Psychic Night
Brian Watson
"GC" <G...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4rjCZsE3fAS$Iw...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk...
> You didn't need psychic powers to know that James Randi was going to
> show up. Still, not a bad evening, surprisingly balanced.
>
> Psychic powers or clever scam, I can't help but think there's something
> cruel about mediums. They should work for free if they're so caring.
I don't mind people who are providing a service charging for it, but £60-100
an hour seems to be the going rate at the moment (£15-25 per 15/20 minute
session) and the service provided seems to have no basis by which one can
reasonably demand a refund for poor service received.
I really must watch this new film where Billy Connolly sues God (or was that
a Simpsons episode, or both?) for tips.
--
Brian
"Not quite an Angel"
Evil Noodle
"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bi9u6d$1mi$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "GC" <G...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4rjCZsE3fAS$Iw...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk...
> > You didn't need psychic powers to know that James Randi was going to
> > show up. Still, not a bad evening, surprisingly balanced.
> >
> > Psychic powers or clever scam, I can't help but think there's
> something cruel about mediums. They should work for free if they're > so
caring.
Mediums...cruel? some people have some very strange ideas.
> I don't mind people who are providing a service charging for it, but
> £60-100 an hour seems to be the going rate at the moment (£15-25
> per 15/20 minute session) and the service provided seems to have no >
basis by which one can reasonably demand a refund for poor service >
received.
Where did you get these figures from? are you talking about phone
mediums or private sittings? there are in fact a good many mediums who don't
charge anything. So if money is such an issue start attending
Spiritualist services and if it's important enough for spirit to communicate
then you might well get a reading for free (be warned though, there will be
a collection afterwards)
Lee J. Moore
[..]
>> I can't help but think there's something cruel about mediums.
>> They should work for free if they're so caring.
>
> Mediums...cruel? some people have some very strange ideas.
Why is that a strange idea? Their ability is utterly unproven
after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a sect of
con-artists taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable.
--
Lee J. Moore
http://cafe-society.com
Evil Noodle
"Lee J. Moore" <l...@cafe-society.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbkh67...@cafe.lan...
Have you done much in the way of personal research to back that
statement up Lee? as it sure doesn't sound like it.
Have you ever been to a reputable medium or have experience of
Spiritualism as practiced in the UK? do tell.
Dave'n'Alias
"Evil Noodle" <evil.noodle@@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:v232b.3269$L15...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Be careful Lee, the evil noodle might set the tooth fairy on to you....
Lee J. Moore
[..]
>>
>> Why is that a strange idea? Their ability is utterly
>> unproven after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a
>> sect of con-artists taking advantage of people at their most
>> vulnerable.
>
> Have you done much in the way of personal research to back
> that statement up Lee? as it sure doesn't sound like it.
Why doesn't it sound like it? No medium has ever proven they
can genuinely correspond with the dead. So, when they take
payments (consultancy fees or 'collections'), they should be
treated with as much contempt as any trader making money out of
thin air.
It's up to you to provide proof of authenticity. Certainly if
you think people with unproven skills shouldn't be questioned
when financial gain is involved.
> Have you ever been to a reputable medium or have experience of
> Spiritualism as practiced in the UK? do tell.
Yes. After my grandmother died and my next door neighbour was
murdered (back in the early 1990s) lots of strange things
happened in the house. My Mother and I contacted a local
spiritual 'organisation' because we were so bothered by the
goings-on.
Eventually we put our experiences down to perfectly normal
mental issues (hypersensitivity) triggered by a stressful
situation. All we saw at the spiritualist meetings was people
at the top of the hierarchy trying hard to make guests believe
they had some kind of gift. That was used again and again to
make them return in the hope of contacting a deceased relative
(or neighbour). As you'd expect, more vulnerable members of the
audience - those devasted beyond hope, those who so desperately
*needed* hope - returned unquestioningly, week after week.
When we stopped attending we were pestered week after week by
the person running the event, promising that we'd "make contact
eventually." I'm glad my mother was able to see through the
facade, to put her mother's death behind her and start a new
chapter of her life.
Even in 1996 I sought the opinion of Dr. Susan Blakemore at
Bristol University (an expert in paranormal research after
having an NDE herself), because in 1995 I had a dream of a bomb
going off outside M&S on Corporation St. in Manchester. I lived
there at the time and the dream was so vivid and disturbing that
I drew a map and told friends & family about it. One year later
(1996), a bomb was detonated by the IRA at the exact location
I'd crossed on the map.
What didn't occur to me at the time was that ever since 1982,
when our school trip narrowly avoided three blasts in London
(Changing of the Guard, Hyde Park & Harrods all on the same
day), I'd been very anxious about bombs in big cities. The
dream was a result of my anxiety. Even the location was
'likely' because (i) I lived a couple of hundred yards away and
(ii) it was one of two junctions notably packed with
pedestrians on a busy shopping day.
It would never have passed the James Randi test. I doubt the
spiritualist organisation I referred to would pass the Nicky
Campbell test. And that's easy.
Brian Watson
>
> "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bi9u6d$1mi$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "GC" <G...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:4rjCZsE3fAS$Iw...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk...
> > > You didn't need psychic powers to know that James Randi was going to
> > > show up. Still, not a bad evening, surprisingly balanced.
> > >
> > > Psychic powers or clever scam, I can't help but think there's
> > something cruel about mediums. They should work for free if they're >
so
> caring.
>
> Mediums...cruel? some people have some very strange ideas.
I didn't say that. Someone upthread did. Your trimming mis-attributes it to
me.
>
> > I don't mind people who are providing a service charging for it, but
> > £60-100 an hour seems to be the going rate at the moment (£15-25
> > per 15/20 minute session) and the service provided seems to have no
> basis by which one can reasonably demand a refund for poor service
> received.
>
> Where did you get these figures from?
My friend's mother who is a medium.
> are you talking about phone
> mediums or private sittings?
She works mostly in public halls hired for the purpose by a sort of psychic
pimp who charges the public three quid per person to enter the hall, then
the mediums charge in the bands I have quoted for one-to-one readings.
> there are in fact a good many mediums who don't
> charge anything.
Oh yes, fair comment. My comments are about those that do.
> So if money is such an issue start attending
> Spiritualist services and if it's important enough for spirit to
communicate
> then you might well get a reading for free (be warned though, there will
be
> a collection afterwards)
The issue is that mediums who offer their services for money charge what I
take to be high prices for an unverifiable service. Are you saying that this
is not so?
If Spiritualist churches take a collection I have no issue with that.
As I've said, they have costs and are entitled to recoup them as best they
can, but I would have an argument if there was pressure to adhere to a
"guide amount".
--
Brian
"Stuck down a hole, in the fog, in the middle of the night, with an owl."
Evil Noodle
>
> "Evil Noodle" <evil.noodle@@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:sv02b.2209$MS5....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:bi9u6d$1mi$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "GC" <G...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:4rjCZsE3fAS$Iw...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk...
> > > > You didn't need psychic powers to know that James Randi was going to
> > > > show up. Still, not a bad evening, surprisingly balanced.
> > > >
> > > > Psychic powers or clever scam, I can't help but think there's
> > > something cruel about mediums. They should work for free if they're >
> so
> > caring.
> >
> > Mediums...cruel? some people have some very strange ideas.
>
> I didn't say that. Someone upthread did. Your trimming mis-attributes > it
to me.
I didn't trim anything, though I don't believe the original poster
crossposted to uk.rec.psychic.
> > > I don't mind people who are providing a service charging for it, but
> > > £60-100 an hour seems to be the going rate at the moment (£15-25
> > > per 15/20 minute session) and the service provided seems to have no
> > basis by which one can reasonably demand a refund for poor service
> > received.
> >
> > Where did you get these figures from?
>
> My friend's mother who is a medium.
>
> > are you talking about phone
> > mediums or private sittings?
>
> She works mostly in public halls hired for the purpose by a sort of
> psychic pimp who charges the public three quid per person to enter
> the hall, then the mediums charge in the bands I have quoted for one->
to-one readings.
Sounds like a psychic fair to me and certainly not my first choice to
get a good reading, I'd rather find someone for a private sitting
through word of mouth at a church.
> > there are in fact a good many mediums who don't charge anything.
>
> Oh yes, fair comment. My comments are about those that do.
>
> > So if money is such an issue start attending
> > Spiritualist services and if it's important enough for spirit to
> communicate
> > then you might well get a reading for free (be warned though, there will
> be
> > a collection afterwards)
>
> The issue is that mediums who offer their services for money charge
> what I take to be high prices for an unverifiable service. Are you
> saying that this is not so?
Not at all, but would you demand a discount or refund from say an
Osteopath if they failed to cure a back problem on the first appointment?
they will at least be qualified but I'm sure you'll
recognise that there are variables in the abilities of all practitioners
and so too with the people that visit them..
I think it comes down to reasonable expectations from something
that carries no guarantees, I'm sure the money wouldn't be such an
issue if you had a first rate reading?
> If Spiritualist churches take a collection I have no issue with that.
Good, because it's that little plate that helps keep the church running.
> As I've said, they have costs and are entitled to recoup them as best
> they can, but I would have an argument if there was pressure to
> adhere to a "guide amount".
I don't have a problem with that and a collection is a free will
donation to relieve you of a few coins in your pocket, the time they
usually have a set charge is for an evening booked for a particular
noteworthy medium.
Evil Noodle
> Evil wrote:
> [..]
> >>
> >> Why is that a strange idea? Their ability is utterly
> >> unproven after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a
> >> sect of con-artists taking advantage of people at their most
> >> vulnerable.
> >
> > Have you done much in the way of personal research to back
> > that statement up Lee? as it sure doesn't sound like it.
>
> Why doesn't it sound like it? No medium has ever proven they
> can genuinely correspond with the dead.
That would really depend on what you consider constitutes proof.
> So, when they take payments (consultancy fees or 'collections'),
> they should be treated with as much contempt as any trader making
> money out of thin air.
Perhaps you might like to take that up with the government then?
after all it was they that officially recognised Spiritualism as a religion,
and one of the mainstays of Spiritualism is that proof of survival is
demonstrated.
If the fraud you claim is so readily proved then where are the grand
exposures of Spiritualism?
> It's up to you to provide proof of authenticity. Certainly if
> you think people with unproven skills shouldn't be questioned
> when financial gain is involved.
Why is it up to me Lee? the initial claim of fraud was yours, so please
back it up with something substantial.
How would you gauge the worth of an artist you wanted to commision?
you'd naturally want to view their previous work but even this is a
very subjective experience, would you ask for their qualifications
or a refund if the finished result just wasn't quite what you wanted?
I'd at least take the trouble to get a word of mouth recommendation
from someone who's opinion I valued, wouldn't you?
> > Have you ever been to a reputable medium or have experience of
> > Spiritualism as practiced in the UK? do tell.
>
> Yes. After my grandmother died and my next door neighbour was
> murdered (back in the early 1990s) lots of strange things
> happened in the house. My Mother and I contacted a local
> spiritual 'organisation' because we were so bothered by the
> goings-on.
Spiritual organisation?
> Eventually we put our experiences down to perfectly normal
> mental issues (hypersensitivity) triggered by a stressful situation.
Ok, whatever works for you.
> All we saw at the spiritualist meetings was people at the top of the
> hierarchy trying hard to make guests believe they had some kind of
> gift. That was used again and again to make them return in the hope
> of contacting a deceased relative (or neighbour).
Strange, as communication isn't dependant on any "gift" someone in
the congregation might or might not have.
> As you'd expect, more vulnerable members of the audience - those
> devasted beyond hope, those who so desperately *needed* hope -
> returned unquestioningly, week after week.
It would be a grave mistake to think that all who attend Spiritualist
churches are unquestioning and emotionally vulnerable, though I do
concede that the people you mentioned wouldn't be in the best frame
of mind to make the most informed judgements.
> When we stopped attending we were pestered week after week by
> the person running the event, promising that we'd "make contact
> eventually."
Very strange, though as an alternative I might suggest that they were
trying way to hard in response to wanting to help.
> I'm glad my mother was able to see through the facade, to put her
> mother's death behind her and start a new chapter of her life.
Indeed, yet others do exactly the same thing but with insight into the
nature of death gained from a Spiritualist perspective.
> Even in 1996 I sought the opinion of Dr. Susan Blakemore at
> Bristol University (an expert in paranormal research after
> having an NDE herself),
Dr Blackmore has a mind so closed that a crowbar couldn't prise it
open.
> because in 1995 I had a dream of a bomb going off outside M&S
> on Corporation St. in Manchester. I lived there at the time and the
> dream was so vivid and disturbing that I drew a map and told friends > &
family about it. One year later (1996), a bomb was detonated by
> the IRA at the exact location I'd crossed on the map.
>
> What didn't occur to me at the time was that ever since 1982,
> when our school trip narrowly avoided three blasts in London
> (Changing of the Guard, Hyde Park & Harrods all on the same
> day), I'd been very anxious about bombs in big cities. The
> dream was a result of my anxiety. Even the location was
> 'likely' because (i) I lived a couple of hundred yards away and
> (ii) it was one of two junctions notably packed with
> pedestrians on a busy shopping day.
I'd be more inclined to disregard it if you had chosen the other junction,
but who knows, we can write so much off to coincidence but sometimes
we have to sit up and take notice.
> It would never have passed the James Randi test. I doubt the
> spiritualist organisation I referred to would pass the Nicky
> Campbell test. And that's easy.
Churches vary according to the people that run them and their degree
of experience, couple that with the varying personalities and you really
have to shop around for a good one, I'd be the first to admit that there
are some real stinkers out there, but not all.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> Why doesn't it sound like it? No medium has ever proven they
>> can genuinely correspond with the dead.
en> That would really depend on what you consider constitutes proof.
How about: something which would without doubt convince an honest,
intelligent person who really really didn't want to believe. Lots of
really controvertial and/or weird things have been proved to that
standard, dispite being much harder to prove than the kind of huge
effect claimed by spiritualism.
en> Perhaps you might like to take that up with the government then?
en> after all it was they that officially recognised Spiritualism as a
en> religion,
Isn't that just to say they officially recognised it as bollocks? If
they had recognised it as a telecoms system and regulated it via
Offcom, that would be an indication that someone took it seriously.
--
Mail me as MYFIR...@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
Dave'n'Alias
>
> "Lee J. Moore" <l...@cafe-society.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbkhhb...@cafe.lan...
> > Evil wrote:
> > [..]
> > >>
> > >> Why is that a strange idea? Their ability is utterly
> > >> unproven after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a
> > >> sect of con-artists taking advantage of people at their most
> > >> vulnerable.
> > >
> > > Have you done much in the way of personal research to back
> > > that statement up Lee? as it sure doesn't sound like it.
> >
> > Why doesn't it sound like it? No medium has ever proven they
> > can genuinely correspond with the dead.
>
> That would really depend on what you consider constitutes proof.
If mediums genuinely could contact the dead there would be no doubt.
Lee J. Moore
[..]
>
> That would really depend on what you consider constitutes
> proof.
So 'proof' is negotiable in your little world then? That's
very convenient don't you think?
[..]
> Perhaps you might like to take that up with the government
> then? after all it was they that officially recognised
> Spiritualism as a religion,
And pray tell, what significance is that? What does that prove?
> and one of the mainstays of
> Spiritualism is that proof of survival is demonstrated.
What does that mean? "Proof of survival after death"? If this
has been demonstrated, why is there no documented proof? Why
has nobody passed go and collected £1 million pounds? If not
for greed then for the weekly hire of the community centre. ;)
> If the fraud you claim is so readily proved then where are the
> grand exposures of Spiritualism?
Firstly, I never claimed 'fraud'. You said it was "weird
thinking" to consider medium's "cruel". I said it was not.
Because it's unproven, it's not 'weird' to consider the
potential of mediums as conmen/women.
>> It's up to you to provide proof of authenticity. Certainly
>> if you think people with unproven skills shouldn't be
>> questioned when financial gain is involved.
>
> Why is it up to me Lee?
You said it was "weird thinking" to consider mediums cruel. If
you could prove the medium's skill as genuine, I'd say you had a
point. Otherwise...
> the initial claim of fraud was yours,
No it wasn't.
[..]
>> Even in 1996 I sought the opinion of Dr. Susan Blakemore at
>> Bristol University (an expert in paranormal research after
>> having an NDE herself),
>
> Dr Blackmore has a mind so closed that a crowbar couldn't prise it
> open.
<sigh> How uk.rec.psychic must appreciate your input. First
you justify proof as something flexible in the mind of the
beholder, next you resort to bitchiness when an opponents name
is mentioned.
Evil Noodle
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87ptiv1...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <m952b.2432$MS5....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>, Evil
Noodle (en) writes:
>
> >> Why doesn't it sound like it? No medium has ever proven they
> >> can genuinely correspond with the dead.
>
> en> That would really depend on what you consider constitutes proof.
>
> How about: something which would without doubt convince an
> honest, intelligent person who really really didn't want to believe.
> Lots of really controvertial and/or weird things have been proved to
> that standard, dispite being much harder to prove than the kind of
> huge effect claimed by spiritualism.
You really want me to do your homework for you? or do you think
that no reasonable proof exists just because you haven't heard
about it?
> en> Perhaps you might like to take that up with the government then?
> en> after all it was they that officially recognised Spiritualism as a
> en> religion,
>
> Isn't that just to say they officially recognised it as bollocks? If
> they had recognised it as a telecoms system and regulated it via
> Offcom, that would be an indication that someone took it seriously.
Again, go do your homework and get back to me .
Evil Noodle
"Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:biaq9j$6vkbc$1...@ID-163212.news.uni-berlin.de...
No doubt with who, everyone has their own criteria for what
constitutes proof, unless you prefer to let others do your thinking for
you?
Mike
Dave'n'Alias
Do you doubt that the world is round ?
Evil Noodle
> Evil wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > That would really depend on what you consider constitutes
> > proof.
>
> So 'proof' is negotiable in your little world then? That's
> very convenient don't you think?
Not at all, please define what you would accept as proof in your
little world.
> [..]
> > Perhaps you might like to take that up with the government
> > then? after all it was they that officially recognised
> > Spiritualism as a religion,
>
> And pray tell, what significance is that? What does that prove?
That the Government isn't noted for giving official sanction to anyone
who proposes a new religion be accepted, and that just maybe their
claims were demonstrable to an acceptable standard.
> > and one of the mainstays of
> > Spiritualism is that proof of survival is demonstrated.
>
> What does that mean? "Proof of survival after death"? If this
> has been demonstrated, why is there no documented proof?
No documented proof? so the thousands of pages of documented
evidence by credible scientists and researchers just never happened?
to quote your good self "That's very convenient don't you think?"
> Why has nobody passed go and collected £1 million pounds? If
> not for greed then for the weekly hire of the community centre. ;)
Have a browse through this and you might get the idea
http://skeptics.victorzammit.com/
> > If the fraud you claim is so readily proved then where are the
> > grand exposures of Spiritualism?
>
> Firstly, I never claimed 'fraud'. You said it was "weird
> thinking" to consider medium's "cruel". I said it was not.
> Because it's unproven, it's not 'weird' to consider the
> potential of mediums as conmen/women.
>
> >> It's up to you to provide proof of authenticity. Certainly
> >> if you think people with unproven skills shouldn't be
> >> questioned when financial gain is involved.
> >
> > Why is it up to me Lee?
>
> You said it was "weird thinking" to consider mediums cruel.
I would consider that to be more of an opinion, don't you.
Your claim was that "Their ability is utterly unproven" yet you now
want me to disprove that rather than you having to back up your claim.
> If you could prove the medium's skill as genuine, I'd say you had a
> point. Otherwise...
See above.
> > the initial claim of fraud was yours,
>
> No it wasn't.
My mistake, perhaps I'm reading too much into your negativity? :)
> [..]
> >> Even in 1996 I sought the opinion of Dr. Susan Blakemore at
> >> Bristol University (an expert in paranormal research after
> >> having an NDE herself),
> >
> > Dr Blackmore has a mind so closed that a crowbar couldn't prise it
> > open.
>
> <sigh> How uk.rec.psychic must appreciate your input.
I'm sure they do, perhaps you could become a regular and
enlighten us all?
> First you justify proof as something flexible in the mind of the
> beholder,
Do you demand proof of every little thing you see or do? or do you
make certain reasoned assumptions regarding these things?
Do you need someone to show you exactly how electricity works
before you'll venture out and turn on a light? my point was that each
of us has different criteria for what we accept as true.
> next you resort to bitchiness when an opponents name is mentioned.
Bitchiness? you mean like saying "<sigh> How uk.rec.psychic must appreciate
your input." sounds like a pkb to me.
Evil Noodle
Your point being?
Evil Noodle
"Mike" <debandmi...@2home33.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:biatvm$9p0$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> And here's another $1million challenge http://victorzammit.com/
Sorry but that sort of counterpoint is simply inadmissable to any
sort of discussion with a pseudo sceptic :)
Gordon Davie
> "Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:87ptiv1...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
>> In article <m952b.2432$MS5....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>,
>> Evil Noodle (en) writes:
>>
>>>> Why doesn't it sound like it? No medium has ever proven they
>>>> can genuinely correspond with the dead.
>>
>> en> That would really depend on what you consider constitutes proof.
>>
>> How about: something which would without doubt convince an
>> honest, intelligent person who really really didn't want to believe.
>> Lots of really controvertial and/or weird things have been proved to
>> that standard, dispite being much harder to prove than the kind of
>> huge effect claimed by spiritualism.
>
> You really want me to do your homework for you? or do you think
> that no reasonable proof exists just because you haven't heard
> about it?
If any proof existed, we couldn't avoid hearing about it - just as if a UFO
had landed, it would be all over the news.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"
Dave'n'Alias
The point is that if mediums *really* could contact the dead the fact would
be incontrovertible. There would be no doubt whatsoever..... Mediums wouldnt
need to stand in front of an audience and say "Does the name 'John', mean
anything to anyone here ?" (why dont spirits use surnames?), they would give
real details, real name etc.... Archaeologists would be out of work too,
after all the mediums could just dial up the other side and ask how they
built Stonehenge or why they built the pyramids, just think of all those
mysteries that would never have been mysteries if it were possible to
contact the dead........ ....we wouldnt need murder detectives... the
implications are enormous...
Lee J. Moore
[..]
>
> Not at all, please define what you would accept as proof in
> your little world.
Irrefutable evidence would be enough. Not the sort that one
person can believe but another can see holes in. Irrefutable
evidence, verified by reliable sources.
[..]
> That the Government isn't noted for giving official sanction
> to anyone who proposes a new religion be accepted, and that
> just maybe their claims were demonstrable to an acceptable
> standard.
But, the point is one of proof and that proves nothing.
Religion is the cause of much hardship in the world, and the
origins of all have yet to be proven anything but legend and
myth. Why should spiritualism be any different?
[..]
>> What does that mean? "Proof of survival after death"? If
>> this has been demonstrated, why is there no documented proof?
>
> No documented proof? so the thousands of pages of documented
> evidence by credible scientists and researchers just never
> happened? to quote your good self "That's very convenient
> don't you think?"
You fail to quote any links to any of these thousands of pages.
That would be very useful don't you think? The onus is on you
to prove something (which I'm sure you'll refuse to *again*),
half a dozen people are coming at you, asking you to back up
your claims, yet you say things like this without a single
URL...
>> Why has nobody passed go and collected £1 million pounds? If
>> not for greed then for the weekly hire of the community
>> centre. ;)
>
> Have a browse through this and you might get the idea
> http://skeptics.victorzammit.com/
But he is a victim of his own philosophy. He's a closed minded
gullible believer (not even a skeptic). I'm aware that he's
countered Randi's request for proof of the afterlife by offering
$1,000,000 to Randi to *disprove* the afterlife. Again, we're
on the territory of the scientifically illiterate: it is
impossible to prove that something does not exist. I figure
Zammit was aware of this when he made the offer.
Seems to me the spiritualists are clutching at straws. Rather
than do something as easy as *proving* their 'skill', they ask
the impossible of those who request it. If that isn't an
admission of defeat, I don't know what is.
[..]
>> > Why is it up to me Lee?
>>
>> You said it was "weird thinking" to consider mediums cruel.
>
> I would consider that to be more of an opinion, don't you.
> Your claim was that "Their ability is utterly unproven" yet
> you now want me to disprove that rather than you having to
> back up your claim.
You want me to back up a claim that something is unproven? You
really are one of Zammit's disciples aren't you? There is an
easy way out of this. PROVE ME WRONG WITH SOME PROOF.
Or would you rather go around in circles? Well yes, I think you
would actually. Obfuscating the issue is a spiritualist trend
isn't it?
Proving the *existence* of something that does exist is quite
possible. Proving the existence of something that does NOT
exist is NOT. So, where is the evidence of these dead people
talking. Or do I have to dig them up myself?
I suspect the latter. It's as obvious now as it was at the
beginning of the thread that you can offer nothing.
>> If you could prove the medium's skill as genuine, I'd say you
>> had a point. Otherwise...
>
> See above.
Your cop out?
[..]
>> No it wasn't.
>
> My mistake, perhaps I'm reading too much into your negativity?
> :)
Make me positive then. Offer some proof.
[..]
>
> Do you demand proof of every little thing you see or do? or do
> you make certain reasoned assumptions regarding these things?
> Do you need someone to show you exactly how electricity works
> before you'll venture out and turn on a light?
No. But how 'electricity works' can be demonstrated quite
easily. If I ever wanted to know, I could buy one of the many
books on the topic. The concept is actually quite simple.
You, on the other hand, have failed to light a candle, never
mind make a connection.
> my point was that each of us has different criteria for what
> we accept as true.
But most reasonable minded people would base their lives on
substantiated truths, rather than the kind of 'truth' (visions,
hearing voices, etc.) documented more in psychiatric texts than
anywhere else.
> Bitchiness? you mean like saying "<sigh> How uk.rec.psychic
> must appreciate your input." sounds like a pkb to me.
At least I can claim brick-wall syndrome as provocation. You
OTOH didn't offer a shred of material to back up your
closed-minded swipe at Dr. Blackmore, never mind your other
beliefs.
Brian Watson
>
> "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:biah71$l7f$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > > > I don't mind people who are providing a service charging for it, but
> > > > £60-100 an hour seems to be the going rate at the moment (£15-25
> > > > per 15/20 minute session) and the service provided seems to have no
> > > basis by which one can reasonably demand a refund for poor service
> > > received.
> > >
> > > Where did you get these figures from?
> >
> > My friend's mother who is a medium.
> >
> > > are you talking about phone
> > > mediums or private sittings?
> >
> > She works mostly in public halls hired for the purpose by a sort of
> > psychic pimp who charges the public three quid per person to enter
> > the hall, then the mediums charge in the bands I have quoted for one->
> to-one readings.
>
> Sounds like a psychic fair to me and certainly not my first choice to
> get a good reading, I'd rather find someone for a private sitting
> through word of mouth at a church.
My point stands that there are a lot of alleged mediums who work that way
and charge that much..
> > The issue is that mediums who offer their services for money charge
> > what I take to be high prices for an unverifiable service. Are you
> > saying that this is not so?
>
> Not at all, but would you demand a discount or refund from say an
> Osteopath if they failed to cure a back problem on the first appointment?
If he claimed to have identified the problem and cured it, yes.
> they will at least be qualified but I'm sure you'll
> recognise that there are variables in the abilities of all practitioners
> and so too with the people that visit them..
Ah, I see, it's (at least partly) the customer's fault. That precludes a
full refund, however hopeless the medium is.
> I think it comes down to reasonable expectations from something
> that carries no guarantees, I'm sure the money wouldn't be such an
> issue if you had a first rate reading?
Of course not; there would have been a service provided for the amount
charged.
> > If Spiritualist churches take a collection I have no issue with that.
>
> Good, because it's that little plate that helps keep the church running.
>
> > As I've said, they have costs and are entitled to recoup them as best
> > they can, but I would have an argument if there was pressure to
> > adhere to a "guide amount".
>
> I don't have a problem with that and a collection is a free will
> donation to relieve you of a few coins in your pocket, the time they
> usually have a set charge is for an evening booked for a particular
> noteworthy medium.
--
Brian
The last time I used my Ouija board, we actually got the thing to work,
however it didn't work exactly how I had imagined: "Is anybody there...."
And the planchette moved to: "No"
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
en> You really want me to do your homework for you?
I never suggested you do anything.
en> or do you think that no reasonable proof exists just because you
en> haven't heard about it?
No, I presume no proof exists because if it had ever been presented it
would have been the biggest news story there ever was. It isnot the
sort of even which would need to be hunted out.
It would also have a pervasive effect on everything that happened
afterwards. For instance, there would be no need to hold an
investigation into how and why David Kelly dues, they would just have
_asked_ him.
>> Isn't that just to say they officially recognised it as bollocks? If
>> they had recognised it as a telecoms system and regulated it via
>> Offcom, that would be an indication that someone took it seriously.
en> Again, go do your homework and get back to me .
There is no `homework' to do foe the above statement of
fact.
Unless you are claiming mediums _are_ regulated by Offtel...
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
gd> If any proof existed, we couldn't avoid hearing about it - just as if a UFO
gd> had landed, it would be all over the news.
Ah! That's it! The Government is SUPRESSING the evidence! The dead
know all about the Space Aliens, and so the men In Black can't let us
talk to them!
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> If mediums genuinely could contact the dead there would be no doubt.
en> No doubt with who,
No doubt for anyone.
en> everyone has their own criteria for what constitutes proof,
True, but if there is an elephant in a small room, very few people
will doubt it is there.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
en> That the Government isn't noted for giving official sanction to anyone
en> who proposes a new religion be accepted,
What is your evidence for this?
en> and that just maybe their claims were demonstrable to an
en> acceptable standard.
You reall think that Christains, Muslims, Buddhists, Scientologists,
etc. all provided proofs of their beliefs to the state? Doesn't the
fact that their claims are mutually contradictory (and at least in the
case of Christianity self contradictory) make that, to say the least,
rather unlikely?
All you have to do to become a recognised religion is to have
suck^H^H^H^believers.
en> I would consider that to be more of an opinion, don't you.
en> Your claim was that "Their ability is utterly unproven" yet you now
en> want me to disprove that rather than you having to back up your
en> claim.
It is impossible to prove this kind of negative, whereas it would be
trivial for you to prove him wrong, if he were so. That you don't do
this speaks volumes.
en> Do you demand proof of every little thing you see or do?
We are not talking about trivial side issues and details of everyday
life, we are talking about a _huge_ claim about the fundamental nature
of existance, and one which, if true, would have a pervasive effect on
everyday life.
Apart from anything else, I'd be waking up every day to ecto-mail from
my mother nagging me to tidy my flat and clean the cooker:-).
en> Do you need someone to show you exactly how electricity works
en> before you'll venture out and turn on a light?
No, but I did need proof that turning it on would do something before
accepting that electricity was a real phenomenon.I got such proof so
long ago that I can't remember not knowing that electric lights work.
If communication with the dead was happening we would not be arguing,
because it would be a widely seen and so obvious that it would be as
much a common assumption to us all as that electricity can be used to
generate light.
Gea Jones
what about God, and Jesus , ?
They cannot be proven, yet the world has been at WAR over religions for
centuries.
Also the church has some pretty impressive place to worship these completley
unscientifically proven 'people',
they also demand ten per cent of your annual income if you go to church
[a lot of money added up]
so are they exempt from this kind of scrutiny,????
I don't see the Pope handing out a plate for money at the end of his
sermons,
there is no PROOF of God ,
no PROOF of Jesus,
yet they are far bigger
issues than mediums,
where did Jesus get his qualifications ?
Gea
"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bicbip$dff$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk...
Thanatos
<Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>there is no PROOF of God ,
>
>no PROOF of Jesus,
>
> yet they are far bigger
>
>issues than mediums,
>
>where did Jesus get his qualifications ?
University of South Galilee (formerly known as Nazareth Poly). NVQ
level 5 in woodwork, apparently.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
gj> what about God, and Jesus , ?
gj> They cannot be proven, yet the world has been at WAR over religions for
gj> centuries.
People are stupid.
gj> Also the church has some pretty impressive place to worship these completley
gj> unscientifically proven 'people',
gj> they also demand ten per cent of your annual income if you go to church
gj> [a lot of money added up]
Could these two be linked do you think?
gj> so are they exempt from this kind of scrutiny,????
No, however the scam artists in charge of Christianity are celver
enough not to make many claims which actually affet the real world,
and hence are testable. Mediums claim to be able to do something very
straightforwardly testable.
gj> there is no PROOF of God , no PROOF of Jesus, yet they are far
gj> bigger issues than mediums,
Not really. God and Jesus are in the same class as Father Christmass,
mediums are in the same class as phony doctors.
gj> where did Jesus get his qualifications ?
City & guilds carpentry from the Nazereth adult education collage (he
missed his early schooling when on a government sponsored extended
holliday in Egypt).
altheim
"Lee J. Moore" <l...@cafe-society.com> wrote:
> Evil wrote:
> [..]
> >
> > Not at all, please define what you would accept as proof in
> > your little world.
>
> Irrefutable evidence would be enough. Not the sort that one
> person can believe but another can see holes in. Irrefutable
> evidence, verified by reliable sources.
You still haven't answered Noodle's question. You have just
altered your demand from 'proof' to 'evidence'.
Also, "Irrefutable evidence" sounds like a non-sequitor to
me (if it is irrefutable then it must be proof) so tell us, what
will you accept as evidence?
--
altheim
altheim
> >> They should work for free if they're so caring.
> >
> > Mediums...cruel? some people have some very strange ideas.
>
> after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a sect of
> con-artists taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable.
Speaking as one who has had numerous debates with
Mr Noodle over the point and value of research into the
paranormal I should like to say that I think you highlight
a very very good reason for the scientific investigation
of psychic phenomena; if it could be conclusively proven
to exist mediums and psychics would gain a lot in terms
of respectability.
As for mediums charging for their services; so long as
they have customers willing to pay, good luck to them I
say. The idea that mediums should necessarily work for
free, irrespective of whether they are able to perform or
not, is a purely socialist ethical contrivance. Look at it this
way: no-one is forced to use the services of a psychic.
We don't *need* them in the way that we need food,
clothing, gas, electricity etc., so the application of standards
is a redundancy. Anyone disappointed in the service they
receive have only themselves to blame.
--
altheim
altheim
"Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Evil Noodle" <evil.noodle@@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > "Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > "Evil Noodle" <evil.noodle@@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > "Dave'n'Alias" <davenalias*nospam*@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > > "Evil Noodle" <evil.noodle@@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > > > "Lee J. Moore" <l...@cafe-society.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Evil wrote:
> > > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> Why is that a strange idea? Their ability is utterly
> > > > > > > >> unproven after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a
> > > > > > > >> sect of con-artists taking advantage of people at their most
> > > > > > > >> vulnerable.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Have you done much in the way of personal research to back
> > > > > > > > that statement up Lee? as it sure doesn't sound like it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why doesn't it sound like it? No medium has ever proven they
> > > > > > > can genuinely correspond with the dead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That would really depend on what you consider constitutes proof.
> > > > >
> > > > > If mediums genuinely could contact the dead there would be no doubt.
> > > >
> > > > No doubt with who, everyone has their own criteria for what
> > > > constitutes proof, unless you prefer to let others do your thinking
> > > > for you?
> > >
> > > Do you doubt that the world is round ?
> >
> > Your point being?
> >
>
> The point is that if mediums *really* could contact the dead the fact would
> be incontrovertible. There would be no doubt whatsoever..... Mediums wouldnt
> need to stand in front of an audience and say "Does the name 'John', mean
> anything to anyone here ?" (why dont spirits use surnames?), they would give
> real details, real name etc....
Unfortunately the garnering of information by psychic
means does not follow the same rules of information
acquisition as it does by the regular five senses. It does
frequently come in discrete 'packets' that make little
sense until it can be discussed and compared. Yes it
would be nice if a medium could get and present the
whole picture but it rarely happens that way.
> Archaeologists would be out of work too,
> after all the mediums could just dial up the other side and ask how they
> built Stonehenge or why they built the pyramids, just think of all those
> mysteries that would never have been mysteries if it were possible to
> contact the dead........ ....we wouldnt need murder detectives... the
> implications are enormous...
Thank you for stating the obvious.
--
altheim
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
a> Unfortunately the garnering of information by psychic means does
a> not follow the same rules of information acquisition as it does by
a> the regular five senses. It does frequently come in discrete
a> 'packets' that make little sense until it can be discussed and
a> compared.
How, er, convinient. ``I have a message for someone here, can they
tell me what it is please?''
Lee J. Moore
[..]
>
> Unfortunately the garnering of information by psychic means
> does not follow the same rules of information acquisition as
> it does by the regular five senses. It does frequently come in
> discrete 'packets'
TCP/IP or UDP? Maybe a packet sniffer is the way to go. ;)
Neil Hopkins
<Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Just saw this thread,
>what about God, and Jesus , ?
>They cannot be proven, yet the world has been at WAR over religions for
>centuries.
>Also the church has some pretty impressive place to worship these completley
>unscientifically proven 'people',
>
>they also demand ten per cent of your annual income if you go to church
>[a lot of money added up]
>
>so are they exempt from this kind of scrutiny,????
>
>I don't see the Pope handing out a plate for money at the end of his
>sermons,
>
>there is no PROOF of God ,
>
>no PROOF of Jesus,
>
> yet they are far bigger
>
>issues than mediums,
>
>where did Jesus get his qualifications ?
O level carpentry from Nazareth Technical College?
--
neil h.
Jess the dog : http://www.planethopkins.com/pets.htm
Nick Humphries
wrote:
His Home Economic skills were top notch, coming up with a way to male cod in
breadcrumbs for five thousand people before the first chippy came along.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Nick Humphries -- ni...@egyptus.co.uk -- http://www.egyptus.co.uk |
| ZX Spectrum stuff * Your Sinclair archive * Time-lapse weather MPEGs |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Watson
"altheim" <alt...@spamblokfreeuk.com> wrote in message
news:106180426...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
> We don't *need* them in the way that we need food,
> clothing, gas, electricity etc., so the application of standards
> is a redundancy. Anyone disappointed in the service they
> receive have only themselves to blame.
You lost your logic in the middle of that.
:-)
If they offer a service (which they do) they should stand responsibility for
it if it doesn't work.
--
Brian
"Stuck down a hole, in the fog, in the middle of the night, with an owl."
Cardinal Chunder
> "GC" <G...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4rjCZsE3fAS$Iw...@mosshead0.demon.co.uk...
>
>>You didn't need psychic powers to know that James Randi was going to
>>show up. Still, not a bad evening, surprisingly balanced.
>>
>>Psychic powers or clever scam, I can't help but think there's something
>>cruel about mediums. They should work for free if they're so caring.
>
> I don't mind people who are providing a service charging for it, but £60-100
> an hour seems to be the going rate at the moment (£15-25 per 15/20 minute
> session) and the service provided seems to have no basis by which one can
> reasonably demand a refund for poor service received.
That's a reasonable estimate, just for the low end people. Mystic Meg
runs a live phone line (naturally not with her talking but other gifted
'psychics') which is £1.50 per minute.
At the other end of the scale are the likes of Sylvia Browne & John
Edward who'll cold read you for a mere $700 or more.
You have to wonder that the fraudulent fuckers are even allowed to do
business.
Cardinal Chunder
> "Lee J. Moore" <l...@cafe-society.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbkh67...@cafe.lan...
>
>>Evil wrote:
>>[..]
>>
>>>>I can't help but think there's something cruel about mediums.
>>>>They should work for free if they're so caring.
>>>
>>>Mediums...cruel? some people have some very strange ideas.
>>
>>Why is that a strange idea? Their ability is utterly unproven
>>after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a sect of con-artists
>>taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable.
>
>
> Have you done much in the way of personal research to back that
> statement up Lee? as it sure doesn't sound like it.
> Have you ever been to a reputable medium or have experience of
> Spiritualism as practiced in the UK? do tell.
Reputable and medium do no belong in the same sentence.
But if you think otherwise, why not help the guy out and supply us to
some links to this research you speak of. You know, published peer
reviewed papers which demonstrate psychic powers exist, rather than
anecdotal twaddle.
Will
"Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
news:ajbdib...@192.168.1.1...
| Evil Noodle wrote:
|
| > "Lee J. Moore" <l...@cafe-society.com> wrote in message
| > news:slrnbkh67...@cafe.lan...
| >
| >>Evil wrote:
| >>[..]
| >>
| >>>>I can't help but think there's something cruel about mediums.
| >>>>They should work for free if they're so caring.
| >>>
| >>>Mediums...cruel? some people have some very strange ideas.
| >>
| >>Why is that a strange idea? Their ability is utterly unproven
| >>after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a sect of
con-artists
| >>taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable.
| >
| >
| > Have you done much in the way of personal research to back that
| > statement up Lee? as it sure doesn't sound like it.
| > Have you ever been to a reputable medium or have experience of
| > Spiritualism as practiced in the UK? do tell.
|
| Reputable and medium do no belong in the same sentence.
They can do. You should see the ones that don't charge.
I don't trust anyone who charges for their "gift".
Gea Jones
Ballet] in this?
Gea
"Will" <skell...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:106182588...@iris.uk.clara.net...
Will
"Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bidca8$rsl$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
| Would you include all Artists[Music, Painting, Poetry, Literature,
Opera,
| Ballet] in this?
No. Which is why "gift" was in inverted commas*.....although, being an
artist myself, I can't say I've ever taken any pleasure from selling any
of my works....it felt like I was selling my children, so I stopped.
not only that, but I haven't picked up any of my royalties for the last
20.....it feels wrong for me to do so.
But that's just me.
*I figured universal truths are for the good of the universe....if you
have access to them, they should be shared, not charged for.
Mediumship, channelling, tarot, etc should not be charged for......
Cardinal Chunder
> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:ajbdib...@192.168.1.1...
>
>
> They can do. You should see the ones that don't charge.
>
> I don't trust anyone who charges for their "gift".
>
I'd credit someone as being honest if they didn't charge, but that
doesn't mean they're trustworthy by virtue of the fact they're
dispensing advice from the nether regions of their uncritical and
possibly deluded imagination.
I'd take a properly trained counseller any day. Strangely enough, the
NHS ensures they're free too.
Will
| Will wrote:
| > "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in
message
| > news:ajbdib...@192.168.1.1...
| >
| > | Reputable and medium do no belong in the same sentence.
| >
| > They can do. You should see the ones that don't charge.
| >
| > I don't trust anyone who charges for their "gift".
| >
|
| I'd credit someone as being honest if they didn't charge, but that
| doesn't mean they're trustworthy by virtue of the fact they're
| dispensing advice from the nether regions of their uncritical and
| possibly deluded imagination.
Agreed, bu I'd rather be told shit and not have to pay for the privelege
;-)
| I'd take a properly trained counseller any day. Strangely enough, the
| NHS ensures they're free too.
Hey....how's this for madness...I'm a witch *and* a trained
counsellor......I don't take cash for either things :-)
Will
(Working in a crappy office to pay the bills)
Gea Jones
>
> "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bidca8$rsl$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> | Would you include all Artists[Music, Painting, Poetry, Literature,
> Opera,
> | Ballet] in this?
>
> No. Which is why "gift" was in inverted commas*.....although, being an
> artist myself, I can't say I've ever taken any pleasure from selling any
> of my works....it felt like I was selling my children, so I stopped.
> not only that, but I haven't picked up any of my royalties for the last
> 20.....it feels wrong for me to do so.
>
> But that's just me.
Funny, I guessed you were an Artist [?]
So , as you feel you have a gift too, and obviously from God,
do you mind me asking how you can afford to live?
I mean just basic things like eating?
Do you disapprove of Van Gogh living off his brother?
Even though his brother loved him and realised he had to help his rare
talent?
What about Van Gogh using inferior Yellow in THe Sunflowers,
instead of chromium yellow which doesn't flake, which he coulden't aford.
Do you disapprove of some of Turners finest paintings being painted for
his Patron, thus enabling him to travel across Europe to do them,
then what about Patrons of Art through the centuries,?:
DO YOU DISAPPROVE OF THAT?
cURIOUS
Gea
ps , my father invented and designed and produced the FIRST CND badge
he wouldn't take any money for it,
othewise I guess I would be a Billionairess,
Gea Jones
"Will
(Working in a crappy office to pay the bills)"
just my point,
you say you are an Artist yet you are bitter?
I gave someone the winning Lottery nos, for 2.7 million pounds on the
condition that they didn't give me one penny if they won,becuse I was afraid
I would lose my Gift,
they didn't give me anything,
yet I am poor and I am very unsure that what I did
really was 'right'
so this subject really matters to me
Gea
Brian Watson
> Will wrote:
> > "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> > news:ajbdib...@192.168.1.1...
> >
> > | Reputable and medium do no belong in the same sentence.
> >
> > They can do. You should see the ones that don't charge.
> >
> > I don't trust anyone who charges for their "gift".
> >
>
> I'd credit someone as being honest if they didn't charge, but that
> doesn't mean they're trustworthy by virtue of the fact they're
> dispensing advice from the nether regions of their uncritical and
> possibly deluded imagination.
As the bloke who kicked off this discussion on charging, I'll re-iterate
that I don't have any objection to a fair price being charged if the service
is good.
Like most dispensers of guidance, mediums don't just come in "medium" - they
come in "good", "bad" and "indifferent" too.
I'm sure some are honest and believe they have a gift, some are intuitive
and may/may not know how they do what they do but get results that satisfy
the client, and some are either self-deluding or outright con artists.
The problem is one of validating claims and I'd agree that personal
recommendation is probably the best way to get put in touch with someone if
this sort of counselling is wanted.
I am suspicious of excessive fees, I am suspicious of the showbiz
presentation of some and I think the idea of "party-plan mediumship" and
"psychic fairs" (which looks in presentational terms a lot like an even
older profession) has a bad odour too.
altheim
"Richard Caley" wrote:
> altheim (a) writes:
>
> a> Unfortunately the garnering of information by psychic means does
> a> not follow the same rules of information acquisition as it does by
> a> the regular five senses. It does frequently come in discrete
> a> 'packets' that make little sense until it can be discussed and
> a> compared.
>
> How, er, convinient. ``I have a message for someone here, can they
> tell me what it is please?''
Far be it from me to be unappreciative of a little friendly
sarcasm I do understand your scepticism but I'm afraid,
convenient or not, that is the way it is.
--
altheim
altheim
"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "altheim" <alt...@spamblokfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
> > We don't *need* them in the way that we need food,
> > clothing, gas, electricity etc., so the application of standards
> > is a redundancy. Anyone disappointed in the service they
> > receive have only themselves to blame.
>
> You lost your logic in the middle of that.
Oops! ok :-)
> If they offer a service (which they do) they should stand responsibility for
> it if it doesn't work.
What I mean is, people absolutely *must* have food and
clothing so laws governing standards are a necessity but
for something like psychic services which only a small
minority want and no-one *needs* those customers can
and should be left to their own devices. Some would say
gullibility should be punished.
--
altheim
altheim
> [..]
> >
> > Unfortunately the garnering of information by psychic means
> > does not follow the same rules of information acquisition as
> > it does by the regular five senses. It does frequently come in
> > discrete 'packets'
>
> TCP/IP or UDP? Maybe a packet sniffer is the way to go. ;)
Yes yes, thank you for that...
Actually, thinking about it, the analogy may not be far wide
of the mark: Neural functioning presumably shifts data around
in the brain, possibly in the form of discrete chunks, and now
and again, according to one theory that fits observed facts,
anomalous psi signals overlay thought or existing memory
patterns with extraneous information. These may be just bits
of information such as a forename or the image of an object
that the medium has to present meaningfully to the customer.
--
altheim
Neil Hopkins
In the words of Nelson Muntz - "Ha Ha!"
Will
|
|
|
| "Will
| (Working in a crappy office to pay the bills)"
|
| just my point,
| you say you are an Artist yet you are bitter?
Am I? oh....well, it's news to me. Things is, i work to buy materials
to do art. if i stopped working, I'd staarve, given my inability to
feel comfortable about selling my art. One sserves the other....it's no
biggy.
| I gave someone the winning Lottery nos, for 2.7 million pounds on the
| condition that they didn't give me one penny if they won,becuse I was
afraid
| I would lose my Gift,
| they didn't give me anything,
| yet I am poor and I am very unsure that what I did
| really was 'right'
| so this subject really matters to me
You made someone happy and you wonder if you did the right thing?
Just think about that for a second........you got what you wanted, they
got what they wanting and nothing was harmed, abused or otherwise
mistreated.....ad you have doubts?
Will
"Will" <skell...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message news:...| news:bidn6f$l4d$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
| |
| | "Will" <skell...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
| | news:106182875...@doris.uk.clara.net...
| | >
| | > | Would you include all Artists[Music, Painting, Poetry,
Literature,
| | > Opera,
| | > | Ballet] in this?
| | >
| | > No. Which is why "gift" was in inverted commas*.....although,
being
| an
| | > artist myself, I can't say I've ever taken any pleasure from
selling
| any
| | > of my works....it felt like I was selling my children, so I
stopped.
| | > not only that, but I haven't picked up any of my royalties for the
| last
| | > 20.....it feels wrong for me to do so.
| | >
| | > But that's just me.
| |
| | Funny, I guessed you were an Artist [?]
| | So , as you feel you have a gift too, and obviously from God,
|
| artist.....it certainly wasn't something I was able to do from birth!
|
| | do you mind me asking how you can afford to live?
|
|
| | I mean just basic things like eating?
|
| about giving people large sums of money....and go shopping.
|
| | Do you disapprove of Van Gogh living off his brother?
|
| complain about?
|
| | Even though his brother loved him and realised he had to help his
rare
| | talent?
|
|
| | What about Van Gogh using inferior Yellow in THe Sunflowers,
| | instead of chromium yellow which doesn't flake, which he coulden't
| aford.
|
| paint or another merely compounds it's emphemeral nature. it's not
the
| quality of paint, rather the skill of the painter that should be taken
| into account.
|
| | Do you disapprove of some of Turners finest paintings being painted
| for
| | his Patron, thus enabling him to travel across Europe to do them,
| | then what about Patrons of Art through the centuries,?:
|
| but art, for me is about spontenaiy, not producing to order. (note
the
| "For Me" there)
|
| | DO YOU DISAPPROVE OF THAT?
|
|
| | ps , my father invented and designed and produced the FIRST CND
badge
| | he wouldn't take any money for it,
|
| sons/daughters pockets.
|
| | othewise I guess I would be a Billionairess,
|
|
|
|
|
| | > *I figured universal truths are for the good of the universe....if
| you
| | > have access to them, they should be shared, not charged for.
| | > Mediumship, channelling, tarot, etc should not be charged
for......
| | >
| | >
| | > | Gea
| | > |
| | > |
| | > | "Will" <skell...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
| | > | news:106182588...@iris.uk.clara.net...
| | > | >
| | > message
| | > | > news:ajbdib...@192.168.1.1...
| | > | > |
| | > | > | > "Lee J. Moore" <l...@cafe-society.com> wrote in message
| | > | > | > news:slrnbkh67...@cafe.lan...
| | > | > | >
| | > | > | >>Evil wrote:
| | > | > | >>[..]
| | > | > | >>
| | > | > | >>>>I can't help but think there's something cruel about
| mediums.
| | > | > | >>>>They should work for free if they're so caring.
| | > | > | >>>
| | > | > | >>>Mediums...cruel? some people have some very strange
ideas.
| | > | > | >>
| | > | > | >>Why is that a strange idea? Their ability is utterly
| unproven
| | > | > | >>after all. It's hardly difficult to comprehend a sect of
| | > | > con-artists
| | > | > | >>taking advantage of people at their most vulnerable.
| | > | > | >
| | > | > | >
| | > | > | > Have you done much in the way of personal research to back
| that
| | > | > | > statement up Lee? as it sure doesn't sound like it.
| | > | > | > Have you ever been to a reputable medium or have
experience
| of
| | > | > | > Spiritualism as practiced in the UK? do tell.
| | > | > |
Gea Jones
>
> "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bidnl8$np$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> |
> |
> |
> | "Will
> | (Working in a crappy office to pay the bills)"
> |
> | just my point,
> | you say you are an Artist yet you are bitter?
OK, I apologise,
but woulden't you prefer to be able to work as an Artist full-time?
It is a valid gift , and could be of benefit to many people., art can enrich
and enhance life,
>
> Am I? oh....well, it's news to me. Things is, i work to buy materials
> to do art. if i stopped working, I'd staarve, given my inability to
> feel comfortable about selling my art. One sserves the other....it's no
> biggy.
You have the same problem I have,
you feel uncomfortable about your Gift, but the question is, why?
I ask myself this too,
>
> | I gave someone the winning Lottery nos, for 2.7 million pounds on the
> | condition that they didn't give me one penny if they won,becuse I was
> afraid
> | I would lose my Gift,
> | they didn't give me anything,
> | yet I am poor and I am very unsure that what I did
> | really was 'right'
> | so this subject really matters to me
>
> You made someone happy and you wonder if you did the right thing?
Well that is just it, I don't even know if I made them happy,
they moved half way around the world, to get away from death thresats, and
turned out to be the meanest people in this area,
not gossip, it just turned out that way,
it made me question many things,
if they had written me one letter , some time after the initial euphoria and
thanked me
and told me they were happy ,,,, well, they didn't
>
> Just think about that for a second........you got what you wanted, they
> got what they wanting and nothing was harmed, abused or otherwise
> mistreated.....ad you have doubts?
When I offered this particular woman the nos. the first thing she said was
"will that be extra"? I just laughed and said no,
what makes me full of doubt is they realy weren't nice people,
this is from Everyone they knew and family included,
they also flaunted their wealth 2. 7 million pounds is a LOT of money,
the interest alone, if you donm't spend it.
they flaunted their new found wealth, and
it made them very unpopular
my dream was to open a FREE healing centre in the bottom
part of my house,
healing is my strongest Gift,
instead the publicity had an adverse effect on me
everyone assumed I was now Rich, and it made me become poor as a sort of
backlash
I have two sons, I couldn't care less about money, but when I see them
deprived of things ,
yes
now , I feel angry, and disilllusioned,
why should a complete [and not nice] stranger benefit from my Gift
but not my own family?
It seems wrong,
I worked out that 100 thousand pounds from the [2.7 MILLION] money would
have set me and my sons up for life
and would have been enough for my Free Healing centre,
is that wrong?
Gea
I feel angry
>
>
>
Gea Jones
Sorry, I assumed you were talking abput Spiritual Gifts, from St. Paul in
the Bible> |
YES !
There are causes greater than lining your or your
> | sons/daughters pockets.
There is a difference between lining your childrens pockets and just being
able to help them in this crazy , mad world we live in,
> |
> | | othewise I guess I would be a Billionairess,
> |
> | And you'd feel good about that?
Totally HYpothetical, I haven't got a clue, I feel very good about what my
father did, I guess I am just tired of what seems to have become a bit of a
Martyr syndrome in my family,
Gea
ps hypothetically woulden't you like to devote your life to your Gift?
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
a> Neural functioning presumably shifts data around
a> in the brain, possibly in the form of discrete chunks,
if understad what you mean, this isn't the way the brain works. Our
understanding of how it works is pretty primitive at the moment, but
we do know that it is all mssively distributed, not a ssytem of
components swapping packets of information.
a> and now and again, according to one theory that fits observed
a> facts, anomalous psi signals overlay thought or existing memory
a> patterns with extraneous information. These may be just bits of
a> information such as a forename or the image of an object that the
a> medium has to present meaningfully to the customer.
Since each brain is `wired' idiosycratically, the chances of such
transfered sttes making sense are nil. Imagine taking some electrical
signals from a TV when Deli is on, inserting them into a bread
machine's controling electronics and expecting it to produce the nice
olive bread she was describing.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> How, er, convinient. ``I have a message for someone here, can they
>> tell me what it is please?''
a> Far be it from me to be unappreciative of a little friendly
a> sarcasm I do understand your scepticism but I'm afraid,
a> convenient or not, that is the way it is.
If it was actually happening in this form, it would still be trivial
to prove beyond reasonable doubt, and the phenomenon would long ago
have been accepted as part of our normal view of the world. There are
a _lot_ of mathematical and information processing tools designed for
dealing with fragmentory data, detecting patterns and measuring actual
information content.
Will
|
| "Will" <skell...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
| news:106184613...@damia.uk.clara.net...
| >
| > "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
| > news:bidnl8$np$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | "Will
| > | (Working in a crappy office to pay the bills)"
| > |
| > | just my point,
| > | you say you are an Artist yet you are bitter?
|
| OK, I apologise,
| but woulden't you prefer to be able to work as an Artist full-time?
I don't know. I did for a while and didn't really like who became.
It's vert easy to disappear up your own arse whenbeing a full time
artist. I like to ave at least one foot in the real world :-)
| It is a valid gift , and could be of benefit to many people., art can
enrich
| and enhance life,
And it has done. I still do work for people, occaisionally, if the end
result will be beneficial (ie the odd charity, etc) I just don't charge
| > Am I? oh....well, it's news to me. Things is, i work to buy
materials
| > to do art. if i stopped working, I'd staarve, given my inability to
| > feel comfortable about selling my art. One sserves the
other....it's no
| > biggy.
|
| You have the same problem I have,
| you feel uncomfortable about your Gift, but the question is, why?
As I said, I don't beleiv it's agift n the way you seem to suggest. I
don't feel comfortable with what is expected of me because I can do what
I can do. I'm fine about being an artist. I just don't want people to
rip me off.
| > You made someone happy and you wonder if you did the right thing?
| Well that is just it, I don't even know if I made them happy,
Okay. You gave them wha they wanted. The fact they seem to be unable to
handle it is NOT your fault. THe fact they are mean and ungrateful,
again...not your fault.
| > Just think about that for a second........you got what you wanted,
they
| > got what they wanting and nothing was harmed, abused or otherwise
| > mistreated.....ad you have doubts?
|
| healing is my strongest Gift,
Which sort?
| why should a complete [and not nice] stranger benefit from my Gift
| but not my own family?
| It seems wrong,
| I worked out that 100 thousand pounds from the [2.7 MILLION] money
would
| have set me and my sons up for life
| and would have been enough for my Free Healing centre,
| is that wrong?
No, of course not. But you have to understand that some people are out
for all they can get. They paid what you charged and reaped the
benefits. You can't blame them for that, but you can despair about the
ungrateful attitude. It's a harsh world and you have to rely on your
own guile, not hope that others will have the generosity you hope they
have....
Crappy, but the way it is.
Andy Mabbett
Noodle <evil.noodle@?.com.invalid> writes
>> > Perhaps you might like to take that up with the government
>> > then? after all it was they that officially recognised
>> > Spiritualism as a religion,
>>
>> And pray tell, what significance is that? What does that prove?
>
>That the Government isn't noted for giving official sanction to anyone
>who proposes a new religion be accepted, and that just maybe their
>claims were demonstrable to an acceptable standard.
Please cite a reference for the government "officially recognising" a
religion, and describe what that entails.
Thank you.
--
Andy Mabbett
USA imprisons children without trial, at Guantanamo Bay:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2970279.stm>
<http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR510582003?open&of=ENG-USA>
Andy Mabbett
<Than...@blueREMOVEyonder.co.uk> writes
>>where did Jesus get his qualifications ?
>
>University of South Galilee (formerly known as Nazareth Poly). NVQ
>level 5 in woodwork, apparently.
and in wine-making.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> University of South Galilee (formerly known as Nazareth Poly). NVQ
>> level 5 in woodwork, apparently.
am> and in wine-making.
No, that was just standard student behaviour, not part of the course.
mick
Richard Caley wrote:
> In article <AicnROBRMyS$Ew...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>, Andy Mabbett (am)
> writes:
>
>>> University of South Galilee (formerly known as Nazareth Poly). NVQ
>>> level 5 in woodwork, apparently.
>
>
> am> and in wine-making.
>
> No, that was just standard student behaviour, not part of the course.
Wining students? Surely not.
mick
Brian Watson
"Andy Mabbett" <usenet...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote in message
news:AicnROBRMyS$Ew...@pigsonthewing.org.uk...
> In message <83ijkvs94alu0p5pt...@4ax.com>, Thanatos
> <Than...@blueREMOVEyonder.co.uk> writes
> >>where did Jesus get his qualifications ?
> >
> >University of South Galilee (formerly known as Nazareth Poly). NVQ
> >level 5 in woodwork, apparently.
>
> and in wine-making.
...in which he achieved a distinction.
His results in the swimming were, I believed, quite remarkable too.
--
Brian
"Stuck down a hole, in the fog, in the middle of the night, with an owl."
Cardinal Chunder
> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:unkdib...@192.168.1.1...
>
>>Will wrote:
>>
>>>"Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ajbdib...@192.168.1.1...
>>
>> >
>>
>>>| Reputable and medium do no belong in the same sentence.
>>>
>>>They can do. You should see the ones that don't charge.
>>>
>>>I don't trust anyone who charges for their "gift".
>>>
>>
>>I'd credit someone as being honest if they didn't charge, but that
>>doesn't mean they're trustworthy by virtue of the fact they're
>>dispensing advice from the nether regions of their uncritical and
>>possibly deluded imagination.
>
>
> As the bloke who kicked off this discussion on charging, I'll re-iterate
> that I don't have any objection to a fair price being charged if the service
> is good.
Yeah but what service are you getting from a psychic? Is it 'for
entertainment purposes only' or are they professing to reach out to the
other side to offer advice.
If the former, then why the hell are they even entitled to call
themselves psychic, and if the latter then why the hell are they so
vague, fishing for clues, hot & cold reading as they do.
> Like most dispensers of guidance, mediums don't just come in "medium" - they
> come in "good", "bad" and "indifferent" too.
>
> I'm sure some are honest and believe they have a gift, some are intuitive
> and may/may not know how they do what they do but get results that satisfy
> the client, and some are either self-deluding or outright con artists.
>
> The problem is one of validating claims and I'd agree that personal
> recommendation is probably the best way to get put in touch with someone if
> this sort of counselling is wanted.
Personal recommendation also makes the psychics job a lot easier since
they can find out a bunch of information about the new client from the
old one and feed it out as from the beyond the grave or whatever.
> I am suspicious of excessive fees, I am suspicious of the showbiz
> presentation of some and I think the idea of "party-plan mediumship" and
> "psychic fairs" (which looks in presentational terms a lot like an even
> older profession) has a bad odour too.
My opinion is they're either entertainers, or they're unqualified
counsellors. Most countries have strict rules on who might offer
counselling services and someone proclaiming to be 'psychic' should not
be exempted from them.
altheim
I 'hear' you. I can't pretend to have even the slightest knowledge
of brain functioning yet I feel it is safe to say that our conscious
thoughts must have a corresponding physical 'image'
somewhere in the brain - fairly obviously, I should think, in the
form of chemo-electric signals or, dare I use the latest buzz-word,
quantum tunnelling... But please let's not get bogged down in
half learned technicalities; all I am trying to do is offer a possible
explanation for the fact that mediums do not usually get the
whole picture.
It might be worth mentioning at this point that when students
engaged in psi trials are questioned they are hardly ever
able to say which of their 'correct' guesses were psychically
generated. I imagine, but stand to be corrected, that
professional mediums are equally unable to differentiate
between psychic information and random thoughts - hence
their need to have their comments verified.
--
altheim
Will
This is why I'm rather....reticent about the whole subject.
undoubtedly, the former exist, undoubtedly the second lot exist
too.....but there are third types....genuine psychics who don't shout
about it, but are indredibly insightful, don't do the fishing/hot and
cold thing and are frighteningly accurate....
A rarity, to be sure.....but they do exist. Alas, the only woman I
would give such credit to died several years ago....but it did prove to
me that people with extraordinary gifts do exist.
| > Like most dispensers of guidance, mediums don't just come in
"medium" - they
| > come in "good", "bad" and "indifferent" too.
Bingo.
| > I'm sure some are honest and believe they have a gift, some are
intuitive
| > and may/may not know how they do what they do but get results that
satisfy
| > the client, and some are either self-deluding or outright con
artists.
Couldn't agree more....but the fact the majority are the latter
shouldn't preclude beleif in the former. It's quite possible a lot of
"psychic" ability is nothing more than advanced body language reading,
but if the net result is the same, does it matter?
Mediumship is a weird one.....I'm not sure it's somethign that can be
learned....although Isure you can be taught to fake it....
| > The problem is one of validating claims and I'd agree that personal
| > recommendation is probably the best way to get put in touch with
someone if
| > this sort of counselling is wanted.
Yeah, but even counselling is odd...you don't have to be accreditted to
set yourself up as a counsellor. you can go to a basic counselling
course, and set yourself up. you don't even have to have understood the
course as counselling level 1 is passed by attendeance rather than by
written work proving understanding of the subject....doesn't that scare
the living bejeezus out of you?
| My opinion is they're either entertainers, or they're unqualified
| counsellors. Most countries have strict rules on who might offer
| counselling services and someone proclaiming to be 'psychic' should
not
| be exempted from them.
If it's counselling they are offering, fair enough....but can you be
licensed to talk to the dead?
|
Will
| In message <Or72b.3409$L15...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, Evil
| Noodle <evil.noodle@?.com.invalid> writes
| >> > Perhaps you might like to take that up with the government
| >> > then? after all it was they that officially recognised
| >> > Spiritualism as a religion,
| >>
| >> And pray tell, what significance is that? What does that prove?
| >
| >That the Government isn't noted for giving official sanction to
anyone
| >who proposes a new religion be accepted, and that just maybe their
| >claims were demonstrable to an acceptable standard.
|
| Please cite a reference for the government "officially recognising" a
| religion, and describe what that entails.
Give me some time, but I can probably provide you with a form which
lists just that.
I used to work as a prison visitor for pagan inmates and would offer
counselling, ritual, etc to said inmates....as far as I recall, the
government (home office) refuses to recognise Satanism, Nation of Islam
and a couple of other religions, but we were sent guidelines as to what
this entailed. I haven't done it for a couple of years, but I'll try
and dig the file out for you.
Will
(State endorsed Shaman....hehehehe)
Brian Watson
> Brian Watson wrote:
> > As the bloke who kicked off this discussion on charging, I'll re-iterate
> > that I don't have any objection to a fair price being charged if the
service
> > is good.
>
> Yeah but what service are you getting from a psychic?
Often a service about on a par with that of a good family doctor - a cosy
chat and a bit of reassurance.
With a medium you also get a little of what might be mumbo-jumbo : with a
doctor you also get a piece of paper and a bill for a few pills.
Brian Watson
> | > The problem is one of validating claims and I'd agree that personal
> | > recommendation is probably the best way to get put in touch with
> someone if
> | > this sort of counselling is wanted.
>
> Yeah, but even counselling is odd...you don't have to be accreditted to
> set yourself up as a counsellor. you can go to a basic counselling
> course, and set yourself up. you don't even have to have understood the
> course as counselling level 1 is passed by attendeance rather than by
> written work proving understanding of the subject....doesn't that scare
> the living bejeezus out of you?
When one can buy a degree or set up as a cleric, not 'specially.
:-))
I've always applied a bit of common-sense to those who might be bunco
artists.
Cardinal Chunder
> If it's counselling they are offering, fair enough....but can you be
> licensed to talk to the dead?
Well it's like this.
Either they can talk to the dead, or they're pretending to. If the
latter then they're dispensing advice from their own deluded brains and
therefore should be treated the same as any other unqualified counsellor.
But if they're genuine, then let them prove it.
One would have thought the genuine psychics would wish to disassociate
themselves from the charlatans... So it seems more than a little odd
that not one of them will take the Randi million dollar challenge (or
the numerous others like it), win and give the money to orphans or
whatever. If you passed you wouldn't even need the cash since you'd be
set up for life (tours, books, tv etc.) as well as opening the
floodgates for others and perhaps even official recognition.
Gea Jones
"Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:big5g4$56j$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Did you know that in the UK , under the NHS, a GP, gets paid £400 for being
on callout in the evening?
Just to make anyone who has ever called a Doctor out late
feel less guilty.
When it comes to Money , I think pointing fingers would be more appropriate
in the direction of ,
well,
people who overcharge for a bad service , of any kind,
it can happen in plumbing, having an MOT,
anything,
so why the big fuss about Psychics?
Most don't charge a ridiculous amount of money,
and it can be very helpful, particularly in the callous
society we live in.
What about a bit of praise?
Gea
>
>
Neil Hopkins
<Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Did you know that in the UK , under the NHS, a GP, gets paid £400 for being
>on callout in the evening?
>Just to make anyone who has ever called a Doctor out late
>feel less guilty.
>When it comes to Money , I think pointing fingers would be more appropriate
>in the direction of ,
>well,
>people who overcharge for a bad service , of any kind,
>it can happen in plumbing, having an MOT,
>anything,
>so why the big fuss about Psychics?
>Most don't charge a ridiculous amount of money,
>and it can be very helpful, particularly in the callous
>society we live in.
>What about a bit of praise?
Psychics are at best deluded credulous fools, at worst cynical con
artists. By pretending to talk to the dead they take advantage of
people when they are at their most vulnerable with no heed to the
consequences of their lies. Charging for it just makes it worse.
Will
| Will wrote:
| > If it's counselling they are offering, fair enough....but can you be
| > licensed to talk to the dead?
|
| Well it's like this.
|
| Either they can talk to the dead, or they're pretending to. If the
| latter then they're dispensing advice from their own deluded brains
and
| therefore should be treated the same as any other unqualified
counsellor.
Which means nowt.
|
| But if they're genuine, then let them prove it.
And how do they do that when the the initial reaction is always...."it's
a trick" or "they're fishing"....?
|
| One would have thought the genuine psychics would wish to disassociate
| themselves from the charlatans... So it seems more than a little odd
| that not one of them will take the Randi million dollar challenge (or
| the numerous others like it), win and give the money to orphans or
| whatever. If you passed you wouldn't even need the cash since you'd be
| set up for life (tours, books, tv etc.) as well as opening the
| floodgates for others and perhaps even official recognition.
A fair point....or two.....but as I said the real ones go about it
quietly....the idea of huge press intrusion is something of an
anathema....why should they put themselves in the spotlight when they
don't want to? And who says that money is the be all and end all?
Will
Well quite....but it's getting more and more difficult to tell who's
qualified and who has dodgy certification....
Will
|
| "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
| news:mohfib...@192.168.1.1...
| > Brian Watson wrote:
|
| > > As the bloke who kicked off this discussion on charging, I'll
re-iterate
| > > that I don't have any objection to a fair price being charged if
the
| service
| > > is good.
| >
| > Yeah but what service are you getting from a psychic?
|
| Often a service about on a par with that of a good family doctor - a
cosy
| chat and a bit of reassurance.
We obviously have very differnt doctors. Mines a first class arsehole
and completely homophobic.
Will
"Neil Hopkins" <neil_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f4bc49b...@news.individual.net...
| On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:22:35 +0000 (UTC), "Gea Jones"
| <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
|
|
| >Did you know that in the UK , under the NHS, a GP, gets paid £400
for being
| >on callout in the evening?
| >Just to make anyone who has ever called a Doctor out late
| >feel less guilty.
| >When it comes to Money , I think pointing fingers would be more
appropriate
| >in the direction of ,
| >well,
| >people who overcharge for a bad service , of any kind,
| >it can happen in plumbing, having an MOT,
| >anything,
| >so why the big fuss about Psychics?
| >Most don't charge a ridiculous amount of money,
| >and it can be very helpful, particularly in the callous
| >society we live in.
| >What about a bit of praise?
|
| Psychics are at best deluded credulous fools, at worst cynical con
| artists. By pretending to talk to the dead they take advantage of
| people when they are at their most vulnerable with no heed to the
| consequences of their lies.
There's nothing like an open mind, is there....
Charging for it just makes it worse.
If they are charlatans yes is does....
Cardinal Chunder
> "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> news:ja8gib...@192.168.1.1...
> | Will wrote:
> | > If it's counselling they are offering, fair enough....but can you be
> | > licensed to talk to the dead?
> |
> | Well it's like this.
> |
> | Either they can talk to the dead, or they're pretending to. If the
> | latter then they're dispensing advice from their own deluded brains
> and
> | therefore should be treated the same as any other unqualified
> counsellor.
>
> Which means nowt.
It means a lot as many countries require counsellors to be county /
state registered. I have no idea what laws govern the UK, but I would be
surprised if there were no laws about what kinds of personal or medical
advice could be dispensed by a professional who was not qualified to
make them.
> |
> | But if they're genuine, then let them prove it.
>
> And how do they do that when the the initial reaction is always...."it's
> a trick" or "they're fishing"....?
By taking a properly conducted test which precludes the possibility of
cheating.
> |
> | One would have thought the genuine psychics would wish to disassociate
> | themselves from the charlatans... So it seems more than a little odd
> | that not one of them will take the Randi million dollar challenge (or
> | the numerous others like it), win and give the money to orphans or
> | whatever. If you passed you wouldn't even need the cash since you'd be
> | set up for life (tours, books, tv etc.) as well as opening the
> | floodgates for others and perhaps even official recognition.
>
> A fair point....or two.....but as I said the real ones go about it
> quietly....
So all the vocal ones are fake?
> the idea of huge press intrusion is something of an
> anathema....
I don't see why every single genuine psychic would consider they have to
stay out of the limelight. Would every normal person stay out of the
limelight too, even when there was an easy million to be had?
And if that were a concern why don't they apply for one of the lesser
challenges which wouldn't attract nearly as much attention as the Randi
/ JREF one? Search around and you'll find various local skeptic groups
offering prizes for similar demonstrations.
> why should they put themselves in the spotlight when they
> don't want to?
If they don't want to put themselves in the spotlight, perhaps they
shouldn't be claiming to do things they can't or won't do. And if they
*can* do them, how about proving it and put some distance between
themselves and the fakes in the process?
> And who says that money is the be all and end all?
Then they can give it away. I'm sure there are starving orphans in
Liberia for example right now who wouldn't say no to a million dollars.
Brian Watson
>
> "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:big5g4$56j$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> Did you know that in the UK , under the NHS, a GP, gets paid £400 for
being
> on callout in the evening?
> Just to make anyone who has ever called a Doctor out late
> feel less guilty.
> When it comes to Money , I think pointing fingers would be more
appropriate
> in the direction of , well,
> people who overcharge for a bad service , of any kind,
Agreed.
> it can happen in plumbing, having an MOT,
> anything,
> so why the big fuss about Psychics?
Because with a garage one can say "look, it still runs badly" and with a
plumber one can say "look, it still leaks."
Hard to prove Auntie Doris did not "come through" with the information on
one's deceased wife now being "with the rest of the family and at peace,"
even when the medium's whole "I have a man here and he's showing me a china
dog..." shtick seems to have been a tissue of tosh.
> Most don't charge a ridiculous amount of money,
I'd say about £100 an hour (see upthread for an example I gave from close
experiance) for an unverifiable "service" IS ridiculous.
> and it can be very helpful, particularly in the callous
> society we live in.
Can be, agreed, but the debate is about those who are NOT actually providing
the service claimed and are just bluffing it and taking the money. I really
can't see how you can defend the practice.
Last Saturday I was discussing this with friends and did an off the cuff,
totally bogus, reading for one of them (telling her before that I was going
to just make it all up). She was well-impressed and said that perhaps I have
psychic gifts and should be practising.
No, I was making it all up, using some likely initials and common occurences
early on to make the rest of the references more credible to her.
Throughout the debate, I have said that I believe some people do seem to
have abilities in this area but my concern is about those who don't.
> What about a bit of praise?
Where it's due, absolutely.
--
Brian
"The wind, do you hear it? It says 'Hel ... looo'"
Brian Watson
>
> "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:big5g4$56j$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> |
> | "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in message
> | news:mohfib...@192.168.1.1...
> | > Yeah but what service are you getting from a psychic?
> |
> | Often a service about on a par with that of a good family doctor - a
> cosy
> | chat and a bit of reassurance.
>
> We obviously have very differnt doctors. Mines a first class arsehole
> and completely homophobic.
Are you suggesting that, as an arsehole, he should be more open?
--
Brian
"What's the point in growing up if you can't behave like a kid when you want
to."
Will
| Will wrote:
|
| > "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in
message
| > news:ja8gib...@192.168.1.1...
| > | Will wrote:
| > | > If it's counselling they are offering, fair enough....but can
you be
| > | > licensed to talk to the dead?
| > |
| > | Well it's like this.
| > |
| > | Either they can talk to the dead, or they're pretending to. If the
| > | latter then they're dispensing advice from their own deluded
brains
| > and
| > | therefore should be treated the same as any other unqualified
| > counsellor.
| >
| > Which means nowt.
|
| It means a lot as many countries require counsellors to be county /
| state registered. I have no idea what laws govern the UK, but I would
be
| surprised if there were no laws about what kinds of personal or
medical
| advice could be dispensed by a professional who was not qualified to
| make them.
Counsellors still don't have to be qualified, although it's getting more
difficult to start up without them.
|
| > |
| > | But if they're genuine, then let them prove it.
| >
| > And how do they do that when the the initial reaction is
always...."it's
| > a trick" or "they're fishing"....?
|
| By taking a properly conducted test which precludes the possibility of
| cheating.
How ouwld you do that?
| > | One would have thought the genuine psychics would wish to
disassociate
| > | themselves from the charlatans... So it seems more than a little
odd
| > | that not one of them will take the Randi million dollar challenge
(or
| > | the numerous others like it), win and give the money to orphans or
| > | whatever. If you passed you wouldn't even need the cash since
you'd be
| > | set up for life (tours, books, tv etc.) as well as opening the
| > | floodgates for others and perhaps even official recognition.
| >
| > A fair point....or two.....but as I said the real ones go about it
| > quietly....
|
| So all the vocal ones are fake?
Don't twist my words to you own ends, or I'll have to invoke the humpty
dunpty gambit ;-)
|
| > the idea of huge press intrusion is something of an
| > anathema....
|
| I don't see why every single genuine psychic would consider they have
to
| stay out of the limelight. Would every normal person stay out of the
| limelight too, even when there was an easy million to be had?
Being in the limelight ain't worth a million.....
| > why should they put themselves in the spotlight when they
| > don't want to?
|
| If they don't want to put themselves in the spotlight, perhaps they
| shouldn't be claiming to do things they can't or won't do.
And if they
| *can* do them, how about proving it and put some distance between
| themselves and the fakes in the process?
If smeone is doing something good, and i recognise a lot of people
don't, why should they have to have to submit themselves to such
intimate scrutiny? If it works, it works....whether it's paranormal or
not is irrelevant....I happen to beleive I've met one person who has/had
a startling gift and hold 99% of other supposed psychics at arms length.
| > And who says that money is the be all and end all?
|
| Then they can give it away.
Why force them into such a position?
I'm sure there are starving orphans in
| Liberia for example right now who wouldn't say no to a million
dollars.
Right...well have you donated?
|
Will
|
| "Will" <skell...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
| news:106193152...@damia.uk.clara.net...
| >
| > "Brian Watson" <br...@spheroid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
| > news:big5g4$56j$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
| > |
| > | "Cardinal Chunder" <c...@foo.no.spam.xyzabcfghllaa.com> wrote in
message
| > | news:mohfib...@192.168.1.1...
|
| > | > Yeah but what service are you getting from a psychic?
| > |
| > | Often a service about on a par with that of a good family doctor -
a
| > cosy
| > | chat and a bit of reassurance.
| >
| > We obviously have very differnt doctors. Mines a first class
arsehole
| > and completely homophobic.
|
| Are you suggesting that, as an arsehole, he should be more open?
Ho ho ho.
No, but he should stop making outrageously biased guesses as to why I'm
ill....and coming round on house visits and mocking my interior design
isn't really in his remit, either ;-)
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
a> It might be worth mentioning at this point that when students
a> engaged in psi trials are questioned they are hardly ever
a> able to say which of their 'correct' guesses were psychically
a> generated.
`None' is the correct answer. Dispite decades of trying, no one has
managed to provide repeatable, significant results from thsi kind of
game.
Lee J. Moore
[..]
>
> No, but he should stop making outrageously biased guesses as
> to why I'm ill....and coming round on house visits and mocking
> my interior design isn't really in his remit, either ;-)
Can't you change Doctors? I'm on my third since moving to this
address. :)
--
Lee J. Moore
http://cafe-society.com
altheim
"Neil Hopkins" <neil_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> > ... why the big fuss about Psychics?
> > Most don't charge a ridiculous amount of money,
> > and it can be very helpful, particularly in the callous
> > society we live in.
> > What about a bit of praise?
>
> Psychics are at best deluded credulous fools, at worst cynical con
> artists. By pretending to talk to the dead they take advantage of
> people when they are at their most vulnerable with no heed to the
> consequences of their lies. Charging for it just makes it worse.
The moment anyone with even a moderate belief in the
paranormal makes such sweeping unqualified statements
they are immediately challenged by skeptics to provide proof
or references. If you can tell me that you have arrived at the
above conclusions after 20 years studying parapsychology
then we might listen to you. As it is, I suspect you will tell us
that you simply forgot to add an 'IMHO'.
But that would just show what a prat you are wouldn't it?
--
altheim
Neil Hopkins
Err, there is no proof whatsoever that psychic powers exist in any way
whatsoever. If the medium on the psychic night was the best that the
psychic community can come up with to prove that their claims are
genuine then I think my statement about psychics pretending to talk to
the dead is perfectly justified.
IMHO, of course. :-)
Lee J. Moore
>
> But that would just show what a prat you are wouldn't it?
Did you notice how Neil didn't call you a name in return? That
seemed more dignified than 'prattish'.
altheim
>
> a> It might be worth mentioning at this point that when students
> a> engaged in psi trials are questioned they are hardly ever
> a> able to say which of their 'correct' guesses were psychically
> a> generated.
>
> `None' is the correct answer. Dispite decades of trying, no one has
> managed to provide repeatable, significant results from thsi kind of
> game.
>
Really? How did you arrive at this conclusion?
--
altheim
altheim
"Neil Hopkins" <neil_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "altheim" <alt...@spamblokfreeuk.com> wrote:
> >"Neil Hopkins" <neil_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Gea Jones" <Geaj...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >> > ... why the big fuss about Psychics?
> >> > Most don't charge a ridiculous amount of money,
> >> > and it can be very helpful, particularly in the callous
> >> > society we live in.
> >> > What about a bit of praise?
> >>
> >> Psychics are at best deluded credulous fools, at worst cynical con
> >> artists. By pretending to talk to the dead they take advantage of
> >> people when they are at their most vulnerable with no heed to the
> >> consequences of their lies. Charging for it just makes it worse.
> >
> >The moment anyone with even a moderate belief in the
> >paranormal makes such sweeping unqualified statements
> >they are immediately challenged by skeptics to provide proof
> >or references. If you can tell me that you have arrived at the
> >above conclusions after 20 years studying parapsychology
> >then we might listen to you. As it is, I suspect you will tell us
> >that you simply forgot to add an 'IMHO'.
> >
> >But that would just show what a prat you are wouldn't it?
>
> Err, there is no proof whatsoever that psychic powers exist in any way
> whatsoever.
So, you haven't studied parapsychology and you really are
just talking out of your arse? You haven't any more experience
of psychics, channelling or mediumship, nor of psychical
research, than what you learned from that one TV show have
you? Pah! I suspect your opinions have been formed by
brainwashing due to years of heavily biased media ridicule
posturing as the voice of reason.
Science and scientific opinion has moved on since the
Industrial Revolution and there is a huge amount of research
work going on into the physics of consciousness and neural
activity even down to the quantum level. Some anomalous
findings have lead researchers to accept - or at least not
dismiss - psi (for want of a more descriptive label) as a
natural effect. Though they might not come right out and say
it, there are physical grounds for some ostensible psychic
effects.
> If the medium on the psychic night was the best that the
> psychic community can come up with to prove that their claims are
> genuine then I think my statement about psychics pretending to talk to
> the dead is perfectly justified.
>
> IMHO, of course. :-)
Well, in that at least I can agree with you. Until psi is fully
understood and can be harnessed for practical and for
consistently reliable use there are no guarantees that
customers of psychics are not being ripped off.
My stance though is that, in a free market economy, if some
people are willing to pay for a service someone should
provide it. After all those who remain sceptical are not
obliged to use it.
--
altheim
altheim
"Lee J. Moore" <l...@cafe-society.com> wrote:
> altheim wrote:
> >
> > But that would just show what a prat you are wouldn't it?
>
> Did you notice how Neil didn't call you a name in return? That
> seemed more dignified than 'prattish'.
I did, and despite the fact that he invited a repeat with
his "IMHO" I wrote him a rather more restrained reply.
--
altheim
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
>> `None' is the correct answer. Dispite decades of trying, no one has
>> managed to provide repeatable, significant results from thsi kind of
>> game.
a> Really? How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Such a phenomenon would either be a biological application of some
known physical phenomenon, or a novel process.
In the first case the moment it was proved to exist it would become
the focus for massive research in the biological sciences and when
pinned down end up in the relevant textbooks and there would be
sessions on it in the major conferences and so on. If this has
happened I have missed it.
In the second case there would be a complete feeding frenzy as
experimental and theoretical physicists got their hands on a complete
new phenomenon to play with for the first time in more than a
century. Where are the big-science mega-experiments into this new
physics?
In either case the military would be all over it pouring money into
possible applications.
And then there would be the media panic which allways goes with
anything new. If we had tabloid panic, government investigations
etc. for telepathy as for cloneing I missed it.
In summary, teh same reasons I come to the conclusion that they havn't
recently found a new continent somewhere on earth.
Neil Hopkins
<alt...@spamblokfreeuk.com> wrote:
>
>"Neil Hopkins" <neil_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Err, there is no proof whatsoever that psychic powers exist in any way
>> whatsoever.
>
>So, you haven't studied parapsychology and you really are
>just talking out of your arse? You haven't any more experience
>of psychics, channelling or mediumship, nor of psychical
>research, than what you learned from that one TV show have
>you? Pah! I suspect your opinions have been formed by
>brainwashing due to years of heavily biased media ridicule
>posturing as the voice of reason.
I haven't studied parapsychology - my acadamic background is computer
science and maths - but I consider myself to be reasonably well
informed on modern science. I am also open minded, but two experiences
- namely being involved with a charismatic church that turned out to
be a complete sham and seeing a neighbout of mine who was on the dole
and suffered from mental health problems being conned out of hundreds
of pounds of savings by a medium.
>
>Science and scientific opinion has moved on since the
>Industrial Revolution and there is a huge amount of research
>work going on into the physics of consciousness and neural
>activity even down to the quantum level. Some anomalous
>findings have lead researchers to accept - or at least not
>dismiss - psi (for want of a more descriptive label) as a
>natural effect. Though they might not come right out and say
>it, there are physical grounds for some ostensible psychic
>effects.
I know there is research going on into quantum level effects, but as
far as I am aware there is nothing at all in the way of testable,
reproducable experimental evidence that would demonstrate anything
usually described as a psychic power.
>
>> If the medium on the psychic night was the best that the
>> psychic community can come up with to prove that their claims are
>> genuine then I think my statement about psychics pretending to talk to
>> the dead is perfectly justified.
>>
>> IMHO, of course. :-)
>
>Well, in that at least I can agree with you. Until psi is fully
>understood and can be harnessed for practical and for
>consistently reliable use there are no guarantees that
>customers of psychics are not being ripped off.
The medium on the night failed hopelessly when he couldn't see the
reaction of the subject. In effect he was just guessing, and was
forced to 'predict' that somebody in the audience had an elderly
relative that had died of cancer. The simple, logical explanation for
what he was doing was a classical cold reading. Does he really think
that he has these supposed powers, or is he just in it to fleece the
gullible?
>
>My stance though is that, in a free market economy, if some
>people are willing to pay for a service someone should
>provide it. After all those who remain sceptical are not
>obliged to use it.
People have a right to be protected from exploitation by con-men and
charlatans. Perhaps psychics could be prosecuted under the trades
descriptions act for claiming powers that they simply do not have?
Thanatos
MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote:
>And then there would be the media panic which allways goes with
>anything new. If we had tabloid panic, government investigations
>etc. for telepathy as for cloneing I missed it.
Ah, but you see that's *exactly* why the government is keeping it all
under wraps. They've had scientific proof of all this for decades
now, but they don't want public hysteria.
>In summary, teh same reasons I come to the conclusion that they havn't
>recently found a new continent somewhere on earth.
No, of course they haven't. No new continents at all. And what's
more, the new continents they haven't found most certainly do *not*
contain alien bases of any kind.
<winks><taps nose>
Mark A
>
> People have a right to be protected from exploitation by con-men and
> charlatans. Perhaps psychics could be prosecuted under the trades
> descriptions act for claiming powers that they simply do not have?
To me they're no different from the heartless thugs that prey on OAPs
by pretending to be meter readers and the like before they steal
whatever they can get the hands on.
Preying on emotional, grief stricken individuals like this is one of
the most offensive acts being perpetrated today, and I deplore Living
TV and others for promoting such despicable activities.
These charlatans should be jailed for the con-men that they undoubtedly
are.
Regards
Mark
Evil Noodle
"Mark A" <m.annett...@rbgkew.org.uk> wrote in message
news:3F4F27...@rbgkew.org.uk...
> Neil Hopkins wrote:
> >
> > People have a right to be protected from exploitation by con-men
> > and charlatans. Perhaps psychics could be prosecuted under the
> > trades descriptions act for claiming powers that they simply do
> > not have?
>
> To me they're no different from the heartless thugs that prey on OAPs
> by pretending to be meter readers and the like before they steal
> whatever they can get the hands on.
And yet these same OAP's have the option of seeing mediums every
week for no cost at all if they so wish.
> Preying on emotional, grief stricken individuals like this is one of
> the most offensive acts being perpetrated today, and I deplore Living
> TV and others for promoting such despicable activities.
>
> These charlatans should be jailed for the con-men that they
> undoubtedly are.
Please define whether you consider all mediums to be con men, and
if so what would you care to produce as evidence to support that?
> Regards
>
> Mark
Here is a link to the addresses of a large number of Spiritualist
churches in the UK http://www.snu.org.uk/index2.htm will you now
be informing the police of the activities of hundreds of mediums they
might wish to investigate and prosecute under the fraudulent mediums
act?
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
t> Ah, but you see that's *exactly* why the government is keeping it all
t> under wraps. They've had scientific proof of all this for decades
t> now, but they don't want public hysteria.
I thought they were secretly using telepathy to find people who know
about the ever-lasting-lightbulb and car-that-runs-on-water
cover-ups...
>> In summary, teh same reasons I come to the conclusion that they havn't
>> recently found a new continent somewhere on earth.
t> No, of course they haven't. No new continents at all.
It's all in Barrington Bayley's ``The Four Colour Problem''. Of course
`they' will tell you it's fiction.
``... But once installed in SAC Mission Control they persue
their own interests and convert the whole fucking issue into
a world-spanning trillion-dollar excercise in abstract
mathematics.''
Bill Godfrey
> > These charlatans should be jailed for the con-men that they
> > undoubtedly are.
> Please define whether you consider all mediums to be con men, and
> if so what would you care to produce as evidence to support that?
Ah, this is the hole that professional sceptics are careful not to go down.
They would not say that "x is not psychic", but "x has not proven he is
psychic" or "if x is using psychic powers, they are doing it the hard way."
(etc etc)
Bill, evidently.
Evil Noodle
"Bill Godfrey" <billg-...@bacchae.f9.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:20030829090255.971$t...@newsreader.com...
We should also consider the difference between a genuine sceptic
and a pseudo sceptic who wouldn't accept any amount of evidence.
@my_last_name.org.uk Richard Caley
en> We should also consider the difference between a genuine sceptic
en> and a pseudo sceptic who wouldn't accept any amount of evidence.
This is irrelevent until there is some evidence.
Evil Noodle
"Richard Caley" <MY_FIRST_NAME @ MY_LAST_NAME.org.uk> wrote in message
news:87znhsk...@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <xII3b.1028$c12....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>, Evil
Noodle (en) writes:
>
> en> We should also consider the difference between a genuine
> en> of evidence.
>
> This is irrelevent until there is some evidence.
Ignorance and closed mindedness versus an open and genuinely inquiring
attitude may be irrelevent to you, but unfortunately the term
sceptic is frequently hijacked.
I wholeheartedly approve of a sceptical attitude, but I draw a distinction
between that and blinkered rejection of all and any evidence.