspects or the use of words?

justify the "multiple spam", boy!

understanding the LIMITS of materialistic science does NOT mean your precious computer, car, and medicines will suddenly 'mentali-ize'...dear. what i mean is tat materialistic science is limited and dismisses FEPTH, and tus is trashin plaet, other peoples human freedoms, and...did you know tat all te gadgets you love shit?...oh yes. there is shit. and heyyyy...guesswhat? its not te good organic shit neither. its toxic shit. and you know who is chosen/forced to live on top of it and near it?...in U.S. in this instance?...why Native Americans, Blacks and Ethnic peoples is who!......materialism hey?...wonder if THEY could mentalize it away. nope

Duendy, I don't know what you mean by "FEPTH".

I was not arguing about the ethics of science, industry, pollution, etc. I was merely pointing out that the materialistic science that you seem so scornful of has produced rather more tangible benefits than the psychic and other fringe (read: kook) communities.

Duendy, I don't know what you mean by "FEPTH".

me::errrrerum...thanks for tacitly pointing that out...IF you followed up posts you might have noticed i quickly rectified that typo....go check.....eg ;"DEPTH'?

I was not arguing about the ethics of science, industry, pollution, etc.

me::::::oh right so you separate ethics from materialistic science? well that is true to form...yes

I was merely pointing out that the materialistic science that you seem so scornful of has produced rather more tangible benefits than the psychic and other fringe (read: kook) communities.
no dahlin you readin me wrong. i am not throwin OUT materilistic science. it is an approach which emphasizes measure and analysis, andreductionism......what i A chalenging is when it is sciencism. when it assumoes, pushes, oppresses...with their 'truth'...ie., MATERIALISM....getme?

So... does Gustav and the other woo-woos

the ad hom

If they or their defenders perceive it to be ad hominem, then they need only demonstrate the truth of their statements and I will gladly revise my characterization and issue apology.

yes i do. well, what statements/claims do you take issue with?

can anyone show me .....

Without evidence to back their wild, speculative claims,...

what these are?

for the umpteenth time, justify the fucking woo woo label!

:D

I simply put Gustav on my ignore list.

So Gustav.... That'll be reading you have a problem with as well as literacy and numeracy I take it.

My..... No wonder you have issues. :)

mr anonymous: yap yap yap yap yap yap yap

/kick

mr anonymous: yelp yelp yelp yelp yelp yelp

Of course old man, I perfectly understand. Must be horrendously frustrating for you. The urge to lash out, overwhelming. Still, there's plenty of people here who can help, it's just, with you being on Skinwalkers ignore list, spamming questions at him constitutes... Oh, what is that word?

Ah, yes. Spam.

Y'did ask, no need to shoot the messenger...

Take time when reading things, break the words down into sounds if they trouble you too much. It's easy once y'get the hang of it. Assuming, of course, y'ever do....

Toodles ;)

so you separate ethics from materialistic science? well that is true to form...yes

Do you perceive me as acting true to my personal form, or are you assigning me to a general behavioural category? In either case, what is your criteria for judging my form? If the latter, with what kind of people and behaviours are you grouping me?

I think it is possible to separate pure science from ethical issues. Results are results regardless of who conducts the experiments (as long as the conditions are the same). The ways in which the fruits of science are applied do not undermine the scientific process itself. This is not to say that I believe science is practiced in a cultural and political vacuum - I'm not totally naive. But provided an experiment is fair, the motivations behind it are of no consequence to the results. Nor are the intended applications.

i am not throwin OUT materilistic science. it is an approach which emphasizes measure and analysis, andreductionism......what i A chalenging is when it is sciencism. when it assumoes, pushes, oppresses...with their 'truth'...ie., MATERIALISM

I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for ill-conceived, negligent or immoral applications of technology at the feet of "materialistic science". I can think of a few non-scientific, non-materialistic regimes guilty of oppression and the enforcement of their 'truth'.

Of cours