This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

[LinzeeBinzee]

[Eteponge]

[The Warrigal]

I say give Linzee a break.

I didn't detect any malice towards SCEPCOP in either her Blog posts or at the JREF Forum and she has been polite in her posts here.

While I find it unfortunate that Linzee does not wish to join the sceptical contingent of debaters at SCEPCOP, she has told us that her interest in the paranormal just isn't strong enough for her to want to become involved in such discussion/debate.

[Purple Scissor]

We have nothing against Lindsay. However, she said things like:

SCEPCOP – A Steaming Pile of Kookiness

As her headline. She deserves everything she got, just for the heading

She went on "If SCEPCOP wants to be taken seriously, all they need to do is present some evidence for the paranormal."

Again, a claim of no evidence. I have not read every word of these threads, but I bet if I did I would come out thinking that Lindsay deserved to have a steaming pile of pseudoskepticism dumped on her head. She can quote me on that for a laugh, I know the term gets turned around.

However, Lindsay has been honest and nice and engaged, and really a great person, I think.

P.S. I read Brian Dunning’s Who is Closed Minded, the Skeptic or the Believer? a while back, and I remember thinking it was very good. So we agree on that.

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

[The Warrigal]

I do understand how Linzees's initial Blog posts may have raised some hackles.

Along with some of her comments, - (or more accurately some of the responses by others to her posts, )- at the JREF Forum.

I also appreciate how members here could be offended by her claim that the mere act of sullying her browser could have the supernatural ability to lower her IQ points.

However, there are many areas of disagreement between me and my fellow sceptics just as there are many bones of contention between myself and other researchers into matters mysterious.

Not least of which is the rather nasty resort to ridicule to which many of us have shown ourselves to be prone.

And I have seen this on both sides.

In defending Linzeebinzee here, I do so because I value every honestly presented point of view.

The only arguments with with I take issue are those of a sophist nature or those which set out to silence debate by recourse to ridicule.

I am on record here as having written that I have the strongest PERSONAL grounds for thinking that certain alleged forms of paranormal phenomena are objectively real NATURAL phenomena.

For me the $64,000,000 question/s are:

1/ How to investigate an elusive phenomena properly.

2/ How to establish in the eyes of the scientific community that it IS objectively real.

AND.

3/ How to explain the precise cause of that phenomena and explain where it fits within the natural sciences.

I am intererested in certain phenomena usually classified under the rather useless heading of "paranormal" because I have experienced it at first hand and later gone in search of similar cases.

Sometimes my time has been rewarded, - (at least in my opinion), - most of the time it has not.

I have also experimented with various means of making contact with "spirits beings" and have found that it is much easier than most "occultists" and mediums would have you believe.

However, when my natural laziness subsides as it occassionally does, I shall share what little I have in relation to poltergeist phenomena, hauntings and apparitions.

Well, those and one or two other things which will probably get me drummed out of the Regiment of Skeptics to the tune of the Rogues March.

And never again shall the the name The Warrigal ever be uttered in the Mess Hall again!

[ProfWag]

[LinzeeBinzee]

Hey guys,

I just want to say that despite the disagreements that we (some of us) have you're all a really nice bunch and it's really cool of you to let things go.

My original blog post was one of the earlier ones and I was, lets say, a little over-enthusiastic. I was making statements about SCEPCOP without backing them up, and I clearly don't have the skeptical chops yet to defend what I was saying, so I shouldn't be saying those things.

The Warrigal, you said "I also appreciate how members here could be offended by her claim that the mere act of sullying her browser could have the supernatural ability to lower her IQ points."

I looked over the original post I made and it didn't say that...I hope I didn't say that because I think the opposite is true, that there's a lot to learn from this site.

Anyways I just wanted to say thanks for being so cool, we can agree to disagree, and maybe when I've learned a lot more we can engage in debate again

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[ciscop]

hahahaha
im sorry scescop
but being open minded about uri geller means letting my brains fall out
also professor wag offered a study in nature, i dont see you providing any links to a study in nature and what you propose is URI GELLER?
why dont you propose peter popoff or james hydrick? common

THAT GUY IS A FREAKING MAGICIAN
(an awesome one with great sleight of hand and a charming persona)

you dont understand
those guys WERENT prepared to analyze a magician!!
i do some of his tricks! people will swear i am a psychic but i do tell. IT IS A TRICK.. i do have ethics, that guy doesnt

now lets see the facts
1. Has been caught cheating many times in TV and Youtube (when he gets caught cheating he always demands that those links be removed)
2. Why would a psychic cheat?
3. Why would a psychic stop using psychic and now uses the term mystifier? he isnt a psychic anymore? he is also not saying if he was a psychic for the past 30 years.
4. Hangs around with MAGICIANS.. (my friends saw him in a magic fair in vegas)
5. Hates people debunking tricks of magicians (remember that david blaine article?)
6. The spoon bending is a trick thats way before he appears.. also.. do you know why a spoon or fork? why not a knife?,, THE KNIFE IS WAY TOO DIFFICULT TO BEND IN REAL LIFE, also dangerous.. TRY IT.. NOW TRY A SPOON.. WAY EASIER!..
7. When they were controls.. like the johnny carson show... HE FAILED MISERABLY
8. Theres many ways of doing what he does throught magic methods, a lot of the stuff he does comes from BEFORE he was known as a psychic (he didnt invent it).
9. Has been in the cover of Genii (only magicians appear in the cover of Genii magazine)

Uri geller is a magician
you want to believe THE PEOPLE that believe he is true
he isnt
sorry if you are so naive
but when that ships crashes and sinks
you will look like a fool for believing he is honest
just ask yourself
HAS URI CHEATED BEFORE? (YES!) and WHY WOULD A PSYCHIC CHEAT?

simple.. soo simple
the truth is there but you wont recognize it