talkmagic.co.uk

Slightly off topic, I know, but I've just been sent this and I think it's possibly relevant as background to the debate as well as being downright funny from the perspective of a mentalist:

http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/mo ... storyid=92

It's an interview from a chat show over here plugging a programme from last week about a guy who claims (wait for it) that he's in telepathic contact with BABIES! Yes, those doddery, witless midgets that stumble about eating soil if you let them.

He swears blind he's not using a mix of hot and cold reading and common sense childcare tips, but right at the end he overcooks it and says something along the lines of "well, how else could I have told the mum her bank number".

Well, abra-ca-duhhhh!

fantastic!!!

now i know the "Super Nanny's" secret!

OK, so can you tell me why... when defending himself, he chose NOT to do a really simple convincer. have the TV host put an object in a box with a lid. lift up the lid and show the contents to the kid only. then let the guy read her thoughts and tell me what's inside.

instead, he goes for complex and amazing conclusions such as "has your child been drinking a red fizzy drink?"

B0bbY_CaT wrote:fantastic!!!

now i know the "Super Nanny's" secret!

OK, so can you tell me why... when defending himself, he chose NOT to do a really simple convincer. have the TV host put an object in a box with a lid. lift up the lid and show the contents to the kid only. then let the guy read her thoughts and tell me what's inside.

instead, he goes for complex and amazing conclusions such as "has your child been drinking a red fizzy drink?"

Me thinks you need to go back to school and understand that what you describe is a Clairvoyant talent NOT Telepathic... just another reason why 99% of today's self-professed cynics fall short on their position -- THEY DON'T KNOW ONE ABILITY FROM THE OTHER!



Then we have these other hints of duality that are almost hilarious when you read through them...

Tomo coming out against assertions or charges against Randi and others of his ilk and yet, it's perfectly fine to use (as BobbyCat put it) the same Umbrellas for all manner of psychic, new age or religious perspective clumping everyone under the same roof... it's ok to "assume" or "suggest" this or that about those who stand in opposition to your point of view by doing exactly what you don't want them doing... it's akin to how the good Baptist operate around these parts.

anyone can put anything on the internet. we are all very quick to say "you cant believe everything written in the newspaper". yet for some bizarre reason, we suddenly think that if it's on the nett it must be true. similarly forums such as these provide opportunities for us to make statements and pass them off as fact whether they are or not.

so, to stay directly on topic rather than use the conspiracy etc theories to avoid answering questions:

where can we find the following things on the internet? just because they are on the nett doesn't make them true, but if they happened they will be here in a reputable site... i suspect this will mean we dont get an answer, rather a "it's not on CNN.com because they are in with Randi"...

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/exam/Prescott_Randi.htm

http://www.psitech.net/news/tsl_090502.htm

http://www.phact.org/e/astrolgy.htm

http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/forensics/psychics/7.html

http://www.ntskeptics.org/issues/randi/recentrant/rant.htm

http://www.no-treason.com/weblog.php?id=P413

http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm

http://drewhempel.gnn.tv/blogs/14651/The_Problem_With_Magic_Randi

http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

http://www.uri-geller.com/courts.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5007480.stm


I do have others but I thought this might be enough for now... something that at least gets some of the point across.


(i) the name and details of the applicants who successfully won Randi's challenge yet he changed the rules so he didn't have to pay up.

I don't keep all links on hand but I will find them... there is a Chi Specialist, a Homeopath and a few others on this list.

(ii) as Craig Browning has alledged, the name of the person who provided the physisists and metal experts with the bent spoon. also what were the names of the people who did the testing, what tests did they do. was the spoon bent in front of them or rather... erm... passed to them "pre bent" for inspection. did it even happen at all???

I "alledged" nothing... I did state fact and the fact is test done in the 70s on Uri Gellar's spoons, metal bars, etc. revealed molecular change. I'm not your go-for so do the foot work yourself... the information is out there!

i am afraid it is not enough to state these things as fact. lets all learn about these specific issues. did they actuallty take place or are they simply urban myths held onto by the spoon benders clubs around the world. are they fact or rhetoric. my mind is open... please point me to the reputeable independant web page where i can see the facts.

For starters I really find it rather irritating, being put under thumb by an obviously learned individual who refuses to use proper punctuations and capitolization -- this in itself reveals a lot about your personality BobbyCat. You'd think someone so learned in how psychics operate and jsust the fact that magic alone is rife with avid students of psychology, you'd want to avoid such stigma... but, I'll leave that plight in your world, it's not my problem per ce but I thought I'd let you know such antics paint a less than honorable portrait of you.

As to your "mind being opened" I'd say it's about as opened as a rusted shut bear trap given the run-about routine you are in the process of playing -- the hair splitting and "prove it to me" attitudes via which you are deliberately creating a blind and redirecting folks away from the Randi issue and turning it back around to the Psychic issue... this is a very common stunt played by his supporters so as the "Misdirect" others and as they say in the court room "Redirect" the "jury's" focus.

As to "specific issues" I've shared just a few points of view. I actually have a life and a "job" of sorts so I haven't the time to play go-for to the world on something that's akin to a dog chasing his own tail. If you are half as "open-minded" as you picture yourself to be, you will be able to do the footwork and find the contrary data that runs against Randi along side the admission of falsified research by various skeptical organizations who had the direct goal of proving it all a farce. It's not that hard to do, so get off your duff and do it... or are you like so many skeptics and afraid to see contradiction? Are you going to lean on that old worn out cliche about "Extraordinary claims require extraordinay proof"? I just love that cop out... how the "burden of proof" lays with the claiment and yet, it is the cynical that's breaking with global tradition and making the bold statements i.e. there are no miracles, there is not god, et al. From the layperson's point of view, it is the critic that must step up to the plate and reveal why this is so. Then again, other great minds have attempted just such challenges only to confess that they "know" something lays beyond the arrogance and limited understanding of man.

you see, the notion of special "powers" that we cant begin to understand does not scare me. nor do i simply pass them off as a total category as "rubbish".

Firstly, and I believe I've already corrected folks here on this misnomber, there is no such thing as "Psychic Powers" this is a myth and mis-used concept that can be traced back to the drama and chaos of the Inquisition and Dark Aged era of christiandom that has been wrongly (our of ignorance, more than anything) perpetuated by present day media, hollywood and of course everyone favorite televangelists. So let's look at the issue in the proper manner and how the shut-eye community view such things; as innate abilities most anyone can develope given the willingness and discipline. They are not "super" natural but 100% natural and explainable (even at quasi-scientific levels). Possession of such abilities has nothing to do with domination but more akin to the Ericksonian idea of compliance and sympathetic communication... what Richard Busch describes in his book THE BUSCH FACTOR as a "Hypnotic Relationship" or, as is revealed in Brad Henderson's book "THE DANCE"... is is all rapport.

i am not anti physic... i am pro accountability. and i am afraid stating that "a scientist in Littlerock Arkensaw proved beyond doubt that UFO's exist but the government covered it up" just dont equate to accountability.

Ok... first of all it is spelled ARKANSAS Secondly, for someone that don't see themselves as "anti-psychic" you are tossing every possible road-block in your path so as to not accept the possibility. This is very common to folks that are quite literally afraid of the idea that there is more to life than what is carnal and tangible. This is not a charge against you or your character, merely a statement of known and proven fact within the scientific perspectives given to us via the Mental Health world (and before you go there, I do have a counseling degree and a doctorates in Religion e.g. I'm a bit qualified to say what I'm saying).

The other thing you have done in this line is mixed issues; UFOs have littel to nothing to do with the Psychic question and certainly have nothing to do with the validity of Mr. Randi and his bogus challenge game. This is a common mis-step by skeptics & cynics who love to place everything surreal under the same umbrella but insist that their detractors maintain a line of pin-point, item specific accuracy vs. any similar act of "generalization". Again, a classic route of misdirection by the cynical so as to take the heat off of their imperfections and questionable actions and turn everything back around to what they have stock answers to -- the validity or lack of "proof" sustaining psi phenomena or any aspect of the paranormal/spiritual.

There's an old saying that comes to mind when dealing with things I personally have questions or concerns around, you may want to contemplate it...

Seek, and ye shall find: Ask, and ye shall recieve; Knock, and it will be opened to you.

Craig Browning wrote:

Me thinks you need to go back to school and understand that what you describe is a Clairvoyant talent NOT Telepathic... just another reason why 99% of today's self-professed cynics fall short on their position -- THEY DON'T KNOW ONE ABILITY FROM THE OTHER!

Dear Craig,

Me thinks you just proved you didn't watch the video. had you done so you would have realised that what i suggested as a serious convincer totally applies.

therefore your accusation that just because i dont agree with you means i need more education, suggests that there is a preference to belittle anyone who disagrees with you rather than address the core issues being discussed.

please take a look at the video. the guy (Derek Ogilvie) is suggesting he can read the thoughts of children. so what does he do? he tells the parents the child is vying for their attention, having sleeping problems, and drinks too much fizzy red stuff... OBVIOUS things that apply to almost any kid. had Ogilvie read the child's thoughts using the object in a box as i suggested and then we can start to feel impressed.

seriously Craig. re think you preceeding post and perhaps edit it for accuracy.

I recognize what your saying BC but my point is that he claims to be a Telepath e.g. a Mind or Thought Reader NOT someone that would discern what's in a sealed envelope or box, etc. Which is Clairvoyance or, to use a more trendis buzz term "Remote Viewing".

I find it most unfortunate that Magic, on the whole, falls short when it comes to educating its patrons on accurate terminology; especially when it comes to the field of Mentalism or Psychic/Mystery Entertainment. Contrary to some of the suppositions out there when it comes to this stuff, the public is not stupid and if you walk out on stage or even sit down with someone to do some "stuff" but you use the wrong terms for what you do, it shows and it not only discredits you and what you're doing, but it costs you, as a performer, many psychologically based advantages.

Bob Cassidy talks about this in his dissertation on Cold Reading and how Ray Hayman tosses out bogus names for palm lines. We find the same thing in the acclaimed works of Ian Rowland.. permission, as it were, to make up any meaning we want on the cards during a Reading.

Sorry folks, but I can assure you such attitudes will not get you too far donw the pike in the REAL WORLD. I've seen a small handful of idiots working from such halfassed levels, nearly get lynched and far more of them taken to court on fraud charges. So let's all choose to stop taking half-meassures, ok?


Sorry for going so far off topic, but I think this is a very important point for all to consider and I thank BC for opening the door to allow it to be expressed.

Guys, please can we stop with the personal stuff and stick to straight facts.

Craig, you might want to read Bobby_Cat's post about the test again as he was suggested that the psychic read a childs mind to ascertain the contents of the box, not directly determine it with his mind.

Thank you Nick.

Craig, politicians have a tendency to do what you're doing. you have a statement you want to make and your "going to make it" no matter what is put in front of you.

Craig, PLEASE re read my post. please acknowledge that your allegation that i dont know what i am talking about is wrong. not for my ego or self esteem, simply for your credibility.

You have suggested that one of the problems with Randi is that his mind is closed to any view not like his own. that he refuses to give alternative thinking a chance. yet it seems you yourself practice exactly what you accuse Randi of. Please look at the video. then re read my comments in their proper context.

I am not asking Derek Ogilvie to predict what is in the box, i am asking the child to be aware of what's in the box and for Derek Ogilvie to then read the child's mind in the same way he says he can tell she drank "too much red fizzy stuff"...

i am not asking for any fancy test or unreasonable conditions. simply a common sence test to address what Derek Ogilvie alledges he can do. i am not saying he is a liar, i am just asking that he qualify his "powers" in a more accountable way. surely that is no reason to get defensive??? unless of course he cant really do what he says he can...

the video posted earlier by Tomo is here:
http://badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/mo ... storyid=92

in reference to the "UFO issue", i assume you are refering to my comment in an earlier post where i said "a scientist in Littlerock Arkensaw proved beyond doubt that UFO's exist but the government covered it up". you take it out of context to suggest i am mixing up UFO's and Psychic issues. the point i am making here is the oft used "it happened somewhere to someone" syndrome. when making allegations such as that in a debate, one must really qualify them. i am not asking you to be my or anyone's "go-for" Craig. I do feel it is fair however for you or anyone to to be accountable for statements you make, which in the case of a discussion such as this, means qualify your allegations.

with the greatest respect, it is not enough to simply make such comments. they reallly should be qualified. otherwise someone may mistake them for fact.

so now, to stay right on topic and not allow it to stray... Craig, are you sugggesting that it was in fact Uri Geller who did actually bend a spoon with his mind legitimately? your serious right? Geller? and you want me to visit www.uri-geller.com to learn about that???

so you have given me a list of web sites (including www.uri-geller.com) and web bloggs. i asked for credible and independant sites to look at. you provided one, a BBC article on water divining. I have read that article. it effectively says nothing more than divining rods are the least used of several techniques being employed to solve drought problems. they do not mention their success or failure, only that a group of people faced with terrible drought will resort to any method to try and find water. i am from AUS Craig... we know better than most what drought means.

so, we are still yet to see independant and credible commentary reporting on the testing of the bent spoon you refer to. who tested it, when, what tests did they do & what did they find??? i searched BBC, CNN, and CNBC. i couldn't find anything there to help your argument. therefore i feel it appropriate you withdraw the allegation.

Craig, this is a very interesting debate and i am enjoying your points and comments. Please lets keep it that way and discuss our points of view, qualify what we say and respect eachother's opinions, rather than just make the assumption i am uneducated and uninformed just because i dont believe you can bend a spoon with your mind.

The confusion on my part is when you talk about placing things into boxes or sealed envelopes, etc. It makes no sense from the point of view of someone that does Mind Reading and strives to do it (in his shows) as "real" as possible and under relatively strong "test" conditions... Sorry, but what you describe don't make sense that's why I kept seeing it as Clairvoyance

The idea behind what you mention however, now that I kind of understand it, has actually been used by people as an explanation of what I was talking about, oddly enough. Paranormalists have actually pondered if or not some kind of telepathic influence is what allows the Clairvoyant or even Caliraudient medium to know what it sealed in an envelope or said in secret from one person to the next, etc.

The idea of percieving a child's thoughts would not, I fear, satisfy the typical skeptic. They would simply have a new excuse as to how it happened i.e. ideomotor signals, code, body language and any dozen other techniques one may wish to consider. I'm firmly of the belief that God itself could be in the middle of a JREF Gathering and the multitudes would come up with every explanation as to what that was not so, proving "the Almighty" a charlatan and fake... some people simply don't want answers though they may say so outwardly.

As to the "proof" over the spoon/metal bending... as I said, I'm not a go-for. I believe you will find something on this in the book "Magicians Who Endorse the Paranormal" but I do know that the testing came from a reputable lab and it involved Gellar. I also know of another Psychic, not nearly as famous as Gellar or any of the others, that was tested at teh JPL Labs (memory serving me right) who was filmed during her tests and literally bent a beam of laser light without the use of mirrors, etc. ... the movie "RESURRECTION" is about this woman's life but I would suggest seeing the original film made back in the 70s not the more recent made for television account.

Speaking of movies and real life accounts... has anyone explained the phenomena around the film THE ENTITY?

Now we wanted to be "on the topic" of this thread and that topic, as I understand things, deals with Randi's challenge, not the validity of psychic claims, the paranormal, etc.

I personally don't mind answering questions here and there, but I do get very irritated when admitted skeptics keep trying to pull me into a ring-around-the-rosey game on technicalities, prove it to me points, and hair splitting. I fear we are getting very close to that level and needn't go there. So I'm asking nicely BobCat, to simply do your own footwork on these things, it's not that difficult to do but I haven't the time nor the desire to go through this masturbative routine one more time with someone trying to make a point at my cost.

Even within the upper ranks of teh JREF and CSICOPs I've yet to meet much of anyone that's done more that look at data, listened to people's stories and gone out to regurgitate the same basic things stated by Kellar and Houdini a century ago. On the other hand, I know many people that work as mentalist and Readers who have busted genuine criminals and investigated legitimate as well as some very illegitimate claims about things psychic, paranormal and surreal. I know people that were ardent skeptics for years -- die hard scientists -- until they accepted "my" challenge (a challenge offered by many in this line of work) to get their hands a bit dirty by stepping down and into the swamp of life and seeing what's really happeing out there in that big wonderful world of ours.

My personal "issue" when it comes to the Psychic Question is very simple; expose and prosecute the criminal element regardless of which side of the fence it may be found. In that the leadership of the CSICOPS organization itself confessed to the falsification of tests they had conducted under genuine scientific standard -- tests that actually proved that there very well could be a legit claim to certain psi ability -- well, it's rather obvious that the charlatans can be found on both sides of that particular fence... which I believe is "the point" here.

I've helped the law enforcement teams in three cities break up and prosecute several predatorial scam artists that use the psychic idea or spiritualism as their tool for robbing folks. I can assure you, if you walk in and play those games Mr. Rowland speaks of in his book, these people are very likely to cut your throat... they will kill to keep their secrets and to hold the integrity of their scam... but we're talking massive money and more imporant, we're talking about psychological power and influence over key segments of major communities. For me and my "obligation" as a magical entertainer and Mentalist, it is far more important to bust this sort of operator than it is to argue endlessly as to if or not something is real or even to deal with the moral questions some have imposed on what is genrally an honorable and victimless trade.

So let's just leave this dog lay

Craig Browning Wrote: I can assure you such attitudes will not get you too far donw the pike in the REAL WORLD. I've seen a small handful of idiots working from such halfassed levels, nearly get lynched and far more of them taken to court on fraud charges. So let's all choose to stop taking half-meassures, ok?

having read and re read what i have written, your comments do seem somewhat "harsh". no problem, i am not offended. i am however curious. it seems you have made your mind up about my attitude, my intellegence, my education, my opinions... so may i ask you to clarify your's.

a few questions if i may:

what psychic abilities do you have? no need for an essay saying you did "this" for 5 years and "that" for 10. i accept you have experience in this field. simply, what psychic abilities do you possess?

do you really believe you can read minds? i dont mean as an entertainer... i mean do you believe you can REALLY do it?

do you believe Uri Geller can really bend spoons with his mind alone? do you really believe that?

do you believe that Derek Ogilvie can really read children's minds?

do you really believe John Edward can communicate with the dead?

Craig Browning wrote:
The confusion on my part is when you talk about placing things into boxes or sealed envelopes, etc. It makes no sense from the point of view of someone that does Mind Reading and strives to do it (in his shows) as "real" as possible and under relatively strong "test" conditions... Sorry, but what you describe don't make sense that's why I kept seeing it as Clairvoyance

it seems what i described made sence for other people, just not you. did you watch the video? i think the test i propose would be a very good test to carry out. for example, at one of your shows... i would bring a box from home. i would place an object in the box and then seal the box. you would then try and read my mind to determine the contents of the box.

this takes all the subjectivity out of the equation. instead of you telling me i am thinking of a person "starting with the letter J... is it John, no Joe, no Jeff???" instead of that rather messy situation we make it simple... either you know what's in the box or you dont.

how about this for a conspiracy...cloning is a reality afterall...

yeh funny.

abraxus wrote:how about this for a conspiracy...cloning is a reality afterall...

You left out Santa Claus

Ok.. I asked nicely that we bring this to an end and you don't want to let go of it BobbyCat... I answer this set of questions only in that I want to set a few things straight with you re: your intellect, understanding, etc.

I think you are a brite person though lazy to some degree; you'd much rather have someone do the footwork for you and hand you the information you're supposed to accept vs. thinking on your own and doing some agressive digging that will lend to you perspective from all sides of a given issue. Your retort here in asking me these questions not only sustains such an opinion, it sustains what I said earlier about classic games played by skeptics for pulling people deeper into their "prove it to me" game.

Your mis-use of this line I can assure you such attitudes will not get you too far donw the pike in the REAL WORLD. I've seen a small handful of idiots working from such halfassed levels, nearly get lynched and far more of them taken to court on fraud charges. So let's all choose to stop taking half-meassures, ok? and the fact that it is taken out of context tips your hand in trying to manipulate this issue. You've ignored what I'm saying here and attempted to use it as some kind of proof to personal insult, which is not the case. Take this position up with Bob Cassidy who is one of the few that's had the guts of pointing this out to the magic community vs. playing along with the good ole boy's club that encourages the use of creative B.S. over educated facts and discipline when it comes to doing anything even remotely related to the Psychic or Paranormal relams.

what psychic abilities do you have? no need for an essay saying you did "this" for 5 years and "that" for 10. i accept you have experience in this field. simply, what psychic abilities do you possess?

AH! Trying to paint me into a corner, eh?

I don't claim any Psychic Abilities but I do claim to have a hieghtened sense of Intuition or "Sensitivity". I also teach folks via both, my shows and my workshops that we mis-apply the term "psychic" a great deal in today's world and too, we apply far too much fantasy to such ideas vs. looking at it free from the drama of theater, propaganda based slants, cultural and religious based superstitions, etc. In short, one of my prime reputations within the Shut-Eye community is removing the boogieman ideas around this issue and helping my patrons to understand it from a more realistic, mundane level.

do you really believe you can read minds? i dont mean as an entertainer... i mean do you believe you can REALLY do it?

Nope... I believe I can pick up on people's feelings and thought forms, I believe I can "telepathically" (for lack of a better term) pick up on things that may be on the surface of a person's thoughts -- more important on this fact, I KNOW anyone can learn to do this IF they are willing to let go of some of their more limiting points of view and supposed "logic". I also know that the reverse is true; I can knowingly influence the thoughts and actions of others via unspoken (but intimated) cues.

Is this something magickle or paranormal?

Not in the least... at least not in my opinion. Just because we known how something is done does not detract from how those ignorant on the subject will percieve it. We are all sucked into "illusions" ever day but we choose to accept this and move on rather than making it an issue.

do you believe Uri Geller can really bend spoons with his mind alone? do you really believe that?

do you believe that Derek Ogilvie can really read children's minds?

do you really believe John Edward can communicate with the dead?

I've never sat down one on one with any of these people and haven't a clue as to who Derek Ogilvie is (outside of what's been brought up here... never heard of him prior to this thread). I know Uri and have spoken with John a few times. My experiences with JE lead to to believe that he's got a high level of legitimacy but I also know he's a businessman. I can assure you however, there's not a magician alive that can accurately, under the same circumstances Edward's works under, replicate his level of accuracy or precision. I know for fact John does not use imp systems, or other information gathering devices or two-way transmissions as some have alluded to. I know from experience that he does touch on things not of public record... in short, he passed one of my tests on professed psychics and that wasn't only impressive, it was totally unexpected.

As to Geller, I know only what I've seen as far as legal documents and genuine scientific studies from the 60s and 70s. Though I think Uri has become a parody of himself in recent years... well, we've been watching Kreskin slowly snap as well.

One more point, though I've stated this here and elswhere in the past... I do not promote myself as a Spirit Medium though I have had situations in Reading sessions where the only logical explanation is that I was literally consumed by spirit. This is not a pleasant feeling, it is something I would never voluntarily seek to do on a regular basis and I quite earnestly believe it to be one of the creepiest sensations I've ever known. NOTE that all I am saying here is that I've had such encounters; I do not and am not cliaming to be some kind of Trance Channel, etc. PLEASE don't try to twist this to meet your agenda, I'm just being honest about something.

As to my confusion over your question over that damned box thing yes, it very well could be "just me" that don't get it. I'm on more medication than most people twice my age and I do have some cognative processing problems from time to time. On the other hand, what you describe is what actual paranormal researchers would look at as being a test in CLAIRVOYANCE not telepathy! (Seems I've said that before) So it could be that I, from an experiential and education point of view, understand the process of testing at a level that goes outside the JREF 101 course. This still seems to be something you don't want to recognize and forgive (or else you wouldn't keep bringing the f*&ing box up in every post).

Now, one more time I am appealing to you to let this issue die out before it turns sour.

Craig,

you're asking me to close down this thread? sorry... I dont have that kind of power. I really do NOT understand how you can be so rude in your comments, so personal in your attacks, and so wrong in your assumptions, then stand up with an attitude of "this is the way it is... dont challenge me!"

you claim to be anti censorship in all it's forms, yet you want to prevent me from having an opinion here in this forum.

you make statements to justify a point you're making in a debate, then when asked to qualify those statements you become rude and personal, or even more amazingly, when i ask you qualify a statement you have made, you suggest i am just using the typical "skeptic" tactics of "prove it to me". are your opinions beyond being questioned?

if your cause truely is to open people's minds about possibilities outside what we currently understand as "science", i am afraid you have not done your cause any good.

the talk magic forum is a place where we can share ideas and experiences, discuss things we have seen and done, learn and teach. it is a forum for everyone with an interest in magic in all it's forms. it is NOT a forum dedicated to Craig Browning's opinions, and only those who are prepared to follow his line of thinking.

i think it is a wonderful thing you can have you say, even if i dont agree with you. but please understand that just because i dont agree with you doesn't of itself make me stupid, or make my opinions wrong... and to effectively censor them by "having your final say" then ending the discussion requesting i post no further comment is not what this forum is all about (in my opinion).

I must advise Reverend Browning that this Bobby Cat is an Australian sceptic and will therefore be very hard to shut up. I have noted that Australian sceptics are the most rabid in the entire world. I am not quite sure why this is. I expect it is something to do with the fact that there is something odd in the blood. I have been led to believe that this is because of the odd habits they have of mating with members of the kangaroo population or so I have been told.

The best way to deal with sceptics is not to deal with them. As long as we psychic people are getting great gobs of money anyway it doesn't matter a toss what they think. However I did post an excerpt recently from a sceptics forum by a most brilliant person of my acquaintance. This post explains what psychic ability actually is. Once the matter is defined then we can take things a little further.

I shall see if I can locate the article. It may take a while. The acrimony on this thread is affecting my psychic ability and I urge peace and harmony in order that I can tune in properly.

B0bbY_CaT wrote:Craig,

you're asking me to close down this thread? sorry... I dont have that kind of power. I really do NOT understand how you can be so rude in your comments, so personal in your attacks, and so wrong in your assumptions, then stand up with an attitude of "this is the way it is... dont challenge me!"

you claim to be anti censorship in all it's forms, yet you want to prevent me from having an opinion here in this forum.

you make statements to justify a point you're making in a debate, then when asked to qualify those statements you become rude and personal, or even more amazingly, when i ask you qualify a statement you have made, you suggest i am just using the typical "skeptic" tactics of "prove it to me". are your opinions beyond being questioned?

if your cause truely is to open people's minds about possibilities outside what we currently understand as "science", i am afraid you have not done your cause any good.

the talk magic forum is a place where we can share ideas and experiences, discuss things we have seen and done, learn and teach. it is a forum for everyone with an interest in magic in all it's forms. it is NOT a forum dedicated to Craig Browning's opinions, and only those who are prepared to follow his line of thinking.

i think it is a wonderful thing you can have you say, even if i dont agree with you. but please understand that just because i dont agree with you doesn't of itself make me stupid, or make my opinions wrong... and to effectively censor them by "having your final say" then ending the discussion requesting i post no further comment is not what this forum is all about (in my opinion).

You're getting things wrong here BC and trying to make yourself the victim which is not the case. Put yourself in my shoes for a minute...

I deal with sketics & cynics constantly, I know what they're going to say nine out of ten times and know their little games of twisting words, shifting around the circumstances and criteria on things, etc. As I've stated, people with such a mind set claim frequently that they are opened to things but yet, go out of their way to shoot down probability or even data that suggests that there could be much more to it than meets the eye.

I'm not asking you to "shut down" or "lock" this thread but rather, to end the banter. I'm not assuming, I'm trying to circumvent... I've delt with this kind of game for years from far more seasoned members of the skeptic's culture than yourself. I've learned to just agree to disagree and part friends vs. creating an issue that gets nasty, creates lots of drama and no resolution.

As to my being "rude" towards you... well, I don't know where that happened other than pointing out how one versed in certain psychological disciplines might view you when it comes to your refusal to use proper writing technique in your posts... to my recall that's the closest thing I've come to being a bit pointed toward you and it was merely an observation as well as encouragement to step up to the plate and drop the childish rebellion antics.

I am not trying to have my say and walk away from the topic... I've responded to your questions and asked that we drop the discussion because it's gone from dealing with the validity of the Randi Challenge to another "prove it to me" cynic vs. believer merri-go-round, which is a game I refuse to play. Just as you believe I want to get my say in and shut things down I have learned from experience that cynic's are rarely happy until they know for fact that they've upset someone, caused drama, frustration and apparently proven their point. In truth all they've proven most of the time is that they are two-bit nit-picking lawyers looking for "outs" so as to perpetuate an argument with no end or point of resolution... such games are for fools and I for one choose not to be associated with said antics.

People will find the answers they want to see and create excuses for the things they don't want to see or accept. It's not a matter of who is right or wrong, but whether a person is comfortable in their own skin and not lashing out agressively at others who believe differently then they do. I lived enough years being that angry rebel and shaking my fist at God, as it were. I've learned that the only person that looses the most under that attitude was me... the person that was living in denial and rejecting the miraculous.

Several months ago there was someone trying to agg me on in an issue about Ethics and Morality of Readers and when they would not drop the issue I did... I just wont respond, it's not worth it. So, if you wish to boast of your triumph over me as others have done when I step aside on such issues, go for it... we both know the truth as to where things really lay so I ask you one last time, to please move on to other things and let this back and forth game come to a quiet end.