Another example of a fraudulent "psychic"

[quantumparanormal]

[ciscop]

i guess this is another time you chose to forget that i already stated that i didnt found references to pet psychics on your website but paranormal pets... see? you dont read what i write neither.
but i dont care, i like you the way you are, you are fun

but... is kind of funny what you are doing now
i understand it is your website and you can and should post whatever you want
however.. it is quite intriguing that you post all this woo propaganda and when you get call on the BS you say ¨i do not endorse them, i just share them¨

how convenient

[quantumparanormal]

[ProfWag]

Quantum, please allow me to explain myself for just a moment. As I have alluded too, and I believe you have fairly picked up on, I have a prejudice against psychics, astrologers, mediums, and other people who have no ability or no professional background to be giving advice or reaffirming a family's deceased relatives. I truly think it is a crime and gullable people across the world continue to give money to these people because they believe they have special abilities. This prejedice came to fuition several years ago when members of my family were spending money on these people when in fact, they should have been using their money in a better manner. Even though I had been a magician in the past and understand many of the tricks employed by "paranormalists" (for lack of a better term), my explanations to my family couldn't sway them from spending the occasional $35 for a 15 minute card reading. So, I set out to find the truth and try to explain the fakers. Using your own terms, what I am really searching for are any "good apples." I believe that might also explain my involvment in this forum.
Having said all of that, what I am really interested in is finding the truth of abilities of people who claim to be "Psychic Advisors," "Mediums," and the like.
Your presentation of psi is quite interesting information, and I have learned from your posts, but the evidence that has been presented doesn't do much for my primary interest of research into the paranormal. I want to find out if there is any substance to these people's claims. Radin's, Schwartz, etc. all have put years and years of research into their interests, yet they have not positively shown me much of anything that supports those that claim to have "special abilities." Again, I have not been convinced that Radin's, Utts', etc. positive results from their experiments have any bearing whatsoever on the psychic abilities of Geller, Browne, Dubois, or thousands of other self-proclaimed "Psychics." On a side note, I will admit that I am most interested in the upcoming study of channeling that Schwartz is heading up at Arizona, however, I hope that his test protocols are solid this time around. His last experiments have more holes in them than Al Pacino in Scarface. (My belief only based on what I have read in admittiedly biased articles, though I would be interested to hear if you believe Schwartz' previous research in mediums is considered "empirical data.")
I appreciate you calling me "ignorant" rather than "stupid," but even the tame name calling doesn't really help your side of the debate. It seems obvious to me that you have much more time to follow paranormal research. I don't have that luxury of time and my interest in the paranormal is simply a fleeting hobby and not a life-style. I leave it to people like yourself, Radin, Sherman, Wiseman, and others who are more of an expert in this field than I to provide the evidence that allows me to formulate my opinion of what I'm most interested in. And yes, I formulated an opinion of you and your views from your website. If you were truly interested in fair research and debate, you would have included in your links of recommended readings to include books by Wiseman, Gardner, Shermer, etc. They are missing. That leads me to believe that you not only are set in your views, but don't want others to have opposing views, regardless of what opposing evidence to your views may be out there.

[ProfWag]

[ciscop]

[NinjaPuppy]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[quantumparanormal]

[quantumparanormal]

[ProfWag]

Yes, I know ethics. I have taught it at the collegiate level.
Thanks for clarifyiing your statement. To be sure I understand, essentially, you're not claiming that there are non-fraudulent psychics, just that there is evidence to suggest that psi may exist. This, to me, really appears to be a much different claim than your original statement. The reason I ask this is that if you know of a non-fraudulent psychic, I would like to see the evidence for this non-fraudulent psychic. I would like to be clear in my mind that you either know of a person who is a non-fraudulent psychic and have evidence for this which I would like to see or that there COULD BE non-fraudulent psychics out there who simply don't want their abilities tested by Scientific American for $2,500, the Independent Investigations Group for $50,000, or $15,000 from the Swedish Humanist Association, just to name a few, that simply don't want the money or wouldn't want it donated to a worthy study.

[quantumparanormal]

[ciscop]

about the shakes i got them all the time if i am performing for magicians
and sometimes when doing new unproved routines or new methods (i get like an adrenaline rush and my heart starts speeding up)
which doesnt help to play the character i want to present, what i figure it out
is that by doing first a sleight of hand ¨free¨ magic trick i build confidence in myself at that moment and then i can move to some harder stuff
at least that works for me

[ciscop]