|
Post by Me on Jan 27, 2007 13:49:48 GMT
I have more knowledge than most sceptics to how mediumship works, simply because i have done a mediumship course The mediumship course only covered a minimal amount of the intricacies Jon..But yes at least you do have a basic understanding more than most.
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 27, 2007 13:50:46 GMT
Bang on matey......exactly!
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 27, 2007 15:32:25 GMT
That's an "interesting" idea. Only mediums can expose other mediums Turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. Who said that. I simply pointed out that knowledge is a great aid when it comes to understanding anything. Not that the scenario of Randi running his own test/challenge seems to phase most sceptics,odd. Would you trust the judgment of someone refereeing a football game who's sole knowledge was a weeks course and watching a couple of match of the day?? Get the point?? Knowledge and experience is an aid to coming to a decision. MMCI think Kendra pretty much answered your question about studying mediumship. On here we only scratch the surface,people do devote years to looking at the whole topic objectively. How many sceptics can say the same??
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 27, 2007 15:45:42 GMT
Question How many mediums have exposed fraudulent mediums?
How many Sceptics have exposed fraudulent mediums?
|
|
|
Post by Meercat on Jan 27, 2007 15:47:13 GMT
That's an "interesting" idea. Only mediums can expose other mediums Turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. Who said that. I simply pointed out that knowledge is a great aid when it comes to understanding anything. Not that the scenario of Randi running his own test/challenge seems to phase most sceptics,odd. Would you trust the judgment of someone refereeing a football game who's sole knowledge was a weeks course and watching a couple of match of the day?? Get the point?? Knowledge and experience is an aid to coming to a decision. MMCI think Kendra pretty much answered your question about studying mediumship. On here we only scratch the surface,people do devote years to looking at the whole topic objectively. How many sceptics can say the same?? The whole topic. Yes I can understand there are lots of different branches to it, auras, angels, guides etc, but why does anyone need a Degree in Botany just to spot a weed?
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 27, 2007 15:47:51 GMT
Question How many mediums have exposed fraudulent mediums? How many Sceptics have exposed fraudulent mediums? Don't know. How many and sources of such facts please.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 27, 2007 15:58:29 GMT
Ok how about this LR, i will name you a sceptic who has exposed a psychic, then you name a psychic who has exposed one. And you can use the same psychic more than once if they have exposed multiple psychics We can go one each until one of us runs out, how about that? I will start SCEPTIC James Randi exposed Uri Geller Source: badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 27, 2007 16:15:31 GMT
Ok how about this LR, i will name you a sceptic who has exposed a psychic, then you name a psychic who has exposed one. And you can use the same psychic more than once if they have exposed multiple psychics We can go one each until one of us runs out, how about that? I will start SCEPTIC James Randi exposed Uri Geller Source: badpsychics.com/thefraudfiles/modules/news/article.php?storyid=18Hang on Jon,i didn't crouch a question in the form of a claim. You did. I simply asked for further info. As to anything Randi has done,in the same way you assume that TS is a proven fraud i have no confidence in any claim that Randi makes. So instead of taking a request and turning it around wanting me to prove something that you said. Give me facts from an independent,verifiable and competent source. All which rules out Randi.
|
|
|
Post by hkev on Jan 27, 2007 16:34:49 GMT
That's an "interesting" idea. Only mediums can expose other mediums Turkeys voting for Christmas comes to mind. Who said that. I simply pointed out that knowledge is a great aid when it comes to understanding anything. Not that the scenario of Randi running his own test/challenge seems to phase most sceptics,odd. Would you trust the judgment of someone refereeing a football game who's sole knowledge was a weeks course and watching a couple of match of the day?? Get the point?? Knowledge and experience is an aid to coming to a decision. "Who said that." Hmmm.I always wonder what the word "exposed" pertains too? Who exposes and do they have any qualifications or knowledge of the subject they are exposing.Can a Skeptic "expose" a Medium when most have no real knowledge of the subject! And as to the referee who has only one weeks experience, I would expect him to miss many things and get a lot of decisions wrong. But even he could spot a blatant cheater, even with only a basic understanding of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 27, 2007 17:05:14 GMT
In other words, LR cant find a single psychic/medium who has ever exposed another psychic medium, oh well
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 27, 2007 17:20:01 GMT
Question How many mediums have exposed fraudulent mediums? How many Sceptics have exposed fraudulent mediums? ummm ...lets see.. what sh*te have I been through because I go against the frauds...? How many sceptics have exposed fraudulent meidums and actually made a difference? Who would have the greater impact? and why do you think that is? Why do you think CF,TS inclusing the lesser ones wont have me within a foot of them? Og thats right cos I am going to stand there and say oh thats just brilliant and not expose what they have just done as crap!
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 27, 2007 17:21:11 GMT
Who said that. I simply pointed out that knowledge is a great aid when it comes to understanding anything. Not that the scenario of Randi running his own test/challenge seems to phase most sceptics,odd. Would you trust the judgment of someone refereeing a football game who's sole knowledge was a weeks course and watching a couple of match of the day?? Get the point?? Knowledge and experience is an aid to coming to a decision. MMCI think Kendra pretty much answered your question about studying mediumship. On here we only scratch the surface,people do devote years to looking at the whole topic objectively. How many sceptics can say the same?? The whole topic. Yes I can understand there are lots of different branches to it, auras, angels, guides etc, but why does anyone need a Degree in Botany just to spot a weed? It all depends where your deciding to take it. If yous imply want to connect or whatever then you would just study that part of it,if you truly are interested and want to know all the ins and outs thats a little further you would push it. If you are going to lead a service,teach etc etc you should know far more than any of your students for start. Because this is something that affects your beliefs etc surely to goodness you should look at all aspects?
|
|
|
Post by Me on Jan 27, 2007 17:22:49 GMT
In other words, LR cant find a single psychic/medium who has ever exposed another psychic medium, oh well Jon you make my blood boil...
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Jan 27, 2007 18:01:23 GMT
I was actually hoping LR would mention you kendra!!!!!!!
I am on your side kennykins, you are the ONLY medium in the whole UK who has actually spoke out against the fakes
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 28, 2007 11:31:28 GMT
In other words, LR cant find a single psychic/medium who has ever exposed another psychic medium, oh well I didn't say that. You are asking me to defend and back up a statement i didn't make. You did,i asked you to back that up. Not with someone or some organization with an agenda,books to sell,speaking circuit etc. Just an independent Uni,org,individual etc that has conducted tests and come to a conclusion. A conclusion that has been backed by equally independent peers. Thats all.
|
|
|
Post by Meercat on Jan 28, 2007 13:01:55 GMT
The whole topic. Yes I can understand there are lots of different branches to it, auras, angels, guides etc, but why does anyone need a Degree in Botany just to spot a weed? It all depends where your deciding to take it. If yous imply want to connect or whatever then you would just study that part of it,if you truly are interested and want to know all the ins and outs thats a little further you would push it. If you are going to lead a service,teach etc etc you should know far more than any of your students for start. Because this is something that affects your beliefs etc surely to goodness you should look at all aspects? I agree Kendra, but my point was not made towards Mediums, it was to ask why I would need to study all of that as a sceptic just to enable me to expose a fake medium. I see little point in learning about angels and auras when in fact all I need to know is about cold reading techniques and body language. LR seems to think that it takes years to study as a Medium, therefore a sceptic should to the same to understand it. My view is that I dont need to learn about the belief side of it to spot a fake.
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 28, 2007 14:57:01 GMT
No my point was that anyone with a little knowledge seems to think they know it all. Assumptions are made without the background to support them. I don't believe you need the history of mediumship to spot a fake. But the point i was trying to make,badly,is i as a medium am quite happy to come on sites such as this and learn about cold reading etc. I have also visited other sites and read books on that subject and magic etc. How many sceptics take the time to visit sites and learn even a little about mediumship and the technical aspects to it? Most don't. They have read about cold reading,they think they know about it and it fits there own beliefs so that is it. They are simply looking at gaining proof that supports a decision that they have already made. At least with a little more knowledge they could approach a reading, show, what ever with a slightly more open mind. In many cases all i see are the assumption that "this" is what occurred,end of story. Yet many ardent believers would be critised by the same sceptics as being closed minded. At least most mediums have studied the subject not just read a bit and watched MH. Which is the sole base SOME sceptics have.
|
|
|
Post by Meercat on Jan 28, 2007 16:17:25 GMT
No my point was that anyone with a little knowledge seems to think they know it all. Assumptions are made without the background to support them. I don't believe you need the history of mediumship to spot a fake. But the point i was trying to make,badly,is i as a medium am quite happy to come on sites such as this and learn about cold reading etc. I have also visited other sites and read books on that subject and magic etc. How many sceptics take the time to visit sites and learn even a little about mediumship and the technical aspects to it? Most don't. They have read about cold reading,they think they know about it and it fits there own beliefs so that is it. They are simply looking at gaining proof that supports a decision that they have already made. At least with a little more knowledge they could approach a reading, show, what ever with a slightly more open mind. In many cases all i see are the assumption that "this" is what occurred,end of story. Yet many ardent believers would be critised by the same sceptics as being closed minded. At least most mediums have studied the subject not just read a bit and watched MH. Which is the sole base SOME sceptics have. Some. Thats easy to say, but really without evidence. No, just some people. Come on LR, thats a sweeping statement to make, you have no idea what sites people visit or dont visit. Or maybe they have already seen that proof with which to make that decision? Or are tired of mediums not being able to provide proof otherwise? So exactly what knowledge do you think a person should have before having a reading or seeing a medium on stage? There is someone who says they can communicate with the dead, what knowledge of mediumship do you require before you can decide if they are telling the truth? Surely the mediums answers will decide that for you, not your knowledge of mediums?
|
|
|
Post by lowrider on Jan 28, 2007 16:55:37 GMT
I did say in most of my post " some and many" My observations are based on some of the post i have read on here. Yes there is a huge generalization in much of what is say,but without trawling the entire forum and locating examples of each there is not much else i can do. But i do see example of staggering ignorance. The whole point i am making is that in the main the mediums and believers on here have some knowledge of the sham side of mediumship and psychics. They have taken the trouble to learn something. Many sceptics only appear to have knowledge of what they feel is the explanation of what they see. They either do not wish to consider any other reason or lack the knowledge to explain what is happening in front of them. That or in there post they choose not to display that knowledge. As to your last question,what knowledge do you need to decide if a medium is telling the truth. None as you have said,but i have never during any reading considered that i had any reason to lie. Nor can i see what would be the purpose of lying. How would that advance any proof that i was in contact with a loved one. I have no idea other then you assume before anything is said that the medium will lie.
|
|
|
Post by Meercat on Jan 28, 2007 17:23:24 GMT
I still dont see what knowledge you you are getting at. Of course mediums know about the sham side, you would have to live in a very closed world not too. It doesn't take too much studying. What knowledge is needed by a sceptic? About the afterlife? God? The ability to communicate with the dead?
The other reason being that the medium IS communicating with the dead? Well I for one spent many years believing that. But after many years of constantly hearing the same old crap, Im now wanting proof. Perhaps sceptics these days are quicker on the uptake than I was.
I have seen many many mediums, all of them said they were communicating with my dead relatives, from what they told me it was pitifully obvious they were not, therefore they were lying about what they were doing.
|
|