Will Lucky Mojo Curios take the Randi Challenge?
Tom
"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
news:3CE85E...@luckymojo.com...
> Tom wrote:
> >
> > I'll be happy to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your claims in
> > public and lay the claims of my "very active imagination" to rest, as
> > you hoped posting personal information about me was supposed to do.
>
> You are deluded. I researched your background (much of which i already
> knoew, due to our having (former) mutual friends), because, as i noted,
> you have worked for good in the past, planting trees; i wanted to make
> that clear to all: it was not published in an attempt to make you stop
> attacking me. In fact, your attacks upon me have provided me with a
> great deal of opportunity for introspection and reflection, as well as a
> deeper understanding of how skeptics like you make free use of the same
> cold reading oseudo-psychic techniques they decry in others.
Well, you can gossip all you like. I don't care. What about the
opportunity to demonstrate your claims in public? Got anything to say
about that?
> > Can your trinkets really do what you claim in your catalog?
>
> I have personally achieved certain results with some them, as have
> friends of mine experienced in magic -- and even some novices who were
> highly talented.
I didn't ask if people who bought them were satisfied. I asked if the
trinkets could do what you claimed they could. Of course, I recognize that
you also disavow those same claims. These are not sold as powerful magical
items, although the vast majority of people who buy them do so because you
told them that they are "believed" or "reputed" to be powerful magical
items and not because they see them as "curios only".
> For an example of what i mean, see this web age on "Red Fast Luck" and
> what happened to me when i used it:
>
> http://www.luckymojo.com/fastluck.html
Yeah, yeah, typical anecdotes. As evidence for your claims, they are next
to worthless. How about a test, Cat? Could your "reputed" magical powers
be demonstrated in a public test? Are you willing to do that?
> But your question is too far down the chain of causality to be
> meaningful. Far better -- more central to the issue -- are these two
> questions:
>
> 1) Can magicians really do what they claim?
Can you, personally, do what you claim with those trinkets from your
catalog? Are you willing to participate in a public test of your magical
powers to increase your luck beyond that which would be predicted by
statistics?
> 2) If magicians can really do what they claim, how do the various tools
> and raw materials traditionally called for in certain magical systems
> work and/or how does the symbolism of certain aromas, colours, and
> shapes contribute to their success? -- do they affect the magician, or
> the world itself, or both?
If you manage to demonstrate that you, personally, have the power over
statistical probabilities that you claim in your catalog, then we might be
able to proceed with this second question.
> > So, Cat, do you believe that this "mojo hand" you make will actually
> > bring luck or not? Let's get a straight answer from you for a change.
> > Yes or no answer time: Can you make a "mojo hand" that will allow you
> > to be lucky enough to significantly defy probabilities in a controlled
> > test?
> >
> > Yes or no?
>
> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the doctrine of the excluded middle, in
> which every question must be answered yes or no, does not apply.
But you just finishedsaying that you tried your luck magic and it worked.
The implication being that if you can do it successfully, then anybody else
can, too. Are you now saying that your claim to have derived extraordinary
luck was not exactly true?
> Asking such a question indicates that you may have a very poor grasp on
> what an occult supply company does.
Oh, I think I have a very good idea about what *your* "occult supply
company" does.
> Your references of James Randi -- which i snipped for the sake of
> brevity --
For the sake of brevity, let's put it this way. No, you definitely don't
want to have to put your company's claims to the test under conditions in
which equivocation would not be an out.
> indicate to me that you would feel more at home in the
> company of sci.skeptic than in alt.magick.
I'm comfortable in either setting. But it seems you're not.
> Incidentally, having met
> Randi on several social occasions, i would like to add that he is a far
> more generous and intelligent person than you. He does not bother to
> chase down every magician or religious believer and scream at them, as
> you are wont to do.
Why don't we ask him what he thinks of your business and its claims?
For those skeptics reading this who are unfamiliar with the Lucky Mojo
Curio Company, here's the link to her catalog:
http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
Read it for yourself and feel free to opine. Cat has invited you by
crossposting to sci.skeptic.
Tom
that Cat "accidentally" wrote "aci.skeptic" instead of "sci.skeptic", which
had the effect of her only pretending to include sci.skeptic readers in the
conversation. I'm sure it was "reputed" to be an error.
"Asiya" <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:acbih1$o95$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Joseph" <jos...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3CE8A7A2...@pacbell.net...
> > Asiya wrote:
> > > "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3CE85E...@luckymojo.com...
> > > >
> > > > 2) If magicians can really do what they claim, how do the
> various
> > > tools
> > > > and raw materials traditionally called for in certain magical
> > > systems
> > > > work and/or how does the symbolism of certain aromas, colours,
> and
> > > > shapes contribute to their success? -- do they affect the
> magician,
> > > or
> > > > the world itself, or both?
> > >
> > > I haven't experienced anything yet that shows that magickal tools
> and
> > > symbols have an intrinsic power.
> >
> > does anything have an "intrinsic power" over you asiya? if so than
> any
> > herb, colour, smell, shape, etc. etc. could have an effect
> culminating
> > in a "power" espically if one deliberatly evokes that "power"
> cultivates
> > it and delusionaly or not "believes".
>
> That is arbitrary, not intrinsic.
>
> Asiya
> **********
> www.geocities.com/shadowsofasiya/
> Eat the meatballs to email me.
>
>
catherine yronwode
>
> "catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote:
>
> > Tom wrote:
> > >
> > > Can your trinkets really do what you claim in your catalog?
> >
> > who were highly talented.
>
> I didn't ask if people who bought them were satisfied.
And i did not reply to that effect.
> I asked if the trinkets could do what you claimed they could.
And i replied: "I have personally achieved certain results with some of
them, as have friends of mine experienced in magic -- and even some
novices who were highly talented."
Is there something about this sentence that you can't understand? Why
did you think i replied that "people who bought them were satisfied."? I
never mentioned "peole who bought them."
> > For an example of what i mean, see this web age on "Red Fast Luck"
> > and what happened to me when i used it:
> >
> > http://www.luckymojo.com/fastluck.html
>
> Yeah, yeah, typical anecdotes. As evidence for your claims, they
> are next to worthless.
I did not offer them as "evidence" of claims, merely as anecdotes about
my own life.
> How about a test, Cat? Could your "reputed" magical powers
> be demonstrated in a public test? Are you willing to do that?
> > > So, Cat, do you believe that this "mojo hand" you make will
> > > actually bring luck or not? Let's get a straight answer from
> > > you for a change. Yes or no answer time: Can you make a "mojo
> > > hand" that will allow you to be lucky enough to significantly
> > > defy probabilities in a controlled test?
> > >
> > > Yes or no?
> >
> > I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the doctrine of the excluded
> > middle, in which every question must be answered yes or no, does
> > not apply.
> >
> > With respect to a gambling mojo, i can tell you that i have
> > personally achieved remarkable, sudden, and highly improbable
> > changes in my life which i have personally attributed to my
> > immediately preceeding performance of directed magical acts in
> > which were included traditional ceremonial and folk magical use of
> > symbolism, visualization, invocation, self-hypnosis, sexual
> > ecstasy, and the ingestion of psychedelic drugs -- but i
> > personally have never been interested in gambling or probablility
> > studies.
> >
> > It is my pleasure to grow herbs, make traditional tools, carry a
> > stock of books, and import traditional objects from various
> > cultures for the convenience of people whose belief structures
> > include the working of magic for various purposes with those
> > articles or thorugh information obtained in them.
> >
> > Obviously this is of no interest to you.
> But you just finishedsaying that you tried your luck magic and it
> worked. The implication being that if you can do it successfully,
> then anybody else can, too.
That is an inference only a fool would draw. Because Magic Johnson can
shoot baskets, does that mean i can too? Because Gus Cannon could play
slide blues on a banjo, does that mean i can do it too?
> > Your references of James Randi -- which i snipped for the sake of
> > brevity -- indicate to me that you would feel more at home in the
> > company of sci.skeptic than in alt.magick.
>
> I'm comfortable in either setting. But it seems you're not.
>
> > Incidentally, having met
> > Randi on several social occasions, i would like to add that he is
> > a far more generous and intelligent person than you. He does not
> > bother to chase down every magician or religious believer and
> > scream at them, as you are wont to do.
>
> Why don't we ask him what he thinks of your business and its claims?
Feel free. As i said, he has always been a cordial person when i have
encountered him. There are many more things to discuss with people than
their spiritual world-views, you know. The fact that i moved from
atheism and skepticism to a belief in some sort of paranormal reality is
something that an intelligent man like James Randi can deal with. He is
not a hysterical conversion-fanatic like you.
> For those skeptics reading this who are unfamiliar with the Lucky
> Mojo Curio Company, here's the link to her catalog:
>
> http://www.luckymojo.com/luckymojocatalogue.html
>
> Read it for yourself and feel free to opine. Cat has invited you by
> crossposting to sci.skeptic.
Tom, i think the issue of how or whether magic or religion or mysticism
"work" or not is simply not something that interests magicians the way
it interests skeptics.
It seems to me that skepticism is your religion, and that is very fine
for you. I have no problems with it.
I do not like your intrusive rudeness, though -- being harrassed by you
on a regular basis for several years now in alt.magick because of my
beliefs and interests and my business as the owner of a curio shop is
worse than being harrassed by Jehovah's Witnesses. They are invariably
calm, polite, and willing to engage in meaningful discussion -- yes,
even in our curio shop, where they visit regularly. But you, supposedly
an "agnostic" (i don't think you are, actually, i think you are a True
Non-Beleiver and a Dogmatist to boot), have nothing more cogent to add
to alt.magick than your insistent claims that i submit to testing.
Religion, mysticism, and magical disciplines do not exist for the
pleasure of skeptics. You have probably posted close to 50 messages by
now calling me a fraud, liar, person of low morals, and so forth, and
you seem determined to carry your Dogma into the world as a crusade.
However, your zeal for converting people to your viewpoint borders on
hysteria and i find it sad and tediious when it disrupts the congenial
conversations in alt.magick.
I think the answeer to your continued state of hyperactive hostility
lies in your own mind, as does my belief in magic.
Good luck to you in sorting it all out, Tom, but you will not convince
me that magic does not exist, and i have no interest in convincing you
of its existence.
Please understand that i was once as you are now, a full-blown Bertrand
Russell-style atheist and a skeptic who followed the exploits of Houdini
and Randi. Things happened to me (in the real world) from my 14th to my
21st years. Those experiences -- anecdotes all, and of no account to
your probability studies -- led to my developing an interest in and a
belief system that included magic, if not formal religion. You won't be
converting me to your Dogma any more than the Jehovah's Witnesses have
converted me to theirs.
Sorry to leave you in the conversational lurch like this, but you are
repetitious, boring, and dull-witted.
cat yronwode
Hoodoo in Theory and Practice -- http://www.luckymojo.com/hoodoo.html
Jack Dominey
been pointed out:
>"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
>news:3CE85E...@luckymojo.com...
>> In fact, your attacks upon me have provided me with a
>> great deal of opportunity for introspection and reflection, as well as a
>> deeper understanding of how skeptics like you make free use of the same
>> cold reading oseudo-psychic techniques they decry in others.
The skeptics that I have encountered do not decry cold reading per se.
We decry and denounce frauds who claim paranormal abilities - e.g.
John Edward - while using cold reading techniques.
-
Jack Dominey "Apparently I'm insane. But I'm one of the happy kinds!"
jack_dominey(at)email(dot)com
Happy to be labeled a "spinic" by Edmond Wollman.
The Famous Tom Cosby
>Piggybacking because Tom let something slide that IMHO should have
>been pointed out:
>
>>"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
>>news:3CE85E...@luckymojo.com...
>
>>> In fact, your attacks upon me have provided me with a
>>> great deal of opportunity for introspection and reflection, as well as a
>>> deeper understanding of how skeptics like you make free use of the same
>>> cold reading oseudo-psychic techniques they decry in others.
>
>The skeptics that I have encountered do not decry cold reading per se.
>We decry and denounce frauds who claim paranormal abilities - e.g.
>John Edward - while using cold reading techniques.
Do you not think it vageuly absurd to identify yourself and others as
a peer group of "sceptics". "We sceptics...." as if everyone believed
alike on every issue, that there was a code of conduct among sceptics.
Come to that, why on earth would anyone want to subscribe to a
newsgroup dealing with scepticism, shouldn't y'all be more sceptical
about what that could possibly achieve?
The Famous Tom Cosby
Marcus S. Turner
"The Famous Tom Cosby" <a...@z.com> wrote in message
news:ntpneug5440fq71f5...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:48:24 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig> wrote:
>
> >Piggybacking because Tom let something slide that IMHO should have
> >been pointed out:
> >
> >>"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:3CE85E...@luckymojo.com...
> >
> >>> In fact, your attacks upon me have provided me with a
> >>> great deal of opportunity for introspection and reflection, as well as
a
> >>> deeper understanding of how skeptics like you make free use of the
same
> >>> cold reading oseudo-psychic techniques they decry in others.
> >
> >The skeptics that I have encountered do not decry cold reading per se.
> >We decry and denounce frauds who claim paranormal abilities - e.g.
> >John Edward - while using cold reading techniques.
>
> Do you not think it vageuly absurd to identify yourself and others as
> a peer group of "sceptics". "We sceptics...." as if everyone believed
> alike on every issue, that there was a code of conduct among sceptics.
> Come to that, why on earth would anyone want to subscribe to a
> newsgroup dealing with scepticism, shouldn't y'all be more sceptical
> about what that could possibly achieve?
Many have a great interest in paranormal events but we wish to make sure
that it is truly paranormal and not just some kind of con...
Edwards appears to be a great case. He uses cold reading techniques for
his show. This is not paranormal, so it is not interesting.
Quintal
<msha...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
This is illusion. Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real, if they
did they would try by themselves. Instead they sit on ther butts and
shout at everyone who believes in magic to come and prove it to them.
Initiation doesnt work that way, sorry.
If you want to believe the universe is a cold stupid material machine,
so be it, you are perfectly free to believe it and no student of the
magic arts will come to force you out of your illusion.
the key word of the aspirant is "Try!"
skeptics dont try.
they cant face the fear and uncertainty and the unknown and of the
tabula rasa of preconceived notions than any researcher has to achieve
in order just to look for things he doesnt know yet.
to look for unknow things you need to be like a white page
this a skeptic cant do, as a believer as he is in the non existence of
paranormal (or unknown) phenomonae.
A skeptic is the contrary of a researcher
It is interesting to watch them trick themselves about it on usenet.
Talking to themselves eternally, hurting their own mirror in the
people they meet.
Tom is a big piece of a skeptic;-)
Bruce Burhans
"Quintal" <xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote in message
news:muacfu87ljdklc3ji...@4ax.com...
Hear hear! Well said! So-called 'skeptics' have so
narrowed their perceptions with their beliefs that they
would not be able to even perceive/remember the evidence that they claim to
seek.....
Bruce<+>
Jack Dominey
Famous Tom Cosby <a...@z.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 May 2002 13:48:24 -0400, Jack Dominey <lo...@my.sig> wrote:
>
>>Piggybacking because Tom let something slide that IMHO should have
>>been pointed out:
>>
>>>"catherine yronwode" <c...@luckymojo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3CE85E...@luckymojo.com...
>>
>>>> In fact, your attacks upon me have provided me with a
>>>> great deal of opportunity for introspection and reflection, as well as a
>>>> deeper understanding of how skeptics like you make free use of the same
>>>> cold reading oseudo-psychic techniques they decry in others.
>>The skeptics that I have encountered do not decry cold reading per se.
>>We decry and denounce frauds who claim paranormal abilities - e.g.
>>John Edward - while using cold reading techniques.
>Do you not think it vageuly absurd to identify yourself and others as
>a peer group of "sceptics".
Would you be happier if I typed "the people I have encountered who
generally show a skeptical attitude toward extraordinary claims such
as paranormal abilities, supernatural occurrences, 'alternative'
medicine, extraterrestrial UFOs..." et freaking cetera?
In my world, people use shorthand labels (like "skeptic") all the
time. The fact that some people are too fuzzy-minded to realize that
labels are only partial descriptions of the members of the sets they
are applied to doesn't make the labels less useful to the rest of us.
> "We sceptics...." as if everyone believed
>alike on every issue, that there was a code of conduct among sceptics.
An alert reader would note that "we" refers to myself and the skeptics
I have encountered. A thoughtful reader would know that the use of
"we" in this context applies to *one* issue - the attitude toward cold
reading.
>Come to that, why on earth would anyone want to subscribe to a
>newsgroup dealing with scepticism, shouldn't y'all be more sceptical
>about what that could possibly achieve?
If the newsgroup can teach someone to distinguish "dealing with
scepticism" from 'discussing extraordinary claims from a skeptical
perspective', then it's achieved enough to satisfy me.
Tom
> if they did they would try by themselves. Instead they sit
> on ther butts and shout at everyone who believes in magic
> to come and prove it to them. Initiation doesnt work that
> way, sorry.
How does initiation work?
Is initiation the only thing that can be accomplished by magick? Are all
claims other than the attainment of "initiation", such as magick to attract
love, to make rain, to win the lottery, false?
> the key word of the aspirant is "Try!"
> skeptics dont try.
Skeptics test.
> to look for unknow things you need to be like a white page
> this a skeptic cant do, as a believer as he is in the non existence of
> paranormal (or unknown) phenomonae.
A person who believes in paranormal phenomena would be in exactly the same
boat, then. By believing in paranormal powers before looking for them, the
believer is not a "white page", as you put it, and therefore is not
qualified to research the subject.
How then does one rid oneself of any belief, either pro or con?
Tom
"Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ETrJ8.46$on6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> So-called 'skeptics' have so
> narrowed their perceptions with their beliefs that they
> would not be able to even perceive/remember the
> evidence that they claim to seek.....
But Bruce, you yourself are a skeptic. You have demanded evidence for
claims made in alt.magick. You've even demanded that others prove to you
what they claim.
In regard to the creation of physical reality, you offered your opinion
and, when another opinion was offered, here's what you had to say:
"Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%zaF8.22$8t...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> And you have no evidence that it is created by
> any other means.
> If you do, please present it here...
>
> My life is produced by my magical powers. And
> you are incapable of proving that it is created by any
> other means.
>
> Or if you can present such proof, please present it
> here.
les diaboliques
Scepticism is just a form of faith in doubt. There are few conversions
on the road to Damascus to a fully functioning human being, most stay
at the level of presuming to know better on the basis of just as
little evidence that their doubt is justified. It is a kind of
timidity in dealing with the world and nothing to be admired as a
mindset. It is better to know what is real and what is not, than
perpetually hover on the threshold of holding back from any firm
opinion. In the end, for its adherents, scepticism becomes a
claustrophobic way of life and sceptics come to resemble spindly
plants that haven't received enough light as they were growing.
les diaboliques
wrote:
It is possible to be an occultist and find claims of paranormal powers
just... boring. Who cares? Most of those who use the word "paranormal"
have a whiff of the train-spotter about them, so how much more musty
are those who dedicate themselves to investigating their claims? God,
there's more interesting things to do.
Urban Monk
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gmtJ8.24$Fw5....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Quintal" <xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote in message
> news:muacfu87ljdklc3ji...@4ax.com...
> >
> > This is illusion. Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real,
> > if they did they would try by themselves. Instead they sit
> > on ther butts and shout at everyone who believes in magic
> > to come and prove it to them. Initiation doesnt work that
> > way, sorry.
>
> How does initiation work?
>
> Is initiation the only thing that can be accomplished by magick? Are all
> claims other than the attainment of "initiation", such as magick to
attract
> love, to make rain, to win the lottery, false?
>
> > the key word of the aspirant is "Try!"
> > skeptics dont try.
>
> Skeptics test.
Well rounded skeptics test, you demand.
You sit on a newsgroup meant for the productive discussion of magick, and
demand proof arogantly for yourself. The wise man who write this post was
right, it doesnt work that way. Magick is a sacred divine art, and I would
not profane my practices by tainting my progress with your dronning
psycho-babble, as you you pik apart my results with your search for a
physical, testable, documentable explanation. You want evidence of magick,
do your own fucking work. But of course you wont do that, you said it
yourself, skeptics dont try, they test. You wait for others to do your dirty
work and then you pick it apart. Well Tommy, you will never EVER know magick
by simply sitting on your ass in usenet and asking people who come into
alt.magick for proof fo their abilities. You want to "test", test your own
abilities, take a year off of work, book a cabin up north and simply devote
your time to the study and practice to occult sciences. There is a
difference bewteen knowing the path and walking the path.
I have a theory, at one time you acctualy tried your own work (briefly of
course, if results are not immediate, then why would you bother?) and of
course it fizzeled out. Why did this happen? well because sub-counsiously
you believed it would not work. So now as a failed one hit wonder, you have
taken it upon yourself to be the skeptic avenger and go on a quest to make
sure you proove magick doesnt work. I mean of course if it didnt work for
you, GOD FORBID anyone else could make it work! And now youve devoted the
rest of your life to making sure that there is a simple documentable,
pyschological explanation for this phenomenon that you just couldnt get your
grubby little impatient hands on.
Get a life.
Do what you want with it, study magick, study pyschology, study science or
art or sexuality or whatever.
But do your own damn work.
People are getting tired of your same'ol song an' dance.
Emmit Svenson
> so be it, you are perfectly free to believe it and no student of the
> magic arts will come to force you out of your illusion.
So in your book, material = cold, stupid machine?
Ever looked at a river? Or a growing plant? Or at the heavens through
a telescope?
When we take the time to examine and understand the natural world,
we're inevitably overcome with wonder and awe. The real is more
beautiful than the unreal.
Bruce Burhans
>
> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:ETrJ8.46$on6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > So-called 'skeptics' have so
> > narrowed their perceptions with their beliefs that they
> > would not be able to even perceive/remember the
> > evidence that they claim to seek.....
>
> But Bruce, you yourself are a skeptic.
No. I am perfectly open to so-called 'scientific proof.'
It just turns out to be circumstantial and open to many
other interpretations. It isn't the proof people claim it is.
You have demanded evidence for
> claims made in alt.magick. You've even demanded that others prove to you
> what they claim.
>
Sure. Real proof. Not just words. If you have it,
let's see it...
> In regard to the creation of physical reality, you offered your opinion
> and, when another opinion was offered, here's what you had to say:
>
> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%zaF8.22$8t...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > And you have no evidence that it is created by
> > any other means.
> > If you do, please present it here...
> >
> > My life is produced by my magical powers. And
> > you are incapable of proving that it is created by any
> > other means.
> >
> > Or if you can present such proof, please present it
> > here.
Okay. You seem to be misunderstanding Quintal's
point, with which I agree.
You are a skeptic, by his accurate definition, because you do not
want to see the proof you claim to
seek. This prevents you from seeing it.
I am not a skeptic because I am willing to, and often
have, examined the so-called proof of physical science's
theories.
Like the pile of bone fragments that are purported
to be proof of the theory of biological evolution. I asked
the fellow if the people whose bones they were had bred.
He said they had no way of determining that.
So I asked him how the fragments could be presented as proof of the
ToE, because if you can't prove
that they bred, then you can't prove that they are *anybody's* ancestors.
I looked at the alleged proof, and found that it was
not.
Bruce<+>
>
>
>
>
>
Bruce Burhans
Bruce Burhans
"Urban Monk" <cmwi...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:mRtJ8.150805$t8_....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Double amen. Tell it like it is......
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:75bdf7ed.02053...@posting.google.com...
You misunderstood the article. Quintal was *not*
saying the material=cold, stupid machine. Tom was.
Bruce<+>
les diaboliques
Svenson) wrote:
Sure, true what you say, but have you ever taken LSD and been overcome
with wonder and awe for what some say is "unreal" but in actual fact
is an understanding and insight into the fact that distinctions of
this nature are neither here nor there. A rainbow is unreal, so is a
face seen in the clouds, so is a mirage or fata morgana. Have you ever
seen a mirage, they can be surprisingly beautiful, all the more so
because one is unsure whether it is real or not. Have you read the
account of the Expedition to Crocker Land? It did not exist, it was a
mirage, but were they wrong to pursue it? Some sceptics may say they
"tested" it, but that hardly deals with the true issue, because the
things that were real were the hopes and aspirations of those who
risked their lives to find it, regardless of the ultimate folly of
their journey as it turned out. Similarly, sceptics make little
attempt to understand where occultists are coming from and persuade
themselves that they understand that on the basis of a few examples
that discerning occultists laugh at. Sideshow activity is not the
occult, sceptics may be content to analyse some of the stupider claims
and think they are peforming a great social function, but occultists
of any standing just laugh at that sort of rubbish. Sceptics shouldn't
kid themselves they're actually getting to grips with anything
important.
Lawson English
Mahesh Yogi for almost 18 years. Been pretty diligent about it, too (2x
daily almost every day for 18 years). Still practice it.
Still skeptical that it leads to "passage through the skies."
"Quintal" <xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote in message
news:muacfu87ljdklc3ji...@4ax.com...
Bruce Burhans
"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:75bdf7ed.02053...@posting.google.com...
Of course, *everthing's* _real_ . There are just
different kinds of reality.
Bruce<+>
les diaboliques
<engl...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Heh. I've been practicing the Yogic FLying technique taught by Maharishi
>Mahesh Yogi for almost 18 years. Been pretty diligent about it, too (2x
>daily almost every day for 18 years). Still practice it.
>
>Still skeptical that it leads to "passage through the skies."
But are you convinced that you fly, if only a millimetre off the
cushion for a microsecond?
And I'm not even on the sceptics team....
Tom
>
> Scepticism is just a form of faith in doubt.
Or a form of doubt in faith.
Why make it a one-way street?
> There are few conversions
> on the road to Damascus to a fully functioning human being,
> most stay at the level of presuming to know better on the
> basis of just as little evidence that their doubt is justified.
People tend to go on believing what they already believe until something
happens that doesn't fit and the believer must, for one reason or another,
acknowledge it.
There is one exception I can think of. If your beliefs are sufficiently
disorganized that you don't accept that cause-effect relationships even
exist, let alone accept that they can be determined in a reasonably
accurate way in any particular case, then of course, you won't be changing
your beliefs at all. No evidence could possibly contradict a world-view in
which anything might be true one minute and false the next with no
consistency or pattern.
Of course, that world-view is self-invalidating because no matter what a
person with that world-view asserts, he also denies.
> It is better to know what is real and what is not, than
> perpetually hover on the threshold of holding back from any firm
> opinion.
But how to you "know" what is real and what is not? What you seem to be
saying here is that a delusion that you "know" what's real is better than
the anxiety of not having pat answers.
> In the end, for its adherents, scepticism becomes a
> claustrophobic way of life and sceptics come to resemble spindly
> plants that haven't received enough light as they were growing.
At least that's how you imagine it.
Tom
>
> "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:JttJ8.25$Fw5....@news.uswest.net...
> >
> > "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:ETrJ8.46$on6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > > So-called 'skeptics' have so
> > > narrowed their perceptions with their beliefs that they
> > > would not be able to even perceive/remember the
> > > evidence that they claim to seek.....
> >
> > But Bruce, you yourself are a skeptic.
>
> No. I am perfectly open to so-called 'scientific proof.'
That would make you a skeptic. A skeptic also recognizes that there is no
such thing as "scientific proof". There is evidence gathered from careful
experiment, but none of it is ever seen as "proof", which closes the door
on any possible revision.
> It just turns out to be circumstantial and open to many
> other interpretations. It isn't the proof people claim it is.
See? Just as I said. You, Bruce, are a skeptic.
> > You have demanded evidence for
> > claims made in alt.magick. You've even demanded that
> > others prove to you what they claim.
> >
>
> Sure. Real proof. Not just words. If you have it,
> let's see it...
You know that what you're asking for doesn't exist. None of your fellow
skeptics ever said it did.
> You are a skeptic, by his accurate definition, because you do not
> want to see the proof you claim to seek. This prevents you from seeing
it.
What might also prevent me from seeing it is the fact that it doesn't
exist. As you yourself acknowledge.
> I am not a skeptic because I am willing to, and often
> have, examined the so-called proof of physical science's
> theories.
Your examination of the theories of physical science is hampered by your
lack of understanding of the methods of science.
This makes you a rather ineffective skeptic, but a skeptic nonetheless.
> Like the pile of bone fragments that are purported
> to be proof of the theory of biological evolution.
See? You're a skeptic of the theory of evolution.
I see a problem with your examination of the theory of biological
evolution. Evidence is not "proof". There is a lot of evidence for
biological evolution that is not a pile of bones. But I don't think you're
interested in evidence, since you've fixated on some non-existent "proof".
This makes it impossible for you to understand the arguments of proponents
of a theory of biological evolution.
Tom
>
> It is possible to be an occultist and find claims of paranormal powers
> just... boring. Who cares?
Obviously, many people care, because there seems to be a great outcry of
protest when someone expresses any doubt in its existence.
Yes, it's possible to find many things boring that other people do not.
> God, there's more interesting things to do.
Feel free to do them. There are some nice stamp-collecting newsgroups, for
example. Perhaps they would be less boring for you to visit.
Tom
"Urban Monk" <cmwi...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:mRtJ8.150805$t8_....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
>
> Well rounded skeptics test, you demand.
I ask for evidence. Is that the same thing as "demanding"? If someone
doesn't provide the evidence I request, what do I threaten them with?
> You sit on a newsgroup meant for the productive discussion of
> magick, and demand proof arogantly for yourself.
I have never once demanded proof. You are mistaken. Do a google search,
if you like. See if you can find a single instance of me demanding proof.
I don't think you can.
> Magick is a sacred divine art, and I would
> not profane my practices by tainting my progress with your dronning
> psycho-babble, as you you pik apart my results with your search for a
> physical, testable, documentable explanation.
It's obviously much too sacred for you to doubt any of it. And what a
heresy it is if anyone else does!
> You want evidence of magick, do your own fucking work.
I do.
> But of course you wont do that, you said it
> yourself, skeptics dont try, they test.
No, I didn't say that. I said "Skeptics test". Another person said
"skeptics don't try". I disagree. Skeptics try all sorts of things and
they test all sorts of things, too, if they really want to know what's
going on.
> Well Tommy, you will never EVER know magick
> by simply sitting on your ass in usenet and asking people who
> come into alt.magick for proof fo their abilities.
Is that what you imagine I'm doing, trying to "know magick" by questioning
claims for paranormal powers? In my view, magick doesn't rely on psychic
powers, but I'm always open to evidence that is more than an empty claim.
So I ask for more than an empty claim. Unfortunately, what you and others
provide is never more than the bare claim.
And, just to make the point clear again, I have never, ever asked anyone
for "proof".
> You want to "test", test your own
> abilities, take a year off of work, book a cabin up north and simply
> devote your time to the study and practice to occult sciences.
I've done approximately that. It wasn't a cabin up north, exactly, and it
was somewhat longer than a year, but otherwise, it describes what I did
pretty well.
Perhaps you should try it yourself and see what happens.
> I have a theory, at one time you acctualy tried your own work (briefly of
> course, if results are not immediate, then why would you bother?) and of
> course it fizzeled out.
That's an hypothesis. You haven't tested it, so it hasn't graduated to the
theory, in my estimation.
> Get a life.
Got one. It's quite enjoyable.
> People are getting tired of your same'ol song an' dance.
If you don't wish to read what I post, feel free to ignore it. No one is
forcing you.
John Baker
"Urban Monk" <cmwi...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:mRtJ8.150805$t8_....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> You sit on a newsgroup meant for the productive discussion of magick, and
> demand proof arogantly for yourself.
Wrong, oh Great Woo Woo King. I'm responding to a bullshit rant crossposted
to sci.skeptic.
Let's condense this horseshit down to its essence and translate it into
English, shall we?
Here goes.
"I am a woo woo who actually believes that he can influence the course of
events by performing lame-ass rituals and incantations, but since I can't
provide a lick of evidence to support my bullshit claims, I'll rant,
obfuscate and shift the burden of proof until I'm blue in the face."
There you have it.
--
All superstition is much the same whether it
be that of astrology, dreams, omen, retributive
judgment, or the like, in all of which the
deluded believers observe events which are
fulfilled, but neglect and pass over their failure,
though it be much more common.
~ Francis Bacon, Novum Organum ~
Tom
"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:75bdf7ed.02053...@posting.google.com...
news:<muacfu87ljdklc3ji...@4ax.com>...
> > If you want to believe the universe is a cold stupid material machine,
> > so be it, you are perfectly free to believe it and no student of the
> > magic arts will come to force you out of your illusion.
>
> So in your book, material = cold, stupid machine?
It's that spirit = good / body = bad thing that most of these kids picked
up in Sunday School before they . The physical world is "mundane". The
spiritual world is "sacred".
> When we take the time to examine and understand the
> natural world, we're inevitably overcome with wonder and
> awe. The real is more beautiful than the unreal.
Now don't go dissing the imagination. It's capable of great beauty and
wonder, too.
Tom
"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:ad5vg2$ejl$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Heh. I've been practicing the Yogic FLying technique taught
> by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for almost 18 years. Been pretty
> diligent about it, too (2x daily almost every day for 18 years).
> Still practice it.
>
> Still skeptical that it leads to "passage through the skies."
Does the technique do other things that make it valuable?
les diaboliques
wrote:
Well frankly you appear to have singlehandly turned alt.magick into a
philately of dull interactions, so why go elsewhere to see how the
other half lives. I think the person who originally cross-posted this
to sci.skeptic must have been trying to find a new home for you, like
a particularly mangy mongrel that one doesn't want to have put down
but simply cannot have around the house any more. I think they'll like
you over there, I hope the transition isn't too much of a trauma, look
on the bright side you still have your trusty plastic bone to gnaw on
and the kennel in the garden will be coming with you, so don't fret
Tom.
zzzzzzzzz
wrote:
Strengthen leg muscles?
Ever seen videos of the technique?
Sorry Lawson, but it's one of the funniest things I've ever seen folks
doing in the name of Enlightenment.
z.z.
--
Tom
Find the quote, Bruce. Where did I say this?
Tom
>
> Well frankly you appear to have singlehandly turned alt.magick
> into a philately of dull interactions, so why go elsewhere to see
> how the other half lives.
"Single-handedly"? I'm not forcing anyone to post anything.
Why do you think it's my job to entertain you?
les diaboliques
wrote:
The funny red nose and the baggy pants kinda gave it away.
Bruce Burhans
>
> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:okuJ8.198$ea7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:JttJ8.25$Fw5....@news.uswest.net...
> > >
> > > "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > news:ETrJ8.46$on6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > So-called 'skeptics' have so
> > > > narrowed their perceptions with their beliefs that they
> > > > would not be able to even perceive/remember the
> > > > evidence that they claim to seek.....
> > >
> > > But Bruce, you yourself are a skeptic.
> >
> > No. I am perfectly open to so-called 'scientific proof.'
>
> That would make you a skeptic. A skeptic also recognizes that there is no
> such thing as "scientific proof". There is evidence gathered from careful
> experiment, but none of it is ever seen as "proof", which closes the door
> on any possible revision.
>
All you do is play games.
Go away, child.
Bruce<+>
nagasiva
>>> ...Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real,
the skeptic wants to know more, and more carefully.
>>> if they did they would try by themselves. Instead they sit
>>> on ther butts and shout at everyone who believes in magic
>>> to come and prove it to them.
what I'd call a cynic or Troll.
>>> Initiation doesnt work that >>> way, sorry.
>> How does initiation work?
>> Is initiation the only thing that can be accomplished by magick?
no, but it becomes an obsession because something is beginning.
humans seem to have a fetish for procreationism. what is
accomplished by magick is change in conformity with will.
>> Are all claims other than the attainment of "initiation",
>> such as magick to attract love, to make rain, to win the
>> lottery, false?
no, on account that each of these levels may prove fruitful.
why forbid what cannot be shown an absolute loss?
>>> the key word of the aspirant is "Try!" skeptics dont try.
>>
>> Skeptics test.
skeptics look.
>> A person who believes in paranormal phenomena would be in
>> exactly the same boat, then. By believing in paranormal
>> powers before looking for them, the believer is not a
>> "white page", as you put it, and therefore is not qualified
>> to research the subject.
quite right.
>> How then does one rid oneself of any belief, either pro or con?
stop lending it credence, opposing it, banishing its affirmation.
> It is possible to be an occultist and find claims of paranormal
> powers just... boring.
likely, and off-topic.
nagasiva
Dr. Dickie
> On 30 May 2002 11:06:09 -0700, emmits...@hotmail.com (Emmit
> Svenson) wrote:
>
> >Quintal <xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote in message news:<muacfu87ljdklc3ji...@4ax.com>...
> >> If you want to believe the universe is a cold stupid material machine,
> >> so be it, you are perfectly free to believe it and no student of the
> >> magic arts will come to force you out of your illusion.
> >
> >So in your book, material = cold, stupid machine?
> >
> >Ever looked at a river? Or a growing plant? Or at the heavens through
> >a telescope?
> >
> >When we take the time to examine and understand the natural world,
> >we're inevitably overcome with wonder and awe. The real is more
> >beautiful than the unreal.
>
> Sure, true what you say, but have you ever taken LSD and been overcome
> with wonder and awe for what some say is "unreal" but in actual fact
> is an understanding and insight into the fact that distinctions of
> this nature are neither here nor there. A rainbow is unreal,
What? What planet are you from? Here on Earth, rainbows are a real an understood phenomena.
> so is a
> face seen in the clouds, so is a mirage or fata morgana. Have you ever
> seen a mirage, they can be surprisingly beautiful, all the more so
> because one is unsure whether it is real or not. Have you read the
> account of the Expedition to Crocker Land? It did not exist, it was a
> mirage, but were they wrong to pursue it?
Mirages are a real and understood phenomena (light refraction due to density gradients in the air because of heat
coming off the ground). They are interesting, they have been studied. When someone dies because they spend all day
chasing a mirage, believing it to be water, that is the tragedy! That is the kind of belief that skeptics are
trying to prevent by getting people to realize that no matter how fast you run, you cannot catch up with a mirage.
The charlatans, and I guess from your writings here you, want people to cower in caves and listen to the shaman
give his interpretation of the cloud formation to see if it is safe to go outside. Where is the benefit from
believing in the occult? I can show you the benefit of the scientific method. You could not reply to this without
it.
> Some sceptics may say they
> "tested" it, but that hardly deals with the true issue, because the
> things that were real were the hopes and aspirations of those who
> risked their lives to find it, regardless of the ultimate folly of
> their journey as it turned out. Similarly, sceptics make little
> attempt to understand where occultists are coming from and persuade
> themselves that they understand that on the basis of a few examples
> that discerning occultists laugh at. Sideshow activity is not the
> occult, sceptics may be content to analyse some of the stupider claims
> and think they are peforming a great social function, but occultists
> of any standing just laugh at that sort of rubbish. Sceptics shouldn't
> kid themselves they're actually getting to grips with anything
> important.
If it does not pass the skeptical challenge, it is of no importance. How can it be if it cannot be reproduced, if
it leaves no evidence of its existence behind, it if was unique to you. If something happens once and only once. It
may be interesting, it may be amazing, but now that it is done, it is a memory that is all. Why spend the rest of
your life trying to drink the water when there is no evidence that it was ever there? Better to try to understand
why you saw water where there was none. Now that is something that the pursuit of could benifit mankind.
--
Dr. Dickie
Skepticult member in good standing #394-00596-438
Poking kooks with a pointy stick
------------------------------------------------------
"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
A. Einstein
Asiya
news:mRtJ8.150805$t8_....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
Sheesh. They must pass the same rant from one religious zealot to the
next.
Asiya
**********
Eat the meatballs to email me.
Emmit Svenson
> "Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:75bdf7ed.02053...@posting.google.com...
>
> It's that spirit = good / body = bad thing that most of these kids picked
> up in Sunday School before they . The physical world is "mundane". The
> spiritual world is "sacred".
That disappointing philosophy is far older than Christianity. But your
point is taken.
> > When we take the time to examine and understand the
> > natural world, we're inevitably overcome with wonder and
> > awe. The real is more beautiful than the unreal.
>
> Now don't go dissing the imagination. It's capable of great beauty and
> wonder, too.
Oh, I agree. I was talking about what we see with our eyes, not our
mind's eye. Making stories about fairies is art, and a good thing. But
there's something sad about people who can't see that a garden is
beautiful without fairies dancing in it.
The skeptic's world is no less beautiful, wonderous, awe-inspiring or
deep than the credulous person's . . . and it may be truer.
Urban Monk
We know you are not forcing anyone to read your posts, but that doesnt make
them any more appropriate to the subject of alt.magick.
You could go into a child's chat room, or a parenting chat for clean
discussion and make posts about Raping children. You could do that, and no
one is stopping you. but its not very damn appropriate and it doesnt make it
any better to say "well no one is forcing you to read my disgusting posts
about raping children, so stop complaining".
This is group for discussing MAGICK.
Goto sci.skeptic, you'll fit in there. Your posts are not productive to the
group here. Your name is plastered all over this group, many individuals are
asking to either stop posting, or rather stick to the topic and be
contributing to the growth of individuals practicing occult sciences.
Can't you take a hint? there are entire threads devoted simply to stopping
your repeated bad behavior.
Stop being a troll.
"Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i4DJ8.127$Fw5.2...@news.uswest.net...
Bruce Burhans
"nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote in message
news:LaFJ8.5831$3w2....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> 50020530 VI
>
> >>> ...Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real,
>
> the skeptic wants to know more, and more carefully.
>
Some do. Many are simply intent upon discrediting whatever ideas
threaten those of their sponsoring audience, while *pretending* to be
seekers
of knowledge.
This was Quintal's original point, and nothing
has been said on this thread to disprove it.
All we have heard is "that isn't true."
Well it is. And simply saying it isn't changes nothing.
[snip]
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
[snip]
The skeptic's world is no less beautiful, wonderous, awe-inspiring or
> deep than the credulous person's . . . and it may be truer.
>
Nothing less true has ever been said. And only a
skeptic would say it and believe it.
What a sad thing it is to be trapped in a world limited by
hand-me-down ideas...
Bruce<+>
George Black
Handmedown sounds like the whole sorry baggage of religion..........
Tom
Tom
> You are such a loser sometimes.
But I'm such a winner most of the time.
> We know you are not forcing anyone to read your posts, but that
> doesnt make them any more appropriate to the subject of alt.magick.
What about the interminably whining about somebody who says things about
magick that you don't want to hear? Is that an appropriate subject for a
group intended for the techniocal and scholarly discussion of magick?
> This is group for discussing MAGICK.
Either I am magick itself, or you are not discussing magick, because the
subject you are discussing is me.
> Goto sci.skeptic, you'll fit in there.
So do you, actually. Claimants of paranormal powers and their apologists
are always welcome to discuss their point of view in sci.skeptic. Of
course, they'll have to put up with skeptical coments and questions.
People who want to discuss what they think about magick are welcome to
discuss it in alt.magick. Of course, they'll have to put up with whining
from people who think that only those who agree with them should be allowed
to post.
So, you want to discuss magick? Who's stopping you? Me? Some big-time
magician you are, intimidated by a mere bunch of words.
Lorrill Buyens
cannibals on Thu, 30 May 2002 20:09:59 GMT, they issued this poignant
cry for help:
So las' night, when I dreamt that I was Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor, I
really *was*? No wonder my bedroom was a mess when I woke up...
--
"An unnatural sex act is one you haven't the courage or
imagination to perform."
- Patrick Ireland
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>
>"Urban Monk" <cmwi...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:nsNJ8.151521$ah_....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>> You are such a loser sometimes.
>
>But I'm such a winner most of the time.
>
>> We know you are not forcing anyone to read your posts, but that
>> doesnt make them any more appropriate to the subject of alt.magick.
>
>What about the interminably whining about somebody who says things about
>magick that you don't want to hear? Is that an appropriate subject for a
>group intended for the techniocal and scholarly discussion of magick?
>
>> This is group for discussing MAGICK.
>
>Either I am magick itself, or you are not discussing magick, because the
>subject you are discussing is me.
>
>> Goto sci.skeptic, you'll fit in there.
>
>So do you, actually. Claimants of paranormal powers and their apologists
>are always welcome to discuss their point of view in sci.skeptic. Of
>course, they'll have to put up with skeptical coments and questions.
Worse, they may be subject to being asked to actually *prove* their
claims. Which is why they tend tos shy away from the nasty skeptics.
That and refuse to subject their fantasy to scrutiny.
>
>People who want to discuss what they think about magick are welcome to
>discuss it in alt.magick. Of course, they'll have to put up with whining
>from people who think that only those who agree with them should be allowed
>to post.
>
>So, you want to discuss magick? Who's stopping you? Me? Some big-time
>magician you are, intimidated by a mere bunch of words.
>
I'm still waiting for a "magickian" to make my monitor explode, or
make me step on a nail.
--
Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm
"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down."
Bruce Burhans
Hey Tom!
The theory of evolution is bunk. A pure fantasy.
The evidence for its validity exists only in the minds of
True Believers.
Darwin was a bozo.......He just told people what
they wanted to hear- That they were the Crown of Creation.
What boggles my mind, is that the ToE is taught
as *fact* in most of the schools in America.
Not only is it not fact, it isn't even a good theory.
Whatever happened to the seperation of church
and state?
Bruce<+>
les diaboliques
Make you step on a nail? How about get run over by a juggernaut, be a
bit daring if you want to issue a challenge. Do you?
Andralphus
> People who want to discuss what they think about magick are welcome to
> discuss it in alt.magick. Of course, they'll have to put up with whining
> from **people who think that only those who agree with them should be allowed
> to post**.
Huh? Sorry Tom, were you whining?
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
Ok, make it so.
what time frame are you prepared to commit to?
Joe Kellett
If interested, see "The TM-Sidhi Program: you think that 'bumping on
your butt' is 'the first stage of levitation'"
<http://suggestibility.org/sidhi.htm>.
--Joe
--
Joe Kellett
(reformed former TM teacher)
tan...@MyRealBox.com
"Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole" (How Transcendental Meditation (TM)
Really Works, a Critical Opinion): www.suggestibility.org
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, Wally Anglesea™ <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> laughed
madly, then wrote:
So what you're saying is that you would like somebody on this
newsgroup to use a magical spell to do harm to you.
That is correct?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Godwin was a NAZI
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/
zzzzzzzzz
Kellett) wrote:
>zzd...@netzero.net (zzzzzzzzz) wrote in message news:<3cf9e797...@cnews.newsguy.com>...
>> On Thu, 30 May 2002 19:47:48 -0700, "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Lawson English" <engl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ad5vg2$ejl$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >> Heh. I've been practicing the Yogic FLying technique taught
>> >> by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi for almost 18 years. Been pretty
>> >> diligent about it, too (2x daily almost every day for 18 years).
>> >> Still practice it.
>> >>
>> >> Still skeptical that it leads to "passage through the skies."
>> >
>> >Does the technique do other things that make it valuable?
>> >
>> >
>> Strengthen leg muscles?
>> Ever seen videos of the technique?
>> Sorry Lawson, but it's one of the funniest things I've ever seen folks
>> doing in the name of Enlightenment.
>> z.z.
>>
>> --
>
>If interested, see "The TM-Sidhi Program: you think that 'bumping on
>your butt' is 'the first stage of levitation'"
><http://suggestibility.org/sidhi.htm>.
>
>--Joe
I like the "Alice in Wonderland" theme..very appropriate.
So, how about it, Lawson English?
Have you mastered Yogic Flying?
Gotten past the "hopping" stage?
Have you gotten your money's worth?
Does Mahesh float across the room in front of all, to prove it's
(levitation) reality?
oh, and, btw...
you say you're an Aussie living in England...does that mean, when you
go home, you change you're name to Lawson Aussie??
Inquiring minds like z.z.'s want to know ! :)
--
Isma'il abd al-Haqq
has aided in my development as a magician. How? Well, it adds a
balance factor to my workings and initiatic development. Gullibility
tends towards corruption of the senses, dogmatism or obsession.
Scepticism is a worthy weapon to fight against these 'demons'. If you
swallow everything whole, you get indigestion. Scepticism is like
eating selectively and chewing your food completely, it makes for a
healthy diet and promotes better digestion.
On Fri, 31 May 2002 06:58:51 GMT, nagasiva <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom>
wrote:
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, zzd...@netzero.net (zzzzzzzzz) laughed madly, then
wrote:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&selm=3ae87cf3.59606534%40news.mindspring.com
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"If the barking of a dog disturbs your meditation, it is simplest to
shoot the dog, and think no more about it."
-Aleister Crowley
zzzzzzzzz
wrote:
Beautiful, man, just BEAUTIFUL! LMAO! <I rarely use Caps..so you KNOW
I love it!>
Funny you should bring up the Flying Yogi's in combat. Tonite, on that
radio show nobody ever mentions on sci.skeptic for fear of losing
credibility (A.B.), was the Remote Viewer, Ed Dames. One of the many
things he covered was espousing his opinion that the U.S. will have to
choose sides in the Pak/India conflict, should the use of Nukes become
imminent. He said we (US) would make a preemptive strike against
Pakistan's nukes and force her (Pakistan) to fight with conventional
forces only (since India would be unlikely to strike w/Nukes
first...having such superior conventional forces, as they do).
So, I can just see squadrons of Flying Yogis doing battle over
Kashmir, throwing Yogi spells and chunks of incense upon the
others....all with Snoopy WWI goggles and scarves, no less! :))
Thanks for the laugh.
z.z.
--
Paul Hume
> humans seem to have a fetish for procreationism.
This may be why all projects progress swiftly until 90% complete. They
then remain 90% complete forever.
Tom
"George Black" <gbl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:ad8ma7$eiq$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:REQJ8.653$%A....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > skeptic would say it and believe it.
> > What a sad thing it is to be trapped in a world limited by
> > hand-me-down ideas...
> >
> I find enough wonder in the proven!
> Handmedown sounds like the whole sorry baggage of religion..........
Want "proof"? Just select some explanation, any one you like, and
absolutely refuse to consider that any alternative could possibly be true.
That's "proof".
Tom
"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
news:uh2gfuok7a2fadav5...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 31 May 2002 15:48:43 -0700, "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >So do you, actually. Claimants of paranormal powers and their
apologists
> >are always welcome to discuss their point of view in sci.skeptic. Of
> >course, they'll have to put up with skeptical coments and questions.
>
> Worse, they may be subject to being asked to actually *prove* their
> claims.
Which is an exercise in futility. Proof is what convinces you. If you're
not convinced, there is no proof. Skeptics, by their very nature are not
convinced. All assertions are open to revision. You can never convince a
skeptic that they should have no further doubt. If you do, they aren't
skeptics.
Now a great many people who call themselves skeptics are, in fact, simply
believers in some alternative proposition, not skeptics of any proposition
whatsoever. A Jehovah's Witness is a skeptic regarding Roman Catholic
dogma, but they aren't skeptics when it comes to their own dogma.
> I'm still waiting for a "magickian" to make my monitor explode, or
> make me step on a nail.
When your monitor explodes or you step on a nail, some magician somewhere
is bound to take credit for it.
Also, a magician may decide that stepping on a nail is a metaphor for
anything that interrupts your progress and will consider any event that
disrupts your rhythym to be "stepping on a nail". And they'll take credit
for that.
Attributions of meaning are no different than attributions of causality to
a magician. They are simply concepts to be manipulated.
Tom
"Andralphus" <bloodo...@goddamnfruit.com> wrote in message
news:a3076ef3.02053...@posting.google.com...
No.
Tom
I'm not impressed by polemics.
les diaboliques
<wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote:
Silly boy. Just be careful crossing roads.
Marcus S. Turner
Then...
Simply saying "Well it is." changes nothing.
Did I get that right?
John R. Rybock
<xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote:
>>Many have a great interest in paranormal events but we wish to make sure
>>that it is truly paranormal and not just some kind of con...
>
>This is illusion. Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real, if they
>did they would try by themselves.
I've tried it. And one thing I learn, is that there is a rational
explaination for how it is done, that it is based on illusion,
misdirection, and making those watching think they are seeing one
thing when another is happening.
> Instead they sit on ther butts and
>shout at everyone who believes in magic to come and prove it to them.
They are making the positive claim. One cannot prove a negative - it
would be impossible to "prove" that magic doesn't exist (there are
infinite other possibilities that could be tried before you could 100%
rule it out). So the burden is on those who make the claim to back up
what they say they are able to do.
>If you want to believe the universe is a cold stupid material machine,
>so be it, you are perfectly free to believe it and no student of the
>magic arts will come to force you out of your illusion.
Now, now.... this makes it sound like it's either a "magic" world or
an atheist one, nothing in between. "Cold stupid material machine" is
not a description that would fit with nearly every religion, even
though few of those support the idea of "magic" (beyond particular
views on the inclinations and abilities of a divine intelligence).
>
>the key word of the aspirant is "Try!"
>skeptics dont try.
>they cant face the fear and uncertainty and the unknown and of the
>tabula rasa of preconceived notions than any researcher has to achieve
>in order just to look for things he doesnt know yet.
Again, there is a positive claim made, that being that "magic" exists.
Prove it. Instead of proof, we get cries of "they're all against us"
and other babblings that do nothing to support the notion, but simply
to cloud the issue enough that you feel no work needs to be done to
support the claim made.
>
>to look for unknow things you need to be like a white page
>this a skeptic cant do, as a believer as he is in the non existence of
>paranormal (or unknown) phenomonae.
>A skeptic is the contrary of a researcher
You cannot be "like a white page" - you bring stuff with you. That
doesn't mean prejudices, that mean intelligence. That means the skills
to analyze what you are observing, ability to test the logic of claims
made, the ability to think through a problem. And most skeptics have
this. They are also open minded if you can show them some real info.
Claims that you "once did something" doesn't hold water. Needs to be
reproducable, and in the case of something like "magic", be free of
logical or "normal" explainations. What has been offered?
Bruce Burhans
"Isma'il abd al-Haqq" <babal...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cf884d6...@news.earthlink.net...
> I am magician, I am also a sceptic. I have found that my scepticism
> has aided in my development as a magician. How? Well, it adds a
> balance factor to my workings and initiatic development. Gullibility
> tends towards corruption of the senses, dogmatism or obsession.
> Scepticism is a worthy weapon to fight against these 'demons'. If you
> swallow everything whole, you get indigestion. Scepticism is like
> eating selectively and chewing your food completely, it makes for a
> healthy diet and promotes better digestion.
>
>
[snip]
Why is it that people keep trying to convince
us that "skepic" is the only word in the English language
that has only one definition?
Are they stupid, or do they think that we are?
Bruce<+>
Bruce Burhans
"Marcus S. Turner" <msha...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ja6K8.76665$Bo3.6...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
Absolutely. Like "duh."
Bruce<+>
>
>
Bruce Burhans
"John R. Rybock" <ryb...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:3cf900dc...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:40:42 +0000, Quintal
> <xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote:
>
>
> >>Many have a great interest in paranormal events but we wish to make sure
> >>that it is truly paranormal and not just some kind of con...
> >
> >This is illusion. Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real, if they
> >did they would try by themselves.
>
> I've tried it. And one thing I learn, is that there is a rational
> explaination for how it is done, that it is based on illusion,
> misdirection, and making those watching think they are seeing one
[snip]
Magic exists. It is the *only* thing that exists.
But as long as you keep your mind closed to even the
possibility that Magic exists, you will simply rationalize
away the evidence that surrounds you, or distort your
perceptions and memory to suit your beliefs.
If you don't think the above is possible, then I
suggest that you look into your psychological sciences.
I'm a Mage. I can do miracles that you are simply incapable of
perceiving.
Which is *your* problem. I couldn't care less
what you and your fellow primitives believe.
Bruce<+>
les diaboliques
wrote:
>On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:40:42 +0000, Quintal
><xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote:
>
>
>>>Many have a great interest in paranormal events but we wish to make sure
>>>that it is truly paranormal and not just some kind of con...
>>
>>This is illusion. Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real, if they
>>did they would try by themselves.
>
>I've tried it. And one thing I learn, is that there is a rational
>explaination for how it is done, that it is based on illusion,
>misdirection, and making those watching think they are seeing one
>thing when another is happening.
>
>> Instead they sit on ther butts and
>>shout at everyone who believes in magic to come and prove it to them.
>
>They are making the positive claim. One cannot prove a negative - it
>would be impossible to "prove" that magic doesn't exist (there are
>infinite other possibilities that could be tried before you could 100%
>rule it out). So the burden is on those who make the claim to back up
>what they say they are able to do.
Your view of what magic is appears to be based on mentalist stage acts
and Uri Geller, you don't appear to take much cognisance of the fact
that it is a social phenomenon stretching throughout the ages. If that
is the case, fair enough, you have an interest in pointing out obvious
fraudsters. But what you perhaps don't realise is that most serious
occultists have no time for people like Uri Geller either.
Magic is a study of human belief in things beyond mundane awareness. I
trained as a chemist, I am fully aware of the scientific rationale,
but this interest led me into a study of alchemy. I have studied the
occult seriously for over 20 years. I am not a fool and I do not go
around making any claim of ability, because what is a mere claim
worth? But I would just like to say that you shouldn't think you are
getting to grips with anything other than a mere surface glamour of
the occult.
If you know and fully realise that, then fine, but do you actually
have any idea what it is *like* as an experience to be a part of a
ritual aimed at evoking Asmoday, for instance. Of what sex is like in
an occult context? Ever considered body-painting and tantric ritiual?
While you and people like you are chasing around saying "Boo!" to
people like Uri Geller other people are experimenting with states of
consciousness through hallucinogenic drugs and sacred mushrooms,
experiencing shamanic states.
This is magic, it for those who are interested in it. It does not come
to people like you and offer itself up for a lab experiment like a
rat, you go to it if you want to know what it is really all about.
It's an initiation. I could tell you of amazing things I have
experienced through my interest in magick and the occult, but what
point would there be if your only reaction is to smugly say "Prove
it". I have no interest in proving anything to a bunch of dorks, thus
I make no claims to them, because their response is habitual and
shallow. If you want to point fingers at the Uri Gellers of this
world, feel free, but as far as I'm concerned that's not a
particularly outstanding way to live your life.
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
I see, I always am. And if in 30 years time I get hit by a bus, or
walk into a streetsign, you are going to claim credit?
BWAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHH!!
Make me step on a nail, kook.
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>This is magic, it for those who are interested in it. It does not come
>to people like you and offer itself up for a lab experiment like a
>rat, you go to it if you want to know what it is really all about.
>It's an initiation. I could tell you of amazing things I have
>experienced through my interest in magick and the occult, but what
>point would there be if your only reaction is to smugly say "Prove
>it". I have no interest in proving anything to a bunch of dorks, thus
>I make no claims to them, because their response is habitual and
>shallow. If you want to point fingers at the Uri Gellers of this
>world, feel free, but as far as I'm concerned that's not a
>particularly outstanding way to live your life.
So I take it you won't try for the JREF million dollars.
Just by taking the challenge, and winning, as you are so confident you
will (after all, you trained as a chemist, so you *must* have an
appreciation of the scientific method, and testing protocols), you
could prove your claims, and if you didn't want the million, there's
kids around the world with limbs blown off by landmines, or some other
worthy charity you could give the money to.
Just think of it as benefiting mankind.
Or have you got a standard screed excuse?
Asiya
> ><wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote:
> >>
> >>I'm still waiting for a "magickian" to make my monitor explode, or
> >>make me step on a nail.
> >
> >Make you step on a nail? How about get run over by a juggernaut, be
a
> >bit daring if you want to issue a challenge. Do you?
>
> Ok, make it so.
>
> what time frame are you prepared to commit to?
ha You're either a foolish, careless skeptic, or a debunker, an
adamant disbeliever in such a possibility.
Asiya
**********
Eat the meatballs to email me.
Joe Cosby
computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Asiya" <asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com>
laughed madly, then wrote:
Just another troll.
Here, I did a search on Wally Anglesea last night
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=author:wanglese%40spbigpondam.net.au+
Just read the article extracts that come up. "You're a loser" "Phone
threat to radio show" "Kook" "Lying scumbag" "Ratbag"
etc etc etc
For some people that's what usenet is, a chance to get their
aggressions out. Reading some of his posts at random, his tone is
rabid throughout most of them.
That's what he's here for, to get his rocks off attacking people.
sci.skeptic tends to be a good group for that.
In all the threads I've taken any part in which were crossposted to
sci.skeptic, I've only encountered one person who showed any signs at
all of any kind of willingness to take part in a real discussion, let
alone any signs of real intelligence.
The rest were all just like this fool.
"Hey kook!"
They take part in this newsgroup because it is a very good opportunity
to make people really mad. And that gives them a chance to take part
in the vicious arguments they enjoy.
Having any kind of real thought process about the subject is
completely beside the point.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void
It is shining
It is shining
- John Lennon
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
>On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 19:26:11 +0000 (UTC), les diaboliques <a...@x.com>
>wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>>
>>This is magic, it for those who are interested in it. It does not come
>>to people like you and offer itself up for a lab experiment like a
>>rat, you go to it if you want to know what it is really all about.
>>It's an initiation. I could tell you of amazing things I have
>>experienced through my interest in magick and the occult, but what
>>point would there be if your only reaction is to smugly say "Prove
>>it". I have no interest in proving anything to a bunch of dorks, thus
>>I make no claims to them, because their response is habitual and
>>shallow. If you want to point fingers at the Uri Gellers of this
>>world, feel free, but as far as I'm concerned that's not a
>>particularly outstanding way to live your life.
>
>So I take it you won't try for the JREF million dollars.
>
>Just by taking the challenge, and winning, as you are so confident you
>will (after all, you trained as a chemist, so you *must* have an
>appreciation of the scientific method, and testing protocols), you
>could prove your claims, and if you didn't want the million, there's
>kids around the world with limbs blown off by landmines, or some other
>worthy charity you could give the money to.
>
>Just think of it as benefiting mankind.
>
>Or have you got a standard screed excuse?
He's just said very clearly that he isn't making a claim.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
mis brillos del pelo porque yo como la cabeza
Happy Dog
> news:3cf900dc...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:40:42 +0000, Quintal
> > <xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote:
> > >This is illusion. Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real, if they
> > >did they would try by themselves.
> >
> > I've tried it. And one thing I learn, is that there is a rational
> > explaination for how it is done, that it is based on illusion,
> > misdirection, and making those watching think they are seeing one
>
>> Magic exists. It is the *only* thing that exists.
I'm not sure what to make of this statement.
> But as long as you keep your mind closed to even the
> possibility that Magic exists, you will simply rationalize
> away the evidence that surrounds you, or distort your
> perceptions and memory to suit your beliefs.
> If you don't think the above is possible, then I
> suggest that you look into your psychological sciences.
> I'm a Mage. I can do miracles that you are simply incapable
of
> perceiving.
You do, of course, recognize that severely disturbed people make similar
claims. I'll bet that you don't have an original excuse for your failure to
have convinced the world of your powers.
> Which is *your* problem. I couldn't care less
> what you and your fellow primitives believe.
Then why the rant? The lady etc...
arf
les diaboliques
<wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 19:26:11 +0000 (UTC), les diaboliques <a...@x.com>
>wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>>
>>This is magic, it for those who are interested in it. It does not come
>>to people like you and offer itself up for a lab experiment like a
>>rat, you go to it if you want to know what it is really all about.
>>It's an initiation. I could tell you of amazing things I have
>>experienced through my interest in magick and the occult, but what
>>point would there be if your only reaction is to smugly say "Prove
>>it". I have no interest in proving anything to a bunch of dorks, thus
>>I make no claims to them, because their response is habitual and
>>shallow. If you want to point fingers at the Uri Gellers of this
>>world, feel free, but as far as I'm concerned that's not a
>>particularly outstanding way to live your life.
>
>So I take it you won't try for the JREF million dollars.
>
>Just by taking the challenge, and winning, as you are so confident you
>will (after all, you trained as a chemist, so you *must* have an
>appreciation of the scientific method, and testing protocols), you
>could prove your claims,
The only claim I make is that I have expanded my mind, dimwit.
>and if you didn't want the million, there's
>kids around the world with limbs blown off by landmines, or some other
>worthy charity you could give the money to.
>
>Just think of it as benefiting mankind.
>
>Or have you got a standard screed excuse?
Ironically, you are the one living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
les diaboliques
Or recently flattened on the streets of downtown Brisbane, let's not
forget that possibility.
Happy Dog
> Magic is a study of human belief in things beyond mundane awareness. I
> trained as a chemist, I am fully aware of the scientific rationale,
> but this interest led me into a study of alchemy.
What are your credentials as a chemist. Since you bring it up. And what
have you observed in alchemy that isn't explainable by currect physics?
> I have studied the
> occult seriously for over 20 years. I am not a fool and I do not go
> around making any claim of ability, because what is a mere claim
> worth?
It's one of the foundations of the "scientific rationale" you were allegedly
trained in. If you can produce some hitherto unknown effect in a controlled
setting, you'd advance your art by a huge amount.
> If you know and fully realise that, then fine, but do you actually
> have any idea what it is *like* as an experience to be a part of a
> ritual aimed at evoking Asmoday, for instance. Of what sex is like in
> an occult context? Ever considered body-painting and tantric ritiual?
Ever consider that your experience is much the same as other religious or
trancendental experiences? What makes yours any more valid?
> While you and people like you are chasing around saying "Boo!" to
> people like Uri Geller other people are experimenting with states of
> consciousness through hallucinogenic drugs and sacred mushrooms,
> experiencing shamanic states.
Or just getting really fucked up. The effects of hallucinogenics is pretty
well documented. There is certainly no doubt that these effects are real
and reproducible. But you have to find a way to prove that your experience
is due to something other than the effect of a drug on your brain chemistry
before anyone should take your claim of transcending human consciousness
seriously.
>
> This is magic, it for those who are interested in it. It does not come
> to people like you and offer itself up for a lab experiment like a
> rat, you go to it if you want to know what it is really all about.
> It's an initiation. I could tell you of amazing things I have
> experienced through my interest in magick and the occult, but what
> point would there be if your only reaction is to smugly say "Prove
> it". I have no interest in proving anything to a bunch of dorks, thus
> I make no claims to them, because their response is habitual and
> shallow. If you want to point fingers at the Uri Gellers of this
> world, feel free, but as far as I'm concerned that's not a
> particularly outstanding way to live your life.
The one common trait people who make claims similar to yours share is their
need to insult skeptics. The above paragraph is a typical set-up for a
litany of tired responses to the inevitable demand that you prove, or even
politely discuss, your claims. I'll bet you'll do neither.
How is your claim logically different from numerous claims of religious
experience?
Why won't you take the Randi Challenge?
Well?
arf
Happy Dog
> >Just by taking the challenge, and winning, as you are so confident you
> >will (after all, you trained as a chemist, so you *must* have an
> >appreciation of the scientific method, and testing protocols), you
> >could prove your claims, and if you didn't want the million, there's
> >kids around the world with limbs blown off by landmines, or some other
> >worthy charity you could give the money to.
> >
> >Just think of it as benefiting mankind.
> >
> >Or have you got a standard screed excuse?
>
> He's just said very clearly that he isn't making a claim.
He just said, very clearly, that he could. Weasel words. Same thing.
arf
les diaboliques
wrote:
<snip closed mind trolling>
>Why won't you take the Randi Challenge?
>
>Well?
>arf
>
I love this question: "Why won't you take the Randi Challenge?"
This appears to be the ultimate rhetorical device for the sceptics
that are currently lining up like ducks in a fairground rifle-range.
Well, I for one won't be talking the Randi Challenge because I have no
interest in a pompous clapped-out conjuror, have better things to do
with my time, only walk on water in private, and generally think there
are far less demeaning ways to make a million bucks if I could be
seriously bothered to want the money. Is that hard to comprehend?
Next question.
Lorrill Buyens
cannibals on Fri, 31 May 2002 20:01:53 GMT, they issued this poignant
cry for help:
>"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> The skeptic's world is no less beautiful, wonderous, awe-inspiring or
>> deep than the credulous person's . . . and it may be truer.
> Nothing less true has ever been said. And only a
>skeptic would say it and believe it.
I find considerably more beauty, wonder and awe in a gorgeous sunset,
a spider's web or a baby's smile than in unbelievable, unproven tales o'
fairies an' ghosts an' ETs an' stuff.
> What a sad thing it is to be trapped in a world limited by
>hand-me-down ideas...
Those "hand-me-down ideas" are directly responsible for the current
state of technology, medicine, teaching, &etc.
--
"An unnatural sex act is one you haven't the courage or
imagination to perform."
- Patrick Ireland
Happy Dog
> <snip closed mind trolling>
IOW, you can't address the issues raised. You made some statements that I
responded to. Your reluctance to address them suggests that you're the
troll.
>
> >Why won't you take the Randi Challenge?
> >
>
> I love this question: "Why won't you take the Randi Challenge?"
> This appears to be the ultimate rhetorical device for the sceptics
> that are currently lining up like ducks in a fairground rifle-range.
It's also one that you are unable to rationally answer.
>
> Well, I for one won't be talking the Randi Challenge because I have no
> interest in a pompous clapped-out conjuror, have better things to do
> with my time, only walk on water in private, and generally think there
> are far less demeaning ways to make a million bucks if I could be
> seriously bothered to want the money. Is that hard to comprehend?
No. It's hard to believe. What's demeaning about showing the world that
the magic you believe in actually can be demonstrated in a controlled
setting. I'd be thrilled to see it done. But, all I get are insulting
remarks about Randi and the Challenge.
arf
Bruce Burhans
"Happy Dog" <happ...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:0VbK8.12448$eJ5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:
> > "John R. Rybock" <ryb...@mindless.com> wrote in message
> > news:3cf900dc...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> > > On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:40:42 +0000, Quintal
> > > <xavi...@heyheyclub-internet.fr> wrote:
>
> > > >This is illusion. Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real, if they
> > > >did they would try by themselves.
> > >
> > > I've tried it. And one thing I learn, is that there is a rational
> > > explaination for how it is done, that it is based on illusion,
> > > misdirection, and making those watching think they are seeing one
> >
> >> Magic exists. It is the *only* thing that exists.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of this statement.
>
> > But as long as you keep your mind closed to even the
> > possibility that Magic exists, you will simply rationalize
> > away the evidence that surrounds you, or distort your
> > perceptions and memory to suit your beliefs.
> > If you don't think the above is possible, then I
> > suggest that you look into your psychological sciences.
> > I'm a Mage. I can do miracles that you are simply
incapable
> of
> > perceiving.
>
> You do, of course, recognize that severely disturbed people make similar
> claims.
Who defines "severely disturbed?" I think that this whole
civilzation is psychotic....
I'll bet that you don't have an original excuse for your failure to
> have convinced the world of your powers.
>
It sure would be nice if people actually read
one's postings before they responded.
> > Which is *your* problem. I couldn't care less
> > what you and your fellow primitives believe.
>
> Then why the rant?
What I have to say is a "rant", is it? I wonder why
you didn't label the posting I responded to as a rant....
Me thinks you have an agenda that is disguised
(and poorly) as intelligent debate.
If you don't do better next time, I will ignore your response.....
Bruce<+>
The lady etc...
> arf
>
>
>
Bruce Burhans
[snip]
>
> It's one of the foundations of the "scientific rationale" you were
allegedly
> trained in. If you can produce some hitherto unknown effect in a
controlled
> setting, you'd advance your art by a huge amount.
>
How typically arrogant of a follower of the
priests of physical science to think that the practicioners
of magical science have to answer to them.
You are wrong. We don't give a tinker's damn what
your high priests or people like you think.
Why don't you go experiment on yourself and leave
us alone. You are boring, like all fanatics, and insufferable.
[snip]
Bruce<+>
Happy Dog
news:3cf959a3....@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Right before "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> was eaten by
> cannibals on Fri, 31 May 2002 20:01:53 GMT, they issued this poignant
> cry for help:
>
> >"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
>
> > The skeptic's world is no less beautiful, wonderous, awe-inspiring or
> >> deep than the credulous person's . . . and it may be truer.
>
> > Nothing less true has ever been said. And only a
> >skeptic would say it and believe it.
>
> I find considerably more beauty, wonder and awe in a gorgeous sunset,
> a spider's web or a baby's smile than in unbelievable, unproven tales o'
> fairies an' ghosts an' ETs an' stuff.
>
> > What a sad thing it is to be trapped in a world limited by
> >hand-me-down ideas...
>
> Those "hand-me-down ideas" are directly responsible for the current
> state of technology, medicine, teaching, &etc.
Note that these guys inevitably resort to insulting people, who doubt their
claims, by labelling them as pitiful for not believing in the fairy tales
they preach. Their lack of presumption is, as always, touching.
erf
Joe Cosby
feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Happy Dog" <happ...@sympatico.ca> laughed madly,
then wrote:
This is why these threads are, usually, such a waste of time.
The other person had quite a lot to say, some of it quite interesting,
about the subject matter that you are obviously blissfully ignorant
about.
And it just goes in one ear and out another.
There is no sign at all that any of that made any impression
whatsoever. Absolutely zero sign of any kind of comprehension at all.
arf arf.
woof woof woof.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Usenet is a fantastically complex and expensive
network of interconnected computers in which trillions
of bytes of information flow, managed by an enormous army of
system administrators, allowing people of all walks of
life and from every part of the world to come together,
and call each other rude names.
- Artemia Salina
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, buy...@interlacken.com (Lorrill Buyens) laughed
madly, then wrote:
>Right before "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> was eaten by
>cannibals on Fri, 31 May 2002 20:01:53 GMT, they issued this poignant
>cry for help:
>
>>"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
>
>> The skeptic's world is no less beautiful, wonderous, awe-inspiring or
>>> deep than the credulous person's . . . and it may be truer.
>
>> Nothing less true has ever been said. And only a
>>skeptic would say it and believe it.
>
>I find considerably more beauty, wonder and awe in a gorgeous sunset,
>a spider's web or a baby's smile than in unbelievable, unproven tales o'
>fairies an' ghosts an' ETs an' stuff.
>
>> What a sad thing it is to be trapped in a world limited by
>>hand-me-down ideas...
>
>Those "hand-me-down ideas" are directly responsible for the current
>state of technology, medicine, teaching, &etc.
beautifully put.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
Ronald McDonald is the evil demon inside Pippi Longstocking
- Subgenius Spice
Joe Cosby
>>I'm still waiting for a "magickian" to make my monitor explode, or
>>make me step on a nail.
>
>
>Make you step on a nail? How about get run over by a juggernaut, be a
>bit daring if you want to issue a challenge. Do you?
Do you have an email address that will reach you?
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
"Jenna Bush's Federally Protected Wetlands Now Open For Public Drilling ."
_The Onion_
6/20/01
Bruce Burhans
"Joe Cosby" <joec...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3cf96f91...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> buy...@interlacken.com (Lorrill Buyens) hunched over a computer,
> typing feverishly;
> thunder crashed, buy...@interlacken.com (Lorrill Buyens) laughed
> madly, then wrote:
>
> >Right before "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> was eaten by
> >cannibals on Fri, 31 May 2002 20:01:53 GMT, they issued this poignant
> >cry for help:
> >
> >>"Emmit Svenson" <emmits...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >
> >
> >> The skeptic's world is no less beautiful, wonderous, awe-inspiring or
> >>> deep than the credulous person's . . . and it may be truer.
> >
> >> Nothing less true has ever been said. And only a
> >>skeptic would say it and believe it.
> >
> >I find considerably more beauty, wonder and awe in a gorgeous sunset,
> >a spider's web or a baby's smile than in unbelievable, unproven tales o'
> >fairies an' ghosts an' ETs an' stuff.
> >
> >> What a sad thing it is to be trapped in a world limited by
> >>hand-me-down ideas...
> >
> >Those "hand-me-down ideas" are directly responsible for the current
> >state of technology, medicine, teaching, &etc.
>
Physical Scientists are always trying to present
themselves as the source of technology, but this is non-
sense. Technology is just sophisticated tool-making and
works just fine, regardless of how one believes the
universe operates.
At the present, Physical Science *directs* most
of the technological innovation, giving us more fearsome
weapons of mass destruction and more earth-raping industries at a much
faster rate than they provide good
things.
And what makes you think that medicine is so
wonderful right now? Cancer and Heart Disease, just to
name two, were almost unheard of in the 19th Century
and have risen by about 45% in the last 40 years.
So-called 'healthcare' costs now amount to about 20% of the GNP
which indicates that people are less healthy than they have ever been. It
was 1% around the turn of the century.... After all, the well-intentioned
ghouls of the Medical-Industrial Complex don't make any money when people
are healthy, do they?
Here we deal with the incredible PR machine
of the Physical Scientists who are actually the pawns of
Wall Street. Their failures are never mentioned, but one
tiny success is plastered over the front pages of every
newpaper in the country.
This computer wasn't created by scientists. It was
created by trial and error and common sense by technicians relying on
previous forms.
The engineers and academics get all the credit,
but the people who do the real work think that they are
a bunch of windbags....
> beautifully put.
>
No, Joe, it's not "beautifully put." It's pure fucking
garbage.
It would be "beautifully put" if she could come up
with the statistics to support her claims. But she can't
and she won't even try, because she's a fanatic and isn't
interested in the truth at all.
Bruce<+>
George Black
Funny but we knew that you were going to say that......
Joe Cosby
typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> laughed
madly, then wrote:
Nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>> beautifully put.
>>
>
> No, Joe, it's not "beautifully put." It's pure fucking
>garbage.
> It would be "beautifully put" if she could come up
>with the statistics to support her claims. But she can't
>and she won't even try, because she's a fanatic and isn't
>interested in the truth at all.
>
Well, if it's any consolation to you, the physical sciences as they
exist today are basically descendants of magic.
Metallurgy, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, the whole framework of
theory and empirical testing (trial and error) were all descendants of
what we would now call 'occult' practices.
I think both the critics and the practitioners of magic in modern
times don't really realize what magic -is-. We've been too influenced
by folklore and fairy tales and we now accept a cartoonish image of
what a magician is.
An engineer sits down at a computer or a drawing board and designs an
automobile. What does she do? She manipulates models of a
theoretical system called a 'car', and when a physical example of that
design is constructed it will behave as intended to an incredible
level of precision. The forces at work in an automobile and the level
of predictability needed are mind-boggling.
Why does this work at all? What are these 'laws' that we can
manipulate?
The origin of the whole practice, of the whole practical side of
science and engineering, was that these laws existed in some ideal
dimension of existence. Without that concept, science as we know it
today couldn't exist.
Nowadays we don't -think- about it, but it is just as strange. There
is a good Einstein quote about that somewhere, "the strange thing is
that the physical world obeys mathematical laws at all".
***
None of this discussion has anything to do with either science or
magic though.
All it has to do with is a pack of trolls who get a brief sense of
superiority jumping on 'kooks'.
If you think you can make magic work in some controlled setting, fine,
do it. If you don't, fuck it, what does it matter to you whether some
troll you've never met before believes what you do or not?
Personally I've been able to do 'effect magic' often enough. I don't
think it would work in a real controlled setting though. There is no
real distinct separation between the 'subjective' and the 'objective'
when I work. I was reading over my notes from something else I was
working on several months ago recently. Myself and somebody else were
in 'contact' with something. Looking at it from a distance, there is
no doubt that some of the manifestations could very easily be
explained by subtle cues and signals between us. Other parts of it
very clearly could not. So should I conclude that 'there were some
parapsychological phenomena, and some pseudo-parapsychological
phenomena'? But that doesn't work at all. There is no separation
between them in practice. In fact, the inexplicable stuff would just
not have been there if it hadn't been 'on the back of' the other
stuff.
If, at the time, I had stopped to say to myself, "well, that was a
pseudo-parapsychological phenomena probably explicable by subtle
cueing", the whole thing would have fallen apart. You just can't make
that kind of clean cut. Even just the word, "parapsychology". The
whole concept of it is bullshit from a practical point of view. If
you try to do "magic" for "a parapsychological effect" I gaurantee it
will fail. You are putting yourself in a model which is just not
going to work. You will end up being one of these fools sitting in
front of a table trying to 'will' a pencil to roll or whatever.
And it won't, because you will be working from a mental model of
reality in which there is this table, and this pencil, and you are
somehow going to 'push' it with some kind of 'mind-energy'.
That's why magic inevitably uses some setup like an altar, a circle,
and a model of the universe, like the Etz ha'Chayim. You are creating
a different model. The altar is where the absolutes of that model are
defined, the circle is the circle both of enclosure -and of the
infinite-, and the model is the map.
The new reality is no more nor less real than the concensus one.
If you treat it consistently, it will behave consistently.
Trying to break the parts out is a gaurantee of failure.
***
So what the fuck does it matter to you if some fool, who would never
do the work themselves, who is clearly unwilling to make any effort to
understand what it is about, who (in most cases) doesn't show the
intellectual sophistication necessary to grasp it even if they tried,
and who is clearly only interacting with you at all in order to get a
laugh at the 'kook', believes it or not?
The world is full of people who don't know what the fuck they are
rattling on about, and always will be.
--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
a cult is a religion without an army.
- nikolai kingsley
Tom
>
> Are they stupid, or do they think that we are?
I dunno about anybody else, but I think you're stupid.
Joseph Count de Money
> "Bruce Burhans" <bbur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:QEQJ8.652$%A....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "nagasiva" <naga...@yronwode.SPAMcom> wrote in message
> > news:LaFJ8.5831$3w2....@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > > 50020530 VI
> > >
> > > >>> ...Skeptics dont want to make sure it is real,
> > >
> > > the skeptic wants to know more, and more carefully.
> > >
> >
> > Some do. Many are simply intent upon discrediting
> whatever
> ideas
> > threaten those of their sponsoring audience, while *pretending* to
> be
> > seekers
> > of knowledge.
> > This was Quintal's original point, and nothing
> > has been said on this thread to disprove it.
> > All we have heard is "that isn't true."
> > Well it is. And simply saying it isn't changes nothing.
>
> Then...
>
> Simply saying "Well it is." changes nothing.
>
> Did I get that right?
"We do not call electrical resistance or economic laws, unreal, on the
ground that they are not directly perceived by the sences. Our magical
doctrine is universally accepted by sceptics---only they wish to make
Magick itself an exception!"
Aliester Crowley Liber ABA page 242 cf. 1994 Wiser edition.
--
Joseph Count de Money.
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>
>"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
>news:uh2gfuok7a2fadav5...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 31 May 2002 15:48:43 -0700, "Tom" <danto...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >So do you, actually. Claimants of paranormal powers and their
>apologists
>> >are always welcome to discuss their point of view in sci.skeptic. Of
>> >course, they'll have to put up with skeptical coments and questions.
>>
>> Worse, they may be subject to being asked to actually *prove* their
>> claims.
>
>Which is an exercise in futility. Proof is what convinces you. If you're
>not convinced, there is no proof. Skeptics, by their very nature are not
>convinced. All assertions are open to revision. You can never convince a
>skeptic that they should have no further doubt. If you do, they aren't
>skeptics.
>
>Now a great many people who call themselves skeptics are, in fact, simply
>believers in some alternative proposition, not skeptics of any proposition
>whatsoever. A Jehovah's Witness is a skeptic regarding Roman Catholic
>dogma, but they aren't skeptics when it comes to their own dogma.
>
>> I'm still waiting for a "magickian" to make my monitor explode, or
>> make me step on a nail.
>
>When your monitor explodes or you step on a nail, some magician somewhere
>is bound to take credit for it.
>
>Also, a magician may decide that stepping on a nail is a metaphor for
>anything that interrupts your progress and will consider any event that
>disrupts your rhythym to be "stepping on a nail". And they'll take credit
>for that.
>
>Attributions of meaning are no different than attributions of causality to
>a magician. They are simply concepts to be manipulated.
And what's even more crazy, is that they or the alleged spirits they
conjure up can only do mundane things, which makes them, and their
alleged spirits, even more pissweak. I mean, "be careful crossing the
road" LOL, what happened to make me levitate off the bed on night?
Pretty pissweak powers.
Wally Anglesea™
<asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
Oh, absolutely, I disbelieve. Most people learn that rational thought
and critical thinking can dismiss the shadows of ignorance and belief
in bogeymen and magic.
Make my monitor explode.
Go ahead, I can afford a new one.
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 14:25:15 -0700, "Asiya"
><asiya_...@MEATBALLSmindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>"Wally AngleseaT" <wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:jgpgfuk7t564mueha...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 03:39:26 +0000 (UTC), les diaboliques <a...@x.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Fri, 31 May 2002 23:44:33 GMT, Wally AngleseaT
>>> ><wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>I'm still waiting for a "magickian" to make my monitor explode, or
>>> >>make me step on a nail.
>>> >
>>> >Make you step on a nail? How about get run over by a juggernaut, be
>>a
>>> >bit daring if you want to issue a challenge. Do you?
>>>
>>> Ok, make it so.
>>>
>>> what time frame are you prepared to commit to?
>>
>>ha You're either a foolish, careless skeptic, or a debunker, an
>>adamant disbeliever in such a possibility.
>
>Or recently flattened on the streets of downtown Brisbane, let's not
>forget that possibility.
Well, you *are* a fool then, kook
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
Well, you might see it that way, I just happen to like pricking the
reality bubbles of kooks. If you don't like the language, then use
the killfile, and retreat to that island of fantasy you evidently find
more attractive than reality, so the nasty skeptics won't ask you
anymore to prove your fantasies.
<SNIP>
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Jun 2002 21:10:05 GMT, Wally Anglesea™
><wang...@spbigpondam.net.au> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 19:26:11 +0000 (UTC), les diaboliques <a...@x.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>><SNIP>
>>
>>>
>>>This is magic, it for those who are interested in it. It does not come
>>>to people like you and offer itself up for a lab experiment like a
>>>rat, you go to it if you want to know what it is really all about.
>>>It's an initiation. I could tell you of amazing things I have
>>>experienced through my interest in magick and the occult, but what
>>>point would there be if your only reaction is to smugly say "Prove
>>>it". I have no interest in proving anything to a bunch of dorks, thus
>>>I make no claims to them, because their response is habitual and
>>>shallow. If you want to point fingers at the Uri Gellers of this
>>>world, feel free, but as far as I'm concerned that's not a
>>>particularly outstanding way to live your life.
>>
>>So I take it you won't try for the JREF million dollars.
>>
>>Just by taking the challenge, and winning, as you are so confident you
>>will (after all, you trained as a chemist, so you *must* have an
>>appreciation of the scientific method, and testing protocols), you
>>could prove your claims,
>
>The only claim I make is that I have expanded my mind, dimwit.
Taking mind altering drugs doesn't mean you expanded your mind, fool.
It merely means you hallucinated.
>
>>and if you didn't want the million, there's
>>kids around the world with limbs blown off by landmines, or some other
>>worthy charity you could give the money to.
>>
>>Just think of it as benefiting mankind.
>>
>>Or have you got a standard screed excuse?
>
>Ironically, you are the one living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
So you won't apply for the million?
How surprising. Most people who avoid it at least attempt to give a
pathetic excuse.
Wally Anglesea™
wrote:
>On Sat, 1 Jun 2002 18:41:51 -0400, "Happy Dog" <happ...@sympatico.ca>
Well, why not attempt it, and give the money to charity.
It always boils down to avoidance, because you are not prepared to
have your beliefs challenged. Skeptics are. Attempting the challenge
is one way, and perhaps the best way, to challenge the belief of
skeptics.