To all believers (and skeptics) here

[seren]

I've been reading some of the threads where people who "believe", whether in spirits, universal energy, or psychics, have been asking questions of skeptics, or psychics have posted claiming to be able to make predictions. I've seen the threads descend in to abuse or circular arguments spinning totally out of control.

I've a terrible feeling I'm going to get flamed from both sides on this! I hope you will read this and take it in the spirit ;) in which it is meant. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that genuine. productive discussions cannot take place between believers and skeptics and I would like to try to get that going right here. I'm sorry if anyone finds this patronising or annoying. It's really not meant to be. I'm just thinking how we can make it work.

Believers, in order to understand what skeptics are about, what they are saying, it's necessary to put your feelings about your beliefs aside for the duration of the discussion. Nobody's taking them from you, those feelings and beliefs are always there, you've just put them safe in a small box on the mantelpiece for a while. I know you are openminded people who can easily see something from someone else's point of view, that's what spiritual people do, so for a little while, that's what you should do. That way, nobody can offend you, nobody's attacking you when they challenge your beliefs.

Also, please try to remember that despite how it might appear "skeptic" is not the same as "disbeliever". You know what? I want to believe. Really. I used to have some spiritual beliefs once. You really don't know how much I WISH paranormal and spiritual things were true. I'm waiting for you, really waiting for someone to prove it to me. I'm not hostile to your view, I just don't see any proof. I hope you can see why and agree that your personal experience, things that have happened to you, just don't help me?

As for skeptics, well I hate to criticise as I'm new at this and I know some of you have have been thinking wool-free and trying to get others to for years. I'm sure you've seen it all. Teaching your grandmother to suck eggs springs to mind.
;)
However, with my dubious credentials as an ex-believer, I want to say that sometimes I think your style is abrupt and facts are not presented in an accessible way. I appreciate (believe me) that after a while it gets frustrating repeating the same thing over and over without getting the meaning across, but I think perhaps that repetition is part of the problem. The message isn't being tailored to the receiver, there's no significant adaptation to suit the audience. Stating that someone has just made an ad hominem attack is likely to be ignored because people don't know what it is and can't be bothered to find out. Saying that calling someone names doesn't help their argument will probably get a better response. Giving examples of logical fallacies that engage the emotions I think might hit home better (I don't know- set it in a hospital or something- someone's granny's life is at risk because of a logical fallacy. ;D ).

Presenting the facts or the logical arguments I think we all agree is not enough. Leading a horse to water and all that. I think those science and critical thinking types (as opposed to those nodding in the background like me) might try a more "coaching" approach. There's nothing quite like discovering something for yourself and maybe we should ask more questions of people ("Why do you think it's paranormal?" "What other explanations have you considered?" "If that happened to me I think I'd wonder xyz. Did you consider that?" "How do you think science might answer that question?").

Well. That's my two penn'th. Make of it what you will. If we can begin again here with discussion about someone's beliefs, I'd be really pleased.

Thanks for reading.

[Admin]

Believers cannot look at their beliefs in an objective manner as it would lead to the breakdown of their beliefs!

They want to validate and/or justify their beliefs but in order to do so they have to use fallacious reasoning and a non-scientific approach. Again, if they used sound reasoning, science and logic their belief system would come crumbling down before them.

So I don't hold out much, if any, hope that we're ever going to get anywhere by tackling, challenging or debating believers - it just doesn't work.

What would work, IMO, is for inquisitive people to come here and ask questions on various topics as that way we could engage in meaningful debate without challenging someone's beliefs.

It rarely works that way however. Forums tend to be insular or adversarial.

Don't be too dismissive of confrontation though. Research has shown that we often learn a lot through confrontation - it forces us to re-evaluate our ideas.

[seren]

I'm hoping that the reason some people are here (Zaira for example) really is to look at what they believe and seriously evaluate it. In which case they will be openminded enough to try putting their ideas safely away and trying a new way of thinking. Our job is to communicate that new way of thinking in a manner that's not too alien.

Maybe you're right and it's a hopeless cause, but I'm going to keep trying- it's important!

As for confrontation- perhaps it depends on the type/quality? Because all I can see is the retreat into ever deeper trenches and the sticking of fingers ever further into ears.

Maybe I'm just a hopeless dreamer.....

[Tin Lizzie]

Firstly it is important to understand the difference between believers and those who know.

To tell someone who is experienced with spirit that such things are merely hallucinations is like telling me that my legs actually belong to my next-door neighbour. I can't accept it because I know that is not the case. I am willing to discuss things, in the interests of making progress.

Firstly we have the difficulty of 'testing': the overriding force in the spirit world is pure love. Without it it is very difficult to make communication. Sadly though this love is something that can not be measured, recorded, observed and bottled up for reproducibility. I can attempt to explain how this energy manifests itself in the physical world, but it would be nothing more than educated ideas.

Secondly is the concept of 'evidence'. I have said before that if the police were to work on the principle of suspecting every witness to be lying, embellishment, unconscious distortion of memory or hallucination, then society would be all the worse for it. Whilst acknowledging some cases may be explained by what we already know in science, it is somewhat ridiculous to automatically dismiss each and every witness statement, particularly where multiple tetimony is provided.

I would like to point out that science is not infallible; even the great Einstein was quoted as saying he believed he had 'got it all wrong'. Science is about discovering nature, and we sure don't know everything there is to know. Furthermore, whilst the laws of science change with time, the laws of nature do not; they carry on working away regardless of whether we know of them or not. In the middle of this, existing alongside us and sharing our space, is the spirit realm.

I would recommend that anyone interested reads 'Voices in my ear' by Doris Stokes. After a few pages you should realise how spirits are clearly and profoundly distinguishable from hallucinations.

[Admin]

Firstly it is important to understand the difference between believers and those who know.

To tell someone who is experienced with spirit that such things are merely hallucinations is like telling me that my legs actually belong to my next-door neighbour.

See what I mean Seren?

[MRT]

I'm sorry Tin Lizzie but there is good evidence that witness testimony is unreliable. It is so bad that I'm not sure it should play ANY part in the justice system. I certainly wouldn't want to be convicted of anything on the say so of witnesses - even a whole group of them! Try looking at this study we did in ASSAP testing how reliable witnesses were in good observing conditions (http://www.assap.org/newsite/PDF%20pages/Paranormal%20witnesses.html).

[Tin Lizzie]

Oh come on, that bit about my legs was an attempt at humour...guess i'll have to try without?

Thanks for that link MRT.
Do you think the 'testimony' of people who work with their ability on a day-to-day basis may be more reliable than, for example, a person who witnesses something only once?

[MRT]

What we've found is that people tend to 'see' what they're expecting. When presented with the unfamiliar, they often interpret it as paranormal. Indeed, most paranormal reports consist of someone experiencing the unfamiliar (see http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Xenonormal.html). So seeing something only once is likely to be a very unreliable report. Seeing something a lot, on the other hand, could mean you miss something that's changed ('attention blindness' - DrB's daytime job!). As I say, witnesses are really unreliable.

[Tin Lizzie]

Okay, so an individual statement on a one-off experience may be regarded as unlikely to be accurate, to say the least. I personally would not disagree with this. In the case of sittings where one or more person is given precise, detailed information from spirits and in cases where more than one medium is tuned in to the same spirit, would the precise nature of these messages, along with the corroboration of more than one witness, provide perhaps more reliable evidence?

[MRT]

I was talking mainly about witnesses to spontaneous events. Mediumship is something quite different. Mediumship is more like a controlled experiment. You need to remove all possible 'normal' sources of information as well as establishing a neutral way of judging the accuracy of such information. If you are just attending an uncontrolled sitting, held on the psychic's terms, the results cannot provide any useful scientific evidence.

[Tin Lizzie]

I understand that, to the scientist seeking absolute proof, no stone can be left unturned. From talking with psychic / medium friends and through my own limited experience I am aware that you can not, except in rare cases, ask specific questions and expect spirits to answer them. In most cases spirits will only make contact if there is a good reason, such as easing the grief of their loved ones on earth by proving their continued existence, or to give advice and sometimes warnings. This means that often enough there will not be a message at all, or there may be a message that is actually intended for a friend or relative of the sitter and its meaning is lost on the sitter. A sticky point, and maybe one that is best answered by the practising psychics and mediums.

[MRT]

Consider the following scenario. Suppose there are no spirits and that, obviously, mediums cannot communicate with them. Suppose that mediums believe they can communicate with spirits but instead they are getting 'messages' from their own unconscious. Such 'messages' will appear as if from another personality. Perhaps the 'messages' will be forgotten fragments of information, drawn back into the medium's conscious mind by the appearance and conversation of their sitter. Or they could be things noticed unconsciously about the sitter from body language, clothing, accent, etc. Some of these 'messages' may well appear highly relevant. However, if the sitter asks a specific detailed question, there may be no answer because the unconscious part of the medium's mind simply doesn't know.

Now, how would you differentiate between this hypothetical situation and visiting a 'genuine' medium?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I understand that, to the scientist seeking absolute proof, no stone can be left unturned. From talking with psychic / medium friends and through my own limited experience I am aware that you can not, except in rare cases, ask specific questions and expect spirits to answer them. In most cases spirits will only make contact if there is a good reason, such as easing the grief of their loved ones on earth by proving their continued existence, or to give advice and sometimes warnings. This means that often enough there will not be a message at all, or there may be a message that is actually intended for a friend or relative of the sitter and its meaning is lost on the sitter. A sticky point, and maybe one that is best answered by the practising psychics and mediums.

Therein lies the answer.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Firstly it is important to understand the difference between believers and those who know.

To tell someone who is experienced with spirit that such things are merely hallucinations is like telling me that my legs actually belong to my next-door neighbour. I can't accept it because I know that is not the case. I am willing to discuss things, in the interests of making progress.

Firstly we have the difficulty of 'testing': the overriding force in the spirit world is pure love. Without it it is very difficult to make communication. Sadly though this love is something that can not be measured, recorded, observed and bottled up for reproducibility. I can attempt to explain how this energy manifests itself in the physical world, but it would be nothing more than educated ideas.



This 'love' only works between believers obviously, and not in controlled conditions where it disappears.


Secondly is the concept of 'evidence'. I have said before that if the police were to work on the principle of suspecting every witness to be lying, embellishment, unconscious distortion of memory or hallucination, then society would be all the worse for it. Whilst acknowledging some cases may be explained by what we already know in science, it is somewhat ridiculous to automatically dismiss each and every witness statement, particularly where multiple tetimony is provided.


On the contrary, if we accepted every extraordinary claim without seeking evidence, then we would be in a total mess. Witness statement must be validated.



I would like to point out that science is not infallible; even the great Einstein was quoted as saying he believed he had 'got it all wrong'. Science is about discovering nature, and we sure don't know everything there is to know. Furthermore, whilst the laws of science change with time, the laws of nature do not; they carry on working away regardless of whether we know of them or not. In the middle of this, existing alongside us and sharing our space, is the spirit realm.

I would recommend that anyone interested reads 'Voices in my ear' by Doris Stokes. After a few pages you should realise how spirits are clearly and profoundly distinguishable from hallucinations.

Of course science isn't infallible. It makes mistakes, but those mistakes are discovered and revealed when experiments can't be repeated. Thats the way science works.

Doris Stokes seems to be increasingly mentioned as a true and genuine psychic (things are getting desperate as more and more current day ones are discredited I guess...), but you only have to look at her wikipedia entry to see she is far from squeaky clean.

Tin Lizzie, are you considering that she may also not be all that she seems to be?

[Tin Lizzie]

This 'love' only works between believers obviously, and not in controlled conditions where it disappears.


I really would like to see these 'controlled conditions' and how they suggest the 'disappearance' (as opposed to the non-appearance?) of spirit energy.



On the contrary, if we accepted every extraordinary claim without seeking evidence, then we would be in a total mess. Witness statement must be validated.


I agree, but not to the extent that we are all guilty until proved innocent. To assume that the spirit plane does not exist because we can not validate witness statements would be a flawed judgement.



Of course science isn't infallible. It makes mistakes, but those mistakes are discovered and revealed when experiments can't be repeated. Thats the way science works.


Sometimes it is experimental/human error that leads to irregularity in results but to keep on track here, mistakes are also realised when new technologies become available that lead to new understanding.



Doris Stokes seems to be increasingly mentioned as a true and genuine psychic (things are getting desperate as more and more current day ones are discredited I guess...), but you only have to look at her wikipedia entry to see she is far from squeaky clean.


Wikipedia also seems to be increasingly mentioned here but you only have to look at the conditions for placing articles to know that anyone can say pretty much whatever they want on there.

Doris stokes admitted to 'cheating' a bit by eavesdropping etc. She did this in the relatively early days of her career and her spirit guide forced her to confess this in front of her audience, which she did. Her reasons were not entirely self-centred: people travelled a long way and paid good money. At times when the voices suddenly stopped talking, she would refer to these means to keep the sittings flowing until the voices came back again. This still does not take away the fact that spirits came to her; she could often see them and often they came to her not long after crossing over. The number of people i've known who saw her testify to this. For me, of course.

[Tin Lizzie]

Therein lies the answer.

Note how i said 'in rare cses'. It does happen.

An example, which happened to a friend. This message came in a dream, from her father. Upon waking, she immediately wrote the message and has kept it since. The message she received was that her heavily pregnant daughter was going to give birth on the monday after next (nearly two weeks time in this case), at 3.30 am precisely.

The baby was delivered at 3.32. She had been stuck during delivery; if this had not happened she would have been delivered at 3.30.

I cannot see any evidence of 'cold reading' or 'hot reading' or other 'cheating'. My friends husband witnessed her writing the message upon waking.

[seren]

See what I mean Seren?

;D

Perseverance! Is it a virtue? It should be.

[seren]

Secondly is the concept of 'evidence'. I have said before that if the police were to work on the principle of suspecting every witness to be lying, embellishment, unconscious distortion of memory or hallucination, then society would be all the worse for it.


I'm sorry Tin Lizzie but there is good evidence that witness testimony is unreliable. It is so bad that I'm not sure it should play ANY part in the justice system.

As unpleasant as it is to think about, I think this story is so important. It's the story of a woman who was raped. During the rape, she made a conscious decision to remember the man's face, remember every detail to tell the police. And, let's face it, she was close enough to get a good look.

Later, she saw him and instantly pointed him out- that's definitely the guy, I'm sure.

Guess the ending? It wasn't. DNA evidence found it was another guy completely. Even the woman's conscious effort to remember a face right in front of her wasn't enough. She remembered wrongly.

Here's the story: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_hoffman_janfeb05.msp

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Doris stokes admitted to 'cheating' a bit by eavesdropping etc. She did this in the relatively early days of her career and her spirit guide forced her to confess this in front of her audience, which she did. Her reasons were not entirely self-centred: people travelled a long way and paid good money. At times when the voices suddenly stopped talking, she would refer to these means to keep the sittings flowing until the voices came back again. This still does not take away the fact that spirits came to her; she could often see them and often they came to her not long after crossing over. The number of people i've known who saw her testify to this. For me, of course.

Common psychic excuses really. She's been caught cheating, but the good nature of her followers has allowed her to continue unchallenged.

In any other walk of life, if you caught someone cheating at something once, would that not mean you would regard them with suspicion for a long period. That doesn't seem to work with psychics, there are too many too willing to let them off.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Note how i said 'in rare cses'. It does happen.

An example, which happened to a friend. This message came in a dream, from her father. Upon waking, she immediately wrote the message and has kept it since. The message she received was that her heavily pregnant daughter was going to give birth on the monday after next (nearly two weeks time in this case), at 3.30 am precisely.

The baby was delivered at 3.32. She had been stuck during delivery; if this had not happened she would have been delivered at 3.30.

I cannot see any evidence of 'cold reading' or 'hot reading' or other 'cheating'. My friends husband witnessed her writing the message upon waking.

Well, how about co-incidence and the fact she must have had a due date anyway.

Also, you said the baby was delivered at 3.32, not 3.30am. Getting stuck in delivery is just another excuse again to get away from the fact that the message was not precise. How are those two minutes any different from the fact that labour started two minutes later than it could have done for instance. Whats the use of a precise message if it isn't actually precise.

[Tin Lizzie]

Oh Okay, So It Was 2 Minutes Out, So How Did She Get This Mesage Two Weeks Beforehand? *yawn*

[Tin Lizzie]

Common psychic excuses really. She's been caught cheating, but the good nature of her followers has allowed her to continue unchallenged.

In any other walk of life, if you caught someone cheating at something once, would that not mean you would regard them with suspicion for a long period. That doesn't seem to work with psychics, there are too many too willing to let them off.

Yup, they forgave her because all the other stuff couldn't have been made up. Losing yer objectivity matey.

[Tin Lizzie]

Perseverance! Is it a virtue? It should be.

Thanks, i've shown a lot of it on this forum

[Tin Lizzie]

As unpleasant as it is to think about, I think this story is so important. It's the story of a woman who was raped. During the rape, she made a conscious decision to remember the man's face, remember every detail to tell the police. And, let's face it, she was close enough to get a good look.

Later, she saw him and instantly pointed him out- that's definitely the guy, I'm sure.

Guess the ending? It wasn't. DNA evidence found it was another guy completely. Even the woman's conscious effort to remember a face right in front of her wasn't enough. She remembered wrongly.

Here's the story: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_hoffman_janfeb05.msp

So how does this explain away recorded multiple testimony, taking place at the time of spirit mesage?

[seren]

Oh Okay, So It Was 2 Minutes Out, So How Did She Get This Mesage Two Weeks Beforehand?

Well, let's break it down.

What message did she get?

That the woman would give birth. Well, that was obvious, you can't give her any points for that!

That the woman would give birth on a certain day. She knew she was in the later stages of pregnancy (one assumes), so it had to be soon. The woman was her own daughter, it's highly likely she even knew the due date. It was already very close to the due date and the daughter may have had some feelings already.

That she would give birth at precisely (your word) 3.30am. She didn't. That bit is wrong. You clearly don't think it is, but where would you draw the line? 3.34am? 3.40am? 3.26? 3am? At what point, in your opinion, does it start to be "wrong", and why at that point? And why, as Far Side of the Moon says, go to the trouble of telling someone a detailed prediction right up to the minute, and then get it wrong?

So essentially, you're saying a close family member, who already knew of the pregnancy and very likely the due date, named in advance the day her daughter would give birth. I expect it happens every day somewhere in the world. I'm sure someone can work out the maths - how many pregnant women with mothers there are in the world and the stasistical likelihood of one of them guessing the correct date of the birth towards the end of the pregnancy.

Anyway, yes, you could choose to think that this was the work of a spirit, but I hope you would also see that there is another possible explanation. Spirits are not the *only* way she could have "got this message". It's possible she made an educated guess.

[seren]

Yup, they forgave her because all the other stuff couldn't have been made up.

This (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G18NfN76bAs) is complete and utter fakery. As is this. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dzVIOI_mBPs)
Looking at both performances, I personally can't see any earthly way he's getting this information. If he can do it without spirits, so can Doris Stokes, Gordon Smith or anybody else. Isn't it a possibility that she WAS lying?

I'd like to re-post this because it seemed to get lost:


Consider the following scenario. Suppose there are no spirits and that, obviously, mediums cannot communicate with them. Suppose that mediums believe they can communicate with spirits but instead they are getting 'messages' from their own unconscious. Such 'messages' will appear as if from another personality. Perhaps the 'messages' will be forgotten fragments of information, drawn back into the medium's conscious mind by the appearance and conversation of their sitter. Or they could be things noticed unconsciously about the sitter from body language, clothing, accent, etc. Some of these 'messages' may well appear highly relevant. However, if the sitter asks a specific detailed question, there may be no answer because the unconscious part of the medium's mind simply doesn't know.

Now, how would you differentiate between this hypothetical situation and visiting a 'genuine' medium?

[brianp]

Well, how about co-incidence and the fact she must have had a due date anyway.

Coincidence is a much maligned concept but coincidences certainly happen. We don't often meet childhood friends we haven't seen for decades, yet on Thursday gone I met three. Not together either, quite separately.

At lunchtime in the QE Hospital in Gateshead I was walking past the gym when who should emerge but Terry, a lad I went to school with, went camping with etc etc. I hadn't seen him since 1970.

In the evening my wife and I got on a bus to go to a Friends of Shipley Art Gallery meeting and there, at the front of the bus, was Evelyn, the younger sister of a childhood friend. I hadn't seen her since the mid 60s.

Then we arrived at the gallery - and, believe it or not, there was a new janitor there, Mark, who I knew very well indeed and hadn't seen since probably 1980.

So I had three chin wags that day - two long ones and one cut short by the fact that the Shipley was only three bus stops from where I got on. But what a series of coincidences - meeting three old friends in a single day.

[Tin Lizzie]

Consider the following scenario. Suppose there are no spirits and that, obviously, mediums cannot communicate with them. Suppose that mediums believe they can communicate with spirits but instead they are getting 'messages' from their own unconscious. Such 'messages' will appear as if from another personality. Perhaps the 'messages' will be forgotten fragments of information, drawn back into the medium's conscious mind by the appearance and conversation of their sitter. Or they could be things noticed unconsciously about the sitter from body language, clothing, accent, etc. Some of these 'messages' may well appear highly relevant. However, if the sitter asks a specific detailed question, there may be no answer because the unconscious part of the medium's mind simply doesn't know.

Now, how would you differentiate between this hypothetical situation and visiting a 'genuine' medium?

Here is the story of a reading received my my friend's sceptical husband last week, as copied from her e-mail. This, and this alone , turned him into a believer. (names have been changed)

well James's message even I was open mouthed when he got it,
His mum and dad didn't get on for years a good many years, When his mum passed the dad took up with this young bit of stuff and left the family home to her and his bank books stamp collections well everything really,
So his mum gave the message there was a terrible miscarriage of justice,for james and and one of his siblings are adopted and the youngest was to another man his dad said on his dying bed he has no children,so in other words they are not getting anything,
the other thing she said was he was having trouble with work which is true but will sort it self out.
She told him to stop sighing (he has a terrible habit of sighing all the time)we joke if we hear him doing it we shout at him,
She also told him not to be so strict like his dad john thinks he isn't but he is,it made him think cos his dad he said was VERY STRICT so it has given him food for thought over that.
Also said the youngest child is the image of her,she is 45 now and jamessaid she is the spit of his mum
Nobody up here really knows us and as I said to james how did she know all that I think even a sceptic would believe if they got that message

HE IS A BELIEVER NOW.only thing is he said if that lamp moves he is out, a bit of a scardy cat as well,josie my daughter got her first feather the other day as well but she had the little fella with her at the time he is 3yrs old and as it was falling he was playing with it so she wasn't sure if it was for her or him,but she was made up anyway for she was told 3wks ago to watch out for it,cool eh.
when I said I got a message from my dad the first in 22yrs the medium said to me the settee you sit on has a small table with a lamp on it watch for the lamp shade to move and thats my dad giving me a sign to let me know he is there,He described the setee and table to a tee,and he asked if my microwave was broke when i said no its new he said he is showing him the micro with all red flashing images i couldnt stop laughing its a combi one and we havnt sussed out to work it yet and when we put it on we just press all these buttons and its like an alien invasion with all the radar going,so he must be laughing at me up there,blonde moments again.

If you can prove all this through 'deja-vu' or subconscious reading, I will gladly accept your proof.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Yup, they forgave her because all the other stuff couldn't have been made up. Losing yer objectivity matey.

How are you so sure?

I've watched plenty of good magicians and not had a clue how they perform their tricks. Doesn't mean they are really magic though.

I'm sure the fascination with Stokes is purely because she has been dead 20 years, and thus does not have the same amount of transcripts and videos available for scrutiny. No doubt if she was around today, she would be treated with the same amount of disdain as the rest of the celebrity psychics.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Here is the story of a reading received my my friend's sceptical husband last week, as copied from her e-mail. This, and this alone , turned him into a believer. (names have been changed)

well James's message even I was open mouthed when he got it,
His mum and dad didn't get on for years a good many years, When his mum passed the dad took up with this young bit of stuff and left the family home to her and his bank books stamp collections well everything really,
So his mum gave the message there was a terrible miscarriage of justice,for james and and one of his siblings are adopted and the youngest was to another man his dad said on his dying bed he has no children,so in other words they are not getting anything,
the other thing she said was he was having trouble with work which is true but will sort it self out.
She told him to stop sighing (he has a terrible habit of sighing all the time)we joke if we hear him doing it we shout at him,
She also told him not to be so strict like his dad john thinks he isn't but he is,it made him think cos his dad he said was VERY STRICT so it has given him food for thought over that.
Also said the youngest child is the image of her,she is 45 now and jamessaid she is the spit of his mum
Nobody up here really knows us and as I said to james how did she know all that I think even a sceptic would believe if they got that message


Cold reading, sorry.

The problem again though, is that this is anecdotal. If you really understood how cold reading worked, we'd need to see a transcript of this. How many questions did the psychic ask, how much information was volunteered. How much was completely wrong.



HE IS A BELIEVER NOW.only thing is he said if that lamp moves he is out, a bit of a scardy cat as well,josie my daughter got her first feather the other day as well but she had the little fella with her at the time he is 3yrs old and as it was falling he was playing with it so she wasn't sure if it was for her or him,but she was made up anyway for she was told 3wks ago to watch out for it,cool eh.
when I said I got a message from my dad the first in 22yrs the medium said to me the settee you sit on has a small table with a lamp on it watch for the lamp shade to move and thats my dad giving me a sign to let me know he is there,He described the setee and table to a tee,and he asked if my microwave was broke when i said no its new he said he is showing him the micro with all red flashing images i couldnt stop laughing its a combi one and we havnt sussed out to work it yet and when we put it on we just press all these buttons and its like an alien invasion with all the radar going,so he must be laughing at me up there,blonde moments again.

If you can prove all this through 'deja-vu' or subconscious reading, I will gladly accept your proof.

He is a believer because he doesn't understand how cold reading is working.

The microwave is a classic miss. The microwave ISN'T broken as the psychic ASKED - not STATED. All microwaves have lights. I've been in my current house 6 months, and I don't know all the functions on the built-in microwave, I just know how to set it for a period of time. Thats all you need for a microwave to be honest.

Again, where are the misses? The psychic was obviously asking questions again.

Very unconvincing.

[MRT]

If you can prove all this through 'deja-vu' or subconscious reading, I will gladly accept your proof.

With respect TL, I asked you first and you didn't answer my question. I am not, nor is any scientist, in the business of 'proving' anything. Science is about evidence and theory - proof is for mathematicians and TV lawyers.

That someone became a believer is unsurprising. As I mention elsewhere, we are bombarded by uncritical coverage of paranormal matters in the popular media all the time. Just suppose that, thousands of years ago, no one had ever come up with the idea of 'spirits' but instead decided there was a 'universal force' behind everything unexplained. Your friend might, instead, believe in the 'universal force'.

It is a sad fact that the older an idea is, the more it is accepted, even when there is no evidence to support it. I suppose the logic is 'if it's been accepted for so long, by so many people, it must be true'. However, science doesn't work like that. A long-cherished tradition, like the Sun rotating around the Earth, can vanish with one single observation to the contrary.

[Zaira]

Seren,

Bottom line, we can all become tired and frustrated and lose the plot from time to time. The important thing is to recognise it for what it is and be willing to apologise and move on.

I think we are all, despite our beliefs, very privileged to have this media which allows us to connect and converse with people we might have gone our whole life without meeting.

"You know what? I want to believe. Really. I used to have some spiritual beliefs once. You really don't know how much I WISH paranormal and spiritual things were true. I'm waiting for you, really waiting for someone to prove it to me. I'm not hostile to your view, I just don't see any proof. I hope you can see why and agree that your personal experience, things that have happened to you, just don't help me?"

I for one do understand. I might even be coming up to where you are now. At the moment I'm still on the fence. I still have my little premonitions and my warning dreams working for me. Not as much as they were when I was younger. Maybe this is the way it's meant to be. Maybe we too begin to want proof, something to substantiate and validate what we have spent most of our life trying to understand.
:smiley:

[Zaira]

Tim,

This is just for you and maybe Seren . The Skeptics won't like it but they know me by now. I have to be honest and say just what I want to say. And I can't do that without also mentioning my 'stuff'.

Forgive me but I have trouble accepting that this stuff comes from 'Pure Love'. I grew up hating the world and his wife. There wasn't much love in my heart when I was experiencing my stuff. My first few experiences with spirit looking for some help from me resulted in me telling them to F*** off. I had nothing to give and they had nothing I wanted.

I thought I must be going mad and took to reading the bible, it became my safety line for when things got too weird. Later, feeling braver and a little stronger, I explored the Occult in search of answers and came to believe such trash. I returned to the bible but couldn’t gather enough belief in God to continue with that so I threw myself into bringing up my family. Once they were grown and flown I look for something else to focus on. That's when I began to practise Zen and meditation and relaxation. It works and it keeps me real - most of the time.

I have been on the psychic forum where they speak of love and spirit in nice soft voices. I was the bitch from hell!! And yet they (spirit) sought me out - why? I'll never know. I just know it was just there whether I wanted it or not. It's a lot 'quieter' around here these days and I find myself wondering what the hell it was all about. I wouldn't like to put my hand on a bible and swear that it's gone completely but maybe it just fades as we get older.
:smiley:

[seren]

EDIT: Crosspost. This is a response to your first post.

Thanks Zaira! I don't know what it was that finally turned me against the idea of spiritual reasons or paranormal explanations. I guess because I realised how vague I sounded, how subjective it all was. How I was trying to see things because I so much wanted to. It would be lovely to think that there was some "higher purpose", so we'll see it wherever we possibly can.

Your car park story always makes me smile, because I am the opposite. I can only recall ever once getting a good parking space in a crowded car park (it's something that bothers me!). Because that's a negative experience, I choose to put it down to chance (well...I did wonder if there was something in my style of driving or the times I chose to go shopping which might affect the outcome). Had I been lucky most times, like you, with my spaces, I wonder if I too would think there were Forces At Work? Really, there's no less reason to believe that "bad" forces keep me away from good car parking spaces than to believe "good" forces save them for you, but I think even some believers in would find that idea silly. Bad spirits hide the spaces from me- what a notion!

We like the idea that the universe is "looking out for us" (Well, I do. I'd love that to be true), make much of times when that appears to be true and ignore the times when it doesn't, or put them down to chance. Well, that's what I think anyway.

But next time you see that convenient car parking space, please leave it free for those of us plagued by bad spirits, eh? ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

Cold reading, sorry.

The problem again though, is that this is anecdotal. If you really understood how cold reading worked, we'd need to see a transcript of this. How many questions did the psychic ask, how much information was volunteered. How much was completely wrong.



He is a believer because he doesn't understand how cold reading is working.

The microwave is a classic miss. The microwave ISN'T broken as the psychic ASKED - not STATED. All microwaves have lights. I've been in my current house 6 months, and I don't know all the functions on the built-in microwave, I just know how to set it for a period of time. Thats all you need for a microwave to be honest.

Again, where are the misses? The psychic was obviously asking questions again.

Very unconvincing.

Ditto, but in the other way. This is where we deviate in interpretation, and why it is pointless having this discussion.

[Tin Lizzie]

Forgive me but I have trouble accepting that this stuff comes from 'Pure Love'. I grew up hating the world and his wife. There wasn't much love in my heart when I was experiencing my stuff. My first few experiences with spirit looking for some help from me resulted in me telling them to F*** off. I had nothing to give and they had nothing I wanted.



Don't get me wrong here, I'm not trying to preach & I'm sure you know that better than anyone here. This concept of 'pure love' - what I believe is possibly the driving force behind life and the spirit plane; behind all that is - I am coming to believe in this more, although certain things are still uncertain such as what happens to people who commit suicide, or people who have their minds on vengeance when the cross over?

I do know, from stories related to my by friends who are practising mediums, that in the spirit plane things are seen differently and love is a connection which makes communication between the planes possible. Some have told me of cases where murderers have come through to them, asking them to tell so-and-so that they are sorry for what they did to their family, and vie-versa with mudered people coming to offer forgiveness - all very scary, but it shows the power of love.

I am coming to understand this now, but I want to find the way to express it scientifically. So when we feel the presence of spirit around us, when we smell them, hear them, see them or feel their touch, or in the case of apports where objects appear that are linked to the person passed, the energy changes come from this spirit energy, which is driven by a love that is beyond our comprehension on this plane. That's just my way Zaira, and I would love to hear what you think.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Ditto, but in the other way. This is where we deviate in interpretation, and why it is pointless having this discussion.

I don't think it's pointless. There has already been a couple of cases where you've mentioned instances to back up your 'interpretation' of other issues where you've been pointed in the right direction, and have seemed to accept that you've been wrong.

I guess I just don't understand why you see psychic-ness where there are more rational explanations. Are you naturally a gullible person?

[Zaira]

Seren,

"But next time you see that convenient car parking space, please leave it free for those of us plagued by bad spirits, eh?"

Lol! I've got a better idea. Next time you are about to enter a car park think, "There is a space for me just a bit further up."

I would like to take this opportunity to share what I truly believe. It's not the Universe and it's not Spirit. There is no one out there saving a parking space for me, and there are no good and bad forces. There is positive and negative thinking.

"Nothing is but thinking makes it so."

Our lives are created from within. We get what we expect to get. I got sick of always expecting the worst and decided to try a little experiment. I wondered what would happen if I thought about things working out for me. No matter how negative a thought was, I forced myself to think about a more positive out come.

I read books on positive thinking and I created positive affirmation to repeat to myself in an effort to cultivate a more positive attitude and thinking process. I always get a parking space simply because I believe I will! ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

I don't think it's pointless. There has already been a couple of cases where you've mentioned instances to back up your 'interpretation' of other issues where you've been pointed in the right direction, and have seemed to accept that you've been wrong.

I guess I just don't understand why you see psychic-ness where there are more rational explanations. Are you naturally a gullible person?

Well (sighs)....all I can say is that I've always preferred to be a leader, not a follower - for obvious reasons. If I was gullible, maybe that's why i've accepted some scientific explanation for the paranormal? ;o)

I think we can make progress, this may happen if practising mediums & psychics & healers etc. are brought in, but you have to consider what we are talking about, and consider that maybe what we have available at the moment science-wise isn't up to the task. i've spoken with 'believers' who are aeronautical engineers and physicians, all of them have said the scientific link cant be done at the moment. Worth thinking about.

[Zaira]

Tim,

"That's just my way Zaira, and I would love to hear what you think."

My beliefs stem from what I posted above. What goes on in my life goes on because I think it does. I have no doubt that your friend is a good medium. What I'm trying to say is that it all starts with us and what we think.

Something happened for your friend to attach a meaning to it then, as time goes on his belief in that meaning grew. The more he came to believe in what he thought he saw the mare real he makes it. This is not to say that the spirit world doesn’t exist. It does mean, however, that it only exists for some of us.

I will try to explain this more but it isn't easy. There are some book titles which would allow you to research these claims and then make up your own mind. I’ll have a look for them.

But you see it doesn't matter what I think or believe, it only matters what you think and believe - you create your world (your immediate environment) from your thinking and I create my world (my immediate environment) from my thinking.

You experience this forum from your perspective and I experience it from mine - we do the same when looking at the world (and even the spirit world - perhaps that's why there are as many stories and as many experiences as there are 'psychics' - we all see it how we each think it is).

I understand about you wanting a way to express it scientifically, but I don't think that's possible until we see the whole picture and have the whole story. Perhaps we each hold a few puzzle pieces and by talking and sharing like we do here, the puzzle pieces are slowly being brought together.
:smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

Tim,



My beliefs stem from what I posted above. What goes on in my life goes on because I think it does. I have no doubt that your friend is a good medium. What I'm trying to say is that it all starts with us and what we think.




Something happened for your friend to attach a meaning to it then, as time goes on his belief in that meaning grew. The more he came to believe in what he thought he saw the mare real he makes it. This is not to say that the spirit world doesn’t exist. It does mean, however, that it only exists for some of us.


I see what you are saying and it is very interesting. It also raises for me the point that some peoples' experience will have caused them to shut certain things away and accept things for as they see them, or as they want to see them.





I understand about you wanting a way to express it scientifically, but I don't think that's possible until we see the whole picture and have the whole story. Perhaps we each hold a few puzzle pieces and by talking and sharing like we do here, the puzzle pieces are slowly being brought together.



:smiley:


That's the way I would like to see it. I have psychic friends 'in high places' in science-related jobs who say that it's not possible to prove a scientific link yet; we can only speculate. Sadly I have seen what happens when I speculate on this forum, but hopefully by sharing what we know, we can all learn a thing or two.

[Dr B]

is this a psychic love-in????

:ghost:

[Admin]

This is not to say that the spirit world doesn’t exist. It does mean, however, that it only exists for some of us.

Oh Christ - not again. ::)

You never did grasp the relativist fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html) did you?

If you believe in something that's false your belief doesn't make it real - it just means that you now hold a false belief: a.k.a. a delusion.

Something cannot be true and false at the same time (!)

[Admin]

is this a psychic love-in????

:ghost:

Love 'n' Light to you!!

{{{Hugs}}}

;D ;D ;D

[Cuddles]

Well (sighs)....all I can say is that I've always preferred to be a leader, not a follower - for obvious reasons.

You're not a leader. You come out with exactly the same crap about energy, vibrations and so on that pretty much every woo on the planet does. I haven't seen you come up with a single original thought. You come across as the stereotypical follower.


If I was gullible, maybe that's why i've accepted some scientific explanation for the paranormal?

You haven't. Not a single thing you've said on this forum has been even vaguely scientific. As I've said several times before, using sciency words does not make something science. Considering that you claim to be a science teacher you really should understand this.

[bobdezon]

Believers cannot look at their beliefs in an objective manner

I have to disagree with you here John, I think believers who examine their beliefs objectively, become sceptics ;)

[Zaira]

I take it the policy around here is still - Trash what the person is saying NOT the person?

Just checking. ;)

[Julia]

Tin Lizzie, do you remember Doris Stokes' invaluable contributions to to the Yorkshire Ripper case? She claimed that

a) she had spoken to the Ripper's dead father
b) that the murderer had living, domineering mother
c) the Ripper was from the Tyne and Wear area (this was AFTER the release of the infamous, resource-wasting "Wearside Jack" recording).

When Peter Sutcliffe was arrested it was revealed that his father was still alive, his mother had been dead for some years and he was from Yorkshire.

So far as I'm aware dear old Doris did not attempt to apologize for or explain her glaring mistakes. Do you accept that in this well-documented case she failed to distinguish between psychically derived information and auditory hallucinations? Or do you think it might just be possible that she was simply making it up?

I'm afraid both you and Zaira are prime examples of believers who will perform any mental gymnastics necessary to preserve your beliefs.

Love, light, hugs, kisses, flowers and kittens...

[Zaira]

Julia,

"I'm afraid both you and Zaira are prime examples of believers who will perform any mental gymnastics necessary to preserve your beliefs."

And that is wrong?


Do you even know what my beliefs are? ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

Tin Lizzie, do you remember Doris Stokes' invaluable contributions to to the Yorkshire Ripper case? She claimed that

a) she had spoken to the Ripper's dead father
b) that the murderer had living, domineering mother
c) the Ripper was from the Tyne and Wear area (this was AFTER the release of the infamous, resource-wasting "Wearside Jack" recording).

When Peter Sutcliffe was arrested it was revealed that his father was still alive, his mother had been dead for some years and he was from Yorkshire.

So far as I'm aware dear old Doris did not attempt to apologize for or explain her glaring mistakes. Do you accept that in this well-documented case she failed to distinguish between psychically derived information and auditory hallucinations? Or do you think it might just be possible that she was simply making it up?

I'm afraid both you and Zaira are prime examples of believers who will perform any mental gymnastics necessary to preserve your beliefs.

Love, light, hugs, kisses, flowers and kittens...

Given that Doris Stokes did provide more accurate, astounding sittings and readings than she provided duff ones, I am wary of you determination to prove her entire work as a hoax. Until I know the exact messages she receeived I pass no judgement, unlike yourself. You obviously didn't want to even consider that her messages were real, but not from who she thought them to be.
Stick your false love where the sun don't shine ;o)

[Tin Lizzie]

You're not a leader. You come out with exactly the same crap about energy, vibrations and so on that pretty much every woo on the planet does. I haven't seen you come up with a single original thought. You come across as the stereotypical follower.



You haven't. Not a single thing you've said on this forum has been even vaguely scientific. As I've said several times before, using sciency words does not make something science. Considering that you claim to be a science teacher you really should understand this.

Now again it's you talking crap. No doubt you would back your crap up with selectively chosen fragments of posts. Go ahead - you have nothing worthwile to say which will convince me that I am hallucinating when I talk with my guides. No wonder yours can't get through to you, they would need a great big pair of angel wellies to wade through your crap! ;o)

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Now again it's you talking crap. No doubt you would back your crap up with selectively chosen fragments of posts. Go ahead - you have nothing worthwile to say which will convince me that I am hallucinating when I talk with my guides. No wonder yours can't get through to you, they would need a great big pair of angel wellies to wade through your crap! ;o)

Woah - Beeeliever in closed-minded shock! :-X

[Tin Lizzie]

Woah - Beeeliever in closed-minded shock! :-X

Believer in standard response to closed-mindedness not-so-shock :o)

[Cuddles]

Tin Lizzie, do you remember Doris Stokes' invaluable contributions to to the Yorkshire Ripper case?

I have a friend who was named after the Yorkshire Ripper.

Carry on.

[Julia]

Zaira, unless I've misunderstood virtually every post you've made, your dogged persistence in believing that people can choose the "truth" that feels right to them - not to mention your self-proclaimed non-scepticism - suggests to me that, whatever the details of your personal belief system, you have no intention of relinquishing the world of woo for the real world.

Tin Lizzie, Doris Stokes' baloney about the Yorkshire Ripper first appeared in the Sunday People of 1 July 1979. According to her the killer was named Robbie or Johnnie, had a surname beginning with M and lived in a street named Berwick or Bewick. She had been in touch with his dead mother Molly or Polly. She described the Ripper's face, which bore no resemblance to that of Peter Sutcliffe, and later repeated the description on Tyne Tees Television.

In 1982 Stokes also claimed to have helped the Baltimore County Police in the search for missing teenager Jamie Griffin. Another lie. Police commander Joseph E Shaw stated "Ms Stokes did not contribute any useful information not did she supply any information which could not have been given her by the Griffin family or by newspaper articles printed prior to her visit."

In her book "Voices In My Ear" Stokes claims to have been involved usefully in the investigation of a girl's murder in Kirkham, Lancashire, and the murders of three children found dead in the children's ward of Blackpool's Victoria Hospital. DCS Brian Woods of the Lancashire Police stated "I can confirm that Mrs Stokes made no contribution whatever to to the detection of either the murderer of the children in Blackpool or the girl at Kirkham." The Blackpool case was in fact the first to be solved by the use of mass-fingerprinting.

So in at least four high-profile cases Doris Stokes made a series of shameless lies, just like her present-day counterparts. Compared to this, some "amazingly accurate" private readings (would they by any chance have been made for people who already had a strong belief in the supernatural?) don't really impress me...

[Tin Lizzie]

Zaira, unless I've misunderstood virtually every post you've made, your dogged persistence in believing that people can choose the "truth" that feels right to them - not to mention your self-proclaimed non-scepticism - suggests to me that, whatever the details of your personal belief system, you have no intention of relinquishing the world of woo for the real world.

Tin Lizzie, Doris Stokes' baloney about the Yorkshire Ripper first appeared in the Sunday People of 1 July 1979. According to her the killer was named Robbie or Johnnie, had a surname beginning with M and lived in a street named Berwick or Bewick. She had been in touch with his dead mother Molly or Polly. She described the Ripper's face, which bore no resemblance to that of Peter Sutcliffe, and later repeated the description on Tyne Tees Television.

In 1982 Stokes also claimed to have helped the Baltimore County Police in the search for missing teenager Jamie Griffin. Another lie. Police commander Joseph E Shaw stated "Ms Stokes did not contribute any useful information not did she supply any information which could not have been given her by the Griffin family or by newspaper articles printed prior to her visit."

In her book "Voices In My Ear" Stokes claims to have been involved usefully in the investigation of a girl's murder in Kirkham, Lancashire, and the murders of three children found dead in the children's ward of Blackpool's Victoria Hospital. DCS Brian Woods of the Lancashire Police stated "I can confirm that Mrs Stokes made no contribution whatever to to the detection of either the murderer of the children in Blackpool or the girl at Kirkham." The Blackpool case was in fact the first to be solved by the use of mass-fingerprinting.

So in at least four high-profile cases Doris Stokes made a series of shameless lies, just like her present-day counterparts. Compared to this, some "amazingly accurate" private readings (would they by any chance have been made for people who already had a strong belief in the supernatural?) don't really impress me...

If lying is the correct interpretation to make as opposed to misunderstanding the messages spirit were giving her, then of course I am disappointed and saddened by this. This still does not change the fact that she did provide information to police in at least two other cases which led to the arrest of the killer. One of these involved the a surgeon who was murdering children in his hospital. Whilst the police were searching for an external motive, Doris was guided by a murdered child to the operating theatre where the surgeon worked. Police took her word, the man was arrested and convicted. She also made TV appearances with Don Lane in Australia and Bill Boggs in New York, where she received and passed on messages that simply could not be possible by cold reading.

[Zaira]

Julia,

Wow! You read all my posts? I'm flattered!

I have 'self-proclaimed' a lot of things that I am not. I'm not a Skeptic, I'm not a psychic, I'm not a medium, I'm not a Christian and the list goes on. The real world? Do you know what that is? I don't. And there are people who will say that this is not it. They will say that most of us are actually asleep and in need of a wake-up call.

Ref. people and their beliefs. People will believe what they want to believe. The ordinary man or woman in the street isn't much interested in the scientific side of anything. I'm here because I value the opinions of educated people - better educated than me that is. Also forums are one of my favourite pastimes.

[brianp]

Go ahead - you have nothing worthwile to say which will convince me that I am hallucinating when I talk with my guides.

The delusional are rarely aware of their condition.

[Tin Lizzie]

The delusional are rarely aware of their condition.

Seems that there is a fine line between delusion and ignorance

[bobdezon]

Seems that there is a fine line between delusion and ignorance


You just have to be Open Minded™ enough to accept the possibility that you are indeed delusional. Considering what you do is unknown to science, or should I say unproven to science, then you must see this from a logical point of view. If you wish people to accept your claims then you the claimant must provide adequate proof. If you choose not to provide proof the burden of it still remains with yourself.

Anecdotal evidence will not suffice to convince anyone but yourself and others predisposed to believe in such nonsense. Please dont view this as an attack on your beliefs, it is merely the basic facts of this believer/sceptic controversy. You claim to speak to guides, fair enough. I could ask you questions for your guide to answer, and I assume that with your guide having access to the akashic records (itll totally depend on your level of woo-osity here) he/she/it will be able to tell me accurate information which can be proven you could not possibly know. This would be a nice first step into proving your ability for all to see if you so chose.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

If lying is the correct interpretation to make as opposed to misunderstanding the messages spirit were giving her, then of course I am disappointed and saddened by this. This still does not change the fact that she did provide information to police in at least two other cases which led to the arrest of the killer. One of these involved the a surgeon who was murdering children in his hospital. Whilst the police were searching for an external motive, Doris was guided by a murdered child to the operating theatre where the surgeon worked. Police took her word, the man was arrested and convicted. She also made TV appearances with Don Lane in Australia and Bill Boggs in New York, where she received and passed on messages that simply could not be possible by cold reading.

Can you provide sources for this please?

Do you have links for the tv appearances? Have you seen them yourself?

[Tin Lizzie]

Can you provide sources for this please?

Do you have links for the tv appearances? Have you seen them yourself?

Read her books (with an open mind)

[Tin Lizzie]

You just have to be Open Minded™ enough to accept the possibility that you are indeed delusional. Considering what you do is unknown to science, or should I say unproven to science, then you must see this from a logical point of view. If you wish people to accept your claims then you the claimant must provide adequate proof. If you choose not to provide proof the burden of it still remains with yourself.

Anecdotal evidence will not suffice to convince anyone but yourself and others predisposed to believe in such nonsense. Please dont view this as an attack on your beliefs, it is merely the basic facts of this believer/sceptic controversy. You claim to speak to guides, fair enough. I could ask you questions for your guide to answer, and I assume that with your guide having access to the akashic records (itll totally depend on your level of woo-osity here) he/she/it will be able to tell me accurate information which can be proven you could not possibly know. This would be a nice first step into proving your ability for all to see if you so chose.

Sure, I'll give that a go. What do you want to know?

[wooo_oops]

Ack! You're asking a question!!

:-\

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Read her books (with an open mind)

An open mind to only see her side of the story perhaps?

Did you not think at some point, that she might be making false claims, or at least exaggerating?

Really, and I'm not having a go at you here, but I'm really confused how you became a science teacher, when you don't seem to understand how to evaluate claims. Sources and evidence are key to any claim.

[Tin Lizzie]

An open mind to only see her side of the story perhaps?

Did you not think at some point, that she might be making false claims, or at least exaggerating?

Really, and I'm not having a go at you here, but I'm really confused how you became a science teacher, when you don't seem to understand how to evaluate claims. Sources and evidence are key to any claim.

Er...where in the NC at KS3 & KS4 will you find anything related to communicating with dead people. It's a whole other world - no pun of course.

I'm not having a go at you here, but i'm really confused how you became a skeptic, when you don't seem to understand how to evaluate claims without assuming automatically that everyone lies about everything.

[bobdezon]

Sure, I'll give that a go. What do you want to know?

Id like you to ask your guide about my grandfather on my fathers or mothers side. Id like to know some details about either person. I can assure you they are dead, so this isnt one of those trick questions. If you can tell me any information about them that you could not discover via a search of conventional means, I shall renounce scepticism forever and become a champion for the believer cause. I think its a good deal and if you believe in karma (Ill take that as a given) then this would be the right thing for me to do.

Please try to be specific, I could not accept details that were too general and could apply to anyone. Your guide if real would be able to inform you of any amount of details that would be applicable only to either of my grandfathers.

[wooo_oops]

How long does it take d'ya think? Is there a delay, like when you phone Australia?

Just kidding.>:D

[Tin Lizzie]

Id like you to ask your guide about my grandfather on my fathers or mothers side. Id like to know some details about either person. I can assure you they are dead, so this isnt one of those trick questions. If you can tell me any information about them that you could not discover via a search of conventional means, I shall renounce scepticism forever and become a champion for the believer cause. I think its a good deal and if you believe in karma (Ill take that as a given) then this would be the right thing for me to do.

Please try to be specific, I could not accept details that were too general and could apply to anyone. Your guide if real would be able to inform you of any amount of details that would be applicable only to either of my grandfathers.

Hi Bob (may I call you that here?)

I'm afraid this is one for a trained medium - I would be doing you a total disservice to claim otherwise.

My own guide is there for my own development; if you wish to give yourself the best chance of receiving a message from your grandparents I would consider visiting a reputable medium.

The College of Psychic studies will point you in the right direction:

www.collegeofpsychicstudies.co.uk (http://www.collegeofpsychicstudies.co.uk)

I would not nominate myself as the ideal candidate to read for you, as I have never read for anyone before. This is not what you implied in your original question; if you are sincere in your request I do recommend you see a trained medium.

[Admin]

I'm afraid this is one for a trained medium - I would be doing you a total disservice to claim otherwise.

Tim,

You claim to know genuine mediums who can do exactly the sort of thing that Bob has requested. Not only that, you've also claimed that because they can do such readings at a distance that it rules out Cold Reading.

OK - you personally cannot rise to Bob's challenge but as you're constantly claiming to know people who can, would you care to invite one, or more, of them to take part in a test to pass information from the spirit world?

There are ways that such a test could be done, even on-line, so let us know when you have your medium(s) ready and we can develop a protocol - which will be displayed publicly before the reading(s) take place.

I look forward to hearing from you.

John

[Tin Lizzie]

Tim,

You claim to know genuine mediums who can do exactly the sort of thing that Bob has requested. Not only that, you've also claimed that because they can do such readings at a distance that it rules out Cold Reading.

OK - you personally cannot rise to Bob's challenge but as you're constantly claiming to know people who can, would you care to invite one, or more, of them to take part in a test to pass information from the spirit world?

There are ways that such a test could be done, even on-line, so let us know when you have your medium(s) ready and we can develop a protocol - which will be displayed publicly before the reading(s) take place.

I look forward to hearing from you.

John

John

I think we had a similar discussion involving Lara123 although I'm not sure how that tailed off.

At the moment she has a lot going on, so I would not want to involve her. I will talk to some other friends but in the meantime it would help them if they knew the potocol you propose to use.

Tim

[Admin]

John

I think we had a similar discussion involving Lara123 although I'm not sure how that tailed off.

At the moment she has a lot going on, so I would not want to involve her. I will talk to some other friends but in the meantime it would help them if they knew the potocol you propose to use.

Tim

It doesn't have to be Lara - just tell me if you can get one, or more, mediums interested and we'll work out a protocol together.

We can't work out a protocol until we know what it is that the medium claims to be able to provide etc.

If they're as accurate as you claim they are then we'll be flying. O0

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Given that Doris Stokes did provide more accurate, astounding sittings and readings than she provided duff ones [...]


Until I know the exact messages she receeived I pass no judgement[...]


More rope, vicar?

[Tin Lizzie]

John,

Further to my last post I would like to emphasise that the mediums I know are all members of 'the psychic barber' forum. I know that few, if any of them would be able to carry out any testing without pre-conceptions of being critically assessed. This would likely cause a certain amount of stress/negativity on them which would not be present in any normal sitting. People here are free to make their own interpretations over this, but I have provided a link to the CPS where more 'neutral' mediums who will have no such preconceptions may be contacted. In the meantime I will inform you if I am able to persuade one of my contacts.

Tim

[Tin Lizzie]

It doesn't have to be Lara - just tell me if you can get one, or more, mediums interested and we'll work out a protocol together.

We can't work out a protocol until we know what it is that the medium claims to be able to provide etc.

If they're as accurate as you claim they are then we'll be flying. O0

That's dead funny.

[lara123]

hang on-i agreed on the body-scan to work with you-not one reply,because it doesnt tie in with what you want,how you think it should work,how you expect it to work.i said stastically things would go my way,and they would,i pointed out the things likely to occur and admitted altho i could sense an area of 'odd'energy perhaps i might not say the exact cause. because thats the truth,you then probably thought i would of not come up with much but you deny me the chance,all this from sceptics who keep saying prove it prove it.

Not one reply! not one,beggars belief,i would of paid my own fees completely to sort this out,let you choose the 20 people ,had people in there to cover disceptions etc.

well...i'll take my abilitities elsewhere in future to more serious parties who may wish to find out.

chow chow-this woo woo leaving for good,oh,tin woo-woo and i thankyou for the opportunity to express our love of woo on woo-woo land thread. and ps----got pms on my site from some of your sceps thanking us for the fun and apologising on behalf of some of you.so....it was worth our while....woo woo woo woo woo

[Tin Lizzie]

Well, there you go.

Looks like an opportunity for some serious research and even some kind of progress has been wasted.

Guys / gals, I know how much fun it must be to laugh at people who you consider to be downright crazy just because they claim they talk with the dead or they can heal people with their hands. It may be worth considering whether your motives are more self-serving, whether you actually are as objective as you claim to be and whether your cause serves a greater good.

I have left a link to the College of Psychic Studies. No doubt some of you may have worked with them in the past; no doubt the majority of you have never even heard of them. To those of you who want to make a contribution, who seek to make progress and who can begin to understand what makes the spirit world so difficult to test for properly, I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

[SimonC]

for good,oh,tin woo-woo and i thankyou for the opportunity to express our love of woo on woo-woo land thread. and ps----got pms on my site from some of your sceps thanking us for the fun and apologising on behalf of some of you.so....it was worth our while....woo woo woo woo woo

And you wonder why you didn't get taken entirely seriously..? ???

[SimonC]

An addendum to ( or reconsideration of ) the above post - actually, Lara, your offer to submit yourself to a 'test' should, I think, have been addressed and I would like to see this taken further.

We would need to discuss the precise details of a protocol, but Lara's offer should, in my view, be acknowledged, and approached in a reasonable manner.

To open discussions, here are a couple of thoughts of mine ( which occured to me when I read the original suggestion, but which I neglected to post. Mea culpa ).

I see no reason for the test subjects to be divided 50/50 between healthy people, and those with an ailment. If the stipulated number of subjects is 20, then the test should be equally valid if all, one or none have a specific illness. The breakdown of ill/healthy participants does not need to be disclosed prior to the test.

During the test, Lara should refrain from talking to the subjects in any way which could lead to diagnosis by any means other than the supernatural abilities that she claims the ability to demonstrate.


More thoughts, anyone?

Cheers,

S

[Zaira]

lara123,

Don't waste your time and energy.
Nothing can come of this. ;)

[Admin]

John,

Further to my last post I would like to emphasise that the mediums I know are all members of 'the psychic barber' forum. I know that few, if any of them would be able to carry out any testing without pre-conceptions of being critically assessed. This would likely cause a certain amount of stress/negativity on them which would not be present in any normal sitting. People here are free to make their own interpretations over this, but I have provided a link to the CPS where more 'neutral' mediums who will have no such preconceptions may be contacted. In the meantime I will inform you if I am able to persuade one of my contacts.

Tim

You mean that all of these "gifted mediums" who can give amazingly accurate readings without the sitter needing to be present have powers that disappear when tested?

Well I must say, I never for one moment thought that we'd be offered a get-out clause like that one!!! :liar:

Do you know how many times we go through this?

We get people claiming all sorts of amazing abilities on here. They usually come in with a mocking attitude, telling us that we're closed-minded, science doesn't have all the answers, and providing anecdotes that we're supposed to accept as true unless we can prove them false. Recognise yourself Tim? ;)

Then, when we offer to do a properly controlled test to see whether their claims can actually be backed up by them demonstrating their abilities, we get the same thing every time - excuses.

If a claimed ability was real it would work whether under test conditions or not (!)

[Admin]

hang on-i agreed on the body-scan to work with you

Where?

I asked you if you thought you could do it but I never offered a test so you could not have agreed with it (!)

However...

If you really think that you can tell whether a person has an illness/condition by some psychic means then we will gladly test you.

So come on, let you be the first psychic on here who is willing to be tested. O0

[chillzero]

Coming in late - sorry!


Despite all evidence to the contrary, I refuse to believe that genuine. productive discussions cannot take place between believers and skeptics and I would like to try to get that going right here. I'm sorry if anyone finds this patronising or annoying. It's really not meant to be. I'm just thinking how we can make it work.

Believers, in order to understand what skeptics are about, what they are saying, it's necessary to put your feelings about your beliefs aside for the duration of the discussion. Nobody's taking them from you, those feelings and beliefs are always there, you've just put them safe in a small box on the mantelpiece for a while. I know you are openminded people who can easily see something from someone else's point of view, that's what spiritual people do, so for a little while, that's what you should do. That way, nobody can offend you, nobody's attacking you when they challenge your beliefs.


Believers cannot look at their beliefs in an objective manner as it would lead to the breakdown of their beliefs!

They want to validate and/or justify their beliefs but in order to do so they have to use fallacious reasoning and a non-scientific approach. Again, if they used sound reasoning, science and logic their belief system would come crumbling down before them.



Firstly it is important to understand the difference between believers and those who know.


John was right - this is a perfect example.

Firstly, it is even more important to understand the difference between belief and knowledge.

Discussions can only really take place between opposing sides if they can agree on common terminology, and if they agree on definitions of things like evidence, proof, bias, etc. This tends not to be the case, from what I can see.

This whole thread is an excellent example of an attempt to hold such a discussion: full of side issues, anecdotes, rebuttals and defensive personal responses. I don't know if you realised it would turn out that way, but the OP has spawned an interesting result. ^-^

[Admin]

True to form, once we mention the word "testing" and ask psychics to demonstrate their claimed abilities rather than just boast about them we're met with silence!

Testing to psychics is like sunlight to vampires! ;D

[seren]

I don't know if you realised it would turn out that way, but the OP has spawned an interesting result.

I just wanted to to get away from the kind of circular discussions going on elsewhere, which descend rapidly into catty remarks etc. I think this one did do better. :-\

I still don't think we handle these very well. I think we'd do better making people do the thinking themselves. AKA giving them enough rope to hang themselves with. But I agree they have to be willing to have a discussion on our terms to do that, rather than trollishly (a useful neologism there I think) posting anecdotes, and selectively answering posts, which is what tends to happen, particularly if we give them a "choice" of differing points to answer to. Maybe we ought to have a woo liaison officer whose job it is to have one to one debates with woos. :smiley: Can I volunteer?! ;D

[Zaira]

seren,

I just want to say that I agree with you that things could be handled better around here - on both sides. Yes, I'm afraid it looks like a case of them and us. And there is quite a bit of snipping going on. Personally, I don't see any need for it. Some of us have made some mistakes while trying to get across our take on things from where we stand. Speaking for myself, I am beginning to see the logic in what most of you mean but some of my questions might still come across as a bit dumb and the last thing I need is someone picking me to pieces. I wonder if there is some way where we can all agree to a truce and get back to some open debate and discussion.

Just trying to help.

[Sgt Badass]

Doesn't it just make you spit that the same old argument happens over and over again? Do believers live in their own little happy world surrounded by spirit guides, crystal balls and angels and not one, not one has ever won the lottery or even had a good run on the horses or healed anything other than a runny nose?

Bonkers.

[Admin]

Well after the recent invasion of psychics and their apologists who came here for 'debate' with their 'open minds'TM here's the resulting thread on the psychic barber forum:

http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=527

TimFord29 is our good old friend Tin Lizzie. ;)


This is an example of why I say it is a complete and utter waste of time debating such people and thinking that they're going to learn anything from us. They are emotionally absorbed in their belief system and things like facts, evidence or proof have no meaning to them. They are perfectly happy with their data-free version of reality.

No, I think if we want to learn anything from these people it's best to observe them. Watch them in real life and read what they say on their forums. Then we get a more accurate picture as to how their mindsets operate.

[Zaira]

Just read it. No wonder you get pissed of. Truce?

[chillzero]

Well after the recent invasion of psychics and their apologists who came here for 'debate' with their 'open minds'TM here's the resulting thread on the psychic barber forum:

http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=527



Ack!

As if I didn't hate the term 'woo' enough. >:-)

[Admin]

It doesn't piss me off at all Zaira.

I actually find it rather interesting how they can post on here and be given honest answers to their questions yet have to go back to their own forum and claim that all we did was resort to mockery and insult.

It's called group think and they have to adhere to a stereotypical image of skeptics as nasty people otherwise they wouldn't be able to justify avoiding the pertinent questions we ask of their beliefs. If they take us seriously their belief system is in jeopardy so the only alternative is to demonise us.

I also find it very interesting how they resort to doing the very thing that they accuse us of (!) Freudian projection as a psychological defence mechanism perhaps? ;)

I like the post where they chop our heads off with a chainsaw. ;D

Like I said, observing their behaviour reveals a lot more about them than attempting to debate them.

[The Great Bymble]

Well after the recent invasion of psychics and their apologists who came here for 'debate' with their 'open minds'TM here's the resulting thread on the psychic barber forum:

http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=527

TimFord29 is our good old friend Tin Lizzie. ;)


This is an example of why I say it is a complete and utter waste of time debating such people and thinking that they're going to learn anything from us.

I've just been reminded of why I became disillusioned with populist paranormal beliefs.If psychics,mediums etc. claim that their abilities give them some form of higher spiritual awareness than the rest of humanity,why is there invariably such a complete lack of empathy towards others?Surely one's ego must shrivel if subscribing to the belief that we are all part of the 'World of Spirit'?

What truly disappoints me is the underlying fundamentalist mindset displayed:it could almost be believed that it's more a debased survival of Ancestor Worship than anything else.

[Zaira]

John,

I have to admit that I never really knew what a Skeptic was until I came here. I do understand what you are trying to do. I have done much the same in my own way when coming across people on other forums who were overly superstitious. It was only by sticking around here that I was able to get a different view. I may still not agree with all of you, but then most of you don't agree with me either. I might still get myself kicked out but I do have a lot more understanding of what is going on here. And even if it doesn't show in my posts, when I do go, I am taking with me a very different perspective from what I had when I came here. That's all I wanted to say. I'll leave you in peace now.

[Dr B]

Not directed to anyone here but.......is it not the case that these woo's are just ill-educated or don't know how to apply their education?

I know children that would wipe the floor with them.

Not an explicit explanation - but possibly true nonetheless.......:cheesy:

[Julia]

I'm inclined to agree with you, Doc. Some of the believers we've had on this forum seem to have slumbered through their general science/physics/biology lessons at school and haven't made the slightest effort to educate themselves in adult life. They throw the words "energy", "quantum", etc about like confetti but have no idea what they actually mean.

[filippo lippi]

Christians telling lies to get their kicks? I'm shocked.

[Cuddles]

Some of the believers we've had on this forum seem to have slumbered through their general science/physics/biology lessons at school and haven't made the slightest effort to educate themselves in adult life.

And then they become science teachers.???

[Zaira]

I would just like to say that I’m not very well educated but even I was embarrassed to read the comments on that link. I found that forum from a link on here. I was already on here when I went exploring over there. I tried with my first few posts to get them interested in a debate about where these beliefs might have originated but I was mostly ignored. I offered up a few little anecdotes and got some response. I broke from there when this forum and that forum became interested in what each other were posting. I went back recently for a visit but after a few posts I found I had nothing more to contribute. It’s just one small forum and far from a decent one at that. I hope the people on there who are not psychics or mediums - those of you who just came looking for some answers - recognise it for what it is and go seek their answers else where.

[seren]

And then they become science teachers.

That actually frightened me. Can it be true? I have a horrible feeling it is.

[filippo lippi]

Well, he doesn't know how science works and he's an awful teacher, so my money would be on it being a lie.

[bindeweede]

Well, he doesn't know how science works and he's an awful teacher, so my money would be on it being a lie.

Well, he says he is a good teacher and so do his pupils, apparently. (He would say that, of course.) I believe he is a teacher, but obviously I've no idea how good.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Tim is 30, just so you know.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Well, he says he is a good teacher and so do his pupils, apparently. (He would say that, of course.) I believe he is a teacher, but obviously I've no idea how good.

He is a supply teacher, currently without work.

[bindeweede]

He is a supply teacher, currently without work.

Yes, he said he was taking "time out until next term". I do hope he separates his paranormal beliefs from what he teaches, in the same way religious believers should keep their beliefs separate from what they are teaching.

[seren]

Tim is 30, just so you know.


He is a supply teacher, currently without work.

:ponder:

Hmmm...I'm beginning to think that this Tim is an alter ego of our very own FarSide. Carefully constructed back-story too!

;);D

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

:ponder:

Hmmm...I'm beginning to think that this Tim is an alter ego of our very own FarSide. Carefully constructed back-story too!

;);D

Amazing what you can learn on the 'other' forum. Honest.

>:D>:D

[Mongrel]

Now if only we knew where he worked - http://www.ratemyteachers.co.uk/ ;)

[Cuddles]

He is a supply teacher, currently without work.

Interesting. I had a supply teacher for my whole first year in secondary school. She didn't have a clue about science. Does anyone know if there's a difference in the standard required to be a supply teacher rather than a real one?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

Interesting. I had a supply teacher for my whole first year in secondary school. She didn't have a clue about science. Does anyone know if there's a difference in the standard required to be a supply teacher rather than a real one?

I don't know the answer to that, but I believe there are some kind of resources in place to allow people in such a position to supposedly maintain their level of familiarity with the subject they teach.

No idea if that is based on the actual subject, or ensuring familiarity with the latest syllabus.

Is 'Science' a subject in its own right now? When do you stop doing 'science' and start doing physics, chemistry, biology etc?

[Cuddles]

Is 'Science' a subject in its own right now? When do you stop doing 'science' and start doing physics, chemistry, biology etc?

I think it's still the same as it was when I was at school. In the first year (year 7), science is a single subject. For the next two, biology, physics and chemistry are taught seperately. For the two GCSE years you can choose between single, double or triple science. Single science is taught with all three sciences combined, and only gives one GCSE. In double science, the three are taught seperately and examined seperately, but only two GCSEs are awarded, based on the average result of the three exams. In triple science they are all taught and examined seperately. Obviously at A level they are all seperate subjects.

In my school, it was about 50:50 triple and double science. Double was the usual choice for those wanting more artsy courses while triple was the choice for sciency people. Single science was basically reserved only for special needs people. Apparently this is actually very unsual and in most schools triple science is almost unheard of, with single science being a much more common choice. I was also surprised when I found out that 10 GCSEs is actually unusual and not even a choice in most schools, but was absolutely standard in mine.

This is actually one thing that worries me about the standard of education at the moment. I was in a state comprehensive school, not in a rich area and full of drug dealers and muderers (seriously), yet the normal level of education that is offered, let alone expected to be achieved, is much, much lower than anyone except the mentally handicapped was expected to have at my schoool.

[Julia]

Why am I reminded of a certain lady with an MA in Publishing who seems to be incapable of writing an error-free sentence?! ;)

[hierosulos]

Yes, he said he was taking "time out until next term". I do hope he separates his paranormal beliefs from what he teaches, in the same way religious believers should keep their beliefs separate from what they are teaching.

Slightly off topic, but I had a problem like this in year 9 science (science goes up to year 10 in Australia, at least in NSW). Very early in the year, we did evolution. The teacher made it crystal clear that he was forced to teach this by the government, and that it was all rubbish. We got a 30 second rush through evolution, and the next hour and a half he spent debunking it with analogies (in retrospect, basically all intelligent design mumbo jumbo).

The worst thing was, there was a kid in the class who would say at the beginning of a lesson, almost every time "Mr. ****, I heard a good argument for evolution today" and the teacher would go on for the rest of the lesson with his ridiculous analogies. My science teacher, that year, was my textbook

[Matt]

The worst thing was, there was a kid in the class who would say at the beginning of a lesson, almost every time "Mr. ****, I heard a good argument for evolution today" and the teacher would go on for the rest of the lesson with his ridiculous analogies. My science teacher, that year, was my textbook

The guy should have been sacked.

[Sgt Badass]

Interesting. I had a supply teacher for my whole first year in secondary school. She didn't have a clue about science. Does anyone know if there's a difference in the standard required to be a supply teacher rather than a real one?

I trained years ago as an FE teacher and was told that I could do supply. Essentially, you just need to know how to teach - not what you were teaching.

It may have changed by now, but based on experience, I'm guessing not.

[newatheist]

I would like to point out that science is not infallible; even the great Einstein was quoted as saying he believed he had 'got it all wrong'. Science is about discovering nature, and we sure don't know everything there is to know. Furthermore, whilst the laws of science change with time, the laws of nature do not; they carry on working away regardless of whether we know of them or not. In the middle of this, existing alongside us and sharing our space, is the spirit realm.

im sorry but your argument that science does not know everything is really dumb, scientists more than anybody acknowlage that science does not know everything, and they revel in it, they are eager to learn the many things that reamin a mystery and that is true enlightenment.

your comment is very pointless because noone ever even suggested that science knows everything.

and finally may i ask WHY you made that remark?

[Sarama]

Believers cannot look at their beliefs in an objective manner as it would lead to the breakdown of their beliefs!

They want to validate and/or justify their beliefs but in order to do so they have to use fallacious reasoning and a non-scientific approach. Again, if they used sound reasoning, science and logic their belief system would come crumbling down before them.

So I don't hold out much, if any, hope that we're ever going to get anywhere by tackling, challenging or debating believers - it just doesn't work.

What would work, IMO, is for inquisitive people to come here and ask questions on various topics as that way we could engage in meaningful debate without challenging someone's beliefs.

It rarely works that way however. Forums tend to be insular or adversarial.

Don't be too dismissive of confrontation though. Research has shown that we often learn a lot through confrontation - it forces us to re-evaluate our ideas.

I just wanted to add that the very fact that Tin, Zaira, and others are 'here' taking part in discussions is a good sign. They could just resign themselves to the spirit channel or new age forums, but admirably, if not bravely, some 'believers' choose to ascend upon us 'non-believers' to chat. Seren initially opened the thread saying,
I've seen the threads descend in to abuse or circular arguments spinning totally out of control.
I tend to lean more towards John's way of interpreting confrontation however, in that I have learned a lot through argument. Though I have not necessarily always taken part in them all myself, and have at times just been an observer, I quite enjoy them, or perhaps more accurately, I enjoy the reflection and re-evaluation that occurs afterward.
One is either stronger in their convictions, or much less so.
Sometimes it takes drawing forth that bit of emotion to get to the real guts of an argument.

[Dubious Dick]

Sarama and New Atheist, check the dates on this thread. It's been dead about one year. The psychs you mention are long gone, although pther believers do hang out sometimes.

Perhaps a medium can communicate with a dead thread for you though! Yep, I've got a message coming through. It says dead threads are last years fashion.

All in good spirit of course!

Cheers,
DD

[Pebble]

Sarama and New Atheist, check the dates on this thread. It's been dead about one year. The psychs you mention are long gone, although pther believers do hang out sometimes.

Perhaps a medium can communicate with a dead thread for you though! Yep, I've got a message coming through. It says dead threads are last years fashion.

All in good spirit of course!

Cheers,
DD


At last objective proof of life after death!

[Sarama]

Hey it's still fair game, it's only second down from the top of the page!

At last objective proof of life after death!

alright alright, very funny you two! I've been called worse...::)

[newatheist]

At last objective proof of life after death!

hahahahahah i did it at last, i proved science wrong.>:D>:D>:D>:D>:D>:D>:D>:D>:D>:D