Interesting JE Hits....

[neofight]

I am well aware of the fact that AMA is a well-known medical abbreviation for against medical advice. However, that is not how JE claims to use the term.

JE claims that he is being shown the AMA logo, he mentions American Medical Association, and then explains that it is his symbol for against medical advice. I believe he does so to eliminate any expectations that he can get other medical abbreviations, like HIV, AIDS, and a myriad of other medical abbreviations that run the gamut of health conditions.

NO! NO! NO! and NO! Let me nip this misconception in the bud, because this is not accurate at all, and it is not your fault, 'g8R, but entirely my own, which is why I must clear it up immediately.

Here is where you got this idea.......

Instig8R's quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, let's not forget the famous line, "They're showing me 'AMA', which means the person acted 'against medical advice'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


neo's quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------That is in another category altogether, Instig8R. The "AMA" or American Medical Association logo is a symbol that is within JE's frame of reference. That has nothing to do with his getting names. It is a staple of his readings, letting him know, as you say, that someone had to have gone against medical advice and refused treatment or something.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, just let me state as loudly and as clearly as I can, that JE never claimed that he was seeing the logo for the American Medical Association, nor did he ever mention the American Medical Association AT ALL. This was me, neofight, assuming something that I should not have assumed. Obviously, I realize now that I was in error.


When I heard JE making frequent references to AMA, he would always explain how it meant going against medical advice such as refusing a certain treatment or procedure, etc., but I never put it together (Let's hear a big "DUH" here) that AMA was the acronym for just that...."against medical advice".

In my head, I just made the connection with the American Medical Association, and thought that he was seeing either the logo for the AMA, or the letters "AMA" meaning the American Medical Association every time he got the message that a person was going against the advice of the doctors. My mistake. My bad. But I'm glad that I have the chance to straighten this mess out before the situation got even further out of hand. My sincere apologies to you all for this mistake, and to you, Steve, for making you do all that research for nothing. ......neo

 

[voidx]

Posted by Clancie:

What's the science behind writing? There are rules for it, but they don't explain the ability of some to use the words more effectively than others.

Carbon pencil or ink pen or any other form of writing tool leaves markings on an appropriate surface in the form of formalized symbols and letters. Quite easy actually, or read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a little deeper discussion about how writing came into existence. Again, what you decide to write doesn't change the physical process by which you write. We can run around playing musical analogies all day, none of them will fit.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

The producers get about five or six shows from a three hour taping session.

Five or six shows would mean 55-66 - maybe 70 minutes of readings. What happens to the rest of those 180 minutes?

Steve has said that there is very little "down-time" (or whatever he called it). He's been there. You haven't. Neither has neo. Should we dismiss Steve's testimony simply because it doesn't fit with the idea that the shows are not edited?

Does that help?

It would only help if we see the same sitter being read on two different shows. I have never seen this happening, I have never heard it mentioned by any CO-viewer, fan or non-fan, and I would like independent confirmation of this ever happening.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by voidx

Carbon pencil or ink pen or any other form of writing tool leaves markings on an appropriate surface in the form of formalized symbols and letters. Quite easy actually, or read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond for a little deeper discussion about how writing came into existence.

voidx,

The point is that written communication is far more than the physical process, with far more involved than muscles, tools, and neurons. And that people can be given the best pen and paper set in the world, but it won't turn them into Shakespeare.

I agree with neo. If mediumship is for real, then its another form of communication and as such would be far more art than science.

 

[CFLarsen]

If mediumship is for real, then its another form of communication and as such would be far more art than science.

Then where is the Shakespeare of mediumship?

 

[Clancie]

Maybe, if she's as good as Steve says, ... Camille Walsh? Rita Rogers? Maybe Mrs. Piper was one?

Maybe there are people you and I have never heard of, Claus, mediums who are doing wonderful readings for people in their own small communities.

After all, very few mediums become famous, and many do the work for free.

 

[neofight]

I'm a skeptic?

LOL I hope you don't feel like I've insulted you, RC. I know that we're not allowed to say this on this site because, like it or not, here we are all defined by a few of the more hard-core skeptics, but I certainly believe it's true that we all have our skeptical side. None of us has come to believe, or at least acknowledge the possibility, that mediumship is real without taking a good look at it as it compares to cold-reading, right?

One thing that I've always found to be strange is that Peck said in an interview on Crossing Over that only about 10 people in the United States (or was it world, can't remember) have the "gift" that she and JE have. That doesn't match what JE says, in fact I think he has either endorsed or spoken/written about more than 10 others.

Yes, I do remember her saying that, but I take that to mean that she thought there were only a few people in this country who had developed their mediumship abilities to the extent that they had.

I think JE is right, and that there might be many, many more that do this, and do it well, but who are content, for whatever reasons, to do it on a limited basis only. For instance, Glenn Dove, from Baldwin, Long Island, a psychic medium that JE recommends in the back of "OLT", still keeps on with his music career, which is something that he loves.

At a recent family BBQ, I was talking to my sister-in-law's brother and I mentioned Glenn's name, and he was shocked to know that he was a psychic medium. He was not a close friend of Glenn's in high school in Queens, but he knew he was a drummer and was familiar with the band that he used to play in.

So Glenn only does readings on a limited basis, and only because he is so much in demand that it would be difficult for him to stop doing them, even if he wanted to.....neo

 

[neofight]

And Neo, you have commented on the merit of Peck's abilities when you called her a medium. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe she is a medium because JE says so.

I suppose that's true, RC. If I am willing to believe that JE could be a medium, then yes, I'm willing to accept that people he refers to as mediums, probably are. (Ooooh! Appealing to authority!) lol

I know that when John's mother died, he had requested her to contact him through Shelley Peck, since he didn't trust his own objectivity to get her messages directly. If you remember, instead, his mom came through to Suzane Northrup, even though JE didn't really know SN very well at the time.......neo

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe, if she's as good as Steve says, ... Camille Walsh? Rita Rogers? Maybe Mrs. Piper was one?

Maybe there are people you and I have never heard of, Claus, mediums who are doing wonderful readings for people in their own small communities.

After all, very few mediums become famous, and many do the work for free.

Your logical skills has failed you again: When you mention Shakespeare as an argument that mediumship is an art, you point to someone who is very, very famous for their art.

And now, you want to switch to the opposite standpoint??

Not one single medium has ever been shown to be real, Clancie. While there are many, many people highly successful in their own fields of "art".

Try again: Where is the Shakespeare of mediumship? I've heard of Shakespeare. So have you. People get famous because they are good at what they do. That was your argument.

Well, up to a few moments ago...

 

[voidx]

The point is that written communication is far more than the physical process, with far more involved than muscles, tools, and neurons. And that people can be given the best pen and paper set in the world, but it won't turn them into Shakespeare.

Muscles, tools, neurons, all of which have their basis in....science, not art. You're completely missing my point. Shakespeare could not have created the "art" he did without the scientific physical process' of writing and language. All art has a basis in some sort of physical process. Yes, there is an artistic subjective level to all of it, but you cannot seperate that from the physical process. To say communication is more art than science is a tad ridiculous. There is no art without the science. And so far for mediumship, all we have is the art, so where's the science?

I agree with neo. If mediumship is for real, then its another form of communication and as such would be far more art than science.

I'm sure an entire field of linguists would tend to disagree with you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Neo, answer the question, please: Where do the remaining 19 minutes go?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

People get famous because they are good at what they do. That was your argument.

No, Claus. I just gave Shakespeare as an example of someone who made written communication so obviously more than an issue of just having "good tools".

My point was about the individuality of the communication process, not about fame. Although there are famous mediums who have not been shown to be fraudulent (Mrs. Piper comes to mind), no, I wasn't comparing any of them with Shakespeare, Claus. Actually, I wasn't talking about them at all.

I was giving an example of how communication skills (including mediumship) can be more art than science. As Suzane would say, "Do you understahnd???"

 

[neofight]

Yes, I was familiar with this album, it's the one with "The Waiting" (Hard Promises, I think). And actually it was a bit of morphing. First I "saw" a red heart, which turned into the TP symbol (or at least it used to be) of a heart with a guitar going through it, then I saw the album cover.

To be honest, had I just seen the album cover, I would be a little more sure it was mediumship, but the whole morphing thing seems just like my mind wandering. The JOHANN thing is much more compelling to me.

Well, maybe so, RC, but on the other hand, I think it's cool that in your short time in psychic development class you managed to experience both the literal (written word) type of image, and also the more subjective, symbolic type. Actually, I'd be thrilled if I were you. I'd also be signing up for more classes, since it appears you may have a flair for it.

I wonder why I wasn't shown this as a name the way I saw "Johann"? My teacher had an answer for this, but I'll save it for the thread I'm going to start about my experience, don't want to drift this highly focused thread, lol.

Great, RC! I'll be looking forward to reading what Karen said about it. .....neo

 

[CFLarsen]

Clancie,

The result of someone communicating more effectively - and you use Shakespeare as an example - is fame. When people think "Hey, this guy's writing means something to me", they sit up and take notice.

Being a writer myself, I can assure you that there are more to writing than just good tools. But the tools are needed. You can't just sit down and hack away. Structure, format, methodology: You have to learn the tools before you can use them.

You can actually be a better writer - if not a Shakespeare - by taking classes. And it can be determined that your writing has improved.

However, nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes. Not even JE's.

Your analogy is therefore invalid.

 

[voidx]

Posted by Clancie:

I was giving an example of how communication skills (including mediumship) can be more art than science.

And its still not a valid example. The art is the message, the essence of Shakespeares play, the communication is the physical process of writing and language. He could not communicate his art to anyone without them. The art requires the science in order to be communicated to others. I don't really have any doubts that this will apply to any "art" analogy anyone tries to bring up.

 

[CFLarsen]

Neo, answer the question, please: Where do the remaining 19 minutes go?

 

[Clancie]

Posted by CFLarsen

However, nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes. Not even JE's.

Your analogy is therefore invalid.

Um....You did read RC's post about (imo at least) doing exactly this, right?

I don't know how you can say "nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes." What makes you feel qualified to make such a "statement of fact", Claus?

I've personally heard many people say otherwise and--if you look in autobiographies of mediums--many (including JE) describe how their development was helped by learning, even in a structured "class" setting, from other mediums.

 

[Darat]

voidx,

What's the science behind writing? There are rules for it, but they don't explain the ability of some to use the words more effectively than others.

Has our writing ability markedly improved since Shakespeare? You can study the "science" behind communication, but that doesn't make the ability of some to communicate more effectively than others into a science. Perhaps its the same with mediumistic communication--more "art" than "science".

I would argue that our writing has improved since Shakespeare.

Let me give you two “”for instances”.

1)"Standardised spelling". In Shakespeare's time the spelling of words was quite arbitrary, many authors spelt the same word in a different way. This meant communication by "writing" was less efficient and more prone to misunderstandings. Progress.

2) Literacy & illiteracy. In Shakespeare time the vast majority of people were totally illiterate. Today in many countries literacy rates approach 100%. Just 100 years ago in the UK literacy was, on the whole, confined to a small minority who belonged to a privileged class. In just 100 years literacy has become the norm, most people can now communicate by "writing" then at any other time. Again progress.

Writing shows process, mediumship doesn’t.

 

[CFLarsen]

Um....You did read RC's post about (imo at least) doing exactly this, right?

(groan)...Clancie, just because RC says so, doesn't make it so. You really have to stop putting all your trust in testimonials....

I don't know how you can say "nobody has ever increased his mediumistic skills by taking classes." What makes you feel qualified to make such a "statement of fact", Claus?

Because nobody has ever shown this, under controlled circumstances. Nobody. Ever.

I've personally heard many people say otherwise and--if you look in autobiographies of mediums--many (including JE) describe how their development was helped by learning, even in a structured "class" setting, from other mediums.

Yes, that's nice. And I have also heard people describe how they got better at remote viewing. But that doesn't make it so!

 

[dingler44]

Also, just to be clear, while I have had readings, the experience I am talking about is a mediumship experiment in which *I* gave the reading. I was the one who brought through "Johann" and the "Tom Petty" record. That is why it is compelling to me. I can't say I really understand what happened, nor do I necessarily believe that it was mediumship, but I did...in a meditative state..."see" the word "Johann" and the Tom Petty album, and it turned out that the teacher's dead grandfathers are Johann and Tom.

I'll write more about it on another thread when I have a little time.

I shouldn't ask here since you're going to start another thread - but did you ever get any sort of confirmation that your instructor did in fact have two grandfathers, Tom and Johann? Were they both grandfathers? great grandfathers? great great etc?

I'm so cynical of so-called mediums... especially those charging money to teach their craft... I wouldn't put it past them to tell you that you were getting interesting hits just to keep you coming back for more classes.

It would seem there's a conflict of interest in reading your instructor.