Pam Blizzard is a LOON
 

This just posted at pam's spiritdiscovery board. What to look for in selecting a medium.

Pam: "Be very careful of sensitives who ask personal questions, either before or during your sitting. Very often, they fish for information and return that information, either as a message from Spirit or as part of the psychic reading. No medium or sensitive needs to know anything about you, except your name (even this is not really required). If he or she asks for additional information, do not offer it. You do not have to provide your date of birth or anything of that nature beforehand. The only question which a sensitive should ask, during a sitting, is whether or not you understand or can accept a piece of information given to you; then, answer only YES or NO; do not give any additional information. "

Fraudpa: Oh really Pam, then why in the world does JE ask 100 questions per sitting? Like "Has mother passed?" then he says after they might say yes "yeah thats what they're telling me, mother is there on the other side".

Oh yeah JE? If they were telling you that why did you have to ask. I like this one too... JE says "I don't know if you have blah blah blah..."

What do you mean you don't know if? You're the damn psychic aren't you?

Psyquestor, Cynical, all the Pam groupies, WHY WHY WHY does he ask these questions if he is REAL. Bullshit, he sucks, he's a overbite tooted FRAUD.

Fraudpa

His overbite isn't that bad. He couldn't eat corn through a picket fence.

I also find it interesting that Pam points out that no medium needs to know anything about you (not even name). Steve Grenard has told of how JE's organization collects the identity of each and every member of the gallery.

I wonder how Pam is going to explain that one. Steve is, after all, her good buddy... :)

The real Fraudpa here. I have never been to Pam's spiritdiscovery board nor do I have a desire to do so. I did not start this thread. If you have been on this site for any length of time you probably know who the resident psychopath is.

Cantata,

They will find a way around it I am sure. I have noticed a BIG thing in his new shows too. They lack those "big hits" of the old shows. Guess they ran out of past JE clients to fill the gallery.

Fraudpa

I am the real fraudpa, not you.

so who is the resident psycho? you ?

Fraudpa (THE REAL ONE)

Last poster cookie:

Last Troll/Poster/Lurker' s Current IP Address: 152.163.188.231
Browser Info: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 7.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Cookie Info: login2452348.0249=10 -08-2002%2011%3A47%2 0AM&2452556.1147; PnT**2452348.0249=CP CPRXJuEDEovBVd&152.1 63.188.231&17234891& &1&0; session2452348.0249= 10-08-2002%2010%3A25 %20AM&2452556.1025

Have a nice day

Psyquestor that last set of numbers is 231 not 131

You have a nice day you psycho nutcase

Fraudpa

By the way,

Don't change the damn subject. Why is Pam such a liar and why is JE such a fraud? Or can you not handle the truth?

Fraudpa

"""Fraudpa: Oh really Pam, then why in the world does JE ask 100 questions per sitting? Like "Has mother passed?" then he says after they might say yes "yeah thats what they're telling me, mother is there on the other side". """

Fraudpa, watch the show some more, so you can get your information correct, before he asks, ""has your mother crossed"", he will say "I have a mother here, crossed over, I'm hearing a MA sound, like Mary.

the sitter will say, "my mother's name is Mary"

John will say "Has your mother crossed?" and if the sitter says "NO" John will say "than this isn't for your because this mother has crossed over."

""WHY WHY WHY does he ask these questions if he is REAL."""

why why why, don't you get your facts straight? :)

It is threads like this one that add to what I find a nearly intolerable climate on this board and has sent me into mostly lurking status. People posting as other people, throwing insults, inability to stay on topic.

I certainly have my opinion of Pam, but she is not a "loon". She did not write what "Fraudpa" has posted, she merely reposted guidelines that are available on many Spiritualist websites.

It would be interesting to have a healthy, focused discussion about these guidelines and whether or not one could have a reading with JE while adhering to them. Unfortunately, others want the discussion to be about whether or not Pam is a liar or a loon.

Rain: "Fraudpa, watch the show some more, so you can get your information correct, before he asks, ""has your mother crossed"", he will say "I have a mother here, crossed over, I'm hearing a MA sound, like Mary. "

Not correct. E.g. in the thread "TRANSCRIPT - Father-Son Relationship ", JE starts like this:

-------------------- --------------------
John: I'm coming up over here. I know this is going to sound really strange, but I want to make sure I'm with the right person. Did you just put down a new Pergo floor? Or is somebody like putting down new floors?

Man (fortyish): We're putting it down soon. We just ordered it.

John: Like a new wood floor?

Man: Yes.

John: Is R-A connected to you? Like Raymond or Rachel? Your dad's passed?

Man: Yes.
-------------------- --------------------

The R-A is the sitter's brother-in-law, still living.

Before you accuse someone of making a mistake, please be sure that YOU get YOUR facts straight.

Fraudpa was right. You were wrong.

Will the REAL Fraudpa....please stand up?!

R.C.
We agree again. I have a friend who always says that the only thing that scares him about dying is the possibility he may have to do jr. high school again.
Threads such as this would make jr. high seem a step above. It is hard to believe adults chose to spend their time this way.
So much for intelligent exchange.
Have a good day R.C. Who knows, we may still wake some day to find people have something worth talking about here. Let's not hold our breath though.
Just a lack of childish insults would be an improvement.
Julie

LOL, NURSEY! You took the words right out of my mouth.

TWO FRAUDPATROLLS! What delicious fun! Near HALLOWEEN, too!

I, CYNICAL, DID NOT START THIS THREAD, so shut up, Fraudpa. Unlike some
people here, I am at work at 10:30am, and it's pretty common knowledge
that Pam had my whole school system banned from this site. It
seems as if YOUR the one with the memory problem, Fraudpa.

Wonder who this person, who imitates Fraudpa hilariously, really is?
I think it could be his daughter, since he has decided to include
her in the war against JE. *ROFL*

Check any of my posts and you will notice that I do not end them with my screen name like the loser above is doing. It is sad to think of the type of person who would think this is a good use of their time. You will know which "Fraudpa" is the original because the imposter doesn't possess the requisite resources to add anything meaningful to the discussion.

Cantata, you are correct. JE ALWAYS gets the information about the status, living or dead, of the hit from the sitter. No exceptions. I tried to get the believers to give one example that proved me wrong on another thread, needless to say they could not produce one.

The fact is that JE doesn’t “know” anything that he isn’t told by the sitter. The cold reading is built upon the questions that are answered by the sitter. It is amazing what some people consider to be a “psychic&#8221 ; ability.

All I said was "resident psychopath".

But if the shoe fits, wear it.

The Real Fradupa?:

JE ALWAYS gets the information about the status, living or dead, of the hit from the sitter. No exceptions. I tried to get the believers to give one example that proved me wrong on another thread, needless to say they could not produce one.

This is identity and status information. Once you get past this, how does he know somebody has a deli slicer in their house? Or a woman has a set of ten little Indians with something missing (it was the papoose on a squaw) and she
had it in her purse or the woman who (usually) carries a brick in her purse (but didnt have it that day in the studio), or dozens of similar inexplicable and totally way out hits? Wild guesses just don't cut it.

Please explain how a trance medium I never met before knew I did something highly unique with a framed picture of a deceased loved one the day before.
Nobody saw me do this, nobody knew about it and this medium, certainly,
wasn't in my house. Tell me how she knew I had moved the couch, for
example? Tell me how an hour before my car died a medium told me (on
the phone--didnt know where I was or where my car was) I would have a problem with my starter and that's what it was. Or the medium who said she was being
told something bad would be happening in New Port Richy (a town in Florida I
have never visited) and an hour letter I get a call from there from a friend
of a guy who was just bitten by a Wagler's Temple Viper and needed medical
advice...tell me how these things happen?

Tell me how a medium described a dog I had as a child which died in 1965, got its name, and then got another dog looking like the first one and got its name.
And I didnt know who the second dog was but investigated and found it it was my dog's brother and the name was correct. Oh, my father who died in 1964 was described as being with the dogs and allegedly he spilled the beans on their names. The dogs did not talk to the medium.

So lets stop arguing. I have a serious problem here and instead of criticizng each other, please tell me how this trick was done so I can forget all about this and go back to other things that used to occupy my spare time.

Thank you. In all sincerity.

Thank YOU, Steve, for finally adding some common sense to this loony
thread.

FraudpaTroll, would you please HUSH already?!?!?!
WHO CARES which Troll is the real Fraudpa?? Either way suits ME!
You're BOTH trolls, so let's just enjoy the nonsense!!

Yeah, I found that story downright incredible, if not totally unbelievable. Wow.

Steve,

I have no idea what happened to you or what did not happen to you, and frankly I could not care less. I have no interest and it would serve no purpose for me to waste my time trying to explain in rational terms your perception of an event that I did not witness and know nothing about. I made a statement about JE and I stand by it.

Here is what I do know. John Edward MUST get verification regarding the status, living or dead, of his guess. If you do not like this statement then find an example that proves me wrong. There are plenty of JE transcripts floating around and you certainly enjoy researching things like this, so prove me wrong or admit that I am correct.

“how does he know somebody has a deli slicer in their house?”

That’s an easy one, he doesn’t. He makes guesses and the only things that he knows are the things that are verified by the sitter. Things that are not verified are soon forgotten as he moves on to build on the information that he obtains from the sitter. So how does JE know anything? The sitter told him or he doesn’t know it.

“Wild guesses just don't cut it.”

What is your basis for making this statement? Do you have one? I say wild guesses do cut it.

Cancer, older male, something in the chest area, miscarriage, suicide, to the side, J or g sound, who is Mary or Martha or May?, they’re telling me to acknowledge the number 3, 3rd month, third time, three kids. These are the bread and butter of the cold reader; the wild guesses are the icing. They are the things that believers hang their hats on.

SG said: Wild guesses just don't cut it.”

FP replies: What is your basis for making this statement? Do you have one? I say wild guesses do cut it.

It is irrational to think that a medium such as JE engages a gallery member in conversation, asks questions to establish identity and relationship, and yes, even symptoms of their passing and then to go on to say he is being told the person he is speaking to has a deli slicer in their house. How many people here have a deli slicer at home? CO staff ran out and got a picture of it this was such an incredible hit.

The woman with the Amwrican Indian doll in her pocketbook, sans papoose,
pulled it out for all to see. It is insane to believe this was a lucky guess.
Ditto for the brick lady JE got (but alas she admitted she left her brick home).

JE says he is seeing hand written sheet music. The sitter teaches piano. A wild guess?

A young man hangs himself in a suicide. How rare a form of suicide is this these days? Pretty rare. JE gets it. A child is hit in the chest with a baseball and has a cardiac arrest. He gets it. A woman had breast cancer, okay not so unusual ...but John says he feels a burning around her heart and this is how she passed. Family confirms she had radiation cardiomyopathy, an extremely rare complication of radiation therapy for breast cancer. JE got it. The list goes on.

We need to start a separate thread with these wild guesses and decide, based on the odds, just how wild they really are. What the odds are, of say, getting that someone passes with two hearts? They had a piggy-back heart transplant, only a dozen or so done in the US annually.

It goes on and on. It is all well and good for you to dismiss my experiences but they form the basis of my interest in the above. I agree getting them first hand is better than hearing about them or, for that matter, seeing JE getting them on TV for strangers. But there are so many who have had these experience you will just have to excuse our credulity even though we may have a hard time excusing your incredulity.

(sgrenard): The woman with the Amwrican Indian doll in her pocketbook, sans papoose, pulled it out for all to see. It is insane to believe this was a lucky guess.

celter:
I remember you using this as an example of an amazing hit in another thread two weeks ago. The follow-up post in that thread was from RC, pointing out to you that JE told the sitter he was hearing "one little, two little, three little Indians" and the sitter said no. Someone else in the audience then pulled out a doll.

I’m sorry if I have this mixed up with another “Indian” hit, Steve; however, if this is the “hit” you are talking about then you must see how this apparent craftiness on your part might cause one to doubt the veracity of other claims you make.

First, JE said nothing to the sitter about an Indian doll; second it was someone else in the audience that had a doll.
And you knew that.

I guess I won't get an answer to my question from the skeptics who claim they know how JE does it. Instead I get nit picking. The tune one little, two litt,e etc is part of the nursery rhyme up to ten little Indians. John heard this. John also said something was missing. He wasnt sure what. The woman pulled out an Indian doll from her purse which was missing its papoose.

I am not really interested in nit picking. I asked a simple question and would like an answer. Apparently there is none.

I think those of us to watch JE regularly should start a separate thread with these documented hits which go beyond identity and relationships and demand from those who doubt this how they can explain it. I would really like to know.
Even a sincere request is met with hostility which I suppose is their usual tactics. Proves they have no answer and are just muddying the waters instead of trying to clear them up.

There was an answer. You jest didn't get it.

(sgrenard): “I guess I won't get an answer to my question from the skeptics who claim they know how JE does it. Instead I get nit picking. The tune one little, two litt,e etc is part of the nursery rhyme up to ten little Indians. John heard this. John also said something was missing. He wasnt sure what. The woman pulled out an Indian doll from her purse which was missing its papoose.”

(celter)
The woman who was being read did no such thing. Someone else in the audience had a doll.

(sgrenard”) “I am not really interested in nit picking. I asked a simple question and would like an answer. Apparently there is none.”

(celter)
I really don’t think I’m nit picking here Steve. I just think that you’re not being entirely forthright with this example. You strongly implied that JE had told a sitter that she had an Indian doll in her purse, even though you knew that wasn’t the case.

You love to accuse people that you disagree with of using sophistry. You need to recognize when you are doing so yourself.

(sgrenard) “I think those of us to watch JE regularly should start a separate thread with these documented hits which go beyond identity and relationships and demand from those who doubt this how they can explain it. I would really like to know.”

(celter)
I think that’s a good idea. Just make sure the examples you offer are truthful and the full context of the “hit” is provided. So far when that’s the case, the hits just don’t seem that amazing to me. Your “Indian” hit is a good example of what I’m talking about here.

(sgrenard): “Even a sincere request is met with hostility which I suppose is their usual tactics. Proves they have no answer and are just muddying the waters instead of trying to clear them up.”

(celter)
I hope your not accusing me of being hostile in my response to you Steve.
Clarity is what I want too. That’s why I responded as I did.

You are nit picking celter. Definitely and without a doubt. Who are you kidding? Okay, do you have a deli slicer in your house? I know I dont. Do you
have anyone in your familt who died of radiation cardiomyopathy? Did you have a dog named for a food? How many family members commit suicide by hanging or committ sucidie at all? How about the nurse in a seminar reading who I know that JE read who had 3 suicides in her family and he got all of them? What are the odds? No one wants to answer that question it seems. I wonder why ... er,
no I don't. I know why? You don't have an explanation but can't admit to that.

FP you cannot make the wild guess card work, that's why. So people who see through this and sincerely ask the pseudoskeptics (a true skeptic is never certain and has an open mind) to back up their assertions with how they do the "trick" don't get a direct answer. FP says he doesnt care and couldnt care less about the validations I saw; you pick on something that happened that you say was done by a woman nearby (indian in purse--LOL) instead of the person he was talking to. What exactly does this signify that is countervailing? Nothing.

This is why debating this is a waste of time. You have no answers. Cold reading doesn't go past the identity and relationship issues which is understandable.
When specifics are brought up they are wild guesses or hot information. Sorry but rational people who do think critically cannot buy these explanations. They are the explanations of people grasping at straws or worse building their own strawmen, the very thing people who are trying to understand the reasons are accused of.

These same sorts of highly speciifc pieces of information have come through in Schwartz' experiments but critics like Randi hang their entire argument on things like a single 1/4 inch crack in a curtained screen extant for two minutes during the sit down process. Such a crack did not explain the highly specific information obtained in all the readings conducted during the HBO and the subsequent experiments.

We hear the pseudoskeptics say they can design an experiment but they havent followed through. We hear they can cold read anyone ... they havent followed through. (I am talking here not about fishing for names and relationships which I agree is used in large groups to do exactly that, establish who is there for who. And when we ask them for an explanation of things like bricks in ladie's handbags or deli slicers in people's homes they yell wild guess. Good one!
Ha.

Sophistry is making a point by lying or exaggerating the truth. Picking on one out of ten things like you did is a superb and wonderful example of that.
Thanks for the demonstration. And FP couldn't care less. So why is he here?

FraudpaTroll is here to indulge in his trollity. On this board, he can vent
his anger and jeolously of JE, and be a smart-ass troll at the same time.

He is also watching for Pam drop in, so that he can have a hey-day with
her, since he's probably banned from all of her sites.

Fraudpa's theme:
"Ol' FraudpaTroll was a silly old troll, and a silly old troll was he."

“Sophistry is making a point by lying or exaggerating the truth. Picking on one out of ten things like you did is a superb and wonderful example of that.
Thanks for the demonstration. And FP couldn't care less. So why is he here?”

Okay Steve, what is JE’s hit rate on the wild guesses? You have absolutely no idea. Not the run of the mill cold reading stuff like a letter on sound or cause of death. After he has established the sex and age of the deceased from info he got from the sitter, he will make a wild guess. YOU are you are the one who is focusing on the one in ten item, probably less than one in ten.

Why am I here? Believe it or not this is a John Edward site. I am here to discuss John Edward, not your anecdotal evidence.

<Fraudpa> 64.12.96.202 October 08, 2002 07:48 PM

""Check any of my posts and you will notice that I do not end them with my screen name like the loser above is doing. It is sad to think of the type of person who would think this is a good use of their time. You will know which "Fraudpa" is the original because the imposter doesn't possess the requisite resources to add anything meaningful to the discussion.""

I have one word for this imposter - (SAM)

Sam doesn't possess the intelligence that the real fraudpa has.

the real fraudpa has NEVER posted using this IP addy, <Fraudpa> 152.163.189.131
but we know the troll has.

And the real fraudpa never uses the word LOSER like this one

""<Fraudpa> 64.12.96.202 October 08, 2002 07:48 PM
Check any of my posts and you will notice that I do not end them with my screen name like the loser above is doing.""

Sam needs to get a real job, he has way to much time on his hands. And education wouldn't hurt him either.

Rain: "the real fraudpa has NEVER posted using this IP addy, <Fraudpa> 152.163.189.131"

I don't think that's true, Rain. Check the "Believer Questions 1 & 2" thread which seems to be from the "real" Fraudpa at this IP. Also, there's a thread about Pam he was on a few pages back, also with this IP.

I know several people who've seen his posts here for a long time are convinced he's not Sam. But other than that one response to Cynical (from someone), FP hasn't said a word about the Sam/Fraudpa issue, which I find a little strange, if he ISN'T Sam.

So, Fraudpa, did you really post as Sam or not?

Based on the content and purpose of Sam's posts, I would think you'd want us to know if it was you or not, one way or the other.

G2

Sam I am,

not.

>> I have one word for this imposter - (SAM) <<

AMEN, Rain.

(sgrenard):You are nit picking celter. Definitely and without a doubt.

celter:
You said: "The woman with the American Indian doll in her pocketbook, sans papoose, pulled it out for all to see. It is insane to believe this was a lucky guess."

Did JE say the woman being read had an Indian doll in her purse? No, and she didn't anyway.
Did JE even say anyone had a doll? No, he made reference to a rhyme about Indians!

Your accusation of nit-picking is unfair. How much leeway do you really expect to be given?

I want to see a fair and objective analysis of any reading. You, Steve, do not provide fair and objective analysis
You remind me of a small child who simply can't admit he is being deceitful.
You knew the hit was not as you described. Deal with it.

(sgrenard) "Sophistry is making a point by lying or exaggerating the truth"

celter:
Yes Steve, it is, and including the Indian example is sophistry, pure and simple

Celter, you are correct when describing this "Indian" reading. JE did not talk about a doll in someone's purse. He was giving a reading to one sitter, said he was hearing "one little, two little, three little indians", that meant nothing to the sitter, so he said he was probably switching and a woman down the row pulled the Indian (Native American?) doll out of her purse. Steve is correct that JE said there was something missing on the doll, and it was true, the caboose was missing. You could not tell by looking at it quickly that there was something missing.

Now, as a believer in mediumship and one who accepts the "process" as both described by JE and who has experienced it myself, I think this very well could have been a message from spirit. After all, Brian Hurst did not say "your grandfather used to work for the phone company and gave your family an old brass phone", he said "I'm seeing an old brass phone".

However, I think it's really important that if are to discuss JE and mediumship, that we be very accurate, whether it's from a believer or a skeptical perspective. It serves no purpose to say "yeah, well what about when JE knew there was an Indian doll in a woman's purse" when that didn't happen. Just like it serves no purpose to say "it take 6 hours to tape a 1/2 hour show". I'd much rather discuss the real facts.

The brick in the purse hit is another one. What really happened is JE asked the sitter if she had a brick in her purse. She replied no, but then said that she used to carry bricks wrapped in tin foil as part of an exercise regime. Now, why do we need to say "JE knew the woman carried bricks in her purse" when he didn't say that...but what he did pick up on was an issue about the woman carrying bricks which is rather remarkable in itself.

I didn't catch the IP he used on the other thread Gryphon, but I've seen the real fraudpa post enough times to know that he isn't the one who started this thread. He is more mature and intelligent than the imposter.

this is the real fraudpa

(((<Fraudpa> 205.188.209.176 October 08, 2002 11:48 AM
""The real Fraudpa here. I have never been to Pam's spiritdiscovery board nor do I have a desire to do so. I did not start this thread. If you have been on this site for any length of time you probably know who the resident psychopath is."")))

the other one is the psychopath who doesn't have a life. trust me on this one, I can smell a rat a mile away and this:

((("" <Fraudpa> 152.163.189.131 October 08, 2002 11:48 AM
Cantata, They will find a way around it I am sure. I have noticed a BIG thing in his new shows too. They lack those "big hits" of the old shows. Guess they ran out of past JE clients to fill the gallery.

Fraudpa "")))

Is a rat.

another thing that gives it away, is that the REAL Fraudpa NEVER signs his name at the end of his posts like above, however, Jason P, and Sam both had a habit of doing that.

I hate to call anyone a loser, but this imposter is a LOSER. And a Coward who hides behind other people's names.

Okay, Rain, I know what you mean. I don't want to think its the real Fraudpa either. And he says it isn't so I'll certainly take his word for it. However, just so you know where I was coming from, here's how the real FP started the recent thread, "Believers Questions 1 & 2":

<Fraudpa> 152.163.189.131 September 28, 2002 03:42 PM

On another thread I asked the question “how does a dead person have a credit card mailed as a sign?” as JE claimed occurred.

The two answers that I received were that a dead person could:
A) Alter the thought process of a living person in effect have them do their bidding
B) Change the pixels on a computer screen and therefore have a credit card mailed

*****

There's a lot more, with intelligent reasoning, as you say, and with no signature at the end.

Very possibly all those ugly "Sam" posts were from someone else, but my point was it was odd that the IP's are the same for the FP imposter, Fraudpa, and Sam. (And also this same IP was in the posts the real FP made to Pam Blizzard several weeks ago).

I'm just interested in the truth, especially because Sam's posts were soooo awful and because FP did say he'd be back as someone else to fool us.

However, the consensus here seems to be that the matching IP's are just a coincidence then. It just seems a little odd, that's all. (And where IS Sam, btw?)

G2

G2

(RC) Celter, you are correct when describing this "Indian" reading.

celter
Thanks RC. To be fair, I didn’t see this reading. I remember your response when Steve made the same claim on the Westbury thread. I went back and looked and you said, “Now I believe in mediumship and I can see a spirit butting in and using the little Indian reference to focus on a different sitter. But that's quite different than claiming that JE got an amazing hit that he didn't get.”

RC: Steve is correct that JE said there was something missing on the doll, and it was true, the caboose was missing. You could not tell by looking at it quickly that there was something missing.

celter
Fair enough, but could he see the doll at all, quickly or not? Was this on TV and if so, I wonder if even a few seconds might have been edited out, for time. What kind of shape was the doll in? Was it old? Was any information exchanged about the doll before that comment?

(RC): Now, as a believer in mediumship and one who accepts the "process" as both described by JE and who has experienced it myself, I think this very well could have been a message from spirit.

celter:
Yes RC, I agree, it certainly could have been a message from a spirit, although that’s not the most likely explanation to me. To someone trying to evaluate these “amazing hits” objectively the difference between what actually happened and JE correctly telling a sitter out of the blue that she had an Indian doll in her purse is huge. And it bothers me that the person reporting this hit had already been told what really happened.

(RC): However, I think it's really important that if are to discuss JE and mediumship, that we be very accurate, whether it's from a believer or a skeptical perspective. It serves no purpose to say "yeah, well what about when JE knew there was an Indian doll in a woman's purse" when that didn't happen.

celter:
Exactly, RC. This is the point I am struggling to get across to Steve.
I want to know more about these so called amazing hits, the ones that at first reading seem to be impossible through cold reading. They should be analyzed accurately and objectively. Exaggerating and distorting them does not help the cause of those who argue that JE is, or probably is, a legitimate medium. Accuracy and honesty are critical or these discussions become meaningless.

RC: RC: Steve is correct that JE said there was something missing on the doll, and it was true, the caboose was missing. You could not tell by looking at it quickly that there was something missing.

Reply: To be correct, a caboose is the last car on a freight train. This was the papoose or "baby in a knapsack". The sitter akcnowledged that the papoose
was missing. It was.

I am sorry. You can pick this apart all you want, this was a major hit and sub-hit. And what about the others? Fine he wasnt talking directly to the woman with the Indian doll in her purse which we all saw on TV as she plucked it out.
But he was talking to the woman with the deli slicer in her (home) kitchen, etc.
He was talking to the woman who carries a brick in her purse. If JE gets a major hit for someone adjacent to or near the person he is talking to this is NOT in anybody's mind and error or non-hit. He's in a room with hundreds of people. He tries to focus, both on what he is hearing and for whom but it is not always clear.

If we are now rating John on his ability to focus on whom he is talking to in a large room full of people, celter you have a point. In order to make that point, you must accept the fact that his mediumship is genuine but he can't focus as well as you would like him to. Oh well.

(sgrenard) Fine he wasnt talking directly to the woman with the Indian doll in her purse which we all saw on TV as she plucked it out.”

(celter)
No Steve, he wasn’t, and is good that you have finally acknowledged that simple fact. I made my first post in this topic in straightforward way and with one simple objective: to point out that the reading did not happen the way you said it did. It is undeniable that you misrepresented this reading. I also pointed out that you knew you were misrepresenting because RC had corrected you on the same thing two weeks earlier.

(sgrenard): “If we are now rating John on his ability to focus on whom he is talking to in a large room full of people, celter you have a point. In order to make that point, you must accept the fact that his mediumship is genuine but he can't focus as well as you would like him to. Oh well.”

celter:
I really have to shake my head and laugh at you here. Open your eyes! Can’t you see how the odds change if the target is expanded to what you yourself call a large room full of people? This hit was meaningless!

""(And where IS Sam, btw?)""

probably out running over innocent bystanders with his van, or shoving little old ladies down stairs.

I know, that is cruel, but I see him as being a hate filled arsehole who takes his anger out on others.

He is still lurking, and posting as other people.

Celter:

celter:
I really have to shake my head and laugh at you here. Open your eyes! Can’t you see how the odds change if the target is expanded to what you yourself call a large room full of people? This hit was meaningless!

And how many people do you figure in a room of 200 people have a connection to the ten little indians and then have one of them in their purse? 10, 20, how
about half? And when John said something was missing from one, and it was that Indian doll (in the purse) who was missing her papoose, how many do you figure then? 5, 10, 50 instead of a hundred? The only thing I am incredulous about is your remark with reference to this hit.

And I notice how you neatly ignore the other hits I mention. How many people in this room of 200 people have a commercial deli slicer in their kitchen? How many women do you know of who carry a brick in their purse? Its New York, I guess you think one out of two.. Going back a bit, how many people do you know who lived on an island off Brazil called Fernando? It must have been a very crowded island if ten, twenty or a hundred people in the room had a deceased loved one who lived there at one time or another. I never heard of it until that day. How many folks do you know with the name Alowishys? (spelling-LOL I cant even spell it). These were JE hits also.

There is really no point discussing this so why you bother I don't know.
At least the Funbdamentalists have a crusade -- to keep us from summoning evil spirits and demons.

Unless you can scientifically prove how he comes up with this sort of information through natural means, we all just have to wonder.

(sgrenard): “And how many people do you figure in a room of 200 people have a connection to the ten little indians and then have one of them in their purse? 10, 20, how about half?”

celter:
Your question is again misleading. He didn’t say to the sitter “you have an indian in your purse” and get validation. As I said that would have been impressive. So, how many people in a room of 200 people have any connection to Indians, because any connection would have done? His reference was vague, a nursery rhyme, and again, the sitter said no. Someone out of 200 people was able to make a connection.
This sure as hell does not constitute compelling evidence that someone is communicating with dead people, unless your mind is made up in advance.

(sgrenard): “And I notice how you neatly ignore the other hits I mention”

celter:
I made my first post in this topic in a fair and straightforward way and with one simple objective: to point out that the Indian example you gave did not happen the way you said it did. If you had simply acknowledged that at the outset we would have been done
Instead, in order to divert attention from that example, you brought up other readings and hits that have no relevance to the point I made. You have also attacked me with accusations of sophistry, nitpicking, hostility, and pseudoskepticism. I think your tactics here have shown desperation.

(sgrenard)There is really no point discussing this so why you bother I don't know.

celter
Given what I now see as your obvious unwillingness to debate fairly, I think that is the only reasonable thing you have said since we started this discussion
I have made my point.

(sgrenard):Unless you can scientifically prove how he comes up with this sort of information through natural means, we all just have to wonder.

I believe the onus is on JE to prove scientifically that he is able to do what he says he is doing.

Well, I *am* the "Princess of Me-Too", and I can easily place some of JE's so-called spectacular hits in proper perspective. Here goes:

1. 10 Little Indians: As a child, it was my favorite counting song. I made my mom (now deceased) sing it to me constantly. She would skip numbers (missing indian, anyone?), just to make sure I was paying attention.

2. Deli Slicer: My dad (now deceased) owned one, but seldom used it. After he died, I discovered it was missing. No one knows what happened to it.

3. Brick in the purse: I was been mugged and and got badly beaten-up. As a result, I felt I needed a weapon. For protection, I used to place a brick in my suede handbag, and was able to swing it at anyone who came near me... sort of like the Ruth Buzzi character on the old Laugh-In program, LOL.

4. Fernando: It was my favorite Abba song, and one of my old friends actually bought me the Abba's Greatest Hits CD for a birthday gift last year.

5. Aloysius: St. Aloysius is the patron saint of Catholic youth. He was born to a wealthy family, but defied them by becoming a Jesuit priest. He died during the 1 5 0 0 ' s of the plague, at the tender age of twenty-three years. There are *lots* of parishes named after him.

If I were in the JE gallery crowd of 200, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who could validate these vague statements. Got any more???

P.S. I just remembered that there was a Brother Aloysius who taught in the Catholic school in the parish where I lived as a child. He hit one of my brothers on the knuckles with a ruler, and it actually drew blood. My mom made a big fuss about it, and it never happened again. (We later learned that her complaint received attention because she had the same name as a major contributor to the parish, LOL!)

Celter. I see you have an exvcellent memory. You mention above I madfe a mistake regarding something JE did or said at Westbury. I dont seem to recall
what that was but since you have such an excellent memory, I'd deeply appreciate it if you would please tell me what that was and where I said it
...and thanks.

If I were in the JE gallery crowd of 200, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one who could validate these vague statements. Got any more???

You clearly miss the point. JE gets a confluence of common and uncommon bits of information which combine to reineforce the notioon of communication. The examples I gave which you combined to suit yourself came from different readings on different days.

It is really intersting that they were all in true for you in someway but this
is not the issue here. The individual iterms, when combinerd with authors, were true for singular people in the gallery.

Maybe your father's deli slicer was stolen by JE and planted in the house of his sitter so they could run over and photograph it after he got that hit.

Steve Grenard: "And how many people do you figure in a room of 200 people have a connection to the ten little indians and then have one of them in their purse? 10, 20, how about half? And when John said something was missing from one, and it was that Indian doll (in the purse) who was missing her papoose, how many do you figure then? 5, 10, 50 instead of a hundred? The only thing I am incredulous about is your remark with reference to this hit."

You forget that JE works his way to the answer. He throws out a ditty and when he gets lucky - remember he doesn't aways, far from it - he works with what he gets feedback on.

Steve Grenard: "And I notice how you neatly ignore the other hits I mention. How many people in this room of 200 people have a commercial deli slicer in their kitchen?"

This is a very good example of embellishing a hit: Who said anything about a commercial deli slicer? You can get smaller household versions. My mom has one, always has!

Steve Grenard: "How many women do you know of who carry a brick in their purse? Its New York, I guess you think one out of two.. "

You ever looked inside a woman's handbag? It's a treasure trove of kinky stuff! :)

Steve Grenard: "Going back a bit, how many people do you know who lived on an island off Brazil called Fernando? It must have been a very crowded island if ten, twenty or a hundred people in the room had a deceased loved one who lived there at one time or another. I never heard of it until that day."

Have you eliminated that JE could have gotten that information from the net? You are the one who told of the information gathering before the show, as well as JE having ample time to do a cursory search.

Steve Grenard: "How many folks do you know with the name Alowishys? (spelling-LOL I cant even spell it). These were JE hits also. "

You have to compare that to how many names (not initials) he throws out and he doesn't get a hit. Also, take into account the information gathering plus the Internet.

Steve Grenard: "There is really no point discussing this so why you bother I don't know. At least the Funbdamentalists have a crusade -- to keep us from summoning evil spirits and demons. "

That's right: Back down when the going gets tough. If you don't feel you have more arguments, then don't discuss it. At least you could admit defeat instead of stooping to ad hominem.

Steve Grenard: "Unless you can scientifically prove how he comes up with this sort of information through natural means, we all just have to wonder. "

Glad you brought this up: Why do you demand this, when you know that it doesn't work this way in science? I know you don't think a claimant should offer evidence, but that's not the way it works in science.

Steve Grenard: "You clearly miss the point. JE gets a confluence of common and uncommon bits of information which combine to reineforce the notioon of communication. The examples I gave which you combined to suit yourself came from different readings on different days. "

A "confluence", Steve?? It "reinforces the *notion*" of communication? What you are describing is a clear-case of flimflam!

Steve Grenard: "It is really intersting that they were all in true for you in someway but this is not the issue here. The individual iterms, when combinerd with authors, were true for singular people in the gallery. "

Again, we see this claim that if JE is a cheat, his guesses has to apply to each and everyone in the audience. They don't - he throws out so many statements, that SOMETHING is bound to stick.

Steve Grenard: "Maybe your father's deli slicer was stolen by JE and planted in the house of his sitter so they could run over and photograph it after he got that hit. "

Or maybe JE made a guess, which you seem determined to embellish?

"Aloysius"

I remember this hit and it was the first time I considered the possibility of staff or JE listening to the audience conversation before the show. Reason being that after JE said this name (which he used to open a reading, not his usual "I'm getting someone to the side), the sitter said "Wow, we were just talking about that name". I could be very wrong, but the way he stressed the word "just" I got the impression that they had said the name in the gallery.

Anyway, I'm not arguing any particular point, but I remember that appearing strange to me.

(Cantata)
"This is a very good example of embellishing a hit: Who said anything about a commercial deli slicer? You can get smaller household versions. My mom has one, always has!"

Steve, you can assure Cantata, (I'd do it myself, but he is persona non grata to me) that John was, indeed, referring to a commercial deli slicer in that reading. You see, Claus wouldn't know that, because he does not really watch the show much, but JE made it very clear that he did NOT mean small appliance, but the real deal.

In fact, he knew to refer to the commercial version because he had had a conversation with Sandra about wanting one for their home, and she had asked him what kind of a nut would want a commercial deli slicer for their own personal use, and he raised his hand and said....he would. The memory of that conversation with his wife happened to be the image he had received from spirit to let him know what to ask the sitter....neo