ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags nde , near death experience

Reply
Old 29th April 2006, 03:06 PM   #121
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Not her entire theory ... but a very large part which she admits is based on her personal experience. If you think that a drug recommendation should be accepted based on the experience of a user's biases that's your choice.

Some of these have links to abstracts and pdfs. Knock yourself out.

Dying to Live: Science and the Near Death Experience
1993, London, Grafton, ISBN 0 586 09212 9 and Buffalo, N.Y., Prometheus, ISBN 087975 870 8.


Blackmore,S.J. 1998 Experiences of anoxia: Do reflex anoxic seizures resemble near-death experiences? Journal of Near Death Studies, 17, 111-120
Blackmore,S.J. 1996 Near Death Experiences (Invited Editorial review) Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 89, 73-76.
Blackmore,S.J. 1993 Near-Death Experiences in India: They have tunnels too. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 11, 205-217 PDF
Blackmore,S.J. and Troscianko,T.S.1989 The Physiology of the Tunnel Journal of Near-Death Studies 8 15-28 PDF
Blackmore,S.J. and Troscianko,T.S. 1988 The Psychophysics of death Perception 17 419 (abstract)
Blackmore,S.J. 1992d Heaven and the dying brain. The Wild Places, No5, 13-18
Blackmore,S.J. 1990a Dreams that do what they're told New Scientist 6 Jan 1990 48-51
Blackmore,S.J. 1989c Down the Tunnel British and Irish Skeptic 3:3 14-17
Blackmore,S.J. 1988b Lucid dreams and OBEs Lucidity Letter 7 35-43
Blackmore,S.J. 1988a Visions of the dying brain New Scientist 5 May No 1611 43-46 (Cover Story)
Blackmore, S. 1996 In Search of the Light: The Adventures of a Parapsychologist, Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, ISBN1-57392-061-4.

Beyond the Body:An investigation into out-of-body experiences
1992 (with new postscript), Chicago, Academy Chicago, ISBN 0 89733 344 6. First published in 1982, London, Heinemann, ISBN 434 07470 5; and paperback 1983 London, Paladin, ISBN 0 586 08428 2. Translations
Blackmore, S.J. (2002) Near-death experiences: In or out of the body? In Joseph, R. (Ed) NeuroTheology: Brain, Science, Spirituality, Religious Experience, University Press, California, 361-369 (reprinted from Skeptical Inquirer 1991)See also a note on NeuroTheology.
Blackmore, S.J. (2002) Near-death experiences. In M. Shermer (Ed) The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Santa Barbara, CA., ABC-Clio, 152-157
Blackmore, S.J. (2002) Out-of-body experiences. In M. Shermer (Ed) The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Santa Barbara, CA., ABC-Clio, 164-169
Blackmore,S.J. (2005) Out-of-body experiences. In Parapsychology: Research into Exceptional Experiences, Ed. J.Henry, London, Routledge, 188-195
Blackmore,S.J. (2005) Near-death experiences. In Parapsychology: Research into Exceptional Experiences, Ed. J.Henry, London, Routledge, 196-203
Blackmore, S.J. (2004) Consciousness, Oxford Companion to
Blackmore, S.J. (2004) Out-of-body experience, Oxford Companion to the Mind, Ed. R.L. Gregory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 683-5
Blackmore,S.J. 1998 Near-death experiences. In Frazier,K. (Ed) Encounters with the Paranormal: Science, Knowledge and Belief, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY. 273-284 (reprint of article in Skeptical Inquirer 1991)
Blackmore,S.J. 1996 Out-of-body Experiences. In Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, Ed. G. Stein, Buffalo, N.Y. Prometheus. 471-483
Blackmore,S.J. 1996 Near-death Experiences: In or out of the body?The Near-Death Experience: A Reader, Ed. L.W.Bailey and J.Yates, New York and London, Routledge. 281-297 (reprint of Blackmore,S.J. 1991)
Blackmore,S.J. 1996 Near-Death Experiences.In Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. Ed. G. Stein, Buffalo, N.Y. Prometheus. 425-441
Blackmore,S.J. 1988 Out of the body. In: Not Necessarily the New Age:Critical Essays Ed. R.Basil, Buffalo, New York, Prometheus, 1988 165-184
Blackmore,S.J. 1988 A Theory of lucid dreams and OBEs. In: Conscious Mind: Sleeping Brain Ed. J.Gackenbach and S.LaBerge, New York, Plenum, 1988 373-387
Blackmore,S.J. 1987 Out-of-the-body experience. In: The Oxford Companion to the Mind Ed. R.L.Gregory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987 571-573
Blackmore,S.J. 1982 Out-of-the-body experiences. In: Psychical Research: A guide to its history, principles and practice. Ed. I.Grattan-Guinness, Wellingborough, Northants, Aquarian 1982 78-89

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 29th April 2006 at 03:10 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th April 2006, 04:06 PM   #122
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Comment from USA Today article:

It's a great study," says Dr. Mark Mahowald, director of the Minnesota Regional Sleep Disorders Center. "The bottom line is that, unlike what most people think, sleep is not all or nothing. You can have bits and pieces of sleep intruding into bits and pieces of wakefulness, and that's where things get interesting."

Kevin Nelson: "We're not saying that REM intrusion explains everything, We know there's a confluence of factors. But this actually is the first testable hypothesis for the basis of near-death experiences, and that's really where it's important."


Abstract is reprised for Mr Larsen from OP:

Quote:
NEUROLOGY 2006;66:1003-1009
(c) 2006 American Academy of Neurology

Views & Reviews
Does the arousal system contribute to near death experience?
Kevin R. Nelson, MD, Michelle Mattingly, PhD, Sherman A. Lee, PhD and Frederick A. Schmitt, PhD
From the Departments of Neurology (K.R.N., M.M., F.A.S.) and Education and Counseling (S.A.L.) and Sanders-Brown Center on Aging (F.A.S.), Departments of Neurology, Psychiatry, Psychology, and Behavioral Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Address correspondence to Dr Nelson, Department of Neurology, Kentucky Clinic L-445, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St., Lexington, KY 40536-0284; e-mail: knelson@email.uky.edu
The neurophysiologic basis of near death experience (NDE) is unknown. Clinical observations suggest that REM state intrusion contributes to NDE. Support for the hypothesis follows five lines of evidence: REM intrusion during wakefulness is a frequent normal occurrence, REM intrusion underlies other clinical conditions, NDE elements can be explained by REM intrusion, cardiorespiratory afferents evoke REM intrusion, and persons with an NDE may have an arousal system predisposing to REM intrusion. To investigate a predisposition to REM intrusion, the life-time prevalence of REM intrusion was studied in 55 NDE subjects and compared with that in age/gender-matched control subjects. Sleep paralysis as well as sleep-related visual and auditory hallucinations were substantially more common in subjects with an NDE. These findings anticipate that under circumstances of peril, an NDE is more likely in those with previous REM intrusion. REM intrusion could promote subjective aspects of NDE and often associated syncope. Suppression of an activated locus ceruleus could be central to an arousal system predisposed to REM intrusion and NDE.

Additional material related to this article can be found on the Neurology Web site. Go to www.neurology.org and scroll down the Table of Contents for the April 11 issue to find the title link for this article.
D
isclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Received August 22, 2005. Accepted in final form December 20, 2005.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 12:08 AM   #123
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Not her entire theory ...
Retraction noted.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
but a very large part which she admits is based on her personal experience.
Point out where, precisely.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
If you think that a drug recommendation should be accepted based on the experience of a user's biases that's your choice.
You have yet to show that all drug users will automatically be in favor of said drug.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Some of these have links to abstracts and pdfs. Knock yourself out.
In none of the links does she say anything about her drug use. Why did you post the links, then?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Dying to Live: Science and the Near Death Experience
1993, London, Grafton, ISBN 0 586 09212 9 and Buffalo, N.Y., Prometheus, ISBN 087975 870 8.

Blackmore,S.J. 1998 Experiences of anoxia: Do reflex anoxic seizures resemble near-death experiences? Journal of Near Death Studies, 17, 111-120
Blackmore,S.J. 1996 Near Death Experiences (Invited Editorial review) Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 89, 73-76.
Blackmore,S.J. 1993 Near-Death Experiences in India: They have tunnels too. Journal of Near-Death Studies, 11, 205-217 PDF
Blackmore,S.J. and Troscianko,T.S.1989 The Physiology of the Tunnel Journal of Near-Death Studies 8 15-28 PDF
Blackmore,S.J. and Troscianko,T.S. 1988 The Psychophysics of death Perception 17 419 (abstract)
Blackmore,S.J. 1992d Heaven and the dying brain. The Wild Places, No5, 13-18
Blackmore,S.J. 1990a Dreams that do what they're told New Scientist 6 Jan 1990 48-51
Blackmore,S.J. 1989c Down the Tunnel British and Irish Skeptic 3:3 14-17
Blackmore,S.J. 1988b Lucid dreams and OBEs Lucidity Letter 7 35-43
Blackmore,S.J. 1988a Visions of the dying brain New Scientist 5 May No 1611 43-46 (Cover Story)
Blackmore, S. 1996 In Search of the Light: The Adventures of a Parapsychologist, Amherst, New York, Prometheus Books, ISBN1-57392-061-4.

Beyond the Body:An investigation into out-of-body experiences
1992 (with new postscript), Chicago, Academy Chicago, ISBN 0 89733 344 6. First published in 1982, London, Heinemann, ISBN 434 07470 5; and paperback 1983 London, Paladin, ISBN 0 586 08428 2. Translations
Blackmore, S.J. (2002) Near-death experiences: In or out of the body? In Joseph, R. (Ed) NeuroTheology: Brain, Science, Spirituality, Religious Experience, University Press, California, 361-369 (reprinted from Skeptical Inquirer 1991)See also a note on NeuroTheology.
Blackmore, S.J. (2002) Near-death experiences. In M. Shermer (Ed) The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Santa Barbara, CA., ABC-Clio, 152-157
Blackmore, S.J. (2002) Out-of-body experiences. In M. Shermer (Ed) The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, Santa Barbara, CA., ABC-Clio, 164-169
Blackmore,S.J. (2005) Out-of-body experiences. In Parapsychology: Research into Exceptional Experiences, Ed. J.Henry, London, Routledge, 188-195
Blackmore,S.J. (2005) Near-death experiences. In Parapsychology: Research into Exceptional Experiences, Ed. J.Henry, London, Routledge, 196-203
Blackmore, S.J. (2004) Consciousness, Oxford Companion to
Blackmore, S.J. (2004) Out-of-body experience, Oxford Companion to the Mind, Ed. R.L. Gregory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 683-5
Blackmore,S.J. 1998 Near-death experiences. In Frazier,K. (Ed) Encounters with the Paranormal: Science, Knowledge and Belief, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY. 273-284 (reprint of article in Skeptical Inquirer 1991)
Blackmore,S.J. 1996 Out-of-body Experiences. In Encyclopedia of the Paranormal, Ed. G. Stein, Buffalo, N.Y. Prometheus. 471-483
Blackmore,S.J. 1996 Near-death Experiences: In or out of the body?The Near-Death Experience: A Reader, Ed. L.W.Bailey and J.Yates, New York and London, Routledge. 281-297 (reprint of Blackmore,S.J. 1991)
Blackmore,S.J. 1996 Near-Death Experiences.In Encyclopedia of the Paranormal. Ed. G. Stein, Buffalo, N.Y. Prometheus. 425-441
Blackmore,S.J. 1988 Out of the body. In: Not Necessarily the New Age:Critical Essays Ed. R.Basil, Buffalo, New York, Prometheus, 1988 165-184
Blackmore,S.J. 1988 A Theory of lucid dreams and OBEs. In: Conscious Mind: Sleeping Brain Ed. J.Gackenbach and S.LaBerge, New York, Plenum, 1988 373-387
Blackmore,S.J. 1987 Out-of-the-body experience. In: The Oxford Companion to the Mind Ed. R.L.Gregory, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1987 571-573
Blackmore,S.J. 1982 Out-of-the-body experiences. In: Psychical Research: A guide to its history, principles and practice. Ed. I.Grattan-Guinness, Wellingborough, Northants, Aquarian 1982 78-89
This is merely a list of her publications.

Since you have read all of her publications, you should be able to post the names of the book chapters and the page numbers where she admits parts of her theory are based on her personal experience.

Please do so. Otherwise, we have to conclude that you have not been able to prove that her entire theory is based on drug induced NDEs.

If you are confused about the definitions of hypnogogic sleep and hypnopompic sleep, how on Earth can you say that this is all black and white to you?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 06:54 AM   #124
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
This is nowhere a list of ALL her publications. It is the NDE/OBE/Lucid Dreaming ones.Nor have I ever said her "entire" NDE theory was drug based anywhere. I appreciate the fact you like to use superlatives to make some bizaare point, to twist and lie. Your tactics are reaidly apparent.

I have no intention of reading this crap for you also. I have read her papers in the J of Near Death Studies and scanned over Dying to Live. Her drug based untestable drug based theories or hypotheses for NDEs are bad neuroscience. Bad neuroscience. Bad neuroscience. She admits they are based on her personal experience ingesting illegal mood-altering drugs herself. She sets a woefully poor example for her students. Do you have kids Claus? Would you like them to be taught by this woman? She can indoctrinate them in all the drugs they can try so they too can have NDEs. She should be out on her ass for this alone but I suppose her tenure protects her. And she is a CSICOP Fellow, not just a member, not only a member although I still haven't been told how you know this or have gotten a reference from you.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 08:25 AM   #125
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
This is nowhere a list of ALL her publications.
Nowhere did I say it was ALL her publications. I assumed that you had read ALL her publications, because, otherwise, how could you claim that her theories on NDE were entirely based on drugs?

Did you just make it up, Steve? I think you did.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It is the NDE/OBE/Lucid Dreaming ones.Nor have I ever said her "entire" NDE theory was drug based anywhere.
No?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard
In fact Blackmore's entire theory for drug induced NDEs is biased by her personal experiences. The fact that she can have NDE-like experiences by self administering drugs is irrelevant to the actual cases which occur. It is bad neuroscience.
Oops.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I appreciate the fact you like to use superlatives to make some bizaare point, to twist and lie. Your tactics are reaidly apparent.
You are not only a liar, Steve. You are also a pathetic one.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I have no intention of reading this crap for you also. I have read her papers in the J of Near Death Studies and scanned over Dying to Live. Her drug based untestable drug based theories or hypotheses for NDEs are bad neuroscience. Bad neuroscience. Bad neuroscience. She admits they are based on her personal experience ingesting illegal mood-altering drugs herself. She sets a woefully poor example for her students.
Steve, you keep repeating your claim that her theories are based on drugs, but you haven't provided any evidence. None whatsoever.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Do you have kids Claus?
Not that I know of.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Would you like them to be taught by this woman?
Sure. Why does it matter if she is a woman?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
She can indoctrinate them in all the drugs they can try so they too can have NDEs. She should be out on her ass for this alone but I suppose her tenure protects her.
You don't want to be talking about how tenure protects your buddy, Gary Schwartz.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
And she is a CSICOP Fellow, not just a member, not only a member although I still haven't been told how you know this or have gotten a reference from you.
Oh, my. You've found a new crusade against skeptics: Now they are drug-using indoctrinating skeptics, too! Perhaps you think that, since Blackmore is a CSICOP fellow, she is also a promoter of pedophilia?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 08:56 AM   #126
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Nowhere did I say it was ALL her publications. I assumed that you had read ALL her publications, because, otherwise, how could you claim that her theories on NDE were entirely based on drugs?

Did you just make it up, Steve? I think you did.
I have repeatedly responded that not ALL her theories were tied to drugs and even explained one other (cerebral anoxia) to you. I have neither the time nor the inclination to read everything she has written especially since much of it, on quick inspection, is a rehash of the same material I have read by her already. You asked for a listing of her refs on this subject, I provided it. You get your requests answered but you still haven't answered mine regarding the membership issue.

Quote:
Steve, you keep repeating your claim that her theories are based on drugs, but you haven't provided any evidence. None whatsoever.
I have provided the evidence. You have to get off your rear and read it.
Again, I will not be provoked into providing what would be lengthy copywritten passages from her works to illustrate this.


Quote:
Sure. Why does it matter if she is a woman?
It doesn't matter but it happens that she is. Would you prefer "person"?


Quote:
You don't want to be talking about how tenure protects your buddy, Gary Schwartz.
The agenda of the University of Arizona as an institution has been illustrated previously. Tenure protects Professor Schwartz but so does that agenda. His work complements that agenda. Go to the U of A and visit with Dr Stuart Hameroff, Dr Iris Bell, Dr Andrew Weill....also check U of A's exploration of consciousness activities and major sponsored conferences.


Quote:
Oh, my. You've found a new crusade against skeptics: Now they are drug-using indoctrinating skeptics, too! Perhaps you think that, since Blackmore is a CSICOP fellow, she is also a promoter of pedophilia?
This is not a crusade. It is a mere statement of fact that is self-evident from her website. Dr. Schwartz does not advocate the use of the drugs she promotes and wants to legalize.

There are many many CSICOP Fellows for whom I have the highest respect. What makes you think that I "think" Blackmore is a promoter of paedophilia? She is a promoter of illicit drug use and in fact campaigns for the legalization (not merely decriminalization) of controlled substances
without a physician's order. Out of that lengthy list of Fellows there is only one other with whom issue can be taken with that I am aware of.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 09:23 AM   #127
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
You want a quote. The following is typical of a recurring stream of thought in most if not all of her comprehensive reviews of NDEs. This
puts to rest the accusation by you that I am lying about one of Blackmore's most important theories regarding the cause of NDEs. I am surprised you couldn't find this yourself. Then again, I am not.



Quote:

Tunnels do not only occur near death. They are also experienced in epilepsy and migraine, when falling asleep, meditating, or just relaxing, with pressure on both eyeballs, and with certain drugs, such as

LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline

I have experienced them many times myself. It is as though the whole world becomes a rushing, roaring tunnel and you are flying along it toward a bright light at the end.

No doubt many readers have also been there, for surveys show that about a third of people have—like this terrified man of 28 who had just had the anesthetic for a circumcision.
I seemed to be hauled at "lightning speed" in a direct line tunnel into outer space; (not a floating sensation . . .) but like a rocket at a terrific speed. I appeared to have left my body.
(truncated so as not to violate copyright rules)
Jack Cowan, a neurobiologist at the University of Chicago, has used this mapping to account for the tunnel (Cowan 1982). Brain activity is normally kept stable by some cells inhibiting others. Disinhibition (the reduction of this inhibitory activity) produces too much activity in the brain. This can occur near death (because of lack of oxygen) or with drugs like LSD, which interfere with inhibition

(further truncated to hopefully not run afoul of copyright violations. If they do this may be removed. It was provoked by a request from Claus Larsen) .

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si91nde.html
Boldface highlights in the above are mine.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 30th April 2006 at 09:25 AM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 09:55 AM   #128
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I have repeatedly responded that not ALL her theories were tied to drugs and even explained one other (cerebral anoxia) to you. I have neither the time nor the inclination to read everything she has written especially since much of it, on quick inspection, is a rehash of the same material I have read by her already. You asked for a listing of her refs on this subject, I provided it. You get your requests answered
No, Steve. You have not provided any evidence that she based her entire theory for drug induced NDEs on her drug use.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
but you still haven't answered mine regarding the membership issue.
Of course I have: Post #104.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I have provided the evidence. You have to get off your rear and read it.
Again, I will not be provoked into providing what would be lengthy copywritten passages from her works to illustrate this.
Just a few quotes, Steve. That's all. Can you provide them?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It doesn't matter but it happens that she is. Would you prefer "person"?
I would prefer that you didn't refer to her as "this woman".

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
The agenda of the University of Arizona as an institution has been illustrated previously. Tenure protects Professor Schwartz but so does that agenda. His work complements that agenda. Go to the U of A and visit with Dr Stuart Hameroff, Dr Iris Bell, Dr Andrew Weill....also check U of A's exploration of consciousness activities and major sponsored conferences.
Oh, so impressive. Tenure protects Schwartz from being fired for producing abominations such as his Arizona Experiments. Or, of course, the one where he includes a ghost to provide evidence that ghosts exist.

Do you think that is good science, Steve?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
This is not a crusade. It is a mere statement of fact that is self-evident from her website. Dr. Schwartz does not advocate the use of the drugs she promotes and wants to legalize.
No, he advocates the use of ghosts to verify the existence of ghosts.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
There are many many CSICOP Fellows for whom I have the highest respect.
Do name them....

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
What makes you think that I "think" Blackmore is a promoter of paedophilia?
You have repeatedly painted CSICOP with a broad brush:


Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
And he will defend the right and not criticize Prometheus Books and its publisher, Paul Kurtz and CSICOP from publishing books that extol pedophilia.
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Reply: The Prometheus Catalog speaks for itself. Itís online. Prometheus publishes many excellent books. Itís s-x oriented titles are thin veils for pornography and paedophilia and do their publishing program an injustice. The editor of this s-x section at one point had his own website where he (I will not mention his name here) presented himself as a self-confessed paedophile replete with justification. This person also is or was a CSICOP fellow. Check the list of titles from their website that I am referring to. It includes an 8 volume catalogue of x-rated videotapes.
Quote:
Heres a list from Prometheus Books, owned and operated along wih CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. This is what CSICOP does in
its spare time. You have defended them in this, so be it. You will be known by the company you keep.
Source: TVTalkshows
Quote:
Its definitely not his real name. Remember he is part of and defends the morally and ethicaly corrupt publisher Prometheus Books, part and parcel of Paul Kurtz' CSICOP empire ....Prometheus publishes both titillating fictional and non fiction books extolling the virtues of pedophilia
and prostitution. They need to be exposed for wat they are ... a coven of sadistic old degenerates.

This publisher even puts put a multi-volume directory and review of all the pornographic movies ever produced including snuff films and child porn. He left the U.S. in a hurry, right after a huge crackdown on child pronographers and internet pedophiles so one can draw their own conclusions about his roles in that.
Source: TVTalkshows
"A coven of sadistic old degenerates", Steve?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
She is a promoter of illicit drug use and in fact campaigns for the legalization (not merely decriminalization) of controlled substances without a physician's order. Out of that lengthy list of Fellows there is only one other with whom issue can be taken with that I am aware of.
No, no, Steve. "A coven of sadistic old degenerates"....
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 09:58 AM   #129
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You want a quote. The following is typical of a recurring stream of thought in most if not all of her comprehensive reviews of NDEs. This
puts to rest the accusation by you that I am lying about one of Blackmore's most important theories regarding the cause of NDEs. I am surprised you couldn't find this yourself. Then again, I am not.
Why should I provide evidence of your claims?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Boldface highlights in the above are mine.
This is old news, Steve. We have known for some time that drugs can induce NDEs.

I don't see where she says that she bases her entire theory on NDEs on drugs, though.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 10:20 AM   #130
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
No, Steve. You have not provided any evidence that she based her entire theory for drug induced NDEs on her drug use.
Again you seem to think I am saying this is her entire theory. It is one of her more important ones. Especially since she's in love with it based on her own self-admitted hallucinogenic drug use.



Quote:
Of course I have: Post #104.
See next post





Quote:
Just a few quotes, Steve. That's all. Can you provide them?
I have.



Quote:
I would prefer that you didn't refer to her as "this woman".
And why is that? Do you have a problem with calling women women? Is she something other than a woman, something other than "this woman?" Perhaps that woman. Why do you prefer this?



Quote:
Oh, so impressive. Tenure protects Schwartz from being fired for producing abominations such as his Arizona Experiments. Or, of course, the one where he includes a ghost to provide evidence that ghosts exist.

Do you think that is good science, Steve?
We are talking about Blackmore's science. You are derailing about bringing up other researchers with whom you disagree. There are hundreds of researchers we can and do disagree with but few of them style their lives and their professional observations on self-admitted use of illegal hallucinogenic drugs.

Quote:
Do name them....
You have repeatedly painted CSICOP with a broad brush:
"A coven of sadistic old degenerates", Steve?
I was referring to the top leadership responsible for the editorial decision to include questionnable titles in the Pornetheus catalogue such as an eight volume guide to x-rated videotapes (including titles I am told which would be illegal to own in this country) and the sexual autobiographies.They serve no academic purpose, hence they must occur as projects to titillate the elders. I wonder who gets the tapes to review for the catalogue? Sadism is included among the autobiographical works as is what by any stretch of the imagination could be called degeneracy. This publishing company is the de facto if not legally linked publishing arm of CSICOP.It does them a serious disservice to include this material alongside books by Randi, Shermer and the great classics it reprints. The dichotomy is puzzling. The brush is as broad as that. I would like to hear what Randi or Michael Shermer have to say on this question.

I appreciate your desire to protect the top brass of CSICOP and Susan Blackmore specifically as skeptical idols. There are only a few rotten apples. Most of those involved in this endeavor are tainted by their actions but can, obviously, do little or nothing about it.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 30th April 2006 at 10:57 AM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 10:33 AM   #131
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
In Post#104 you state with authority:

"And I don't lie, Steve. She is a member of CSICOP. That she is a fellow does not make her a non-member." CF Larsen


This is nota satisfactory reply. What is your authority? How do you know she is a dues paying card carrying member of CSICOP? You agree with me she is a fellow and I don't disagree that she is or isn't a member. I have asked for you to cite the location or reference which proves she is also a member. To this you have responded I am nuts on several occasions. This is also an unsatisfactory answer. You continue to evade providing an acceptable answer regarding your proof that she is a member in addition to being a Fellow, upon which we now both agree.

I wouldn't ordinarily be concerned with such a trivial matter but you provoked my response by saying I was lying about her membership when I stated that I only knew that she was a Fellow. I also provided you the information that her CV indicates she is a fellow but does not indicate she is a member. I would also like you to prove how you know I was lying about whether or not I know she is a member. In fact I would like you to prove how you claim to know what anyone else knows about anything.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 12:33 PM   #132
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Again you seem to think I am saying this is her entire theory. It is one of her more important ones. Especially since she's in love with it based on her own self-admitted hallucinogenic drug use.
I have no reason to think you are not saying that this is her entire theory. E.g., due to your own words.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I have.
No, you have not. You have not shown any quote of hers where she bases her entire theory on NDEs on her own drug use.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
And why is that? Do you have a problem with calling women women? Is she something other than a woman, something other than "this woman?" Perhaps that woman. Why do you prefer this?
"This woman" is degrading, when you use it in the context you do.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
We are talking about Blackmore's science. You are derailing about bringing up other researchers with whom you disagree. There are hundreds of researchers we can and do disagree with but few of them style their lives and their professional observations on self-admitted use of illegal hallucinogenic drugs.
I asked you a relevant question about Schwartz, whom you didn't mind talking about either. Answer it.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I was referring to the top leadership responsible for the editorial decision to include questionnable titles in the Pornetheus
You prude. No wonder you have to refer to Blackmore as "this woman".

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
catalogue such as an eight volume guide to x-rated videotapes (including titles I am told which would be illegal to own in this country)
Only told? Can we see evidence, Steve? Or is this just yet another of your vicious attacks on skeptics?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
and the sexual autobiographies.They serve no academic purpose, hence they must occur as projects to titillate the elders. I wonder who gets the tapes to review for the catalogue? Sadism is included among the autobiographical works as is what by any stretch of the imagination could be called degeneracy. This publishing company is the de facto if not legally linked publishing arm of CSICOP.It does them a serious disservice to include this material alongside books by Randi, Shermer and the great classics it reprints. The dichotomy is puzzling. The brush is as broad as that. I would like to hear what Randi or Michael Shermer have to say on this question.
Why don't you email them and ask?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I appreciate your desire to protect the top brass of CSICOP and Susan Blackmore specifically as skeptical idols. There are only a few rotten apples. Most of those involved in this endeavor are tainted by their actions but can, obviously, do little or nothing about it.
Name those "many many CSICOP Fellows" for whom you have the "highest respect".

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
In Post#104 you state with authority:

"And I don't lie, Steve. She is a member of CSICOP. That she is a fellow does not make her a non-member." CF Larsen


This is nota satisfactory reply. What is your authority? How do you know she is a dues paying card carrying member of CSICOP? You agree with me she is a fellow and I don't disagree that she is or isn't a member. I have asked for you to cite the location or reference which proves she is also a member. To this you have responded I am nuts on several occasions. This is also an unsatisfactory answer. You continue to evade providing an acceptable answer regarding your proof that she is a member in addition to being a Fellow, upon which we now both agree.

I wouldn't ordinarily be concerned with such a trivial matter but you provoked my response by saying I was lying about her membership when I stated that I only knew that she was a Fellow. I also provided you the information that her CV indicates she is a fellow but does not indicate she is a member. I would also like you to prove how you know I was lying about whether or not I know she is a member. In fact I would like you to prove how you claim to know what anyone else knows about anything.
Where did I say you lied about her membership?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th April 2006, 05:39 PM   #133
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
I collectively respond that all of the above has been answered, responded to, and explained, more than once. You can continue to badger, ask stupid questions and twist and turn things to suit some distorted purpose if you want. I have long ago stopped trying to figure out by what sort of logic you operate.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2006, 02:28 AM   #134
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I collectively respond that all of the above has been answered, responded to, and explained, more than once. You can continue to badger, ask stupid questions and twist and turn things to suit some distorted purpose if you want. I have long ago stopped trying to figure out by what sort of logic you operate.
  • Please name many many CSICOP Fellows for whom you have the highest respect.

  • Why should I provide evidence of your claims?

  • Do you think it is good science to include a ghost to provide evidence that ghosts exist?

  • Where did I say you lied about her membership?

  • Why don't you email Randi and Shermer and ask what they have to say about Prometheus?

  • Can we see evidence that there are titles in the Prometheus catalogue which would be illegal to own in the US?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2006, 02:16 PM   #135
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
CFL: Please name many many CSICOP Fellows for whom you have the highest respect:

All of them save for two, used to be one.


CFL: Why should I provide evidence of your claims?

Once the evidence or location of the evidence has been given you should cease and desist from asking for it again, feigning or lying that you have not received it.


CFL: Do you think it is good science to include a ghost to provide evidence that ghosts exist?


Do you? This was a protocol designed to test the abilities of mediums who allegedly can talk to spirits or ghosts if that is what you want to call them ... which is what Schwartz' lab set out to do.


CFL: Where did I say you lied about her membership?

When I indicated she was a Fellow, you replied that she was a member.


CFL: Why don't you email Randi and Shermer and ask what they have to say about Prometheus?

I have and others. Shermer never answered and as I recall Randi was irritated by the request.
I did not ask them for an overall review of the publisher, I asked them about the specific issue under discussion. I am still waiting for an answer but feel I probably will die first, probably because they posess the same sacred cow mentality you do.

CFL: Can we see evidence that there are titles in the Prometheus catalogue which would be illegal to own in the US?

This remark was made in reference to the content of their 8 volume catalogue on x-rated videotapes which appears in their catalogue.It would not be illegal to own the catalogue, it would be illegal to own some of the video tapes described therein. I am sorry if I did not make this abundently clear to you but I forgot who I was dealing with.

You may also see this entity's porno operations by going to their on line catalogue, going to the drop down category menu on the homepage and highlighting/clicking on the related categories which should be self evident even to you. Every title can be clicked on for a review giving additional information. This is an example of why your call for evidence in #1 above is spurious. I have given you this information repeatedly. I also repeatedly told you I would not reprint data from their catalogue here because it is not only a violation of a commercial copyright, it is against the rules here for obscenities and explicit text. You continue to try and provoke me into doing this. I can only surmise you are interested in destroying the JREF Forum. I will not be a party to that. The moderators should issue you a warning about this behavior. You brought up this entire line of inquery citing comments on the publisher's porno titles from several years ago which were subject to your verification then. I would appreciate it if you would cease. You cry that I am criticising a respectible publisher of skeptical titles. I have nothing against their respectable titles but I am free to criticize their pornographic operations especially when they are self-evident and anyone can see them by visiting their website. I am sorry, they serve to tarnish their respectability.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 1st May 2006 at 02:27 PM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2006, 02:38 PM   #136
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
All of them save for two, used to be one.
Which two?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Once the evidence or location of the evidence has been given you should cease and desist from asking for it again, feigning or lying that you have not received it.
That has nothing to do with my question. Why should I provide evidence of your claims?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Do you?
Answer the question: Do you think it is good science to include a ghost to provide evidence that ghosts exist?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
When I indicated she was a Fellow, you replied that she was a member.
.....and???

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I have and others. Shermer never answered and as I recall Randi was irritated by the request.
You "recall"? Can't you remember? Steve, you wondered yesterday - a Sunday - what Shermer and Randi would say. And don't you think you should give Shermer a little bit more time, before you claim that he ignored you?

Once again, you go out of your way to smear skeptics.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
This remark was made in reference to the content of their 8 volume catalogue on x-rated videotapes which appears in their catalogue.It would not illegal to own the catalogue, it would be illegal to own some of the video tapes described therein. I am sorry if I did not make this abundently clear to you but I forgot who I was dealing with.
That's what I was talking about: The titles in the catalogue, not the catalogue itself. Name some of the titles that are illegal to own in the US.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You may also see this entity's porno operations by going to their on line catalogue, going to the drop down category menu on the homepage and highlighting/clicking on the related categories which should be self evident even to you. Every title can be clicked on for a review giving additional information. This is an example of why your call for evidence in #1 above is spurious. I have given you this information repeatedly. I also repeatedly told you I would not reprint data from their catalogue here because it is not only a violation of a commercial copyright
No, it isn't, if you quote briefly.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
it is against the rules here for obscenities and explicit text.
You can contact the moderators and ask if it is OK to post it here. Otherwise, link to it, and list the line number.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You continue to try and provoke me into doing this. I can only surmise you are interested in destroying the JREF Forum. I will not be a party to that.
You are the one constantly referring to this abhorrent material. And your past history confirms that you are the one interested in destroying the JREF forum. Remember your anonymous smear campaign against JREF?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
The moderators should issue you a warning about this behavior.
Feel free to contact the moderators.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You brought up this entire line of inquery citing comments on the publisher's porno titles from several years ago which were subject to your verification then. I would appreciate it if you would cease. You cry that I am criticising a respectible publisher of skeptical titles. I have nothing against their respectable titles but I am free to criticize their pornographic operations especially when they are self-evident and anyone can see them by visiting their website. I am sorry, they serve to tarnish their respectability.
You still have to show evidence of Prometheus publishing books that extol pedophilia.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st May 2006, 03:01 PM   #137
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Which two?
Sorry that's for me to have an opinion on and nobody else's business.



Quote:
That has nothing to do with my question. Why should I provide evidence of your claims?
Answered.



Quote:
Answer the question: Do you think it is good science to include a ghost to provide evidence that ghosts exist?
Answered. It was one part of the protocol suggested by his committee to test the abilities of the mediums he tests. It allegedly placed another layer between the medium and the sitter. I don't know if it is good science or not. It's just a small part of one of the protocols.




Quote:
You "recall"? Can't you remember? Steve, you wondered yesterday - a Sunday - what Shermer and Randi would say. And don't you think you should give Shermer a little bit more time, before you claim that he ignored you?
Several years seems like long enough to me. You think I wrote them yesterday? Excuse me, I forgot who I was dealing with again or so it would seem.

Quote:
Once again, you go out of your way to smear skeptics.
What skeptic have I smeared? Susan Blackmore, a self admitted illegal drug user? A publishing company that happens to publish porno titles while also publishing skeptical titles that is closely associated with CSICOP and run by the head of CSICOP?



Quote:
That's what I was talking about: The titles in the catalogue, not the catalogue itself. Name some of the titles that are illegal to own in the US.
Can't do that because I don't own the 8-volume catalopgue of x-rated videotapes to quote to you from. I told you to buy it yourself.





Quote:
No, it isn't, if you quote briefly.
An obscenity can be one word. A obscene paragraph or two with no academic value is even much more than that. You will not stop trying to provoke me into violating the rules here? Have you heard from the moderators yet?



Quote:
You can contact the moderators and ask if it is OK to post it here. Otherwise, link to it, and list the line number.
These videotapes and book titles are not online, and if they were, linking to them would constitute a breech as well. Ask the moderators. Is this
another trick Larsen?



Quote:
You are the one constantly referring to this abhorrent material. And your past history confirms that you are the one interested in destroying the JREF forum. Remember your anonymous smear campaign against JREF?
Go to the on-line catalogue of the publisher and see for yourself. I am
amazed no one else here has the gonads to do that if you won't.

Since I signed my name to inqueries concerning filters that blocked the JREF site from schools and library computers used by kids, it was hardly anonymous. It also served to discover why this site was being blocked.
This action served to discover the problem and get the site unblocked.


Quote:
You still have to show evidence of Prometheus publishing books that extol ......
Not just that but other sorts of depravities as well. Visit their site, review their book titles. Buy their 8 volume opus on x-rated videos. Ask yourself why the editor of this section, also a CSICOP fellow, was also an editorial consultant to Paidika for ten years (1988-1998)?
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2006, 02:17 AM   #138
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Sorry that's for me to have an opinion on and nobody else's business.
It's not that hard to guess, is it? Paul Kurtz and Susan Blackmore. Am I correct?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Answered.
Liar.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Answered.
Liar.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It was one part of the protocol suggested by his committee to test the abilities of the mediums he tests. It allegedly placed another layer between the medium and the sitter. I don't know if it is good science or not. It's just a small part of one of the protocols.
Another "layer", Steve? A ghost acts as a "layer" in an experiment designed to prove the existence of ghosts?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Several years seems like long enough to me. You think I wrote them yesterday? Excuse me, I forgot who I was dealing with again or so it would seem.
As late as yesterday, you were wondering what they would say.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
What skeptic have I smeared? Susan Blackmore, a self admitted illegal drug user? A publishing company that happens to publish porno titles while also publishing skeptical titles that is closely associated with CSICOP and run by the head of CSICOP?
And Shermer, by claiming that he ignores you?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Can't do that because I don't own the 8-volume catalopgue of x-rated videotapes to quote to you from. I told you to buy it yourself.
How do you know what titles it contains, then? Yet another baseless accusation from you, designed to smear JREF.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
An obscenity can be one word. A obscene paragraph or two with no academic value is even much more than that. You will not stop trying to provoke me into violating the rules here? Have you heard from the moderators yet?
Since I don't know what words you are planning on posting to back up your claim, I cannot ask the moderators for a ruling on this. You have to do that.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
These videotapes and book titles are not online, and if they were, linking to them would constitute a breech as well. Ask the moderators. Is this another trick Larsen?
You are the one pointing to these terrible videotapes and books. It isn't me who is pulling a trick on you.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Go to the on-line catalogue of the publisher and see for yourself. I am amazed no one else here has the gonads to do that if you won't.
What do I look for, Steve? You can PM me, or email me at editor@skepticreport.com

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Since I signed my name
You did not sign your name, Steve. You are a liar.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
to inqueries concerning filters that blocked the JREF site from schools and library computers used by kids, it was hardly anonymous.
It wasn't "inqueries concerning filters". You advocated that people avoid JREF because naughty issues were being discussed, as well as Randi being an atheist.

Here is your anonymous letter.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
It also served to discover why this site was being blocked. This action served to discover the problem and get the site unblocked.
Liar. Your anonymous smear campaign was about the exact opposite: Getting people to block JREF.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Not just that but other sorts of depravities as well. Visit their site, review their book titles. Buy their 8 volume opus on x-rated videos. Ask yourself why the editor of this section, also a CSICOP fellow, was also an editorial consultant to Paidika for ten years (1988-1998)?
Yes, we know of this accusation of yours:

Quote:
If you think some of the above titles sound harmless and irrelevant to my contentions, visit their website and read the blurbs. The Horseman, for example, is the autobiography of someone who has found pleasure in having intercourse with a horse. If you can stomach any of this stuff, feel free.
However the mere fact that Prometheus, which is also known as a fearless publisher of the Randi books and other psi deunking tomes, finds it necessary to enter this quagmire (and you really have to read the blurbs and peruse some of these titles in person to make you puke totally) sector of publishing is simply one which reflects the pwersonal interests of a small select group of people involved with CSICOP, JREF, THE S>A> and Prometheus. Including a former SUNY Buffalo Professor of Biology (who is no longer there and has moved to California to teach young minds there) who is an active member of the Dutch paedophilia and kiddie porn organization Paedika.
TVTalkshows

Quote:
Now it is a free country and publication of such material is not
strictly illegal even though the catalogue reviews some types of
pornography, posession of which would be illegal. However a closer
look at the relatrionship between CSICOP, a non-profit charitable
organization, its presence on the SUNY Buffalo campus and its
relationship with Prometheus whose headquarters are immediately
behind CSICOP's on the same campus leads one to conclude, as Bill
Reilly would complain, that the taxpayor's of the state of New York
are footing the bill for subsidizing and renting to Prometheus and
CSICOP. And if one looks at the list of CSICOP fellows on the front
inside cover of their magazine one will find the name Vern Bullough.
I will not say anything about Prof Bullough except that he is now a
Prof of History at Cal State in Northridge but was formerly a
Professor of Biology at SUNY Buffalo and an editor at Prometheus.
Searching Vern L. Bullough's name on the web may startle you.
Source: Yahoo Group: TheProving (sign up may be needed)
People can also browse through the archives to see just how "much" you care about CSICOP, JREF and Randi.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2006, 06:27 AM   #139
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
Kurtz was not an editorial consultant to Paidika. Sorry ... it's not him.

My legal signature was and still is my first intiial and last name. I sign all legal documents this way. Electronically it is also my legal name, as it
was and still is on any e-mail I sent regarding the issue which you claim I somehow miraculously did anonymously. You are an idiot.

As for the rest of your diatribe that hasn't been addressed I am not going there. Call me all the names you want. It is something you excel in. You are bent on making sure this forum is filtered by reprinting text from prior years. I suggest to the moderators that they delete such text if they feel it will trigger unwelcome blocking of the site by nanny bots and the like. But be sure the record indicates it was Claus F. Larsen who did this, not I.

Last edited by SteveGrenard; 2nd May 2006 at 06:32 AM.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2006, 06:50 AM   #140
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Kurtz was not an editorial consultant to Paidika. Sorry ... it's not him.
Then, please explain these outbursts of yours:

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
But what I may not have mentioned, and this has nothing to do with religion, is that the cult of secular humanism is embraced by the leadership of CSICOP such as Paul Kurtz and he goes to great lengths to prosletyize their tenets. But I still do not see their relationship to debunking Uri Geller or re-assesing scientific procedures designed to provide evidence supporting Geller's claims. That's whats weird.
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Pyrrho: That's not what the organization you listed says it does. In its mission statement it justifies its activities on the basis of frequency of belief. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Answer: Get a life. Really. You are not familiar nor have you ever OBVIOUSLY read a single journal of theirs or their affiliates so you have no idea whatsoever what they do. You are arguing from a blurb which is tantamount to arguing from ignorance in your case. What these people are saying is that these claims occur with great frequency (they do not even put a number on that frequency in the blurb but we can research that ourselves from Gallup polls) and that this frequency justifies a concerted effort to investigate them. Geez pyrrho, if they did not occur with such frequency, what do you think your beloved JREF would be doing right now? Discussing lace making? If there were NO claims of psi or paranormal phenomena, you me, JREF, and the PA etc would not exist. Randi would be doing card tricks somewhere. Er, two paranormal or psi incidents a year in the U.S. doesn't justify the infrastructure created to deal with it: CSICOP and all its affiliates, JREF, The Skeptic Society and all the open minded, truly scientific based organizations that also study and investigate the phenomena. Nor would a legal defense fund at JREF or CSICOP be necessary when Randi or Ed Dittus or Paul Kurtz gets sued for overstepping their bounds and calling someone a nasty name (ad hominem) without the evidence to back it up to a legal certainty.
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
So there you have it folks. Larsen will not stop uttering ad homs which HE considers truthful. He will ressurect lawsuits and projects of years back over and over again for no apparent purpose other than to hear himself or rather see himself write.
He will pour salt on wounds for no apparent reason other than to stifle debate and or because he disagrees with you. He will argue new issues by example and comparison pointing to old issues. How boring and unimaginative. He will continue to defend the American Constitutional right to utter filthy language such as those words banned here because as a great constitutional scholar he thinks he is he feels this is protected. And he will defend the right and not criticize Prometheus Books and its publisher, Paul Kurtz and CSICOP from publishing books that extol pedophilia.
So, you have no problems with Paul Kurtz "publishing books that extol pedophilia"?

Can you make up your tortured mind, Steve?

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
My legal signature was and still is my first intiial and last name. I sign all legal documents this way. Electronically it is also my legal name, as it was and still is on any e-mail I sent regarding the issue which you claim I somehow miraculously did anonymously. You are an idiot.
And you are a proven liar.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
As for the rest of your diatribe that hasn't been addressed I am not going there.
I can understand that. It must be a perpetual embarrassment to you.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
Call me all the names you want. It is something you excel in.
I call a liar a liar. Especially a proven liar such as yourself.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
You are bent on making sure this forum is filtered by reprinting text from prior years.
You hypocrite. You are the one peppering this forum with references to "pedophilia" and "Randi", in order to make sure that this forum is filtered out. Yes, I have plenty of evidence. You want some evidence to ignore, please let me know.

Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I suggest to the moderators that they delete such text if they feel it will trigger unwelcome blocking of the site by nanny bots and the like. But be sure the record indicates it was Claus F. Larsen who did this, not I.
I await their ruling, then.

Don't you have anything to say about your anonymous smear campaign against JREF and Randi? I have shown you to be a liar, and you just back down?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2006, 09:56 AM   #141
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 5,528
I have addressed every issue that you bring up. I will do so no more and refer you to prior posts.
SteveGrenard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2006, 11:46 AM   #142
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by SteveGrenard View Post
I have addressed every issue that you bring up. I will do so no more and refer you to prior posts.
When faced with evidence, you scurry away.

As usual.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2006, 12:57 AM   #143
Walter Wayne
Wayne's Words
 
Walter Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,502
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
When faced with evidence, you scurry away.

As usual.
With the extra-time you have now that this thread isn't moving, perhaps you could move on over to the "Snake found in broccoli" thread. You've left some unanswered questions there, and you wouldn't want people to think you have scurried away.

Last edited by Walter Wayne; 3rd May 2006 at 01:50 AM.
Walter Wayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2006, 07:36 PM   #144
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,100
Originally Posted by Walter Wayne View Post
With the extra-time you have now that this thread isn't moving, perhaps you could move on over to the "Snake found in broccoli" thread. You've left some unanswered questions there, and you wouldn't want people to think you have scurried away.
I'll second that one.
CFL-Where is your evidence that legs is drumsticks?
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2006, 11:43 PM   #145
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by Walter Wayne View Post
With the extra-time you have now that this thread isn't moving, perhaps you could move on over to the "Snake found in broccoli" thread. You've left some unanswered questions there, and you wouldn't want people to think you have scurried away.
Questions that belong in "Alice in Wonderland".
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2006, 12:52 AM   #146
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 21,572
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Questions that belong in "Alice in Wonderland".
Unless you want certain people batting that one right back at you, you'd better supply some evidence.

...Just friendly advice.

Hans
__________________
If you love life, you must accept the traces it leaves.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2006, 01:14 AM   #147
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
It's hardly the most pressing point in the Universe. It smacks more of "Wheee, let's get back at Claus".

Kids these days....
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2006, 08:33 PM   #148
Walter Wayne
Wayne's Words
 
Walter Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,502
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
It's hardly the most pressing point in the Universe. It smacks more of "Wheee, let's get back at Claus".

Kids these days....
My response is relevant to this thread. It became relevant when you accused him of scurrying away. Whatever Steve's motive, he has persisted with this thread against far greater abuse than you did in the other. It is fair to point out that the accuser's standards of running away are somewhat flexible. Jumping through the looking glass, then accusing the thread of become "Alice and Wonderland" is not a response, it is running away.

The motive has nothing to with "getting back at you". I simply believe that one should be consistent in applying labels, and that skeptics should question eachother, even if the skeptic is arguing with a less popular member of the board.

Walt
Walter Wayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2006, 11:17 PM   #149
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
If you think a silly discussion on legs is as important as a discussion on NDEs, fine with me. Just don't demand that I waste my time on that.

You can speak your own mind, but not on my time.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2006, 12:06 AM   #150
Walter Wayne
Wayne's Words
 
Walter Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,502
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
If you think a silly discussion on legs is as important as a discussion on NDEs, fine with me. Just don't demand that I waste my time on that.

You can speak your own mind, but not on my time.
Never stated anything about the importance of either. Also the questions in that thread also had to do with brill and, admittedly a secondary topic, which cites carry more authority, those from wikipedia, dictionaries, herpetologists ...

If you don't think the topic of what references can be considered authoritive is important so be it. It is at the heart of the wikipedia (eyelid definition) or definition by fiat (drumstick).

Your response above consists of a response to a claim I didn't make, and then evasion.

Walt
Walter Wayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2006, 12:25 AM   #151
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by Walter Wayne View Post
Never stated anything about the importance of either. Also the questions in that thread also had to do with brill and, admittedly a secondary topic, which cites carry more authority, those from wikipedia, dictionaries, herpetologists ...

If you don't think the topic of what references can be considered authoritive is important so be it. It is at the heart of the wikipedia (eyelid definition) or definition by fiat (drumstick).

Your response above consists of a response to a claim I didn't make, and then evasion.

Walt
I thought the use of Wikipedia was out?
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2006, 12:38 AM   #152
Walter Wayne
Wayne's Words
 
Walter Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,502
How long have you thought that?

Edited for grammar.

Last edited by Walter Wayne; 5th May 2006 at 01:10 AM.
Walter Wayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2006, 09:21 AM   #153
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by Walter Wayne View Post
How long have you thought that?

Edited for grammar.
Fine with me.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2006, 11:27 AM   #154
HarryKeogh
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,319
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
Posting this link makes about as much sense as his drumstick/leg argument.
HarryKeogh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2006, 04:03 PM   #155
Walter Wayne
Wayne's Words
 
Walter Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,502
Originally Posted by CFLarsen View Post
I don't see how the phrase or the link itself is an answer to my question. You said Wikipedia was out, no one else here has suggested it would be the reference choice, but you post a link to it. The phrase fine with me also is a non-sensical response to my post. You avoided the question, "how long have you thought that?"
Walter Wayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2006, 11:46 PM   #156
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by Walter Wayne View Post
I don't see how the phrase or the link itself is an answer to my question. You said Wikipedia was out, no one else here has suggested it would be the reference choice, but you post a link to it. The phrase fine with me also is a non-sensical response to my post. You avoided the question, "how long have you thought that?"
No, no, it's OK. You've persuaded me. We can use Wikipedia.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2006, 12:00 AM   #157
Walter Wayne
Wayne's Words
 
Walter Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,502
Your easily convinced, considering I never in argued that.

Avoided the question again.
Walter Wayne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2006, 05:28 PM   #158
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 42,772
Just in case anyone needs a refresher on the actual issues involved here, the relevant Larsen List appears here.

How many points are we up to now, counting every repetition of "Alice in Wonderland" as one for us?

Rolfe.

Oops.I just noticed how old this thread was, I didn't consciously bump a dead letter, the window was lying around open but unread on my desktop. Claus persisted a little longer this time, but again stopped posting without offering anything but evasions when challenged with these perfectly clear and simple questions.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 12th May 2006 at 05:32 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.