Interesting JE Hits....

[neofight]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seeing Letters -vs- Hearing Letters

Thank you, Claus, for finding my quotes!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by neofight on 07-23-2003 07:43 PM:
Because JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by neofight
I never said that the reading itself was 30 minutes. You are misinterpreting my remarks.......yet again. Big surprise! .....neo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I'd like a mediator please. Any fair-minded person will do. I may not have worded my first quote in the clearest manner possible, but is it, or is it not fairly obvious that by "half-hour" (30 minutes) in this context, I was referring to the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show?

That half-hour show is made up of the opening segment, the readings, commercials, follow-up segments, and the closing segment and credits. By my first quote, I was saying that often times, that entire half-hour "Crossing Over" show is taken up with a single, longer reading, as opposed to a show that is made up of anywhere from 2 to 6 shorter readings......neo

 

[SteveGrenard]

Forget about 30 minutes. That's the time slot including commercial breaks. Each segment CO sells to its distributors is 22 minutes long when you deduct the commercials. Now you can start all over again.

Paul Shavelson personally told me and the others who attended a taping, after we revealed who we were, that the taping we just witnessed looked as if it could be made into 8 XS 22 minute segments. He said this number varies with the number of readings and length of each reading, and these vary tremendously. The formula is there is no formula. There is a lot of JE meditating, silently on his feet and there were water and make up breaks (on stage) although he audience could not leave; JE was never out of the audience's sight once he started. I think they do edit these long and often very pregnant silences from the final cut. I probably mentioned this originally but it got lost in the shuffle and if so I apologize. We were seated for 4 hours, 11 AM to 3 PM. This included a warm up and intro by Jesse, an assistant director and we also saw a videotape of JE explaining mediumship (30 +16 mins). The readings, including the aforementioned silent periods and JE water/make-up breaks took up the remaining 3 hours and 14 minutes. Just had to ck my notes.

 

[neofight]

And again to reiterate my post responding to this it doesn't matter. Take Darat's example of photography...an art...with a solid basis in science. Sure there are different styles of taking photography, but the essential process of capturing a picture on film is universally understood in a scientific manner. I rather refuse to let you glaze over this point. Communication can be done in different artsy forms, but the process of any communication has its basis in science, period. Hell even music has science behind it. The process by which the musical instruments make sound is scientific, what you do with those sounds and how you arrange them is how its artistic. You're trying to seperate the two in my opinion by saying the science basis of mediumship or telepath/psi/esp is unimportant because its more of an art. I think I've quite convincingly shown that any "art" also has a scientific process behind it. So where is this for the communication used within mediumship?

Fine, voidx. I have no interest in a technical debate of this nature. If you and anyone else can't seem to understand how all of the other examples deal with solid, concrete, and thereby, eminently "testable" materials, such as with photography and the materials needed to create it, and music with instruments that are quite tangible, and the math that's involved in composing music, and all the methods of communication apart from telepathy that involve wiring, airwaves, satelite dishes, hardware, software, etc., then I don't know how to explain the difference to you.

And I'm not even saying that there will never come a day when mediumship/telepathy/ESP/superPSI will be able to be
proven scientifically, because I do not know that to be the case. It may be impossible. It may not be. I just don't know. I'm only saying that in my mind at least, it will most definitely be a real challenge to do so, considering the subjectivity involved in the whole issue.....neo

 

[neofight]

Posted by Clancie:

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.

Correct, voidx. You mention writing, the actual act of writing, as a "physical" process. Now how is that analogous to an entirely "telepathic" process such as mediumship? Won't you at least concede that there may just be a difference between the two? I'll hold! .....neo

 

[thaiboxerken]

Fine, voidx. I have no interest in a technical debate of this nature.

Yea, because it only shows how silly your belief in mediumship is.

If you and anyone else can't seem to understand how all of the other examples deal with solid, concrete, and thereby, eminently "testable" materials, such as with photography and the materials needed to create it, and music with instruments that are quite tangible, and the math that's involved in composing music, and all the methods of communication apart from telepathy that involve wiring, airwaves, satelite dishes, hardware, software, etc., then I don't know how to explain the difference to you.

I can explain the difference. The methods of communication discussed above are real methods of communication using real media except for telepathy and mediumship. Telepathy and mediumship are forms of communication that only work in fictional stories.


And I'm not even saying that there will never come a day when mediumship/telepathy/ESP/superPSI will be able to be
proven scientifically, because I do not know that to be the case.

It won't happen simply because the things you mentioned are all fiction.

I'm only saying that in my mind at least, it will most definitely be a real challenge to do so, considering the subjectivity involved in the whole issue.....neo

I think the hardest challenge to overcome is the fact that mediumship/telapathy/ESP/superPSI aren't real.

 

[voidx]

Posted by Neofight:

Fine, voidx. I have no interest in a technical debate of this nature. If you and anyone else can't seem to understand how all of the other examples deal with solid, concrete, and thereby, eminently "testable" materials, such as with photography and the materials needed to create it, and music with instruments that are quite tangible, and the math that's involved in composing music, and all the methods of communication apart from telepathy that involve wiring, airwaves, satelite dishes, hardware, software, etc., then I don't know how to explain the difference to you.

Now wait a second. I thought this was all more art than science. Now you're talking about musicians and other such stuff in terms of testable materials and process, which was my standpoint to begin with. Same goes with the math behind the music. If this had been you're contention from the start I'd have had no problem with it. Now it sounds to me like you're agreeing with my idea that you cannot seperate the science from the art. People have a tendancy to throw all sorts of analogies around all the time on here, and they aren't often very appropriate. So its somewhat of a personal pet peeve of mine. I just had a problem swallowing the "communication as a whole is more art than science" pill I was being asked to swallow.

And I'm not even saying that there will never come a day when mediumship/telepathy/ESP/superPSI will be able to be
proven scientifically, because I do not know that to be the case. It may be impossible. It may not be. I just don't know. I'm only saying that in my mind at least, it will most definitely be a real challenge to do so, considering the subjectivity involved in the whole issue.....neo

I agree for the most part. But I would argue that the subjectivity comes into play with the mediums interpretation of the communicated message. The process of communication itself, if it is ever discovered, should make quite logical concise scientific sense.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Correct, voidx. You mention writing, the actual act of writing, as a "physical" process. Now how is that analogous to an entirely "telepathic" process such as mediumship? Won't you at least concede that there may just be a difference between the two? I'll hold! .....neo

Yea voidx, i'm with neo. Writing and telepathy are different in a very major way. Writing is real while telepathy is not.

 

[neofight]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. [/B]

You beat me to it, Clancie! lol ......neo

 

[thaiboxerken]

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?

Claus is absolutely correct in his statement and it is a fact. People may become better at cold-reading, but certainly not mediumship. One can't become better at doing something that doesn't happen. Claus statement that no person has ever increased their mediumship skill by taking classes is the same as saying no person has increased their ability to shoot lasers out of their eyes by taking classes.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thank you, Claus, for finding my quotes!

You're welcome. Anytime.

I'd like a mediator please. Any fair-minded person will do. I may not have worded my first quote in the clearest manner possible, but is it, or is it not fairly obvious that by "half-hour" (30 minutes) in this context, I was referring to the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show?

No mediator needed. All that is needed is for you to explain how:

Posted by neofight on 07-23-2003 07:43 PM:
Because JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family.

can suddenly turn into:

the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show

I am waiting.

That half-hour show is made up of the opening segment, the readings, commercials, follow-up segments, and the closing segment and credits. By my first quote, I was saying that often times, that entire half-hour "Crossing Over" show is taken up with a single, longer reading, as opposed to a show that is made up of anywhere from 2 to 6 shorter readings......neo

No. Sorry. Your claim was very clear: The "half-hour" long reading was with one person or one person + relatives. Not anything else.

I seriously doubt that you can worm your way out of this one. You can try, of course.

I don't particularly enjoy watching you squirm. But you do squirm.

Fine, voidx. I have no interest in a technical debate of this nature. If you and anyone else can't seem to understand how all of the other examples deal with solid, concrete, and thereby, eminently "testable" materials, such as with photography and the materials needed to create it, and music with instruments that are quite tangible, and the math that's involved in composing music, and all the methods of communication apart from telepathy that involve wiring, airwaves, satelite dishes, hardware, software, etc., then I don't know how to explain the difference to you.

In other words: You cannot explain it.

And I'm not even saying that there will never come a day when mediumship/telepathy/ESP/superPSI will be able to be proven scientifically, because I do not know that to be the case. It may be impossible. It may not be. I just don't know. I'm only saying that in my mind at least, it will most definitely be a real challenge to do so, considering the subjectivity involved in the whole issue.....neo

In other words: You believe, blindly.

 

[dingler44]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by CFLarsen

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

Your analogy is therefore invalid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You beat me to it, Clancie! lol ......neo

PFF haha! This is hilarious...

Do we have any indication besides RC's opinion that his "mediumystic skills" were improved?

 

[CFLarsen]

Forget about 30 minutes. That's the time slot including commercial breaks.

Wrong. That is the time that neofight claims a reading can take. Therefore, it is crucial to ask what happens to these readings.

Each segment CO sells to its distributors is 22 minutes long when you deduct the commercials. Now you can start all over again.

Paul Shavelson personally told me and the others who attended a taping, after we revealed who we were, that the taping we just witnessed looked as if it could be made into 8 XS 22 minute segments. He said this number varies with the number of readings and length of each reading, and these vary tremendously. The formula is there is no formula. There is a lot of JE meditating, silently on his feet and there were water and make up breaks (on stage) although he audience could not leave; JE was never out of the audience's sight once he started. I think they do edit these long and often very pregnant silences from the final cut. I probably mentioned this originally but it got lost in the shuffle and if so I apologize. We were seated for 4 hours, 11 AM to 3 PM. This included a warm up and intro by Jesse, an assistant director and we also saw a videotape of JE explaining mediumship (30 +16 mins). The readings, including the aforementioned silent periods and JE water/make-up breaks took up the remaining 3 hours and 14 minutes. Just had to ck my notes.

So, we cannot assume that 8 shows are taped for a 4-hour session. Far from it, because that would be very telling that JE can produce the exact amount of minutes for each session.


And even if we could, that would still leave a lot of material unaccounted for. 8 shows would mean 88 minutes of readings. Since you yourself has claimed very little "downtime" (or whatever you call it), what happens to the remaining 152 minutes?

I find it very telling that you now change your stance to there being a substantial amount of "downtime" during the readings.

The shows are edited. No doubt about it.

 

[Loki]

SteveGrenard,

ANy chance you might answer my questions? In particular, feel like giving any details of how the NY medium was chosen? What did you say when you made the appointment? When did your wife and friends learn of the appointment? How long between the phone call and the reading? Does NY offer "Caller ID"? And what precisely does "untraceable trunk line" mean?

 

[voidx]

Posted by Neofight:

Correct, voidx. You mention writing, the actual act of writing, as a "physical" process. Now how is that analogous to an entirely "telepathic" process such as mediumship? Won't you at least concede that there may just be a difference between the two? I'll hold! .....neo

Nice try. If you go back and read the posts correctly you'll find it was Clancie herself that brought up the writing example. My entire statement was to the effect that the writing example was exactly a horrible analogy for telepathy being more art than science. But if you like here again is the point. I can write something down and go..."this is HOW I write"...that is the process. Then to go, ..."and here is the story I've written in my own style of writing", is the subjective art of your process. Correct? So what I'm saying is this. I communicate telepathically and go..."this is a complete description of how I communicate telepathically" (which we don't have). Then to say..."And I'm a trance medium, and through this style of telepathy(which must share a common base with the above description), here is the message I have perceived from this spirit energy"...the trance is the style, and the message is the subjective art if you like of that communication. So when you state, mediumship or rather the unknown form of communication it utilizes, if real, would be more art than science. I have to look at the above description and ask how?

Now, lets deal with this misconception of "physical". If spirits are energy, and we communicate, or receive that energy, or connect to it. We as physical beings, based in our physics based physical reality...then at some point, the communication must become converted into a process of energy or communication that our physical minds can comprehend. Even JE claims this, spirits being vibrating atoms and molecules changing vibrational rates in conjecture with his own to create a bridge of some sort. Those atoms and molecules (spirit energies) are part of our physical realm. Even if they weren't, they'd have to become so in some form in order to communicate with us. To say otherwise is to me to say that this communication, this telepathy, comes out of thin air, which is decidely impossible. Now the out that people try to use here is that you're mind, you're soul, is not part of the physical realm and so this is you're bridge of communication. But since there is absolutely no proof of this, then you must acknowledge that your entire premise is based on some rather unsupported, shaky ground.

 

[Loki]

Neofight,

I'd like a mediator please. Any fair-minded person will do. I may not have worded my first quote in the clearest manner possible, but is it, or is it not fairly obvious that by "half-hour" (30 minutes) in this context, I was referring to the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show?

I have no idea if I could possibly be considered "fair minded" on this matter, so I'm probably ill-suited to play the role of "mediator". But for what it's worth I read your comment as meaning that you thought an individual reading (not episode) could run from 5 to 30 minutes. I did wonder how you'd know that, since you've never seen unedited CO readings - I assumed that you were working from info from Steve Grenard (or someone else).

You've now clarified that you meant episode, not reading. Okay. Was it "fairly obvious" that you meant episode? If it was, I got it wrong.

 

[CFLarsen]

You've now clarified that you meant episode, not reading. Okay. Was it "fairly obvious" that you meant episode? If it was, I got it wrong.

No. You didn't get it wrong. There is no way that

"JE's readings usually take anywhere from five to 15 minutes, sometimes a half-hour, (minus the time for commercials) all with the same person or family"

can be interpreted as

"the total length of one half-hour "Crossing Over" show".

Not a chance.

neofight does not say that she was wrong. She asks for "mediators" and tries to circumvent the fact that she has made a blunder.

I have no idea why she just doesn't say that she was wrong. But that is her choice, and we have to work from that.

neofight said that a reading with one person or family could take 30 minutes.

neofight said that this meant the taping of a whole show.

Sorry, but those two statements are in direct conflict with each other, when we consider the fact that each CO shows only about 11 minutes worth of reading.

If she now says that she was wrong all along, and that she did, in fact, mean the whole taping, then we have to ask why she previously claimed that she was not wrong.

Either she is defending two opposing, completely contradictory statements.

Or she is a liar.

The choice is hers.

 

[SteveGrenard]

ANy chance you might answer my questions?

Q: In particular, feel like giving any details of how the NY medium was chosen?

Answer: I got interested in this field around February, 2001. I read that 9/11 families had seen her and had had good things to say. I looked her number up and was able to get a cancellation appointment the end of October, 2001. (I am not a 9/11 family).
Untill then the only experience with mediums I had was with JE on the tube. And that was no experience at all but my interest and study of the field began around then.

Q: What did you say when you made the appointment?

Reply: I did not speak with the medium but her niece who books her appointments for her on the last Saturday of every month. I just asked if she had any openings as soon as possible and was given the date of someone who cancelled; otherwise I was told I would have to wait six months.

Q: When did your wife and friends learn of the appointment?

Reply: My wife was in France with her sister who was recuperating from OH surgery so I didn't tell her anything about it until afterwards.


Q: How long between the phone call and the reading?

Reply: Two weeks and I was lucky. See above. As word spread about this medium she began working (for free) with more and more 9/11 families and the local newspaper got wind of it from one victim's family and they interviewed her. They also spoke with Randi and with Jeff Corey for balance. They also called Gary Schwartz. When Schwartz heard it was about a medium in my neighborhood whom I told him about (afterwards), he referred the reporter to me for comment as well. They also spoke to the the head our Behavioral Sciences Unit who felt she was helping the families cope where conventional psychology failed. I heard from people I recommended to her that it takes about a year to see her now. She charges only $100.00 unless you are a 9/11 family. I remember paying $70.00 back in October, 2001. I think all she can stand is one client a day. She seemed wasted after my session and she is not that young -- I think around 62 now.
My encounter lasted two hurs even though it was for one. The medium didnt seem to know whow much time had passed nor did she ask me about anything said afterwards.

Q: Does NY offer "Caller ID"? And what repcisely does "untraceable trunk line" mean?

Reply: Yes from residences and certain businesses. I work for a large institution with at least 5,000 extensions. At that time for
any call coming from us, the ID box or *69 would say the number was unavailable.

Our phone service is not provided by the local telco, Verizon, but by a private company known as Teleport. It would be almost impossible to use caller ID or trace a call back to an extension at my work. About four months ago , because of the system where phones dont ring unless the number is ID'able the hospital instituted a policy of letting our main switchboard number show up so all anyone would know is the call was coming from the hospital but not from what department or whether even from a patient
room.

Even if Camille knew everything about me and my own recent deceased loved one, she could not possibly have found out the things he said, through her, about other deceased relatives, one of whom died back in 1938 for which there is no record tying me to her anywhere (I wasnt born yet myself). Also highly personal things like my dad 's(died 1965) appearance and his horses including one that he bred but had died as a yearling and about killed him, my wife's father's nick-name (he died in 1978 in England) and that I gave him a pin. And no, I wasn't wearing mine. And there was a lot more, 196 discrete facts in all, highly personal, basically unknowable but all of which were 100% accurate save for 2 things which were verified afterwards.
I have gone over and over this list and even if half of it was wrong, which it isn't, the other half is so specific and so accurate, it has me befuddled ever since to come up with a scientific explanation.

 

[neofight]

Neofight,

I have no idea if I could possibly be considered "fair minded" on this matter, so I'm probably ill-suited to play the role of "mediator". But for what it's worth I read your comment as meaning that you thought an individual reading (not episode) could run from 5 to 30 minutes.

You've now clarified that you meant episode, not reading. Okay. Was it "fairly obvious" that you meant episode? If it was, I got it wrong.

Fair enough, Loki. I thought that my reference to commercials kind of supported my claim that I was referring to one single reading being featured on the 30 minute "CO" show, but I did acknowledge that my quote was not written as well as it could have been.

I was trying to say that some "CO" shows are made up of several short little readings, while others showcase only one longer one. I do feel that you were fair, though, in your comments, Loki, for what it's worth.

But now that I've clarified what it was that I meant to say, do you accept that explanation? Is it so far-fetched that you simply cannot accept my explanation as being truthful? Just curious, because something tells me that Claus will continue to harp on this issue as though he caught me in a deliberate lie or something. He still hasn't learned that I don't do that. ....neo

 

[dingler44]

Even if Camille knew everything about me and my own recent deceased loved one, she could not possibly have found out the things he said, through her, about other deceased relatives, one of whom died back in 1938 for which there is no record tying me to her anywhere (I wasnt born yet myself). Also highly personal things like my dad 's(died 1965) appearance and his horses including one that he bred but had died as a yearling and about killed him, my wife's father's nick-name (he died in 1978 in England) and that I gave him a pin. And no, I wasn't wearing mine. And there was a lot more, 196 discrete facts in all, highly personal, basically unknowable but all of which were 100% accurate save for 2 things which were verified afterwards.
I have gone over and over this list and even if half of it was wrong, which it isn't, the other half is so specific and so accurate, it has me befuddled ever since to come up with a scientific explanation.

Would you be willing to start a new thread with a subset of these 196 discrete facts Camille gave you?

 

[CFLarsen]

Fair enough, Loki. I thought that my reference to commercials kind of supported my claim that I was referring to one single reading being featured on the 30 minute "CO" show, but I did acknowledge that my quote was not written as well as it could have been.

I was trying to say that some "CO" shows are made up of several short little readings, while others showcase only one longer one. I do feel that you were fair, though, in your comments, Loki, for what it's worth.

But now that I've clarified what it was that I meant to say, do you accept that explanation? Is it so far-fetched that you simply cannot accept my explanation as being truthful? Just curious, because something tells me that Claus will continue to harp on this issue as though he caught me in a deliberate lie or something. He still hasn't learned that I don't do that. ....neo

No. There was no need for "clarification". Your post was very clear. One reading could take up 30 minutes.

But, after you discovered that your claim would get you - and JE - in trouble, you now say that you have "clarified" it.

OK, OK. Fine, then. I fully accept that you are now backtracking wildly.

Now, this raises a few, very important questions:

If a reading during the taping of CO takes 30 minutes, then what? That never happens? How do you know? In fact, we do know that this happens: Steve Grenard has told us so.

So, what happens to those readings that take more than 11 minutes?

The more, basic question is:

Can we ever trust anything you say, ever again? Aren't we in a situation where we have to believe you right up until the moment where you are caught in a terrible predicament like this one?

These are two very fair and important questions.