Medium Colin Fry

[showme2]

jallenecs
We appear to have crossed posts.
But, yes, I'm still with you, and I don't disagree with anything you have said.
Of COURSE there are charlatans ... there always have been, ever since the Fox sisters in 1848.
That doesn't mean that ALL mediums are charlatans, any more than all financial advisers are charlatans (though most are).
Personally, I have seen the evidence I want, and it convinced me.
It obviously won't convince anyone else, and I don't expect it to do so.
So where do we go from here ?

 

[jallenecs]

jallenecs

>>>> "My advice? Ignore TBK. This is his schtick: bait somebody, then stroke over the posts when they get angry.
Let's go back to the question at hand. You and I were having a sensible discussion before he butted in. Shall we continue?" <<<

RESPONSE:
Yeah, you seem to have a reasonable attitude, so I'm with you. Let's do that.

That sounds wonderful to me. But let there be no misunderstandings between us. I am a skeptic; I cannot believe in this, no matter how compelling the desire, until I have proof.

I believe the discussion can continue, in a reasonable manner, despite our different positions. I just did not want to come to you under false colors.

 

[jallenecs]

jallenecs
We appear to have crossed posts.
But, yes, I'm still with you, and I don't disagree with anything you have said.
Of COURSE there are charlatans ... there always have been, ever since the Fox sisters in 1848.
That doesn't mean that ALL mediums are charlatans, any more than all financial advisers are charlatans (though most are).
Personally, I have seen the evidence I want, and it convinced me.
It obviously won't convince anyone else, and I don't expect it to do so.
So where do we go from here ?

Crossing posts again! Sorry about that!

May I ask you: why did it convince you?

 

[showme2]

jallenecs
It convinced me because, the kind of information delivered by Fry could only be explained in two ways:-

1. Telepathy with the subjects (But that explains one mystery with another, because nobody has satisfactorily explained how telepathy works - or indeed WHETHER it works)

2. Plants in the audience. But that doesn't hold up because, with the scale of the tour that Fry is doing in the UK, it would need 400 "stooges", and any one of them could go to the tabloid newspapers in the UK (particularly the News of the World) and collect £100,000 for "dishing the dirt" on Colin Fry.

The third option is that what he produces is genuine. Having ruled out the first two, I was left with only the third.

We went along to the second night in Cambridge to make sure that the same people were not coming forward to receive readings. (You see, we are in fact cautious and nowhere near as gullible as some would try to present us as being! I will rule out all of the obvious possibilities before deciding that the guy is genuine. In fact I went to the first night LOOKING to flaw him !)

But, at the end of the day, everyone has to make up their own mind. What bothers me is that the so-called sceptics on this forum (or skeptics if you are a yank!) seem willing to make up their mind without ever seeing Fry demonstrate live.

It's ten minutes to 1am in the UK and I'm off the bed now.
Perhaps we can continue this debate tomorrow.
I'm just delighted to have found someone sensible to debate with. Thanks for that !

 

[espritch]

Freda:

If I had any doubts I can assure you that I would have said so, but I cannot deny what my own ears heard, just to comply with what others think of Colin......

I have no doubt that you would have indeed told me if you had any doubts. But as a skeptic I tend to have doubts about just about everything, so I find it truly difficult to understand that someone could have absolutely no doubt about something as doubtful as Mr. Fry’s ability to summon the spirits of dead people. This is exactly what I am trying to understand.

yes, I have a copy of a tape recording of a Direct Voice seance taken in Sweden last year. The voices of loved ones who were present at the demonstration can be heard loud and clear in the presence of all the 40 odd people sitting.

You have a copy of a tape? And do you have any tapes made in life of any of the people on this tape for comparison? Does anyone? Did you know any of the people who’s voices are on the tape personally, or are you relying on the testimonies of the participants? Should you? People attending séances tend to do so because they have a strong desire to speak with lost loved ones. Such people tend to be emotionally vulnerable and have a strong need to believe that the medium can do what he claims he can do. There is a lot evidence to support the notion that people tend to see (and hear) what they want to see. It’s one of the reasons I place a lot more trust in double blind experiments than in personal anecdotes – the double blind protocol removes a lot of human foibles from the process.

and as far as the Swedish contingent were concerned, those receiving messages were spoken to in their own language too.

Well, I guess that proves it. No Englishman could ever speak Swedish…oh wait, I’m thinking of my notoriously unilingual fellow Americans. I’m sure it is not quite so far fetched that a European might speak more than one language.

The small luminous bands are inside the widest end of the trumpets and the luminosity is not seen until the trumpets are flying around, it is not enough to create light within the room.

It’s curious that the spirits aren’t bothered by the light from these luminous strips. It’s also rather convenient for the medium that they don’t mind an amount of illumination sufficient to allow you to see what the medium wants you to see, but they cannot abide an amount of illumination sufficient to allow you to see what the medium might not want you to see.

It was not proven that he was a fraud, it was alleged that the seance was fraudulent; and until somebody duplicates the exact methods - as described in the investigation - then I have no reason to even consider such an attack on his credibility.

Even Mr Fry himself does not deny that when the lights came on, he was not seated bound to his chair (as any believer would have expected) but rather was free of his bonds and standing (as any skeptic would have expected). Is there any reason a skeptic should believe this was anything other than exactly what it appeared to be?

I have seen, many here haven't, they are just making assumptions on what they have read.

With all due respect, you have not seen. You yourself admit that these séances are held in total darkness and the only things you can see are (as I have already noted) those things the medium wants you to see. Were you at the Scole event? If not, you also are making assumptions on what you have read. If this is not permissible for us, it is not permissible for you either.

Having been a member of the NAS since 1993, and attended over 36 seances in that time, I consider myself an authority on what Colin has demonstrated to Ark members, and to the validation of his work.

This is the thing that bothers me most. You say you have attended 36 séances. Did you ever, in all those 36 séances, even once consider sneaking in a flashlight so you could test the validity of what you were seeing for yourself?

Human senses are easily tricked. Human memory is notoriously unreliable. Mr. Fry cannot do what he claims he can do in a properly designed double blind test. Until he steps up to the plate and proves me wrong, I have no valid reason to believe he is anything other than a lying, self serving fraud. And neither do you.

 

[jallenecs]

jallenecs
It convinced me because, the kind of information delivered by Fry could only be explained in two ways:-

1. Telepathy with the subjects (But that explains one mystery with another, because nobody has satisfactorily explained how telepathy works - or indeed WHETHER it works)

2. Plants in the audience. But that doesn't hold up because, with the scale of the tour that Fry is doing in the UK, it would need 400 "stooges", and any one of them could go to the tabloid newspapers in the UK (particularly the News of the World) and collect £100,000 for "dishing the dirt" on Colin Fry.

The third option is that what he produces is genuine. Having ruled out the first two, I was left with only the third.

I would NEVER suggest that you are gullible; I've watched magic shows where, even KNOWING that it was a trick, I could not see it. So please, accept this in the manner in which it is intended.....

Perhaps there is a fourth option? Could it be that he is faking it in a way that you aren't able to catch? No, I don't know how somebody would fake it; I'm not a magician or a psychic. But is it somewhere within the realm of possibility? "Cold reading" and "Hot reading" are words bandied about here on this forum quite a lot; perhaps it is a variation on those. Perhaps there are shills; it wouldn't take as many as you may imagine.

Am I saying that's what he's doing? No, I'm not. I have never seen the man perform, so I couldn't begin to tell you what's going on. But the fact that it COULD be faked is enough to make me suspicious. And that little suspicion is enough to make me think that testing just makes sense.

For all the fuss and bother on this forum, it basically boils down to this: You're not an expert; you don't necessarily know what to look for to spot a fake. I'm not an expert either; I don't know what to look for. All I'm saying is, why not let an expert take a look, in a controlled situation (such as stringent scientific testing), because he DOES know what he's looking for.

Reserve judgement about whether he's real or fake, until the testing is done. You're not an expert, you can't KNOW that he's for real, without the test. I can't KNOW he's a fake, without the test. Without the testing, it's all conjecture.

If it's within the realm of possibility that he's faking it, then a test only makes sense. If he is faking, then you are wiser for knowing. If he's not faking, I'll be the first to buy a ticket for England tomorrow, to see the man.

But, at the end of the day, everyone has to make up their own mind. What bothers me is that the so-called sceptics on this forum (or skeptics if you are a yank!) seem willing to make up their mind without ever seeing Fry demonstrate live.

It's ten minutes to 1am in the UK and I'm off the bed now.
Perhaps we can continue this debate tomorrow.
I'm just delighted to have found someone sensible to debate with. Thanks for that !

A few on this forum (TBK, for example) think me naive for not engaging in virtual bloodshed; they tell me that I will learn in time. They have been here a lot longer than I have; perhaps they are jaded. I hope that experience will not leave me with the impression that attacks are a suitable replacement for reason.

But let me say that most of the people here are reasonable and sensible.

I thank you for your compliment, as well. I hope that you think as well of me by the time we are finished!

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Colin Fry is a lightweight.

I've seen his stuff. It is vague, inconequential, and inconclusive.

Why don't you guys use a REAL medium. Like me! I can tell you anything you want to hear, about anyone, without any cold reading, in as much detail as possible. Only requisite is that the person in question is dead. I'm not a telepath you know!

If you're interested, just PM your credit card number and expiry date to me. You won't be disappointed! It's my guarantee.



MM

-Official Society of Amalgamated Psychics, registration number 4-21-16-5

 

[showme2]

Hi again jallenecs

Yes, I too have watched magicians at work and it is true that most people are easily deceived by them. That is their business. (We know that Copperfield cannot truly make a Boeing disappear into thin air!)
It would seem that the more intelligent people are, the easier it is to deceive them, because their thinking and responses are more predictable.

I have also watched the UK series “Psychics Secrets Revealed” with Alistair Cook (a magician) because I believe that the best way to avoid being deceived is to understand how it can be done.

I also know quite a bit about Cold Reading because, again for the same reasons, I have made it my business to find out about it so that I can recognise it when it is being deployed.
(In my judgment – and that is all it is, my opinion. I have no evidence because the nature of Cold Reading is that evidence is hard to get other than by analyzing transcripts – John Edward is Cold Reading at least some of the time, and James Van Praagh is doing it blatantly all of the time. I am judging from their edited TV shows, having never seen either demonstrate live, but it may be valid in this instance to do that because any editing is clearly not going to seek to make the psychic look worse!)

The reason I went to check out Colin Fry live at two demonstrations, was that I had concluded that he alone of the three was definitely NOT Cold Reading.

But back to Colin Fry ….
You ask whether perhaps there is a 4th option – that he is faking it in a way that I cannot detect.
Yes, academically, of course there is always that possibility because, as you say, anyone can be fooled by “magicians” and I am not so clever that I know all the ways it might be done, nor so naïve to claim that I could never be tricked.

However, as one of probably few people on this forum who has met and spoken with Colin Fry, my judgment is that he is genuine, extremely sincere, and is not a charlatan. (We make subjective value judgments about all kinds of people on our way through life. Why should a psychic be judged differently?)

With mental mediumship, far the most likely technique is Cold Reading. I have to use my judgment about that as I do in most other aspects of life. I know what I’m looking for, in my judgment he is not deploying it, and I’m not going to accuse Fry of doing it just because I find the alternative (that he is genuine) an affront to long-term contrary beliefs that skeptics have harboured.
Like a true sceptic (!), I would want to see EVIDENCE that he was a fraud. And NOBODY HAS YET PRODUCED ANY, other than vague and over-simplified references to a very confused event at Scole over 10 years ago.
(ONE accusation in 26 years ? Surely those who set out to prove him false can do better than THAT ??? !)

I have studied the report on Scole very carefully and I am not convinced that it offers any proof of anything. (Those who do seek to claim it usually have very scant information about what transpired, and want to simplify everything to the extreme because it suits their argument. Those events were VERY confused and, without going through it all again, what medium would use a different method to cut a second tywrap if he still had the method of cutting the first one in his hand. ? And what medium would be stupid enough to cut them anyway knowing that they will be inspected shortly and the breakages will be obvious? One thing Colin Fry is not, is stupid ! Besides there are easier methods than cutting for a fraudulent medium to free his hands.)

Plants in the audience. No, I don’t give that any credibility. A 3-month tour 4 nights a week with 10 readings each night. That would need around 400 stooges because a heck of a lot of his supporters follow Colin Fry around from one venue to another. (Unlike the States, you can do that in a tiny country like Britain !)
So, if the SAME stooges kept reappearing, they would soon be recognized. (They appear on a huge screen on the stage, so everyone can see what they look like.)
Besides, one of them would certainly have “shopped” Fry by now for the £100,000 that one of the British tabloids would certainly pay for the story. (Certainly the News of the World would pay up, because it absolutely relishes publishing such exposures in any field of human activity.) In my opinion, the logistical problems of using audience plants rule it out.

Colin Fry has declined to undergo “testing” for many reasons that he has explained over and over. I can understand his reluctance to be treated like a “laboratory rat” as he puts it, when the “demands” for testing come from such hostile sources, and especially in view of all the crud he has had to put up with over Scole.

And what is going to be tested, by whom, and how ? The spirit world does not do “requests” with specified individuals coming through and performing on demand.

Whether I would like to see testing done under the sceptics obsessive “controlled conditions”, with infra red cameras and all the rest of it, is totally academic really, because it is Colin Fry’s decision, not mine. I doubt he would listen to my exhortation to submit to it, and the infra red cameras would be useless anyway because 99% of Fry’s demonstrations are done in normal light, as on 6ixth Sense. (He hasn’t done in-the-dark physical mediumship publicly for years now.)

I suspect that the result of any testing would inevitably be inconclusive anyway, and that no result would be convincing to skeptics who simply do not want to be convinced, in the same way that no supporter of Colin Fry is going to be dissuaded from their held views by aggression, abuse, and puerile name-calling by DeBunk and his ilk.

 

[jallenecs]

Your arguments are quite sensible, of course. And you are absolutely correct on one point: Mr. Fry is never going to take the test, for whatever reason. You can't make him, I can't make him, Mr. Randi can't make him.Without the test, we can never know with absolute surety, whether he if for real.

The question in my mind is, knowing that you'll never know for sure if it's the real thing, or a fake, what do you do now? My position is, "I think he's a fake, but I don't know that for sure." Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume the posture, "I think he's for real, but I don't know that for sure."

In all our debate, I have not asked you to "switch sides," to become a sceptic. It is not my place to make you join whichever side; you have to think what you think, without regard to my opinion.

A classic sceptic does not, as certain stroking maniacs in this forum believe, take the posture of "Nothing's real, and I'll be a jerk about it." A classic sceptic says, "I don't know, and therefore will reserve judgement, and thereby my endorsement, until I know for sure."

That's all I'm asking. Do you agree that the statement, "I think he's for real, but I don't know that for sure" is a sensible position to take?

 

[showme2]

jallenecs

Thanks for your reply.

You are absolutely right that, without a lot more evidence, I cannot convince you or anyone else that Colin is 100% genuine, and therefore your suggested "position statements" are entirely reasonable for both of us.

I would actually like to have the time (and the finance!) to follow Colin Fry around the country attending transcripting and publishing the content of every demonstration he does. That is what I did on his first live demo I attended. It was difficult to keep up, but it provided a paper record that could be studied later at leisure, without relying on unreliable and selective human memory, and without being carried away by the "wow" factor of rather startling revelations at the time.)

The collective weight of the "evidence" that produced might well be as close as anyone will ever get to confirming the validity of mental mediumship. (Though the hard-nosed sceptics would still say "telepathy" or some other cop-out !)

Contrary to the opinion of some on this forum, I actually do look at these things from a (fairly) sceptical viewpoint. Hence my Username, Showme - an oblique reference to Doubting Thomas and his exhortation to "Show me the holes".

It is therefore quite irritating when DeBunk, TBK and others imply that I might go along to a demonstration and blandly accept everything that is shoved in front of my nose !

I cannot subscribe to their extremely cynical viewpoint that everything involved in this life of ours can be detected by our limited senses, and nothing else can possibly exist. (You have only to look at that lowly creature, the dog, with its superior hearing and superior sense of smell to realise that our own senses are very limited.)
DeBunk and his ilk claim to know all of the answers but in fact "know" bugger all. Far greater minds than theirs have addressed these matters without reaching proveable conclusions.

We can go back 300 years to when everyone was convinced the world was flat and we marvel at their ignorance. Every generation thinks it has reached the pinnacle of human knowledge. But in 300 years time they will look back on US in exactly the same way, and marvel at our ignorance. I therefore set no great store by the "laws of science and physics" as we currently understand them.

By the way, thanks, jallenecs, for a productive discussion. It has been a real pleasure !

Showme2

P.S. On a lighter and more humourous note, look at it this way: If survival of physical death is a reality, DeBunk and TBK are going to look complete idiots when they arrive on "the other side".
In contrast, if I am wrong, I'm never gonna know !!!!

 

[jallenecs]

It has been a pleasure to speak with you as well, sir. I am glad to have engaged in such a stimulating debate; you really forced me to think out my arguments, which is so much more agreeable than knee-jerk reactions. I don't know that we have resolved on anything; neither of us have "switched sides." Perhaps it is enough that you are willing to qualify your position enough to say, "I'm not sure," and I'm willing to say that I want to know more before I condemn the man entirely.

It would be nice to follow any of these mediums around -- like Mr. Fry, or John Edward -- for an extended period of time, making transcripts of their sessions, getting in-depth interviews with their subjects (before and after the reading), and getting an expert in to watch his techniques. Then maybe we could begin to get at the truth of the matter, since a test is obviously out of the question.

If it is any comfort to you, I have forever impeached my own credibility with some here, by having a religious affiliation (I am Presbyterian). We'll eventually know who's right, one way or the other; I guess patience is what is needed.

I have not had occasion to speak at length with DeBunk, so I do not feel it appropriate for me to address his behavior. As for TBK, well, he's no more a scientific mind than the most out-there New Ager. Just because he's takes the name "sceptic" doesn't mean he isn't arguing as blindly and stubbornly as any believer.

 

[Clancie]

Hi Jallenecs,

I see the thread seems to be wrapping up, but I hope you won't mind a quick question from me, since you seem like a reasonable new poster here.

I'm interested that you are a Presbyterian. And, if you don't mind commenting on mediumship from your point of view as a Christian , I'd appreciate it. (Just fyi, I'm an atheist, and by many accounts here, a notorious woo-woo due to my idea that "there might be something to mediumship.")

Here's my question and its not for argument's sake; it really interests me.

I understand why atheists would think mediumship is all bunk. If "dead is dead" then there's nothing to communicate with anyway.

But one of the main tenets of Christianity is that there actually is life after death, and soul survival. Not only that, but the Bible offers many accounts, particularly related to the life of Jesus, in which spirits are said to communicate with humans--sometimes directly (ADC) and sometimes through a human intermediary or "medium".

So....my question is....for someone who already believes in an afterlife and soul survival, why would the idea of mediumship seem so implausible? I mean, apart from those Christians who think that humans shouldn't communicate with the deceased (not that its impossible, what is the big deal about spirit communication?

Do you feel that it could be possible to communicate with the deceased, but you just haven't seen evidence that anyone actually does do it? Or, like some skeptics, do you think the idea of spirit communication is definitely ridiculous nonsense? (And, if the latter, from a Christian point of view, why would that be true?)

Just curious, as I've asked several Christians this before, but never seem able to understand why someone would believe in an afterlife and survival of consciousness and yet object so strenously to the possibility of communication of spirits with the living.

 

[jallenecs]

I would be happy to address your questions, though I am not sure that I am qualified to assuage your curiosity. I am no theologian.

But perhaps this particular thread is not the place to address it. Perhaps the religious forum is more appropriate? I shall go there immediately and open a thread to that effect, if that is good with you.

With your permission, I will post this last post of yours to that new forum, and then answer in another post, just for the sake of smooth continuity; is that acceptable?

 

[Clancie]

Hi Jallenecs,

Well, it doesn't matter to me, although I'd be surprised if it seems a better fit in "Religion and Philosphy" than in "Paranormal" But, I guess it doesn't matter, as someone can always move it back here easily enough, if it isn't....

 

[jallenecs]

Check "Mediumship vs. Religion" in the Religion and Philosophy section.

 

[Garrette]

jallenecs

The question in my mind is, knowing that you'll never know for sure if it's the real thing, or a fake, what do you do now? My position is, "I think he's a fake, but I don't know that for sure." Don't you think it would be reasonable to assume the posture, "I think he's for real, but I don't know that for sure."

--snip--

A classic sceptic does not, as certain stroking maniacs in this forum believe, take the posture of "Nothing's real, and I'll be a jerk about it." A classic sceptic says, "I don't know, and therefore will reserve judgement, and thereby my endorsement, until I know for sure."

On the surface, this seems a reasonable position, but it does not hold unless you believe that experience counts for nothing.

In a historical vacuum, one in which the observer has no knowledge of past theories and speculations nor of their explanatory success or failure, your stance is not only a reasonable position but the only reasonable position.

But we are not in a historical vaccum, and we do have knowledge of past theories and speculations and their explanatory successes and failures.

There is not one reliable example of the paranormal. There are, of course, things that have not been fully explained, but that is far from the same thing.

More tellingly, there is not one coherent theory of the paranormal or any aspect of it. If you follow the JE threads you will see the inconsistencies and backflips performed in the posts of the believers; none agree on exactly what is happening or by what mechanism; even JE himself is inconsistent. The same applies to others.

What is the theory about what Colin Fry is doing? What can he do, with what degree of accuracy, under what circumstances? Fry will not attempt to explain it and showme2 can't (or hasn't, at any rate).

I realize that you think it's childish to use extreme examples, but they are not really so extreme after all, so I will risk another:

If Colin Fry did everything he has done to date, but instead of claiming that he got his information from spirits of the deceased he claimed that he got it from an invisible pink unicorn living in his garage, would you--or any 'real' skeptic--be obliged to take a noncommittal position?

Would I--to be considered a 'real' skeptic--need to say "I think he's a loon, but I'm not sure," or could I just say "He's a loon?"

What about the end-of-the-earthers? Must I say they might be right when they say the world will end in 2012 based on interpretations of the Mayan calendar (or on Revelations when the Mayan theory is debunked or on Druidic prophecy when that is debunked) or can I just say at the outset "Bunk"?

Let Colin Fry and showme2 provide some reliable history and some coherent theory first. When they do that, they will be entitled to claim The Right of "Maybe." Until then, they have to work to earn it.

Just my two dinar.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly, Garrette. Great post. It does amaze me that believers don't even see the flaws in their own logic. Circular arguments, appeals to ignorance and emotional appeals make up 90% of their paranormal beliefs. Flawed experiences make up the other 10.

 

[jallenecs]

I don't think it's childish to use extreme examples. I think it's childish to be cruel, mocking, and unkind. I do not know De_Bunk's motivation in this thread, but if it was anything like TBK's statement to me last night,

I've managed to poke fun at, insult and degrade believers. Those are my accomplishments. You might not like my achievements. I, however, accomplish my goals,

then I question his point at all.

I find that I cannot make any headway in a debate if I go into it shouting "Fraud" and "Idiot." Showme is aware of the history of fraud in the paranormal, as well as I am. He stated as much himself. If he were not aware, then he is sure to learn it quite quickly here. I, too, am also aware, and that is part of why I don't believe in it.

It is my personal position that Mr. Fry is a fraud. I haven't SEEN him, but history is against him. I made no secret of that, to Showme or anybody else. But I refuse to be The Authority, or the Thought Police, on something that I have not witnessed personally, not because I believe I'm wrong, but because I feel it would be hubris on my part (that is NOT a value judgement on anybody else who might feel/act differently; this is how MY conscience and I get along).

It is not my position to MAKE Showme, or anybody else, produce evidence for their position, because, frankly, second-hand evidence, received anonymously on an internet BBS counts for little. And I did not need evidence for the purposes of our discussion. If we were talking about evidence, then I would have.

But we were talking about the possibility of doubt. And that is entirely within the realm of the mind, and I feel we managed well enough.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think it's childish to use extreme examples. I think it's childish to be cruel, mocking, and unkind. I do not know De_Bunk's motivation in this thread, but if it was anything like TBK's statement to me last night, then I question his point at all.

Ad-hominem, you should really address the point instead of attacking the motivation.

I find that I cannot make any headway in a debate if I go into it shouting "Fraud" and "Idiot." Showme is aware of the history of fraud in the paranormal, as well as I am. He stated as much himself. If he were not aware, then he is sure to learn it quite quickly here. I, too, am also aware, and that is part of why I don't believe in it.

The difference is that ShowMe is arrogant enough to think that he and his wife could not be fooled by Fry. They seem to think that their personal experience is evidence enough that Fry is a real medium. There is an emotional need involved there where reason and logic play no part.

It is my personal position that Mr. Fry is a fraud.

Not just your personal position, but the position of reality.

I haven't SEEN him, but history is against him. I made no secret of that, to Showme or anybody else. But I refuse to be The Authority, or the Thought Police, on something that I have not witnessed personally, not because I believe I'm wrong, but because I feel it would be hubris on my part (that is NOT a value judgement on anybody else who might feel/act differently; this is how MY conscience and I get along).

That's your choice. I, however, will continue to point out the fallacy and fiction of the paranormal. It's not "my personal position" that mediumship doesn't exist, it's a fact.

It is not my position to MAKE Showme, or anybody else, produce evidence for their position, because, frankly, second-hand evidence, received anonymously on an internet BBS counts for little.

They can't even produce first-hand evidence. They refuse to understand that their mediums evade scientific testing. They refuse to question their beliefs.

And I did not need evidence for the purposes of our discussion. If we were talking about evidence, then I would have.

The purpose of your discussion seems purposeless.

But we were talking about the possibility of doubt. And that is entirely within the realm of the mind, and I feel we managed well enough.

You've instilled no doubt upon the believers in here.

 

[fsol]

Colin Fry doesn't do cold reading? Not my experience of him I am afraid. I am sure I saw him on a program about psychics not so long ago. They showed a one to one reading between him and a lady who had been told how cold reading works. The result? When faced with a sitter who doesn't give him information, he fails to produce any information about the sitter. Why must those pesky spirits insist on making mediums look like idiots?