So that's why all those pseudo-skeptics with their tedious testing protocols have thus far failed to find any evidence that convinces them.

They forgot to ask the dog.

If you see something and your dog also re-acts to it, then that is good evidence that what you saw was not an illusion made of you're own mind. Funny is it not that this is a difficult concept to grasp, yet you just don't get it again and again.. you guys think you have superior logic yet you constantly make mundane, thick as custard statements LOL

Your blinkered approach Jon is really tedious, you skeptics make another fundemental mistake - you think people that believe in the Paranormal have some "Convince and Convert" christian policy, we don't.. if you don't believe, if you are so blind that you don't even know what you are, we really and I mean REALLY could'nt give a flying monkeys toss. Ignorance is bliss for you, but you don't get that either, still you go on demanding proof as if we owe you the time to provide it, we don't, you don't believe, I don't care.

No--just another type of straw man.

I meant to say not a difficult concept to grasp above.

So chill.

Pseudo = fraudulent or fake
Skeptic = Someone who has a questioning mind.

So a pseudo-skeptic is a person who pretends to have a questioning mind? Isn't that someone who simply believes and takes things on faith rather than going in search of the truth. Hmmm... That sounds a lot like people who follow a religion, belong to a cult, visit psychics and mediums, think that aliens make crop circles and fairies live at the bottom of their garden. Plus anything else you can think of that involves taking things on face value and questioning things.

People here know my stance when it comes to this stuff. I am a skeptic. I don't take things at face value. I'm quite willing to admit that when it comes to the paranormal I don't know.

I see possibilities to achieving certain things. Now whether I agree with the way Paul did what he did is irrelevant, his article does highlight a possible means of achieving what at face value appears to be paranormal.

Is he right? I don't know. But his explanation is certainly the more feasible answer to the question of "how does she do it?". At best, all she could prove from now on is that her abilities are capable of achieving the same phenomena as a magic trick. Nothing more. So whether she does or doesn't use trickery is irrelevant. The fact that her "powers" are no more impressive than a cheap stunt makes them pretty pointless really.

That's just my opinion anyway.

Yet the humourless and insulting tone of your posts indicates otherwise.

If atributing a pets behaviour somehow acts as sufficient confirmation of your beliefs, that's up to you. Sadly, in my apparent blissful ignorance that just don't cut it for me.

Each to their own.

Yep, let's just ignore the pets behavior and pretend we were tired.

No problem (my cat agrees that it'd be for the best).

Goodnight.

Which begs the question - is a 'psychic' the same as a 'fortune-teller'? Although she styles herself 'Psychic Sally' it would seem that 'Medium Mary' would have been a better choice as the act appears to be that of a medium e.g. she talks about past events not future ones.

Good point. It does annoy me slightly when people confuse psychics and mediums.

It annoys me when mediums and psychics don't understand the difference.

Indeed. If *anyone* should know the difference...

http://psychiclife.blogspot.com/2009/11/medium-wrong.html

Not only that incident, but "acclaimed medium" Lisa Wiliams made the same statement in her biography. Sad!

I think this guy talks a lot sense. Worth a read...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brenda......ch-hunt/

If Paul wants to stop the constant fleecing of gullible people with more money than sense he should get his backside into the Penny forum and tackle the snakes that peddle their wares in there.

Not much money in it though, and he won't get on telly, hence he doesn't do it.

Except that he argues that nobody does any harm - and there are cases where harm has definitely been done by 'psychics' who have fleeced the gullible. I don't think that's particularly true of Pysh Sally. She has a good 'act' but her voice drives me up the wall.

WTF... ???

Only that I get this right:

Here, on a MAGICIANs (= people using tricks to create the ILLUSION of real wonders) forum, most people criticize skeptics for criticising the belife (/ claim outside the show of)"real magick"

Guys ... There IS NO real magic.

Even the mentalists use cold reading, gimmicks, etc. but no real. The bizarrists use something from lebanon circle, a hunted key, or perhaps rubber cement and needles, and all you show mediums probably use a spirit lamp from UYD or a ouija board from our best outlaws. But what ever you do: It is NOT done by real Powers AND YOU KNOW THAT.

Playing your Medium Charakter on stage is all right. And If you choose to be always *on* ... well: so be it!

But there are borders that, when crossed, make it morally wrong.
Fooling ALL the money out of gullible people in continuous private readings, claiming to know their their future; making them depandent in all important desicions on you is wrong.
Contacing dead relatives, like the young dead child of parents (and than even taking money for it) is wrong. [There are even studies proofing that this often causes psychic problems at those]

Probably the article might have been far from perfect, but criticising sceptics for exposing false claims of powers generally is not good.
They often do a job needed.

Jerome,

Respectfully, your post belongs two rungs up on the main forum, in Pennies, not here.

In this part of the Café, Hamlet Act 1, Scene V is accepted as the law of the land.

Tony

Many women routinely fake orgasms, does'nt mean the poor ladies can't hope to encounter a real one some day