Prof Roy's Best cases offered by M Keen to Randi

Yes, everyone seemed to ignore JE's opening statement with the first caller on the last LKL. He stopped what he was doing and told "callers" not to give him any information. He then proceeded to ask for that very information, time after time, in just about every reading. I am not saying JE, in the Az experiments or in silent readings didn't do well, but it struck me as rather absurd for him to make this statement and follow it the way he did by asking for information. It just rung a gong in my head. He was clearly playing the 20 questions game, a variety of cold reading. Does he always do this? No. Does this mean he is always in trouble with getting communications? No. I am not making an overall statement, just a specific one regarding this particular performance which was obviously arranged and paid for by some media consultant (e.g. hack) to his publishing arm. for his new book. I thought it was he worst rubbish I have ever seen because of the above.

I mentally compared that with Schwartz's non-local and silent sitter experiments including one he did recently with another medium, Janet B., whom I do not know. The specifics were incredible. for an anonymous sitter.

And, of course, I now cannot help comparing JE and anyone else performing publicly with Walsh as well.
While I appreciated the input of people who tried to explain everything she said, I could not agree that she could provide that information in such rich detail merely by possibly knowing someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew me who gave me her private phone number for an appoinment. Extremely private information not known to anyone in this chain and was provided without a single question being asked. Highly specific details.

I dont know whats going on but I have heard other people say JE's work is not as good as it seemed to be earlier. Is he losing it? Possibly. I dont stay up to 1 AM to catch his program anymore and I cant see it in the daytime. so can't comment further.

Schwartz doesnt watch him religiously either and he didnt see the last LKL but now that you mention it I will send him a transcript to see what he thinks.
 
ED: Dammit Steve, you said you wouldn't tell. Will you still give me that promotion you promised? You beast.

Reply: This was an example for the situation in reverse. which I provided to apoger. It was not meant as a truthful statement, merely an example.



ED: Steve, look on the bright side: It was probably the most attention that you ever got in your grubby little life. And if it is so horrible, why do you insist on bringing it up, you McGonads (very clever, I'll tell my kid, he'll be the hit of the 4th grade) manager you.

Reply: Just to the set the record straight. I asked for you to delete the posts in question. You did not. I asked James Randi to do so and he said Andrew Harter would. Harter did not.
Several months later you e-mailed me to apologize but the offensive posts were not removed until they were rolled off the server as a pruning measure. Don't worry, there are copies of the 5/04/02 postings by you. as well as others. But I especially want to thank you for this evening. It demonstrates your persistence in a very meaningful way.

ED: Steve, the biggest difference that I can see between you and most others here is that you take yourself very seriously.

Reply: Sorry to say this but I take the entire subject very seriously. If this was a humor or flame fest forum, it would be different. Yes, this is a serious matter to me. I am sure if you or a loved one was in ICU you would want the staff including myself to take it very seriously.


ED: You can't laugh at yourself and you can't roll with the punches. You are so protective of your supposed status that it does lead one to wonder how much you perceive your life and career as a dismal failure. Sad really.

Reply: The only really great loss in my life was the death of my son at a very early age. He and I were very close and he helped me with everything I did whenever he could. I hope you never have to lose a child but let me tell you it leaves a great big hole in the middle of your chest and it doesn't get easier as time goes on like it is with other losses.
Maybe you would like to help fund some charity in his name? Let me know.

ED: You seem to pop a woody over using the names Ed Dittus and Claus Larson, as if you are doing something naughty.

Reply: Your remarks are basically puke, pablum regurgitated by infants and they soil everyone in their reach.


ED: This is the internet, idiot. I could be Ed or not. I might also be Claus. I might be neither. I could also be James Randi for that matter. Or your boss, pricking holes in your pomposity in ways that I never could at work. You'll never know. IP's are largely meaningless.

Reply: Not according to the moderators here. You are Ed who thinks he's a deity who founded a media consultancy company in 1989 and sold out. As a result of your 5/04/02 posts I know who you are. Are you going to get Claus to start harassing me with private e-mails again? You think I didn't know what was happening?

ED: As a guy who thinks he can find true love with a hooker so you think that you are finding reality on the Internet. Both beliefs are seriously flawed and following either of them is destined to bring dissapointment.

Reply: I will ask you once again to stop insulting my wife and family. Please delete the above and apologize. Thank you. I will write once again to James Randi and ask him to do this as well. The end result for you Ed may not be as benign as the last time since you feel it is necessary to persistently add to your heap of libel and slander. The pattern of abuse is growing.

ED: If you want a bio, feel free to search the name Ed Dittus. You'll find that he is reasonably successful, selling the company that he started prior to the final bursting of the Internet bubble.

Reply: Don't worry. You have been well researched awhile ago.



D: You would also note that he has people to push pencils for him; people like you Steve. You will also see that he, in corporate hierarchical terms, would not know your name or even have been aware or your employment if you worked in his company. Probably just as well for you. My understanding is that he does not suffer pompous fools gladly.

Reply: And you call me taking myself seriously. You are being the pompous ass with these remarks. They are the height of pomposity. Who are you kidding? Someday somebody will take you down from your delusional high horse. Enjoy it while you can.

Sorry about waking up one of he sleeping moderators here. I am afraid I will be waking them up once again.

Have a nice night. And thanks again,
 
Clancie said:
Claus,

If you don't mean "psychic mediums" then all I can say is that I don't know enough about "psychics" to have an opinion about your question then. My area of interest has consistently been psychic mediums only. If that isn't what you wanted to know about vis-a-vis cold reading, I'm sorry but I have nothing more to add.
Click to expand...

This I do not understand. You were perfectly capable of stating that JE was being psychic (as opposed to being a psychic medium) on LKL.

You must be able to tell the difference between a psychic and a cold reader. Because if you cannot, how can you say that JE was merely being psychic? Why wasn't he cold reading?

Come on, Clancie! Really! You obviously know enough about cold reading (you have IR's book, and you have no problems lecturing people here on the subject), and you obviously know enough of psychics vs. psychic mediums, too. How else did you decide that Brian Hurst is the real thing? That Robert Brown is the real thing? That JE is the real thing (even though you deny this, for some reason)?

Did you merely compare mediums to cold readers? Yes, you did. I remember clearly - and I still have the threads to prove it. Now, when it turns out that JE seems to have a very hard time doing psychic mediumship live and unedited, you fall back on the "psychic" explanation. But you cannot explain the difference between a psychic and a cold reader?

Perhaps you are right. Perhaps you really cannot tell the difference. Heck, I can't! But that you keep silent about it is not a good sign, Clancie.

You should have serious doubts about JE by now. You don't voice those doubts. Your posts never show those doubts. Do you have those doubts at all?

It boils down to this: If you are not able to tell the difference between a psychic and a cold reader, then you are not able to tell whether JE was cold reading on LKL or not.

This should raise a huge, red flag with you. It doesn't.

....or does it?
 
Steve,

I think you need to take a chill pill.

Look at what you post, man! You rant. You spew vile. You want everyone who expresses an opinion that does not suit you censored. You can't even present the facts right: You turn the argument about you having a doctorate around: Nobody claimed here you had one. People simply reacted to the fact that you were referred to as a doctor, by your very own dear pal, Gary Schwartz, who should know better.

If you have any problems with being called a doctor, take it up with Schwartz.

You don't want to show us proof that you have a doctorate? As usual, you don't back up your claims with evidence. Instead, you dance around the fire, playing a game only you understand.

And then, you play your last card: Censorship! You are extremely quick to cry "censorship", but you are even quicker to call for censorship.

You really hate people who don't agree with you, don't you? You think you can bully people into believing the same as you do. If they don't, you censored them, even banned them, if they posted on your own board, or Pam's. Since you are not a moderator here, you want others to do your dirty work for you.

When they refuse, you accuse them of conspiring against you.

Take a chill pill, Steve.
 
Re: Re: Yea, sure...

Lucianarchy said:


Can't speak for Mr Keen, but I have experienced many of these phenomena and remain skeptical of many of the proposed 'explanations'. It is not all cr/hr/delusion/fraud/error, not all. And the fact is, old stick, the 'capturing' of these effects is as tantalising as rainbow gold.
Click to expand...
Spot on Luci,

No one has so far found any rainbow gold and no-one has captured any Psychic effects. If I had to bet however my money would be on the former.
 
apoger said:


The issue here is not what I want, it is about what Steve wants.
If he cares about people believing in his credentials then it is up to him to convince. If Steve didn't care about the issue then why all the writing about it? All Steve had to do is say "I don't care if anyone knows/believes I have a doctorate". That would be the end of it!
Click to expand...

No. Claus, Ed and a few others evidently experience mental illness, a compulsive obsessive illness which we call OCD. Do you remember when Mr Ed got removed his moderator status after using the term "f**king faggot" for a fellow skeptic? Do you remember when Claus Liarson used forged quotes provided by his boyfriend (TLN) in order to defame rather than argue? Do you remember when Liarson was instrumental in having the PEAR PRP paper censored from this forum, even after he asked for it, specifically "in detail"?

No? Then you need to do a bit of research and find out what is rerally going on here amongst those who call themselves "skeptics". Guys like Mr Ed and Liarson are ill, stuck in a zealous script of denial due to the secrets they cannot bear the world to share. What and why are those secrets so destructive to the likes of Ed and Claus? Why don't they want you to know what they know? What on earth could they be hiding?

Be skeptical.

Psi exists. Only the dishonest, manipulative and abusive have anything to fear from you learning and discovering the truth.
 
Well, it's nice to have diagnoses of "mental illness" from an expert.
Practice makes perfect.
 
Originally posted by Lucianarchy
What is it, a full moon? The lunitics are increasing their activity.

No. Claus, Ed and a few others evidently experience mental illness, a compulsive obsessive illness which we call OCD. Do you remember when Mr Ed got removed his moderator status after using the term "f**king faggot" for a fellow skeptic?

Close, it was not a sceptic, it was you

Do you remember when Claus Liarson used forged quotes provided by his boyfriend (TLN) in order to defame rather than argue? Do you remember when Liarson was instrumental in having the PEAR PRP paper censored from this forum, even after he asked for it, specifically "in detail"?

As I recall, you posted the entire thing.

No? Then you need to do a bit of research and find out what is rerally going on here amongst those who call themselves "skeptics". Guys like Mr Ed and Liarson are ill, stuck in a zealous script of denial

"zealous script of denial", not a bad turn of phrase. I might have said something like

"Guys like Mr Ed and Liarson are ill, unconciously playing pathetic characters from an overwrought, zealous script of denial"

It flows a bit better that way. When you stumble on a good expression you really must leverage it as much as possible.

due to the secrets they cannot bear the world to share.

If I might, it reads better (and makes sense) this way:

"due to the secrets they cannot bear to share with the world."

quick edit. If you want to go Goth, you might also say:

"due to the secrets they fear to share, for the sake of the world."


That said

Cue drama music.....

What and why are those secrets so destructive to the likes of Ed and Claus?

Wait a sec. I buy the causitive role of the secrets for certain behaviors. But now you are saying "destructive". You need a bridge here

Why don't they want you to know what they know? What on earth could they be hiding?

Not a boffo finish. You started well but did not bring it home. Lame. Let me try:
"Guys like Mr Ed and Liarson are ill, unconciously playing pathetic characters from an overwrought, zealous script of denial due to the secrets that they fear to share, for the sake of the world. The selfsame secrets that drove Liarson from the shores of New York and Dittus to a solitary, gnome-like existance. What are the hidden and fell rituals that they perform? Why, oh why, do they lust for the destruction of Dr. Grenard and myself?

Why don't they want you to know what they know? What on earth (or beyond it) could they be hiding?

And remember, if they answer, be sceptical"
Click to expand...

Not perfect, but better I think.

Luci, frankly, the only thing that I have seen from you that is in the least way paranormal is your writing.

Psi exists. Only the dishonest, manipulative and abusive have anything to fear from you learning and discovering the truth.

Luci, you took a perfectly good diatribe and ruined it with polemics.
 
Originally posted by SteveGrenard
ED: Dammit Steve, you said you wouldn't tell. Will you still give me that promotion you promised? You beast.

Reply: This was an example for the situation in reverse. which I provided to apoger. It was not meant as a truthful statement, merely an example.

Steve, you are a loon. Do you not see that your reply is a non sequitur? This is what I meant when I suggested that you really are not a big picture guy. Or perhaps you are and your communication skills are lacking

ED: Steve, look on the bright side: It was probably the most attention that you ever got in your grubby little life. And if it is so horrible, why do you insist on bringing it up, you McGonads (very clever, I'll tell my kid, he'll be the hit of the 4th grade) manager you.

Reply: Just to the set the record straight. I asked for you to delete the posts in question. You did not. I asked James Randi to do so and he said Andrew Harter would. Harter did not.
Several months later you e-mailed me to apologize but the offensive posts were not removed until they were rolled off the server as a pruning measure. Don't worry, there are copies of the 5/04/02 postings by you. as well as others. But I especially want to thank you for this evening. It demonstrates your persistence in a very meaningful way.

Why would you make copies? You are a nut job. I also sense a veiled threat. You know that you are pathetic, don't you?

ED: Steve, the biggest difference that I can see between you and most others here is that you take yourself very seriously.

Reply: Sorry to say this but I take the entire subject very seriously. If this was a humor or flame fest forum, it would be different. Yes, this is a serious matter to me. I am sure if you or a loved one was in ICU you would want the staff including myself to take it very seriously.

Big picture, Steve. Think big picture. We are not in an ICU. This is nothing like an ICU, no sane person would mistake it for one. This is a forum on the Internet.

ED: You can't laugh at yourself and you can't roll with the punches. You are so protective of your supposed status that it does lead one to wonder how much you perceive your life and career as a dismal failure. Sad really.

Reply: The only really great loss in my life was the death of my son at a very early age. He and I were very close and he helped me with everything I did whenever he could. I hope you never have to lose a child but let me tell you it leaves a great big hole in the middle of your chest and it doesn't get easier as time goes on like it is with other losses.

I understand what you are saying though I cannot apprehend your feelings. Allow me to suggest that persueing the idea that he is still around is not particularly healthy, it keeps the wound open. One reason that I dispise mediums is that they trade in sorrow. You are an example of that.

Maybe you would like to help fund some charity in his name? Let me know.

I would without question. Just not, you know ...

ED: You seem to pop a woody over using the names Ed Dittus and Claus Larson, as if you are doing something naughty.

Reply: Your remarks are basically puke, pablum regurgitated by infants and they soil everyone in their reach.

You ever see "Waiting for Guffman"? There is a character there that reminds me of you. He has the same skill with insults:

Corky St. Clair: Well, then, I just HATE you... and I hate your... ass... FACE!

or

Corky St. Clair: ...'cause you people are BASTARD PEOPLE!

(IMDB)

Pretty funny. Give it a look

ED: This is the internet, idiot. I could be Ed or not. I might also be Claus. I might be neither. I could also be James Randi for that matter. Or your boss, pricking holes in your pomposity in ways that I never could at work. You'll never know. IP's are largely meaningless.

Reply: Not according to the moderators here. You are Ed who thinks he's a deity who founded a media consultancy company in 1989 and sold out. As a result of your 5/04/02 posts I know who you are. Are you going to get Claus to start harassing me with private e-mails again? You think I didn't know what was happening?

You are naive and paranoid. What was happening? This interests me. Have you constructed a conspiracy? Are you cracking up?

ED: As a guy who thinks he can find true love with a hooker so you think that you are finding reality on the Internet. Both beliefs are seriously flawed and following either of them is destined to bring dissapointment.

Reply: I will ask you once again to stop insulting my wife and family. Please delete the above and apologize.

OOooooooooooookay.

Simile: "A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in “How like the winter hath my absence been” or “So are you to my thoughts as food to life” (Shakespeare)."(Dictionary.com)

I am sorry Steve, I will not dumb down what I write to a borderline literate level. You really do have problems with written english, don't you?

Thank you. I will write once again to James Randi and ask him to do this as well.

And be the object of derision once again.

The end result for you Ed may not be as benign as the last time since you feel it is necessary to persistently add to your heap of libel and slander. The pattern of abuse is growing.

Patterns don't really grow, they might evolve or develop. Maybe you are correct in your usage but it is certainly awkward.

End result? Steve, you are a misguided fool. You gnash your teeth in frustration and suggest to the board that you have some power. Silly little man


ED: If you want a bio, feel free to search the name Ed Dittus. You'll find that he is reasonably successful, selling the company that he started prior to the final bursting of the Internet bubble.

Reply: Don't worry. You have been well researched awhile ago.

Excellent. A groupie

D: You would also note that he has people to push pencils for him; people like you Steve. You will also see that he, in corporate hierarchical terms, would not know your name or even have been aware or your employment if you worked in his company. Probably just as well for you. My understanding is that he does not suffer pompous fools gladly.

Reply: And you call me taking myself seriously. You are being the pompous ass with these remarks. They are the height of pomposity. Who are you kidding?

A bit pompous, I suppose, but, nevertheless, true. You are a functionary and doomed to forever oil the cogs at the behest of greater people. It is a vision thing, Steve, as is becoming increasingly apparent here. It has informed your entire life and you certainly don't like it but, by definition, you cannot get it

Someday somebody will take you down from your delusional high horse. Enjoy it while you can.

I am, thank you. You also mistake delusion and reality

Sorry about waking up one of he sleeping moderators here. I am afraid I will be waking them up once again.

You may get spanked this time. You really should look up words you don't understand, like "simile".
[/QUOTE]
 
Steve,

I really must ask. Given your obvious mood swings and variable level of understanding of what is posted here, are you on medication of some kind?
 
Leave for a day or two and the teapot spawns new tempests.

I must, however, ask Clancie and Lucianarchy to stop pestering Larsen about this 'doctor' thing and etc. with Mr. Grenard.

Under the rules established by Mr. Grenard when he essentially called Garrette a liar, I was not allowed to talk about the subject unless I was acting as Garrette's attorney. Under Steve's rules, unless you have actually been appointed or retained as his legal counsel, you are not allowed to argue those points with Claus.

I'm sorry - but that's the rule.

Additionally, since Steve has been terribly outspoken regarding his dislike for anonymous posters, I must ask Lucianarchy to stop posting on these threads completely. I am sure that Steve was going to ask this himself; he probably thought that 'lucianarchy' was your real name.

I only ask this on Steve's behalf to avoid charges from certain 'skeptics' that Steve's rules are being applied unevenly. I would hate for anyone to get the impression that the rules laid out by Mr. Grenard were only for people disagreeing with him.

To avoid that appearance -- silly though the thought would be -- you'll both want to stop posting on these threads.

Cordially yours, I remain,

N/A
 
Posted by NoZed Avenger

I must, however, ask Clancie and Lucianarchy to stop pestering Larsen about this 'doctor' thing and etc. with Mr. Grenard
Click to expand...
Hi NA,

I realize your post is tongue in cheek, but I did just want to clarify that the "doctor" thing was an important point (imo) which I was bringing up primarily with Steve himself, secondarily with Rolfe and not at all with Claus! :) I thought Steve made the point about his doctorate to Rolfe and it was a good one.

Of course, (with or without an attorney :) ), people can choose to believe him or not as they see fit (and, as I've said, having known him via forums for a couple of years now, frankly, I do).

P.S. As for the apparent history some of you guys seem to "share" together, I am blissfully ignorant of the particulars--and happy to remain so!
 
Clancie said:
I realize your post is tongue in cheek, but I did just want to clarify that the "doctor" thing was an important point (imo) which I was bringing up primarily with Steve himself, secondarily with Rolfe and not at all with Claus! :) I thought Steve made the point about his doctorate to Rolfe and it was a good one.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's important. That's why I felt like finding out the truth behind the matter. However, Steve has not been able to explain it. No evidence. As usual.

Do you suggest that I add it to the list of questions for Steve?

Clancie said:
P.S. As for the apparent history some of you guys seem to "share" together, I am blissfully ignorant of the particulars--and happy to remain so!
Click to expand...

(sigh)....no, you are not "ignorant" of the "particulars". You are perfectly aware of how Steve and I have discussed on TVTalkshows.

Don't feign ignorance, Clancie. It's bad enough as it is.
 
Ed said:
ED: As a guy who thinks he can find true love with a hooker so you think that you are finding reality on the Internet. Both beliefs are seriously flawed and following either of them is destined to bring dissapointment.

Reply: I will ask you once again to stop insulting my wife and family. Please delete the above and apologize.
Click to expand...

Having reread this, Steve, I see how your dirty, illiterate mind worked.

I insist that you apologise to me and to the mods, for bothering them with silly illiterate crap.

 
Steve, for what it's worth, I certainly don't feel you owe the mods any sort of apology.
 
As a skater skating on thin ice, Steve is out of his depth . . . simile.

Should you guys really be getting under the collar of a guy who specialises in venoms?:(

I can seriously say that I agree with Claus on the 'Dr' matter. Steve did not correct the poster who called him Dr. Grenard. It then looks like an appeal to authority to bolster the believers' case.

It does go to the issue of Steve's credibility. If believers want to cite doctorates for their champions, it is only fair that sceptics should question that authority because it might be spurious, or, as usually is the case in discussing the paranormal, irrelevant.

I think it's the big geomagnetic storm that is causing the hostility here -- I can feel the vibes . . . :)

malc
 
malcolmdl said:
As a skater skating on thin ice, Steve is out of his depth . . . simile.

Should you guys really be getting under the collar of a guy who specialises in venoms?:(

I can seriously say that I agree with Claus on the 'Dr' matter. Steve did not correct the poster who called him Dr. Grenard. It then looks like an appeal to authority to bolster the believers' case.

It does go to the issue of Steve's credibility. If believers want to cite doctorates for their champions, it is only fair that sceptics should question that authority because it might be spurious, or, as usually is the case in discussing the paranormal, irrelevant.

I think it's the big geomagnetic storm that is causing the hostility here -- I can feel the vibes . . . :)

malc
Click to expand...
There is another thread on this particular section of the Forum in which Steve quite clearly and specifically stated, "I am not a medical doctor." I don't know how much clearer he could have stated it. Steve, himself, has not claimed to be a doctor; he said he was "a doctor of sorts". I think he's been unfairly taken to task for it.

The horse is dead, the hide has been tanned, and the rest of it is at the glue factory. :rolleyes:
 
Pyrrho said:

There is another thread on this particular section of the Forum in which Steve quite clearly and specifically stated, "I am not a medical doctor." I don't know how much clearer he could have stated it. Steve, himself, has not claimed to be a doctor; he said he was "a doctor of sorts". I think he's been unfairly taken to task for it.

The horse is dead, the hide has been tanned, and the rest of it is at the glue factory. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Now, getting back to the subject matter, how come no one can provide a candidate who can do what the 'psychics' do, under the same conditions as Dr G.S. or the Scole 'hole' group?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom