How Does JE Receive Messages?

[Ladewig]

Instig8r-
(b) Allow an admitted cold-reader to do telephone readings on Larry King Live, and then compare the 'phone readings to those done by JE in the same unedited format on LKL.

The catch with this approach is that if you introduce the participant as a cold-reader, a lot of people will not help the process along as much as they might with a professional psychic. On the other hand, there are ethical concerns with introducing the person as a real ADCer. (yes, I appreciate the absurdity of the phrase "real ADCer")

______________

p.s. Yes, Clancie, I was confused. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Ceinwyn]

Just a note:

From LKL

"Somebody has a nickname after a spice, like pepper? Who's got a spice name? CALLER: Spice name? Don't know.

EDWARD: Salty or pepper, cinnamon."

Salt isn't a spice.

And I liked Claus' point about JE apparently receiving live subjects as well, like the dog. So very ambiguous.

 

[neofight]

neo,

since it has been a long time since I read OLT and since, no, I don't have my copy available, I will defer to you on what's in it and retract my statements regarding what JE says.

Thanks, Garrette. I assure you there is a lot of discussion about symbols/impressions/images in "OLT". It's a good book to read for someone whoj wants to understand what it is that JE claims to be able to do.

I will now understand what you mean when you say cold reading. Thanks for clarifying and apologies for misunderstanding.

I will, however, continue to point out the difference for anyone reading who is not familiar with the other terms or your use of this term. Since so much hinges on how things are defined (or how they are not defined by JE) I think this is important.

No problem, Garrette. I'll try to remember to do the same. I just didn't want you to think I was deliberately trying to mislead anyone in any way.

Telepathy with dead people? Am I misunderstanding the term telepathy? You seem to be using it as an umbrella for all the different clairs? Am I mistaken?

If you are asking me if my understanding is that these images/feelings/impressions etc. that JE claims to get are given to him telepathically, then yes, that's my understanding of mediumship. He is getting them telepathically from spirit.

You're playing both sides of the fence with Ian Rowland.

You're saying you're not satisfied with the short snippet shown on television, but that the 30 minutes doesn't equate to what JE does. How do you know?

My problem with this issue is that I don't know what the other 28 and a half minutes look like, and I want very desperately to know. Here it is one of the very few times that an admitted cold-reader attempts to do mediumship-like readings for a full 30 minutes, and all we are permitted to see of them is 90 seconds of edited tape.

And I saw the discussions about the snippet. It most certainly equates to what JE does. You just deny it.

The old calendar hit is as impressive as the stuff from JE.

I'm sorry you feel that I deny it, because I don't think that is the case. I'm trying to be consistent, as JE is consistent, and I know from other readings, that when JE gets an impression that a certain something is hanging in a certain place, there has always been something hanging there.

If he says it's hanging on a wall in a certain location, then that's where it is. Not hidden away in some chest somewhere. That's why I feel IR's *hit* was not equal to JE's.

I'm not aware of Shermer's claim, but I don't doubt it. Did he said he WOULD practice a month and duplicate JE or that he COULD do it? I imagine he said would and not could, for the reasons I stated.

I believe he was boasting that he could do it. Of course, we'll probably never know, because even if he, like Ian Rowland and Mark Edward, did something similar, I doubt that we'd ever get to see much of it. At least, that has been my experience to date......neo

 

[neofight]

Hi, neo-- The seminars that Lurker and Mark attended were not videotaped for later broadcast. I wonder what Lurker and Mark would have said if they had later viewed the readings after being edited for TV.

Hi, Instig8R. I, too, wish that they had that opportunity. I feel that both Lurker and Mark Tidwell are pretty fair and objective skeptics, so I would be very interested in hearing what they would have to say about the editing for "CO".

By your own admission, the editing of the "Malibu Shrimp" reading caused it to be rearranged so that the central issue was lost. Also, a false (forced) validation from the sitter was minimized.

No, I'm sorry, Instig8R, but I do not agree with your characterization of my opinion, and I will once again try to correct it here, hopefully for the last time.

I most certainly do not feel that the "Malibu Shrimp" reading was rearranged. The part that you are referring to where John goes into detail about the image/memory he was being shown to get him to talk about a "secret" recipe was edited out of the reading.

Deborah's reading didn't lose anything to have that long story about his co-worker's secret recipe for crumbcake deleted. It was not relevent how John got the image "secret" recipe, but only that he got it.

I actually would have loved for John's story to have been left in, because it was quite entertaining. I'm sure if each show was an hour, they would have left it in, as the only reason to remove it, imo, was time restraints.

It seems that you simply cannot let this issue go, Instig8R, and that's your business I suppose. I find this point so utterly innocuous, and you feel like it's some sort of smoking gun. We will never agree with eachother about it. That much is certain. As far as I'm concerned, I think I've addressed it for the very last time.......neo

 

[Garrette]

If he says it's hanging on a wall in a certain location, then that's where it is. Not hidden away in some chest somewhere. That's why I feel IR's *hit* was not equal to JE's.

Neo, you can't be serious. JE is NEVER wrong in the details? That's your claim?

 

[voidx]

Well, that seems okay to me, frankly.

Well, Ron, I look at it a little differently. He's getting some sort of symbol for spice, and like an initial of a name, is giving examples of possibilities. Assuming he's seeing a spice bottle, the spices he names are examples of possibilities, not individual guesses. And "Cinnamon" jogs the sitters memory to "Ginger", her dog.

Almost every spice bottle I've ever seen has been labelled, funny that this one is conviniently not.

I don't count the various spices as misses.

I'm a little flabergasted at this to be honest. Even you state above he's tossing out what possible spices might be in this magically non-labelled spice bottle that is appearing to him, and yet they are all wrong, hence, they are all misses.

And there is a hit imo, since somebody important to the sitter (a beloved pet) does have a spice name.

Yes, it's a name, not as JE says a nickname (since he's probably seeing the "spice symbol" and assuming its for a person). That doesn't seem like a miss to me.

Where did he get nickname from then? He see's a spice symbol or bottle or whatever, so what triggers to him its a nickname, you discount this it seems, but its what JE refers too. He says nickname, and gets a name. He goes specific, and he's wrong, again.

RonSkeptic,

You say this casts a very wide net. Maybe. Maybe not.

After all, how many people would this be significant for? I can't think of somebody closely connected with me (living or dead) who has a spice name, but maybe it seems commonplace to you.

JE mentioned it to this sitter and she -did- have a close connection to a spice name. Just cold reading? I dunno. Could you have done it?

Since JE's definition of somebody applies to animals/pets its entirely possible. How many dogs or cats out there would the names, cinnamon, salty, pepper, or ginger apply to? Not at all uncommon I would guess, and then add in human names, and or nicknames as he casts a wide net here undoubtedly, and you have a lot of possiblilities for a hit.

I agree that the "male figure"--boyfriend or husband--was a miss.

But, I'm interested that you take the rest of the reading and say that JE is just broadening it to give it every chance to fit.

Well, let me turn that around a bit, Ron. If its so very broad, it must seem very odd to people here that the sitter can't make any connection whatsoever, especially since we hear these callers are "believers", eager to do anything to "make it fit" for JE. Why can't she do this?

Because JE is casting about all over the place after getting specific in a few places, and for whatever reason just can't get anything that is significant to her. It works just as well for the, well it must have been a spirit for someone else, as it does for, his cold-reading just didn't work well with this sitter, for whatever reason.

My contention is that if JE had more time for the reading, we might have found out why. That's why the follow-ups on CO are so beneficial--because, given time to process what they're hearing, sitters often do realize they have a deceased close male to the side after all--"Oh, my fiance"--but after the reading is over. Is that because its genuine and people need more than 30 seconds to understand what he's saying to them? Or, as you think, because given enough time, believers will just "make it fit"?

You misunderstand our, or at least my stance here. You say given enough time the believers will "make it fit". This is overly simplifying it. Given enough time, JE can fish about sufficiently with standard cold-reading techniques and observe reactions until he can finally find a few tidbits that connect with the sitter, he can then broaden and narrow his guess' as needed to drill down to something significant, or can get lucky and come up with something significant sooner with less fishing about seeming more valid. The longer the sitter has to think about it yes, the more they will likely subconciously be helping JE out as if they really are wanting to connect with someone, they'll start trying to remember things and toss them out thinking it will help JE narrow down the spirit. When in actuality, I believe it helps him narrow down his cold-reading guess'.

Well,... I think the spice thing is okay and the rest could be indistinguishable from cold reading, yes.

HOWEVER, I feel this may not be related to JE as much as it is problems with the LKL format--mainly, that it (1) requires JE to complete readings in 30-60 seconds, which is not the way he normally works; (2) LK doesn't ask about validations, and (3) there is no follow up with the sitters to see how they actually responded to the reading and information, etc.

I still say if it was me that had a belief in JE's abilities that his looking every bit the cold-reader everytime he steps into an unfamiliar format would fill me with all sorts of doubts and questions. Its telling on many levels, and I really don't think you can ignore this.

In addition, that entire night was plagued with unusually bad audio problems with the phones. People may find me mentioning this to be just "an excuse"., but its right there in the transcript and was even more obvious while watching it.

If a sitter can't hear well, it might explain why opportunities to validate things, including a "a male figure" didn't happen.

Could you point out to me in this particular transcript where it appears the sitter is having any problems understanding JE whatsoever? Are all these transcripts from this one LKL show? Because this point gets trotted out for quite a few of them. I'll give you that seeing it would be better, but I don't agree that this transcript shows any difficulties in phone communication between JE and sitter whatsoever, sorry.

Just my two cents for a contrary viewpoint, RonSkeptic and voidx. Since you asked.

And as always we appreciate a different view. I still solidly hold that since these transcripts resemble cold-reading so closely, that anyone looking at this objectively would take the cold-reading hypothesis instead as it doesn't require us to posit ADC/Telepathy/psi/esp, and seems to work just as well.

 

[neofight]

Has anyone with concerns about editing read through Underdown's article in Skeptical Inquirer?

His intent was to compare the edited and live versions of CO. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm surprised there's not more discussion at this board about his conclusions.

Yes, ever since you first mentioned what Underdown intended to do, I've been very much looking forward to reading about it, Clancie. So he's finally published his findings?.......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, Ron, I look at it a little differently. He's getting some sort of symbol for spice, and like an initial of a name, is giving examples of possibilities. Assuming he's seeing a spice bottle, the spices he names are examples of possibilities, not individual guesses. And "Cinnamon" jogs the sitters memory to "Ginger", her dog.

Oops....you just said that JE is cold reading.

And there is a hit imo, since somebody important to the sitter (a beloved pet) does have a spice name.

Yeah, well...problem is that this "hit" involves a living animal, not a dead person.

Yes, it's a name, not as JE says a nickname (since he's probably seeing the "spice symbol" and assuming its for a person). That doesn't seem like a miss to me.

Where is the spirit communication in this reading, Clancie? It is highly inconsequential of you to accept this reading as genuine, when there is not a trace of spirit communication in it.

After all, how many people would this be significant for? I can't think of somebody closely connected with me (living or dead) who has a spice name, but maybe it seems commonplace to you.

Hey, it works for me: One of my cats has a spice name: It is named after a (very!) spicy Korean cabbage dish, Kimchi. Does that mean this reading was for me, then?

JE mentioned it to this sitter and she -did- have a close connection to a spice name. Just cold reading? I dunno. Could you have done it?

(raises my hand)

I agree that the "male figure"--boyfriend or husband--was a miss.

No spirit communication at all, then. Why is this spirit communication, and not cold reading?

Well, let me turn that around a bit, Ron. If its so very broad, it must seem very odd to people here that the sitter can't make any connection whatsoever, especially since we hear these callers are "believers", eager to do anything to "make it fit" for JE. Why can't she do this?

It doesn't always have to fit - if everyone could verify all readings, many more would doubt JE.

My contention is that if JE had more time for the reading, we might have found out why. That's why the follow-ups on CO are so beneficial--because, given time to process what they're hearing, sitters often do realize they have a deceased close male to the side after all--"Oh, my fiance"--but after the reading is over. Is that because its genuine and people need more than 30 seconds to understand what he's saying to them? Or, as you think, because given enough time, believers will just "make it fit"?

Yes, absolutely. That would be the logical, simplest, most likely explanation.

Well,... I think the spice thing is okay and the rest could be indistinguishable from cold reading, yes.

Again, the spice thing was not spirit communication, and neither was the rest. So, why is this spirit communication?

HOWEVER, I feel this may not be related to JE as much as it is problems with the LKL format--mainly, that it (1) requires JE to complete readings in 30-60 seconds, which is not the way he normally works; (2) LK doesn't ask about validations, and (3) there is no follow up with the sitters to see how they actually responded to the reading and information, etc.

JE has no problems with it at all. How long should a reading take, then? Until the sitter finds something that fits?

In addition, that entire night was plagued with unusually bad audio problems with the phones. People may find me mentioning this to be just "an excuse"., but its right there in the transcript and was even more obvious while watching it.

If a sitter can't hear well, it might explain why opportunities to validate things, including a "a male figure" didn't happen.

What about the other times on LKL where there were no problems? Did JE do any better? Please show us where.

If you only have time for one:

Where is the spirit communication in this reading, Clancie?

 

[BillHoyt]

Well, that seems okay to me, frankly.
[/B]
Well, Ron, I look at it a little differently. He's getting some sort of symbol for spice, and like an initial of a name, is giving examples of possibilities. Assuming he's seeing a spice bottle, the spices he names are examples of possibilities, not individual guesses. And "Cinnamon" jogs the sitters memory to "Ginger", her dog.

I don't count the various spices as misses.

And there is a hit imo, since somebody important to the sitter (a beloved pet) does have a spice name.

Yes, it's a name, not as JE says a nickname (since he's probably seeing the "spice symbol" and assuming its for a person). That doesn't seem like a miss to me.[/b]

Somebody => dog (but not a Clancie miss)
"salty, pepper, cinnamon" => "ginger" (but not a Clancie miss)
"nickname" => "name" (but not a Clancie miss)

Hey, Clancie, I want you judging at my next archery contest. I can't miss!

Now go backwards in the transcripts. Up, up, up, until you come to the most interesting bit of all. The one everybody has been missing. Yes, see it? JE trots out "salt and pepper" earlier in the show. For someone else. About something else altogether. What's up with that? Hmmm.

Now also, let's give a thought to your "spice jar" hypothesis. Salt is white. Pepper is black. Cinnamon is brown. Does JE see as poorly as he hears? I mean, so poorly that these very distinctive spices all look alike to him?

Are you sure JE wasn't seeing a school notebook?

 

[CFLarsen]

Just for clarification:

JE: "Because they're making me feel like I need to bring up the dog, because they're bringing up the spice name."

"They" - whoever that may be - did not make JE feel like bringing up the dog until after the sitter had told JE that it was, indeed, a dog.

This "because they're bringing up the spice name", does that indicate that a "spice name" is JE's symbol for a dog?

This is getting weirder and weirder...

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Now go backwards in the transcripts. Up, up, up, until you come to the most interesting bit of all. The one everybody has been missing. Yes, see it? JE trots out "salt and pepper" earlier in the show. For someone else. About something else altogether. What's up with that? Hmmm.

Reread it again yourself, Bill. JE's giving someone advice on how to develop her psychic ability.

He recommends that she buy a "salt and pepper, you know, a regular school notebook."

See it now?

 

[Instig8R]

No, I'm sorry, Instig8R, but I do not agree with your characterization of my opinion, and I will once again try to correct it here, hopefully for the last time.

I most certainly do not feel that the "Malibu Shrimp" reading was rearranged. The part that you are referring to where John goes into detail about the image/memory he was being shown to get him to talk about a "secret" recipe was edited out of the reading.

Deborah's reading didn't lose anything to have that long story about his co-worker's secret recipe for crumbcake deleted. It was not relevent how John got the image "secret" recipe, but only that he got it.

I actually would have loved for John's story to have been left in, because it was quite entertaining. I'm sure if each show was an hour, they would have left it in, as the only reason to remove it, imo, was time restraints.

It seems that you simply cannot let this issue go, Instig8R, and that's your business I suppose. I find this point so utterly inoccuous, and you feel like it's some sort of smoking gun. We will never agree with eachother about it. That much is certain. As far as I'm concerned, I think I've addressed it for the very last time.......neo

Hi, Neo-- I haven't mischaracterized your opinion. I will -- again -- retrieve and repost what you wrote, and we are not talking about "Entenmann's" here.

It seems to me that you have again overlooked and misstated my complaint about the editing of the "Malibu Shrimp" reading.

My complaint is not about the silly Entenmann's story being edited out.

My complaint is that JE edited out his lengthy interrogation of Deborah, re: stealing her mom's recipe, and he obtained a false validation from her.

As your own (pre-editing) comments have confirmed:

1. JE said that Deborah's Mom showed-up, to join Helen (the dead friend).

2. JE then claimed that Mom was there to bust Deborah for stealing her recipe and not giving her credit for it.


In the edited version of CO, most of the interrogation was edited out, and the significance of Deborah's forced confession was minimized. In post-reading segment on CO, Deborah said the recipe was secret because Deborah and Helen used dirty clams in the recipe.

As your own (post-editing) comments have confirmed, after viewing the edited version on TV, you changed your story, apparently to conform to the edited version.

If you are going to re-state my argument, at least re-state the correct argument. If you don't remember what you said, I will be happy to repost your words -- again.

 

[neofight]

Neo, you can't be serious.

I can't? Why, is there some rule against it?

JE is NEVER wrong in the details? That's your claim?

Garrette, I'm being as honest as I can be here. The "location" examples that come immediately to mind here are the Met's championship bumber sticker that John nailed that was on the wall in a specific section of the basement, some "puffy" little thingey that was on a refrigerator, a black and white photo that was on the wall of the room in which the sitter was on the phone with JE, a "Disney" related item in a certain part of a bathroom, a piece of string tied to the monkey bars in a park or schoolyear nearby to the sitter's home......the list goes on. He is really quite accurate about these things.

To my best recollection, Ian Rowland made a reference to an out-of-date calendar or a wall hanging that you would see on the wall when you walked in the front door. This turned out to be a total miss, as there was no such item hanging on the sitter's wall. She did have some similar item, however, tucked away in a chest or drawer somewhere. That is not what Ian had described though. I do not consider that too much of a hit if you want me to be frank. ......neo

 

[Instig8R]

Garrette, I'm being as honest as I can be here. The "location" examples that come immediately to mind here are the Met's championship bumber sticker that John nailed that was on the wall in a specific section of the basement, some "puffy" little thingey that was on a refrigerator, a black and white photo that was on the wall of the room in which the sitter was on the phone with JE, a "Disney" related item in a certain part of a bathroom, a piece of string tied to the monkey bars in a park or schoolyear nearby to the sitter's home......the list goes on. He is really quite accurate about these things.

Neo, I never saw the Kelly reading, but it was widely discussed over at TVTalk. There is no transcript posted, but I seem to recall that JE did not locate the Mets banner in the basement... he merely asked what was the significance of the Mets banner? Not a farfetched question to ask a father and son from Long Island -- which, for the most part, is Mets territory. I also understand that either the father (or his son) appeared to be sports jocks, perhaps from the way they were dressed.

It would be really nice if you would back-up your claims once in a while, ya know? You seem to have no problem demanding that courtesy of others.

Better yet, to quote you from the other thread:

Originally posted by Neofight
Perhaps if you could be a little more specific, and cite an actual example of what you are describing, we could all take a look at it and comment.

Why should anyone rely on your memories of these events? Remember Scrunchy the Bear?

 

[neofight]

Hi, Neo-- I haven't mischaracterized your opinion. I will -- again -- retrieve and repost what you wrote, and we are not talking about "Entenmann's" here.

It seems to me that you have again overlooked and misstated my complaint about the editing of the "Malibu Shrimp" reading.

My complaint is not about the silly Entenmann's story being edited out.

Okay then, fine. I stand corrected. I thought that point did bother you.

My complaint is that JE edited out his lengthy interrogation of Deborah, re: stealing her mom's recipe, and he obtained a false validation from her.

As your own (pre-editing) comments have confirmed:

1. JE said that Deborah's Mom showed-up, to join Helen (the dead friend).

2. JE then claimed that Mom was there to bust Deborah for stealing her recipe and not giving her credit for it.

In the edited version of CO, most of the interrogation was edited out, and the significance of Deborah's forced confession was minimized. In post-reading segment on CO, Deborah said the recipe was secret because Deborah and Helen used dirty clams in the recipe.

Regardless, Instig8R, the part of the tape to which you are referring, has nothing to do with the meat of Deborah's reading.

Ever since we saw Deborah's edited reading on "CO", it was obvious that although JE had gotten the hit about Deborah and her friend having a "secret recipe" right, he was not altogether correct in the way that he interpreted why the recipe was secret. You are stuck on that point, 'g8R, as though that misinterpretation changed anything important with regard to the reading. It didn't imo.

Deborah's life-long friend did come through in connection to some story about a secret recipe. Her friend did have a connection down "south", since she lived in Florida. Deborah's parents did consider her friend to be like their own daughter. The two women did have a little joke about being "gay" that they shared.

I don't remember what else the reading consisted of, but the fact is that it was a very satisfying reading for Deborah, despite the perceived "smoking gun" that you keep mentioning over and over and over again.

For some reason you want to make a BFD about the fact that JE did not get the reason for the secrecy right, and you forget all about the fact that he did at least know that there was a secret recipe that they shared in life, and several other things as well.

But go ahead and focus on the irrelevant, Instig8R. Go after that hole in the doughnut, and ignore the doughnut itself. Sounds a bit, dare I say, cynical to me. ........neo

 

[neofight]

Neo, I never saw the Kelly reading, but it was widely discussed over at TVTalk. There is no transcript posted, but I seem to recall that JE did not locate the Mets banner in the basement... he merely asked what was the significance of the Mets banner? Not a farfetched question to ask a father and son from Long Island -- which, for the most part, is Mets territory. I also understand that either the father (or his son) appeared to be sports jocks, perhaps from the way they were dressed.

It would be really nice if you would back-up your claims once in a while, ya know? You seem to have no problem demanding that courtesy of others.

I do see a difference between what you said, and what I said, Instig8R. You were extremely vague in what you said, while I cited a very well-known, oft-referenced and specific "CO" reading which aired more than a couple of times over the last couple of years. Poor analogy, since I absolutely did cite a specific example, and you did not.

And I did see the Kelly reading, more than once, Instig8R, and I think you are mistaken in your impression that JE merely asked what the significance of the Met's banner was. I think he *took* Kelly and the gallery downstairs and indicated where it was that this item was displayed on the wall. Any other regular "CO" watchers remember this? Feel free to jump in here.......neo

 

[Instig8R]

Regardless, Instig8R, the part of the tape to which you are referring, has nothing to do with the meat of Deborah's reading.

Ever since we saw Deborah's edited reading on "CO", it was obvious that although JE had gotten the hit about Deborah and her friend having a "secret recipe" right, he was not altogether correct in the way that he interpreted why the recipe was secret. You are stuck on that point, 'g8R, as though that misinterpretation changed anything important with regard to the reading. It didn't imo.

Neo, the stolen recipe was central to that reading, and it was a lengthy, full scale interrogation of Deborah. JE actually said he had Mom there, along with Helen. According to JE, it was Mom who had busted her, upset that she never got her share of recognition for her part of the secret recipe.

Here is what you wrote about that reading prior to it being broadcast on TV:

"So that brings us to why he knew to reference a very special secret recipe to this sitter. She acknowledged that she and this other woman (deceased) came up with this secret recipe. A hit. But then you could actually see the moment when John was being let in on another secret, which he immediately passed on to the sitter. He said that "she is telling me that's not true", or words to that effect, and that in fact, their secret recipe was based somehow on her mother's recipe, that it was not ALL their own. The woman was in no hurry to validate this fact, and actually denied it at first. That's when John did his Perry Mason impersonation, and got her to admit that what he said was true."

Neo, if this was such a small, unimportant part of the entire reading, then why is it the only part that you remembered enough to write about after the seminar?

I clearly remember when JE said that Deborah was being busted for stealing the recipe from her mother... "she's saying that's not true..." bla-bla-bla. That's why JE did the Trial Lawyer impersonation. She kept denying, denying, denying... It was a lengthy interrogation -- totally edited out of the final version now...

And, don't forget: Deborah gave JE the right to do this creative editing. She is contractually bound to have acknowledged that these readings are not factual. Essentially, she is JE's accomplice in a work of fiction, because she signed his Appearance Release.

At the Westbury Seminar, we both witnessed Deborah being pressured by JE into giving a false validation about stealing a recipe from her mother. You applauded it at the time as a great validation... and now you are trying to excuse it away.

This is called editing for content, as provided for in the Appearance Release.

 

[Instig8R]

I do see a difference between what you said, and what I said, Instig8R. You were extremely vague in what you said, while I cited a very well-known, oft-referenced and specific "CO" reading which aired more than a couple of times over the last couple of years. Poor analogy, since I absolutely did cite a specific example, and you did not.

Actually, neo, what you posted was an anecdote, with no place where specific references can be checked. If you keep this sort of thing up, this thread could easily turn into another "milk-from-the-cow" thread.

And I did see the Kelly reading, more than once, Instig8R, and I think you are mistaken in your impression that JE merely asked what the significance of the Met's banner was. I think he *took* Kelly and the gallery downstairs and indicated where it was that this item was displayed on the wall. Any other regular "CO" watchers remember this? Feel free to jump in here.......neo

Neo, I concede that I could be remembering the discussion incorrectly. However, I do know that 1969 and 1986 Mets stickers and banners are very popular on Long Island. The Mets suck, but they have a large fan-base here on LI.

JE might be a Mets fan, too, or perhaps his friends are. As a Long Islander, JE would surely know (as even I know) that 1969 and 1986 were the years that they won the World Series.

Without a transcript, this is a total waste of time. However, even if we had a transcript, how good a hit is a Mets sticker in the Laundry Room in the home of Long Island sports fans? Not very good, if there are Mets stickers and memorabilia in various other rooms in the house. (I'll bet the Kelly boys had lots of Mets junk and other sports souveniers in their bedrooms, just like other boys on Long Island.)

 

[Iamme]

How does JE receive messages? A: From spirits. Like 'Everclear'.

 

[Dogwood]

Because he does readings at seminars as well, Garrette. Some of these venues are general admission. Even Lurker and Mark (dogwood) have gone to seminars and have said that they don't see much difference at all between the readings that they witnessed live and unedited, and the ones that they see on "CO".

That's essentially correct neo, but you're forgetting that I think the readings on CO are crap to begin with.