John Edward, Crossing Over

[Tom Dobrowolski]

On Larry King Live tonight 9/6/02:

Tonight:
He says he can connect with people who have crossed over, communicating with the world beyond. Tune in for an hour with internationally acclaimed psychic medium John Edward. Plus, he'll take your calls.

[Guest]

You could possibly check with the producers of the Bob Garrison show (Buzz A.M. Radio) in Reno... though requested I've not recieved sound bites from the station (and have given up in seeing such... they also have some two-hours from our April Fools Blindfold Drive.)

Essentially what was stated was that I and other area spiritualist were concerned over dreams and feelings we were having that showed lots of fire, smoke, etc. raising into the air and feeling the ground shake. I explained that whatever it was felt exceptionally big... it was going to impact society on a global basis... I said that to look at these things logically it woud seem like something akin to St. Helens but I wasn't certain... even hinted that it could have been Shasta or Big Bear... I emphasized the loss of life, the kind of shock it would give us and, when asked "When" I stated 3-4 weeks... within that frame of time, to the north of us... possibly to the northwest but I wasn't certain.

I know there are other details I'm not recalling, but this is the general overview of what was said and, as Jack Dean suggests... supported by other psychics. When it happened I did what Nelson, Larsen and all the other old timers tell us to do when just entering Mentalism... I EXPLOITED THE CRAP OUT OF IT!

[Guest]

It all sounds like poopoo to me.
Gibby

[Guest]

Craig, you gotta know that there's a difference between true skeptics and pseudo-skeptics (actually disbelievers). True skeptics neither believe nor disbelieve. Pseudo-skeptics disbelieve wholeheartedly.
Most of what I've seen on this forum is Pseudo-skepticism. Also a lot of statistics (99.99999%) comes to mind) that obviously have no relationship to any scientific poll. What is the source for these figures?
I gave up arguing this point years ago. Why not just walk away from it?

Going to Hell in a Handbasket (but at least I'm enjoying the ride)

John Riggs
aka Jon Saint-Germain

[Guest]

Originally posted by John Riggs:
Craig, you gotta know that there's a difference between true skeptics and pseudo-skeptics (actually disbelievers). True skeptics neither believe nor disbelieve. Pseudo-skeptics disbelieve wholeheartedly.
Most of what I've seen on this forum is Pseudo-skepticism. Also a lot of statistics (99.99999%) comes to mind) that obviously have no relationship to any scientific poll. What is the source for these figures?
I gave up arguing this point years ago. Why not just walk away from it?

Going to Hell in a Handbasket (but at least I'm enjoying the ride)

John Riggs
aka Jon Saint-Germain

Hey John!

I'll agree... in truth, I have no argument... folks wanted to call me a BS artist... well, aren't we all? If we weren't we wouldn't be in this business. My only point has been THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND THAT'S GETTING IGNORED.

(Are you going to make it up to the 72-Hour gathering?)

[Bob Coyne]

I disagree with John Rigg's definition of a true skeptic as one who neither believes nor disbelieves. It seems to me that a true skeptic rightly requires strong evidence to accept strong claims. Without that evidence, the appropriate response is to provisionally disbelieve. If I said I could float in mid air or turn invisible or something equally extraordinary, only a fool (not a skeptic) would refuse to doubt those claims.

Belief should be thought of as a spectrum or probability field rather than a binary condition. Skepticism is neither closed mindedness nor complete neutrality. Instead, it's a pragmatic approach to evaluating claims based on what's already known and a respect for evidence.

[Guest]

Just for the record (and my name is Riggs, not Rigg):
Skepticism, philosophical doctrine that denies the possibility of attaining knowledge of reality apart from human perception. Skepticism is based on views about the scope and validity of human knowledge.
The Greek Sophists of the 5th century BC were for the most part skeptics. The Sophist Gorgias declared that all statements concerning reality are false, and that even if true their truth can never be proved. Another Sophist, Protagoras of Abdera, taught that human beings can know only their perceptions of things, not the things themselves. The principles of skepticism were first explicitly formulated by Pyrrho of Elis, who maintained that one can know nothing of the real nature of things and should suspend judgment.
The greatest exponent of modern skepticism was the 18th-century Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume. In A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), Hume questioned the possibility of demonstrating the truth of beliefs about the external world, causal connections, future events, or metaphysical entities. Twentieth-century American philosopher George Santayana maintained that belief in the existence of anything, including oneself, rests on a natural but irrational impulse. Elements of skepticism can also be found in other modern schools of philosophy.

Encarta 98 Desk Encyclopedia & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.

[Guest]

When it happened I did what Nelson, Larsen and all the other old timers tell us to do when just entering Mentalism... I EXPLOITED THE CRAP OUT OF IT!

Wow - you exploited the deaths of ~3,000 people so that you could sell a couple of tickets. The depths to which some people will go in order to make money never ceases to amaze me. That's disgusting and morally reprehensible.

[Guest]

John Riggs wrote:

Most of what I've seen on this forum is Pseudo-skepticism. Also a lot of statistics (99.99999%) comes to mind) that obviously have no relationship to any scientific poll. What is the source for these figures?

John, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt when I said "99.99999%" in assuming that you were intelligent enough to recognize that I wasn't actually siting a "scientific poll". It's called making a point. I admit that I may have been off by ~.0000001%.

[Bob Coyne]

John Riggs (sorry for the misspelling last time) said: "True skeptics neither believe nor disbelieve. Pseudo-skeptics disbelieve wholeheartedly. Most of what I've seen on this forum is Pseudo-skepticism. Also a lot of statistics (99.99999%) comes to mind) that obviously have no relationship to any scientific poll. What is the source for these figures?"

Then he posts an excerpt on the philosophical and historical antecedents of modern skepticism. This earlier, philosophical form of skepticism rejects the ability in principle to say anything about reality beyond our direct perceptions. That's fine for a philosophical discussion, but not really useful to deciding what evidentiary standards must be used to validate Mr Edwards's (or anyone else's) claims. I'll also point out that Mr Riggs's own questioning of the source of various statistics is an appeal to objective, scientific forms of evidence. Does that make him a pseudo skeptic also?

[Guest]

It must be very nice to live in a world that conforms to your perception of reality.
If , I an either believe or disbelieve in the possuibility of spirit communication. Then the middle ground must be neither belief nor disbelief. Not disbelief, Unless convinced otherwise. It's often stated that extra ordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. But what is extraordinary to one person is not to another.
I have no idea of whether Edward is real or a fake. Certainly like Geller, he has never been exposed as a fake. Various self styled skeptics, believe what Edward does is what they call cold reading. I think I know as much about cold reading as the average bear. And that ain't what he does.
I also know from being on this planet for a long time, that things rarely conform to our perception of reality.
Why don't his spirit messages seem more direct or clear. Maybe because they're not real. OR , maybe because that's how spirit messages come through
Of course, as Dennis Miller says I might be wrong, but it's unlikely
from
Ford

[Guest]

Hee hee, Craig, how they love to hear themselves talk. I assume that, due to the many books on mentalism they've written, the numerous mentalism shows they do, and the years of psychic research they've sponsored, they feel they have a say in this matter. Who am I to go up against such worthy opponents? I said before that I don't engage in debates, so I leave the field to you. I have to go off on a two-week tour and deceive the public, practice psychotherapy witout a licence, prey upon the gullible, and encourage false beliefs. Have fun while I'm gone!

[Bob Coyne]

Ford Cross: "It's often stated that extra ordinary claims requires extraordinary proof. But what is extraordinary to one person is not to another."

I see...extreme relativism. Imagine someone saying they can fly to the moon and back by flapping their arms like wings. Would you believe it? It's an extraordinary claim and should be assigned a very low probability of being true. Why? Because there is a) no evidence of it beyond that person's word, and b) no known scientific mechanisms to explain it.

Ford Cross: "It must be very nice to live in a world that conforms to your perception of reality."

Science is a system which augments our knowledge of the world beyond what we can immediately perceive. Science routinely deals with gaps in knowledge, seeming contradictions in experiments, non-intuitive results and theories, etc. It isn't at all a system which exists to conform to preconceptions. When the results of an experiment contradict many other experiments, the first thing to do (what a skeptic would do) is validate the new experiment. If the new experiment is shown to be flawed, the scientific skeptic demands that the flawed procedures be fixed. Until that happens, the most probably true belief remains with the set of scientifically consistent theories and experiments.

John Riggs: "Hee hee, Craig, how they love to hear themselves talk. I assume that, due to the many books on mentalism they've written, the numerous mentalism shows they do, and the years of psychic research they've sponsored, they feel they have a say in this matter."

It would be nice if you stuck to the arguments. I would love to see scientifically verifiable research that validates psychic phenomenona. I think most of the criticism here is that no evidence has been provided. It's not productive to argue that no objectively verifiable evidence is needed. And even less so to brand those who ask for such evidence as "pseudo skeptics" or close minded people.

[Guest]

First the name is Kross not Cross. Bill Cross runs the EYE and Mal Cross is the comedy magician.Interesting that you got John Riggs and my name wrong. Maybe we have the power to cloud men's minds.
If you're looking for proof, scientifically, check The Bem/Honorton Ganzfeld study and metanalysis. Originally at the Psychophysical Research lab and now at U of Edinborough.

You can run a Google search either on the study or my name. As I was a Consultant.
from
Ford

[Steve Hook]

Originally posted by Ford Kross:
If you're looking for proof, scientifically, check The Bem/Honorton Ganzfeld study and metanalysis. Originally at the Psychophysical Research lab and now at U of Edinborough.
You can run a Google search either on the study or my name. As I was a Consultant.

Ford:

I read one page of explanation of the B/HG. No offense but it's blatherous. To partially quote:

"Table 1 also shows that when Studies 104 and 105 are combined and re-divided into Studies 104/105(a) and 104/105(b), 9 of the 10 studies yield positive effect sizes, with a mean effect size (pi) of .61, t(9) = 4.44, p = .0008 one-tailed. This effect size is equivalent to a four-alternative hit rate of 34%. Alternatively, if Studies 104 and 105 are retained as separate studies, 9 of the 10 studies again yield positive effect sizes, with a mean effect size (pi) of .62, t(9) = 3.73, p = .002, one-tailed. This effect size is equivalent to a four-alternative hit rate of 35% and is identical to that found across the 28 studies of the earlier meta-analysis."

As has been said here, what most of the skeptics here believe is based on what proof is present or missing.

John, what you brought to the table was a less-useful-to-this-discussion definition of classical Greek Skepticism, not the current definition, a representative one being:

1) One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
[The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]

I've enjoyed your psychic entertainment publications, John, and honestly hope to read more. I had no idea you believed some psychics were really psychic. That doesn't change the value of your business and entertainment writings but it is, at the very least, interesting. As a fan of said writings, I'm a bit offended by your cavalier attitude ("Hee hee, Craig, how they love to hear themselves talk...") toward the rational, intelligent, logical, and, yes, skeptical members of this board. (I'm offended personally, too. ;) )

I can't believe some of what I've read here (and at Magic Cafe) recently from some guys I had a lot of professional respect for previously. For instance, I can feel only :eek: when I hear intelligent people say / write that John Edward may be "the real deal".

"I have no idea of whether Edward is real or a fake. Certainly like Geller, he has never been exposed as a fake."

How many times would you need to hear JE state that he's "getting a B name or a name with a B in it"?

Or that he's getting a message that someone in a family has had a heart attack [gee, what are the chances?]

Please, guys, come on...

Give us more good books on the business of mentalism, yes:

KROSS ON PSI PARTIES

Riggs' FAT FREE MENTALISM

Browning's PSYCHIC TECHNOLOGIES E-BOOK SERIES
[haven't read them but the following sounds good:]
"...know the secrets to tapping into tangible income that can easily earn you $30,000 to $50,000 a year with little to no more effort than more traditional markets. With Craig Browning's guidance, you too can take advantage of these same incredible techniques."

But until some of those Bem/Honorton Ganzfeld study scores are up in the 90s (i.e., proven psychic abilities, not hoaxes or a little above the average which a 10 year old might score)...90s!...then puh-leeze do not ask any intelligent person here to believe this claptrap.

Bob said it best:

"I think most of the criticism here is that no evidence has been provided. It's not productive to argue that no objectively verifiable evidence is needed."

Yer pal in psychic entertainment,

Steve H

[Guest]

Steve, I can't see why you would be surprised that I believe in the existence of Psi, since I make this clear in my books. My grandmother was real. My mother was real. And, when I'm doing psychic readings, I do them for real. I make this very clear distinction in all my books.

Hey, is anyone here a performer of mentalism? I seem to have gotten off on the wrong bus stop...

John R

[Bob Klase]

Craig Browning wrote:
... lots of fire, smoke, etc. raising into the air and feeling the ground shake. I explained that whatever it was felt exceptionally big... it was going to impact society on a global basis... I emphasized the loss of life, the kind of shock it would give us and

So pretty much any large disaster that happened in a 4 week period was covered. And there's typically a large disaster of some type, somewhere in the world at least 4-5 times a year. Of course that works out to an average of every 10 weeks, but I'm sure you'd have taken credit for being within a month or two if it hadn't happened until 10 weeks later.

Craig Browning:

I know there are other details I'm not recalling

No doubt the missing details would be just as accurate (and detailed) as the ones you gave above, including:

to the north of us... possibly to the northwest but I wasn't certain.

The radio how you referece is in Reno, Nevada. New York is almost due east of Reno. But in the psychic world I suppose that east is north and west is east. That's about as accurate as most specific details turn out to be.

[Steve Hook]

John,

I also believe in psychic phenomena but I do not believe in reproduceable psychic phenomena, which would include, above all else, JE's act.

Still a fan,

Steve H

ps: I, too, would love to talk mentalism with you but this JE thing keeps winding up with a few people insisting JE is the "real deal" and that scoring 34 hits on a coincidence test is irrefutable proof of all sorts of psychic phenomena.

So I think we are both in the wrong thread but not the wrong venue!

[Guest]

Bob (and all)

I'm not here to argue my experiences, beliefs, etc. I do not need to defend what I know. Part of what I know is that there is no way to get anyone living in denial of anything to see something outside their point of view. This applies to my position just as much as it does your own. None the less, let's look at a few points one last time...

"So pretty much any large disaster that happened in a 4 week period was covered. And there's typically a large disaster of some type, somewhere in the world at least 4-5 times a year. Of course that works out to an average of every 10 weeks, but I'm sure you'd have taken credit for being within a month or two if it hadn't happened until 10 weeks later."

If you go back a few posts you will find that I made reference to Jack Dean's "Soothsayer" formulas... obviously you don't know much about deep mentalism techniques and making predictions. So kindly remove your head from your posterior at this point... you aren't making a point, you're proving how much YOU DON'T KNOW about this side of the craft.

"The radio how you referece is in Reno, Nevada. New York is almost due east of Reno. But in the psychic world I suppose that east is north and west is east. That's about as accurate as most specific details turn out to be."

I do believe I stated in my post that "I was not certain on the direction" I knew it was north to us and "assumed" (logically) that it would be to the northwest e.g. Mr. Shasta or Baker,etc (I stated... I thought clear enough from Mr. Magoo to see... that I was using logical thought and assumming this "sign" was a volcano and thus, said to the north west, but was not positive on this.)

New York is north and east of Reno (not due east... at least not the last time I checked... maybe you have a different U.S. Map? I know Reno is supposed to be further west than L.A. though... not that this has anything to do with the issue... just some interesting trivia.)

Fact is, less than 5% of what I stated during this interview was wrong... that's a rather hard hit in anyone's book. But then, skeptics want 110% accuracy on everything... pardon, but God is busy and he refuses to kiss your tukkis too.

The bottom line to it all is that you will never believe in anything until the day you come face to face with your maker (and even then, you'll probably call him/her a fake.) Even those skeptics that "believe in God" limit the limitless and place human parameters around it, taking away its superiority, unknowability, its all encompassing essence. That's not faith, that's a convenience for hypicrits wanting an out.

As John and Ford have hinted at, most of those that like to debate the validity of such things have little to no real experience in the field. They believe what some "approved' set of books tells them to believe vs. being brave enough to investigate and get involved and find out first hand, what is and isn't or what may be. Sorry guys, I've been there. I've had my life and that of my family put in peril as the result of my investigations and expose' of known (proven) cons, crooks, and dangerous cult leaders.

Who, of all of you attacking and mocking me, who amongst you has ever done the same? Who amongst you have ever PUT YOUR LIFE ON THE LINE for the sake of protecting the public via your knowledge of both, the esoteric and scientific points of view around said issues (and I'm not talking about the Ian Rowland idea of picking on some poor local Reader.. I'm talking deep and dirty investigations of real life crooks that kill people for looking at them wrong.)

Who, in this group of armchair experts, has served as a consultant to law enforcement agencies along this level?

I so want to leave on a sarcastic tone but anyone with any sense of moral fiber and humanity in them that hasn't or can't commit to what is outlined in the above two paragraphs, already knows who is the greater fraud, given the circumstances herein... I at least practice what I preach (and know my craft.)

Mr. Riggs, I hope to see you @ the 72-Hour gathering... (you too Ford!)

[Guest]

First of all, let me welcome John Riggs to the forum and John, just so you know, I have had this strange craving for bananas ever since Washington, DC in July.

Now, as to the "business at hand", I am a self confessed skeptic. I have a long background as a magician and now as a mentalist and psychic entertainer. I do psychic readings (for real, not with a bunch of clap trap cold reading stuff but do the real deal) as well as working on stage. I also do REAL psychic investigations, looking into hauntings and such.

Now as a SKEPTIC psychic reader, I read as if I were the sitter and so I do NOT ask questions nor solicit feedback until I am done. I would be the first person to stand up and say "You ask me that, I told you that and now you are feeding me back that information". Since I tend to read tea leaves and as such attach rather precise times to the predictions I make and these are not vague predictions either. I have over 50% of my clients pop back to tell me about their accuracy (many record the readings before hand too) and they seem to be 85% accurate on the whole. I use no "cold reading" or personality profiling, I just read what the future apparently looks like. Now, other than "the readings are accurate", is there a "rational" explaination? Perhaps. Do my sitters care? Probably not or they wouldn;t be there. Are they harmed? No. Do they benefit from the reaing? Yes, at least in some small way of not a larger one.

I do psychic invesitgations. In all of the ones I have conducted I have yet to find any evidence of a spirit or true psychic phenomenon. Does that mean however that they do not exist? NO it does not. It just means that so far I have not seen the evidence in front of me to prove it. Do I still believe that they could exist? Of course. I would love to come face to face with a real ghost, just that so far I haven't. Are my readings any less real? The accuracy seems to be there? I don't really have an answer for that either and truthfully, am not going to lose any sleep over it either.

You can chose what you want to beleive, which is fine with me. The beleivers are goingto beleive no matter what and the non-beleivers are going to beleive what they want, period! Just remember one thing:
Reality is for people that lack imagination.

PSIncerely Yours,
Paul Alberstat
http://www.stores.ebay.ca/abstagecraft

[Guest]

But until some of those Bem/Honorton Ganzfeld study scores are up in the 90s (i.e., proven psychic abilities, not hoaxes or a little above the average which a 10 year old might score)...90s!...then puh-leeze do not ask any intelligent person here to believe this claptrap.

The results are certainly anomylous. Shall we discontinue medical treatment, when there is less than 90 per cent success. Can you tell me, how it my be possible to hoax the study? I examined the protocalls , and couldn't. Perhaps you are more knowledgeable than me. Who decided, where to stop research. BTW, I've met very sharp 10 year olds. Motzart composed at four

Bob said it best:

"I think most of the criticism here is that no evidence has been provided. It's not productive to argue that no objectively verifiable evidence is needed."

Because the evidence doesn't meet you arbitrary standards, doesn't mean there is no evidence.

from
Ford

[Steve Hook]

Ford:

Touche'...and I hope you have a great week.

We don't see eye to eye on this but I respect your depth of interest and investigation.

In the meantime, I've been a little cranky over another guy's posts and you and John kind of wandered into the boxing ring, the one with all the logic-oriented magicians hanging out at Genii. Personally, I'm very interested in your entertainment writings and these philosophical disagreements should probably be left at the door for now, if that's agreeable with you.

As I said, I do believe psychic things have happened but I've seen virtually no proof of <reproduceable> results. And I think this makes me a true skeptic: openminded but far, far from convinced of psychic-on-demand phenomena. That's all.

Now back to your books...................... what's new in your entertainment neck o' the woods?

Steve H

[Guest]

Paul A,I think the monkey followed us onto this website. Bad monkey!!

John Riggs.
The Great I Yam

[Guest]

Steve, as for what's new -- I'm glad you asked! I wrote a new book (Psychic Psingularities), the first new book I've written for Mentalists in three years. I took time off to write three books for the general public (Runic Palmistry, Karmic Palmistry and -- with Craig Karges -- The Wizard's Legacy).
Between my private reading practice, writing and performing MindBenders, I stay pretty busy.
Sometime TOO busy. I ain't getting any younger.
John Riggs

[Guest]

Steve Hooks writes
As I said, I do believe psychic things have happened but I've seen virtually no proof of <reproduceable> results. And I think this makes me a true skeptic: openminded but far, far from convinced of psychic-on-demand phenomena. That's all.

Now back to your books...................... what's new in your entertainment neck o' the woods?

Ok, let's call it a draw, I'm working on a new book on Stage Hypnosis. I hadn't written anything in a few years. But health problems gave me more free time. And hypnosis is where I began a half century ago. There have been relatively few books written about Stage all of them pretty good. Thought I might try my hand
from
Ford
,

[Guest]

Originally posted by Ford Kross:
Steve Hooks writes
As I said, I do believe psychic things have happened but I've seen virtually no proof of <reproduceable> results. And I think this makes me a true skeptic: openminded but far, far from convinced of psychic-on-demand phenomena. That's all.

Now back to your books...................... what's new in your entertainment neck o' the woods?

Ok, let's call it a draw, I'm working on a new book on Stage Hypnosis. I hadn't written anything in a few years. But health problems gave me more free time. And hypnosis is where I began a half century ago. There have been relatively few books written about Stage all of them pretty good. Thought I might try my hand
from
Ford
,

Hey... I can play that game!

Aside from the Psychic Technology materials, my regular contributions at Visions... my lecture notes @ the 72-Hour Gathering (Reading In Routine)we're also working on some video projects that will (all going well) be out next spring (if not sooner)and, as if all that weren't enough, have about 3 new effects hitting the market in the next year, not including the new Pendulum Ouija system co-produced by Michelangelo (of Salt Lake) and myself (now available!)

[opie]

Here it comes....here it comes......Craig is about to do his sales pitch....He will show you how to make $50,000, mostly cash, doing those psychic or whatever that "middle" of something is....I am really confused about all this mumbo jumbo stuff....

opie

[Guest]

This Mumbo Jumbo gives me the Heebie Jeebies.
Gibby

[Guest]

Originally posted by opie:
Here it comes....here it comes......Craig is about to do his sales pitch....He will show you how to make $50,000, mostly cash, doing those psychic or whatever that "middle" of something is....I am really confused about all this mumbo jumbo stuff....

opie

Opie... this can of worms is trying to close. I know it's hard for you to not respond, but let it go!

As I (and at least two-dozen others) have tried to explain to you in the past, if you read and actually study (practice) mentalism the way it has been done by the majority of those we call "the founding fathers" of the craft, you wont be confused and you will see how to walk the tightrope tread by people like myself and the handful of others that have been willing to speak out and get counted.

Though kindred, the world of the Mentalist and Psychic performer IS NOT THE SAME as stage magic and finger flinging. Unless you are directly involved with the full scope of the art, you will not understand... it's that simple. Trust me, I've known 40 year veterans of magic that knew NOTHING about mentalism until I shared the books (the basics) with them... you're not alone.

[Jon Racherbaumer]

This is an interesting cyber food-fight.
Hey, R. L. Ripley got it right!
Tertullian said, "I believe because it IS impossible."
Hey #2: I'm still recovering from Godel's Proof; however, I find momentary glee in Wittgenstein's comment:

"If there were a verb meaning 'to believe falsely,' it would not have any significant first person, present indicative."

Keep 'em coming...

Onward...

[opie]

Craig.....I have more than 50 years in the magic business (including some time as a demonstrator in Town House Magic in St. Louis), many years as friends of mentalists, and 64 (almost) in the company of confidence men, gamblers, and bs artists....

Since you and your two dozen little friends are responsible for me getting tossed off a couple of forums, I will ask Richard to forgive me this once for pointing out that you, Craig, are a bs artist who is trying to peddle crap that has been around since before Larsen, Nelson, Annemann, et.al., and you are targeting a lot of innocent young people in your sales pitches....

I object to that and to your two dozen little friends....

opie

[Guest]

Opie

What got you tossed off those boards wasn't me and my friends, it was your constant acts of attacking people (not just me), threatening moderators, posting peoples personal contact information and encouraging acts of harassment towards them, filing complaints with sources like MSN and having people's email turned off... the list is rather long... I might be a BS artist but you sir, like to meddle and stir the pot... knock down the bee hive... create chaos.

What I do, what I share, what I teach has NEVER brought harm or direct loss to anyone I've performed for, done readings for, etc. In fact, I've done some rather "bold" programs with the intention of scaring the hell out of young people deep into drugs and the darker aspects of the occult... my actions, though questionable in some people's books, pushed the "right" buttons on those kids to get them out of that "danger" field, off the drugs and back into a positive life flow.

My work has exposed adn shut down numerous charlatan operations, put watchdogs on key Spiritualists groups in rural communities, and even helped put a half-dozen or so behind bars for a very long time. I've used my work to educate seniors and college students about dangerous cults, fake psychics and how the cons are worked and what to watch out for... I've also put my life in serious peril in doing my work, far more times than any armchair expert I've ever met.

I present both sides of the issue and allow my audiences to make up their own minds. Funny, I remember reading that instruction in almost every one of the "bibles" of the mentalist's craft.

You claim that what I'm peddling is "older" than those resources... well, in that I am a minister that works in the shut-eye market on a legit level as a metaphysical teacher, you are 100% right on. But, like my ancestors I'm also a realist vs. a fool that buys into the exoteric. I've learned to see beyond the BS and it is my obligation to help those that entrust me, to do likewise.

Opie, I have enjoyed some of the positive contributions and thinking you've shared with folks over the years. But you do not know what I do, what's in my books or lectures, or what my life is about. If I were so evil and wrong I doubt I'd have some of the "advantages" I've been given in life, not to mention the countless blessings I've experienced and continue to experience nearly each day I'm alive.

The more you tell a child "NO, Leave that alone!" the more prone they are to look into it, paying little to no heed to your guidance. Like Pandora or even Eve, the forbidden fruit becomes the attraction adn in time, it becomes the norm. It is not I that is teaching or turning today's young people, it's the dogmacy taught and perpetuated by people like yourself and the fact that today's young people have seen for themselves that IT DON'T WORK... and thus, it's time for a change... a new way of looking at the whole and realizing -- experiencing life as well as "the Divine". This is something no man can take away, stop or put an end to. It's nature running its course... proof of the Hermetic Axioms in action. ;)

[opie]

Craig, You really have a vivid imagination, because your accusations are rediculous. I am a respectable retired military officer and college teacher....Get a life, son, or, better yet, get a real job....but I do love chaos.

Sorry Richard....I am out of here....

opie

[Guest]

Craig, the first substantive contribution you've made to this thread was coining the word "dogmacy." May I borrow it, if I promise not to break it?

[opie]

Ralph, Craig is the guy who has a $300 book that he is going to put out as soon as his 18 year old editor, Andy Leviss, finishes editing it.....I may be wrong about Andy's age; he may be 19...and it is extremely uncertain as to when the book is coming out, but he has been hawking it to young people on the Magic and Illusion forum....

Best regards........opie

[Bill Cushman]

I tend to be a lurker but every now and then something is said that neccessitates coming out of the shadows. Attacking the age of Andy Leviss is a typical last resort of the scoundrel (i know the focus was on Craig but that just underscores the underhandeness of the comments on Andy's age).

Take a look at what he's accomplished at such a young age and you'll have cause for being awed rather than for being derisive: He co-operates his own website, is co-producing a mentalism conference, has marketed several successful products, had the integrity and honor, way above and beyond the call, to pull the product of another when it turned out to be a major disappoinmtent, moderates at KJ, writes a popular column at the online zine Visions and has written a book on the theory and practice of mentalism recieiving accolades from no less than Banachek (describing himself as jealous of Andy's thought process)among others. All this while completing degrees in theatre sound design and psychology and freelancing as an audio engineer.

If that's not enough, check out the depth and breadth of his contributions on several forums. His range of knowledge is astounding, all the more so because of his age. And i'll admit to bias, as i count him as a friend (only via email to date but hopefully to expand in the near future), due to his encouragement to get some of my ideas out there. Again, he's gone way above and beyond the call, in taking major chunks of time to offer me suport and suggestions regarding my own development as a mentalist incorporating my background as a psychologist. He's amassed a formidable list of colleagues/supporters, among some of best names out there (who obvioulsly trust and respect him), and is always willing to take risks to improve the state of the art. And i can't count the number of times he's offered his assistance and time to others at the forums, drawing from his own areas of expertise. So, in the future, be careful of whom you start a smear campaign against as it only demonstrates your own limitations. Just had to get this off my chest. Andy, keep up the good work and don't give such comments as i responded to a second thought.

[Guest]

I don't think Opie has smeared Andy in any way.You may have just misunderstood his point.The campaign is against Craig's B.S.
Gibby

[Bill Cushman]

I hope you are right, but my sense was that the comments about Andy's age had the flavor of a put down of both of them. I don't know Craig one way or another to take up for him, but i couldn't let what i saw as an attack on Andy go undefended.

Also, i shared this with someone else before i posted and they read it the same way i did. I know the main focus was on Craig but it was uncalled for to bring in Andy's age, even if the intent was to use it to put down Craig.

This only detracts from Opie's perespective on Craig's "B.S." rather than supports it. Andy's age is irrelevant, so why include it unless to imply a negative. Bad form in any case IMHO.

[opie]

I have no problem with Andy's age, other than to note that he displays a youthful exhuberance as a forum moderator and tends to zap people when they do not agree with him....

He obviously is a young man of average intelligence who has found what he believes to be his lifetime vocation. Long ago I offered him advice not to swallow too much of the "darker" side of mental magic, and I have seen encouraging evidence that he does evaluate some of the BS patties that lie (no pun intended) in the pursuit of mentalism.

My fear FOR him is that he will lose sight of small-print disclaimers on the programs of wierdos and "cross over" to wallow with them in the patties, rather than remain a youthful, squeeky-clean entertainer.....

Loki, Craig is beyond help. He actually says he believes in a "middle ground" of a psychic world. How would you handle a statement like that from one of your clients?

Based on your profile data, regarding your educational background in Psychology and your interest in Mentalism, I would be very interested in your comments regarding John Edward and Craig's "middle ground".

opie

[Guest]

loki--

My take on that post is that opie was pointing out that CB tends to target young people. At the risk of putting words in opie's mouth, *MY* interpretation was that CB couldn't get an older editor.

I'm not saying either of those statements is true, that's just how I see opie's remarks.

I also know, from other boards, that opie has great respect for Andy...and his partner Andi.

What he doesn't respect are pompous charletans like J Edward, et al.