|
30 Aug 02 - 04:49 PM (#774471) Subject: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Taliesn With all of the preparation for the rememberance of this 21st century Pearl Harbor/ New York-style I just vent this question for the ages; Where the hell were all these so-called psychics , and their *channeling* prowess , *before* 9/11. Got to be a song in their somewhere. |
|
30 Aug 02 - 06:00 PM (#774505) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Miight just as well ask where were the CIA, FBI and various other so-called *intelligence* outfits, eh? |
|
30 Aug 02 - 07:52 PM (#774566) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: smallpiper They were all keeping their heads down! |
|
31 Aug 02 - 12:04 AM (#774673) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Rick Fielding Probably the same place all the "Psychic Friends" Network people were before the company went bankrupt. Apparently three or four hundred of them failed to see into the future that they were gonna work several weeks without being paid....and then get fired. Shucks, I would have figgered out there was something wrong the moment the TV ads stopped running......maybe I'M psychic! Rick (who knows all and sees all) |
|
31 Aug 02 - 12:39 AM (#774689) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST How about John Edward of Crossing Over...???
Why couldn't he get wome kind of warnings from the DEAD PEOPLE he talks to...???
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 12:56 AM (#774699) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: NicoleC Who said that dying makes you smarter... or psychic? :) |
|
31 Aug 02 - 09:17 AM (#774770) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: InOBU Well on the other hand, none of them seem to have been at the WTC either, so maybe they knew, but just stayed away. Under the new American with us or against us laws, maybe we should charge them with complicity in terrorism? Cheers Larry |
|
31 Aug 02 - 10:35 AM (#774802) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Willie-O One thing about the CIA,and the FBI for that matter: for all their vast expenditures on so-called "intelligence" they have a miserable track record in predicting both the occurrence and direction of major events. For example the Iranian revolution of 1979, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the OK City bombing, the invasion of North America by the Beatles, etc. And obviously whatever they might have known about the WTC plans, they didn't do shit about it. (For that matter, the only reason the WTC didn't come down in 1993 was incredibly inept planning on the part of those bombers: they didn't know there were lower basement levels under where they parked the bomb, and the energy was diffused downwards) I think part of the reason that intelligence agencies aren't very effective is that the high-status jobs in CIA and affiliates have to do with "Operations", influencing world events, rather than dispassionately studying them which is their supposed primary mandate. W-O |
|
31 Aug 02 - 10:46 AM (#774808) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg I remember a few months ago when some idiot decided to pose that same question to the "leaders" of the pagan community; along the lines of, hey you guys are witches, why didn't you KNOW this would happen? Maybe it's even the same idiot, who knows? In any case this troll does not deserve a reply.
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 01:05 PM (#774855) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST If a psychic HAD walked into a gov dept. and said he had "seen" two planes crashing into WTC, Pentagon etc. who would have listened to them, let alone believed them? |
|
31 Aug 02 - 01:06 PM (#774857) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos He'd'a been rounded up pretty damn fast the next day, though! A |
|
31 Aug 02 - 01:59 PM (#774879) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos My psychic powers tell me there will be a rerun in the next eight months, just for the record... A |
|
31 Aug 02 - 03:17 PM (#774907) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Oh my ,Ms Peg. Touched a nerve there. (quote) "I remember a few months ago when some idiot decided to pose that same question to the "leaders" of the pagan community; " My, my, didn't mean to blow smoke up yer wicka . In reference to yer denegration of "Loyal Order Village Idiocy " one would could only observe that , at a gathering of "the leaders" ( no less ) of the pagan community, one pagan's idiot is another person's savant. Y'all didn't vote to turn him into a goat now did ya? (quote) "Maybe it's even the same idiot, who knows?" Oh my ,Ms Peg , you *are* taking the kidding of psychics way too seriously and where you apparently take it so very *personally* , as if it's an attack on your "wickaness" as to compare this to an attack on "the leaders"( all gods be praised )of the pagan community suggests to me that there's apparently more than ritual nookie going on 'round ye ol' Stonehenge these days, right,right? (quote) "In any case this troll does not deserve a reply." Then pray ,m'dear nymph-o-the-wood and crop circle-dancer, why did y'all? |
|
31 Aug 02 - 04:07 PM (#774929) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Yup. As I thought. Same idiot. No nerve touched...in fact I notice YOU spent a LOT of time jumping up and down (albeit too far from a dictionary to spell anything correctly) and pointing the finger at me. I do not take crap like this personally. I am really way too busy for that. But good luck getting a life.
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 04:32 PM (#774938) Subject: RE: Oh my word,Ms Peg. From: GUEST,Taliesn I knew it ,ya'll fianlly did turn that poor soul into a goat after all, didn't ya dear. (quote) "I do not take crap like this personally. I am really way too busy for that." My, I guess *channeling* doth have its rigors. Forgive me ,Luv? |
|
31 Aug 02 - 04:49 PM (#774940) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond "Where were the *psychics* on 9/11?" Same as always... they were running around with their heads up their collective butts, bilking emotionally needy people out of money they probably should spend on counselling... And maybe treadmills... Round up all the 'psychics' and let them call bingo... they should be able to do it without the balls... |
|
31 Aug 02 - 06:30 PM (#774965) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos How do you call Bingo without the balls? A |
|
31 Aug 02 - 06:59 PM (#774978) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos I think Clinton has actually invented a NEW epithet -- "You don't have enough balls to call a Bingo game". Right up there with Fields' "I wouldn' piss in yer ear if yer brain was on fire...." and the like. Good job, CH! A |
|
31 Aug 02 - 07:11 PM (#774982) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Someone who really has the *Gift* would hold it close, sharing it with others who seek and are respectful. (No one would have believed anyone if they had tried to warn about WTC.) They do not hawk it on tv, nor shout it from the rooftops, and they do not charge money for it. They most definitely would not share it in a forum such as this. One reason, for me, at least, is how stupid and sad it seems that it is okay for *friends* to heap such ridicule. This has been going on for a long time, here, at the Mudcat. We've worked through the "agree to disagree" and "try to be respectful" on a lot of issues, but this one, which must make a lot of people uncomfortable, seems to still be a favourite punching bag. Like I said, sad and stupid and most definitley censorous. |
|
31 Aug 02 - 07:43 PM (#774987) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: DougR I doubt the Psychic would be caught, Amos. After all, shouldn't he/she forsee that the FBI was searching for him/her? They would hide out in a place where they would know they would be safe. DougR |
|
31 Aug 02 - 07:44 PM (#774988) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond "Someone who really has the *Gift*"... Is probably just as deluded about the rest of their lives as well... |
|
31 Aug 02 - 08:21 PM (#775001) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "....how stupid and sad it seems that it is okay for *friends* to heap such ridicule. This has been going on for a long time, here, at the Mudcat." Well my sincere apologies for unintentionally contributing to an apparently *already existing* situation that has this subject as a "favorite punching bag". This is a surprise to me. However I do take exception to someone here immediately resorting to concious nastiness as in this opening : ( quote ) "I remember a few months ago when some *idiot* decided to pose that same question..... ...."Maybe it's even the same idiot, who knows?" This doesn't sound like much of a pre-existent "agreeing to disagree" policy to me. I was quite content to just let the thread dissolve away as I read to see whom would share in the humor. Apparently , by your commentary , there already is some "unresolved" sensitivity regarding the treatment of this subject. Again, my apologies. I could not know and , considering the subject's sensitivity , I won't make the easy wisecrack of why. However if anything is censorable it is *usually* the resorting to insult and name calling right out of the gate to make one's counter-point. This gets my Irish up and , again , my apologies for giving in to the passions of a moment's provocation. I'll govern my future threads more cautiously though there is this odd queasiness over redress from a messageboard that allowed well over 100 posts on the enlightened subject of , how shall I put this delicately, "breaking wind". But far be it for me to cry foul. I'm just a guest here.
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 08:35 PM (#775004) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Anonymous guests have no right to dictate Mudcatters' behavior. I mean, give me a break already. You posted to get a response, you got one. You must be delirious with pleasure.
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 08:46 PM (#775006) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Nicole: Dying doesn't make you smarter; but once you get used to the condition you get a lot more to know about, since you aren't running everything through the amazingly thick filtering system of the body/current identitiy complex. It's a basic survival mechanism to shout out a lot of possible information when running a human-class identity, because it really has a very weak bandwidth tolerance, so to speak. Peg: y'all having a bad day out there? Or just tired of putting up with noise? I'd accept any apologies offered, myself, in the interests of toning down the seriousness of things. But that's jes' me. A |
|
31 Aug 02 - 08:51 PM (#775007) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Amos; Not a bad day, especially. I just thought the initial question was dumb. And it did remind me of the afore-mentioned idiot. The chosen moniker of our "guest" is the same as one used by a notorious pariah/shit-starter in the pagan community who used to cause all sorts of trouble on Usenet...so, yeah, I do have my suspicions. Not that it matters. But the level of personal remarks directed at me tells me this person has perhaps done some searching around about me and I find that pathetic. thanks, BTW. peg
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 09:11 PM (#775012) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Clinton -- Y'know usually I have a lot of respect for the things you post. But the notion that a psychic gift must be a delusion (I ain't saying it CAN'T be a delusion) is awfully arrogant. As you probably know the last twenty years of intense study of AI and cogntiive science, as the eggheads call it, have failed to turn up a viable explanation for the phenomenon of awareness, and the remearkable gap between signal relays (as in nerves and other kinds of cells) and understanding/consciousness/awareness. In the absence of such a model, it would seem awfully presumptuous to dictate to others what they may or may not be aware of, given that you have no way to tell where those boundaries are without an explanation for the phenomenon. Given that better minds than mine have wrestled long and hard witht his issue and been unable to come up with a model that explains it, I would think twice before making a remark such as yours above, for fear of looking like a really arrogant yahoo rather than a thinking and intelligent person... Honi soit qui mal y pense, I guess. Somethign like that. A |
|
31 Aug 02 - 09:39 PM (#775021) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Precognitive visions and dreams are well-documented phenomena. I have had them myself. I am far from delusional. Deluded, perhaps. But not delusional. ;) It is believed that anyone can nurture their metaphysical abilities. They are simply more dormant in some people than in others. Just as a natural athlete has to work less hard than someone who is naturally more inclined to be somewhat clumsy or slow or lacking in dexterity. That is not to say that there aren't scam artists out there, or, in some cases, true psychics who have decided to make a profit on their ability and thereby corrupt their gift. But there are certainly a great many individuals out there who are more psychically aware and attuned than others. Witches and other magic practitioners spend a great deal of time trying to nurture these skills, which can be used in divination and towards various modes of self-transformation. Sometimes it is subtle, as when one has a gift for interpreting the tarot but is unable to develop an aptitude for psychometric activity. And there is a difference among the various psychic arts: clairvoyancy is not psychometric ability is not precognition is not aura-reading...well, you get the idea. We spend a third of our lives asleep, part of that time dreaming. A great deal of psychic activity occurs while we dream. This is clearly by nature's deign. Who are we to poo poo it?
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 09:41 PM (#775022) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg oops! That penultimate sentence should read "THis is clearly by nature's DESIGN." peg I had a feeling there would be a typo in that post, heh heh...
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 09:46 PM (#775024) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Well, given the volume, and quality of the impassioned dissertation, I guess ya coulda seen it coming there would be one lil error in it. The Chinese ancients used to mar their jade and ceramic art pieces intentionally in some small way so the universe wouldn't get pissed at them for presuming perfection. Intersting brand of humility, i guess. So you're in great company! A |
|
31 Aug 02 - 10:32 PM (#775035) Subject: RE: Peg, finally some clarity From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "The chosen moniker of our "guest" is the same as one used by a notorious pariah/shit-starter in the pagan community who used to cause all sorts of trouble on Usenet...so, yeah, I do have my suspicions." So you came to this thread armed with some preloaded attitudes that I've had *zero* to do with. Honestly I wouldn't know you from Eve online or otherwise. I was responding in kind to the way you chose to express the baggage that you borught to the thread. For your reocrds; I chose the name *Taliesn*, with its purposely altered spellng from the traditional name *Taliesin*, because I'm a Frank Lloyd Wright afficianado and always enjoyed the meanings that Mr.Wright drew upon when deciding on that naming of his Lloyd Jones ancenstral estate of land in Spring Green,Wisconsin. I finally had the pleasure of digital videotaping my entire visit to his "Taliesin West" in the Scottsdale section of Phoenix,Arizona last September 22. I chose the omitted "i" spelling of Taliesn because I orginally used it as a password that required no more than 7 letters. (quote) "Not that it matters." Apparently it still matters rather acutely. (quote) " But the level of personal remarks directed at me tells me this person has perhaps done some searching around about me and I find that pathetic. " Then why didn;t you just plain ask me, *directly*? It's just amusing that the thought of the cause for my personal remarks being "directed at you" of having anything to do with your "jumping to conclusions" and immediately attacking never entered your mind. Best to attack first and damn the possibility of a mistake., Eh? To then further attempt to justify your bringing your personal grudge-match here because you believe it has now *followed* you here raises an entirely new question about what one may deem pathetic. In conclusion, I have , nor have I ever had, anything to do with harassing *any* spiritual groups, pagan or otherwise, on messageboards.......though I have had a couple of rather spiritied *email* debates with some rather defensive Scientologists, but that 's another space in another time. I trust where I coming from is now rendered crystaline. |
|
31 Aug 02 - 10:50 PM (#775037) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mickey191 Folks, Can't we all just get along? Peg, and others,I'm interested in your opinion of John Edwards I have seen him do some remarkable readings. It's hard for me to believe it is trickery. I have seen others who have good standing in the physic world but whose readings are laughable. What say you? |
|
31 Aug 02 - 11:31 PM (#775044) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Mickey, I have only seen John Edwards once and I am normally skeptical of anyone doing this sort of thing on TV. But I did think he was rather remarkable. Very natural and unassuming, seems to really think what he has is a gift to be shared. GUEST: Ya know, you are a perfect example of a person who likes to use big fat high-falutin' words but has no idea what they're talking about. I don't know if the pretentious rhetoric is some way of disguising your identity from your other GUEST posts on Mudcat and don't really care. But I can't take your passive-agressive attack on me seriously because, well, your command of the English language is just not what you seem to think it is. Free tip: Lose the anonymity and maybe someone will be interested in your opinions.
|
|
31 Aug 02 - 11:49 PM (#775045) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Galatians2:20 Wow... I am a Christian... from the chill in this place I had better keep my trap shut, huh? I'm new here and I wouldn't want to get ripped to shreds so soon... better not have any personal spiritual onvictions of my own or the first time I make a mistake, someone might tear me all up like they just did the psychic community... since when did being psychic or being anything besides perfect automatically make you a "voice of the people"? I know PLENTY of "spiritual" types who do not want to be a fountainhead of knowledge for the rest of humanity... so stop volunteering people to do so against their will (or knowledge). 2:20 |
|
31 Aug 02 - 11:56 PM (#775046) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg huh? Is it me or did that last post make no sense? Is our GUEST suffering from schizophrenia as well as delusions of grandeur? I am not sure who here is "volunteering people against their will (or knowledge)"...when did this occur? The passive-aggression is so thick in here you can cut it with a knife. |
|
01 Sep 02 - 12:12 AM (#775049) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Galatians2:20 Hi Peg, What I meant (sorry for jumping in so quickly) was that there seem to be people that were VERY unforgiving in their attitude towards the psychic community... I am sure there are many people who claim psychic ability who were saddened by their own failure to say anything... When we say that they were "at fault" for not shouting their psychic visions from the rooftops, we are "volunteering" them against their wills as people who represent the rest of us without asking the psychic folks if they want that burden... I hope that made a little more sense... Peace, 2:20
|
|
01 Sep 02 - 12:23 AM (#775053) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg there seems to be two ideas afloat here: one, that psychics may have known something yet said nothing and that people are angered by that...and two, that even if someone did have psychic visions of 9-11 they should not be called to task for having said nothing. But I think the original poster of the thread was commenting on those "legitimate" and professional psychics who make a living from predicting the coming year's big events...and why such people had no inkling this would happen, or if they did, they did not share it with the rest of us. I think it is pointless to follow this line of inquiry any further. Better to look at WHY this happened and find ways to prevent it happening again. The damage is done and now we have to try and learn something from it.
|
|
01 Sep 02 - 12:27 AM (#775059) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Galatians2:20 Amen.
|
|
01 Sep 02 - 07:46 AM (#775118) Subject: RE: Finally we're in agreement From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "But I think the original poster of the thread was commenting on those "legitimate" and professional psychics who make a living from predicting the coming year's big events...and why such people had no inkling this would happen, or if they did, they did not share it with the rest of us." Finally perfect clarity and agreement. (Took awhile, but I was hoping for some "positive" closure ) Now why couldn't this have been your original response? This is precisely what I was getting at with hopes that a little humor could have arisen in the process. I'm only too happy to let this ringing flash of *understanding* to serve as a positive end of the subject. Next time just plain ask if someone is , or is not, whom you *think* they are before then electing to go on the personal attack. No one likes it . And I far prefer the cordiality of honest kidding that comes from a presense of commraderie rahter than raw *provocation* that I failed in governing my own passion-of-the-moment and giving into it. Like I said, my New York Irish heritage don't take no crap either. peace |
|
01 Sep 02 - 09:07 AM (#775128) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Dear still-anonymous GUEST: I never accused you of being anyone. Since you refuse to actually offer an identity it would be hard to disprove in any case. Your sarcasm and continued passive-aggressive words do not serve as an "end" to anything as you clearly still want to have the last word and impress everyone with your affected verbal prowess (I would still look for that dictionary if I were you). |
|
01 Sep 02 - 10:31 AM (#775154) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Whut we hayuve hyere is a faylure to cuh-MOON-ikate, boys. :>) Good thing this isn't a music thread, huh? A |
|
01 Sep 02 - 03:26 PM (#775288) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: RichM Many different believers and non-believers meet on forums like this. I see no point in trying to "convert" anyone through intellectual discussion. It's like talking about music: It sure ain't the same thing as playing or listening to it!
We are all branches of the same tree, but trying to explain to a "root" what it's like to be a " leaf" is problematic.
If you are at all interested in phenomena psychic, you'll find them--unless you are simply starting out from the premise of "disproving" them.
|
|
01 Sep 02 - 03:36 PM (#775297) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Gareth Mmmm ! Taliesn - A well known Celtic Bard - Didn't see Edward comming, or the death of Llewellyn the Great.
Now a fortnight before the explosion, Gareth |
|
01 Sep 02 - 05:41 PM (#775327) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bill D well, *I* think the person that REALLY has her psychic 'shtick' going right is that "Pet Psychic" I have seen on TV lately!....she looks DEEP into the eyes of yer favorite dog, parrot, horse, alligator..(yes, alligator!), or hamster, and tell you what it's problems are and how happy it is with you!........and you know what?...not one pet has EVER said she's wrong! Such a deal!...Dionne Warwick shoulda tried this...she might still be going! |
|
01 Sep 02 - 07:15 PM (#775360) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Too bad all the people in the world that believe in psychic bullshit wern't in the basement of the twin towers last 9/11. Sure would have improved the worlds gene pool. |
|
02 Sep 02 - 11:42 AM (#775583) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos I had a premonition some asswipe would add to this thread!! Now look!! Amazing, huh??? A |
|
02 Sep 02 - 01:41 PM (#775645) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow Cassandra, daughter of Priam King of Troy, had the double burden of being able to forsee bad things happening, and of never being believed when she tried to warn people. |
|
02 Sep 02 - 02:50 PM (#775690) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: harvey andrews "It is believed" Peg explains. Exactly.And the human race and its various tribes believe in many, many things from extra terrestrial caused crop circles to psychic phenomena. The word to look for always is "proven". |
|
02 Sep 02 - 02:54 PM (#775695) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Proof in the matter of individual perception is a pretty slipper slope, Harvey! It is really tricky to use the disciplines of repeatability and peer confirmation on something as plastic, volatile and non-conforming with material attributes as the human psyche. For just one thing there is a good body of evidence that the psyche completely disobeys the unidirectionalnature of time on which physical proof methods depend! (See Larry Dossey's books on the non-local nature of personal influence). But the fact that material protocols are difficult to use in proving things about it certainly does not support the notion that "it" doesn't even exist!! :>) A |
|
02 Sep 02 - 05:32 PM (#775786) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: harvey andrews Amos the human race is soooo gullible that proof of a belief is the only way I can work. When the first alien makes real contact, when the first event is correctly predicted, when the first crop circle is filmed in the making, when the Madonna's tears are analysed, when the aubergine really does contain the Koran,when the first evangelical meeting "miracle" really is permanent regained sight or tumour disappearance leading to a long life,when Elvis sings again!!! I'm just an old sceptic who would love to "believe". I have many believer friends and they seem happier in many ways than I feel myself but somehow these damned eyes of mine keep seeing the Emperor with no clothes on. Can't help it. Just the way I am. A confirmed believer in non-believing. |
|
02 Sep 02 - 05:32 PM (#775787) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow This is drift on my part, but it seems a natural enough drift.
The truth is these things always come out of the blue unpredictable, and then looking back they seem inevitable, and it seems strange that people lived through the times leading up to them sleepwalking, as if they must have known what was coming.
The months leading up to the First World War are a classic example. In a secondhand bookshop I once came across a book (I don't mean a book about it, I mean the actual physical book) in which young people at a New Year party had been writing down their signatures in ink, and playing a party game involving signatures. The idea was, you write the name along the line, and then fold the paper along the line - the strangest patterns emerge. It was New Year 1914, and the name of the game, written in the book, was "Ghosts of My Friends." |
|
02 Sep 02 - 05:51 PM (#775790) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Rick Fielding Hmmmmmm, well spoken Harvey. My criterion has always been: If someone has a 'gift' or belief, and no apparent alterior motive, I'll listen very carefully to what they have to say. The moment that either finances or "duty to convince" enter the picture, I become like you, very skeptical. Strictly from a secular point of view (safer that way)...many thousands of people believed that Uri Geller was an actual psychic even AFTER he'd been thoroughly exposed as a fraud (along with his little accomplice Shippi) I, on the other hand believe that playing a six string F chord is the ONLY way to true happiness! Cheers Rick |
|
02 Sep 02 - 05:54 PM (#775791) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Well, Harvey, I appreciate your clear-eyed integrity a great deal. My only argument is that we need to keep our minds -- as well as our eyes -- open for insights into those phenomena we have no decent paradigm for. I am sure you'll find plemty of anecdotal evidence indicating that "the first event correctly predicted" has happened a large number of times; the question is of course what is simple extrapolation, and what, if anything transcends those bounds. I agree completely with the gullibility of humans in general, and the problenm is made more difficult by the ready plasticity of the mind to create impressions of perceptions it wants to perceive, rather than being clear about what it has perceived, and when. These things are complications to a difficult field, but I do think it would be an error to try to jam the phenomenology of psychic events into a material framework when seeking proof. There have been documented cases under strict research conditions of remote viewing, and the remote influence by intention of buried sensors (see the Puthoff and Targ series of experiments conducted at Stanford Research using various subjects including Ingo Swann, 1979-1984 if memory serves). To do so would be similar to rejecting physical evidence of planetary orbits because ti didn't jive with someone's version of the divine revealed truth; it is a serious fallacy to mis-sort data into the wrong classes. Very best regards, A |
|
02 Sep 02 - 06:07 PM (#775798) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: DougR Taliesn: Just a word of friendly advice should you ever again find yourself in our neighborhood. Never hint that Scottsdale is a part of Phoenix. That is a very good way to get a very short haircut out here. In the old days they called it, "scalping." :>) DougR |
|
02 Sep 02 - 07:22 PM (#775833) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Harvey, try reading about quantum physics sometime. Contemporary scientists have pretty near agreed upon the odd and sobering fact that time and matter simply may not exist as we have always thought they did... The idea that something must yield itself to a quantified "proof" in order to be accepted as true is problematic, to say the least. For example, one of the main arguments against the efficacy of herbal remedies is that they have not and in some cases cannot be "proven" to be effective (and so remain unregulated by the FDA), but ONLY because the scientific testing grounds, set up for synthetic drugs and those manufactured in a laboratory, cannot encompass the many variables inherent in botanical substances. This includes differing concentrations of various chemical constituents which vary from crop to crop, given variations in weather, climate, soil, growing conditions, harvesting, drying and preservation tachniques, etc. But just because science cannot effectively measure the effectiveness of these substances in ways that suit their methods, doesn't mean they don't work...Ask anyone who has used chamomile to sleep, guarana to be more alert, willow bark for a headache, raspberry leaves for menstrual cramps, fennel for an upset stomach... In much the same way, psychic phenomena are unquantifiablle according to standardized methods of measurement or testing...and so, in many cases, will remain "unproven." This makes them no less real. I find it hard to believe that any human being could be on the planet for any length of time and not have accepted that a whole lot happens to us that we simply don't have a cut and dried explanation for...
|
|
02 Sep 02 - 07:37 PM (#775843) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Hard to believe, Peg? Think about filters for a minute -- the constructs we use to keep out information we can't align according to our current preferred assumptions and our comfort zones. Ask a baseball-addicted flag-waving patriot about the beuaty of the Koran, and see what the process returns. Ask a vehement Muslim about the beauties of the American social experiment, an anti-abortion acitivist about the transcendant power of choice, or a pro-life activist about the transcendant sanctity of living forms. Selective denial is part of our makeup. Everyone uses blackout curtains in some of the rooms of their mansion. Well -- almost everyone, maybe. Everyone I know does, including myself and some of the most intelligent, aware, curious people I've ever met. You can be someone who chooses to filter out phenomena that hasn't met material protocols of proof, as a way to reduce the pain and confusion of a universe too wildly random to face. You can be someone who chooses to filter out the existence of people who don't (or 'can't') allow in phenomena they can't readily explain. It's the same black swamp-paint being used on a different window, is all... luv, A |
|
02 Sep 02 - 07:53 PM (#775853) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow "Ask a vehement Muslim about the beauties of the American social experiment" - the fact that someone is a Muslim and vehement doesn't in itself tell you what they think about the American social experiment.
I'm sure you could find Muslims who would wax enthusiastically about the beauties of the American social experiment, just as you can found Christians who feel the same. And they'd probably point to ways in which some of its underlying principles reflect the values expressed in their Holy Book. (And in both cases the wisest among them might then go on to lament the ways in which it has been undermined and distorted and betrayed.)
|
|
03 Sep 02 - 12:19 AM (#775941) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Excuse me, Kevin -- I was shorthanding -- p'raps even stereotyping -- to make a point. Perhaps I should have said a rabid Muslim extemist? Of course, any human capable of rational discourse would incline as you describe, regardless of his metaphysics. I wa smaking a different point altogether, but I am sorry I used a stereotype in my hurry. A |
|
03 Sep 02 - 02:20 AM (#775969) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg good points all, Amos, and I agree that denial is one of the emotional building blocks of contemporary society, but I feel compelled to point out that "anti-abortion" and "Pro-life" have the same meaning for those in this movement...I know you knew that and mistyped, just wanted to put that thought form out there... Peg |
|
03 Sep 02 - 06:10 AM (#776034) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow I took it that Amos was using the term pro-life there to point the inherent contradiction of those who claim to be pro-life but who support the death penalty. (Analogous to the contradiction of those who oppose the death penalty but have no problems with abortion.) |
|
03 Sep 02 - 07:28 AM (#776077) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Bagpuss I just wanted to point out that just because something is seen as outside of the conventional scientific wisdom, that doesn't mean that it is not amenable to scientific study. Psychic phenomena are being studied scientifically at a number of universities, including Edinburgh. One famous psychology experiment, which I believe has been replicated a number of times, shows that those who believe in paranormal phenomena actually perform better in tests of psychic abilities, performing slightly above chance levels. This suggests that there is something in what they believe, and that psychic experiments should take into account the beliefs of the subjects. Peg said "For example, one of the main arguments against the efficacy of herbal remedies is that they have not and in some cases cannot be "proven" to be effective (and so remain unregulated by the FDA), but ONLY because the scientific testing grounds, set up for synthetic drugs and those manufactured in a laboratory, cannot encompass the many variables inherent in botanical substances. This includes differing concentrations of various chemical constituents which vary from crop to crop, given variations in weather, climate, soil, growing conditions, harvesting, drying and preservation tachniques, etc. But just because science cannot effectively measure the effectiveness of these substances in ways that suit their methods, doesn't mean they don't work...Ask anyone who has used chamomile to sleep, guarana to be more alert, willow bark for a headache, raspberry leaves for menstrual cramps, fennel for an upset stomach... " If the variables you mention would have so much of an effect that the substance tested did not show a clear effect in experiments, that is a sign that ordinary people taking these herbs might have a similarly inconsistent experience. If it is the case that a particular way of growing/drying/preserving etc is important in the effect the herb has, then that is the form of the herb that should be tested - and then surely a significant advantage (over placebo) would be shown for these substances if they are in fact beneficial. Its not that science cannot effectively measure the effectiveness, but that trials to date have not taken into account all the variables they need to control. That is a fault with scientists, not with the scientific method. Bagpuss
|
|
03 Sep 02 - 07:41 AM (#776085) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Nicked from a parapsychology website - experiments which have shown positive results for psychic abilities: 1) The SHEEP/GOATS effect. 'Sheep' are people who are relatively open-minded and are ready to at least accept the possibility of something new, and 'goats' are those who dig their heels in. The 'sheep' score significantly higher in card guessing experiments. (2) The DECLINE effect. If you ask a person to guess 100 packs of Zener cards, their scores decline as they get bored until, nearing the end of the task, their scores improve again. Prof. Roy showed how the graph of scores differed from chance results. (3) The HELMUT SCHMIDT effect. An arrangement of nine lights lit up randomly, driven by the radioactive decay of Strontium-90. People were asked to guess which lamp would light up next. A follow-up experiment with nine lights in a circle showed that people could force the lamps to light in a clockwise sequence, an example of psycho-kinesis or P.K. (4) The GANZFELD experiment, developed by the late Charles Honorton, has been improved by the Koestler Unit in Edinburgh. People in a daydream existence, their senses diminished by diffuse light and sound, attempt to describe pictures which are being viewed in another room. Results of 36% compare with 25% expected by chance. Over many studies, this represents a chance of one in ten million.
|
|
03 Sep 02 - 07:48 AM (#776087) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: harvey andrews Peg, my mind is open. I'm naturally curious. I would love to believe, believe me! I accept totally that there are things we cannot explain, I just don't find it easy to accept current explanations!As a student I did the old Ouija board experiment. Blidfolded i felt a glass whiz around under my finger. It spelled out that we had apparantly got in touch with William Shakespeare. We were English students at a Coventry college and it was Will's birthday week. I came off the glass, my friends were blindfolded and I watched the glass whiz around to spell out that he didn't write "Corialanus". Now some of us believed we'd got in touch with Will, some of us believed we hadn't and it was all fake, but I think our controls were good enough that it wasn't fake and I can't explain it. I don't believe it was Will, but it might have been the will-power of those of us in the room. My Grandmother in New Zealand dreamed she saw my father fall down the stairs of a bus and lie inert on the floor just after my mother in England was told he was probably dying. She telegramed my mother to ask if all was okay. Unexplainable.They tell me the human brain uses but a small part of itself as yet, but it uses a lot more than it did a million years ago. Maybe the brain is like the Titanic, a series of compartments set to give way and flood under pressure of time and knowledge leading to new super powers for the human race. Who Knows? I just don't feel excited by the so-called proofs of all these so-called phenomena that are placed before us at the moment. I think when the real thing happens we'll all know very quickly that something outside the norm has taken place. Until then I watch, wait, listen and, like Rick respect scepticism. |
|
03 Sep 02 - 08:05 AM (#776094) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang I'm glad this thread has come back now to serious discussion. The question in the title of the thread is legitimate, same as for instance a question like 'why has God not prevented this?' can be discussed seriously. Kat has given one possible though not very convincing answer (to the first question), namely those who did know didn't talk about it openly. One of the most unexpected aspects of this thread was Amos making fun of psychic 'predictions' in a truly skeptical way. I really loved reading these posts, Amos. However, I also saw what I consider a double-standard of argumentation re scientific proof. I know it from too many public and private discussions. In this thread, it is clearest in Amos' posts: the psyche completely disobeys the unidirectionalnature of time on which physical proof methods depend There have been documented cases under strict research conditions of remote viewing, and the remote influence by intention of buried sensors (see the Puthoff and Targ series of experiments conducted at Stanford Research...) Now, what Targ and Puthoff did was experimenting under (presumably) controlled conditions, they counted successes and compared the number with chance level, they used a 'physical proof' method and published in 'Nature'. Why do you cite research you consider supportive, Amos, if you think that the psyche completely disobeys laws that are assumed to hold by those using physical proof methods? If that thought is correct you are right in not accepting research evidence to the nonexistence but at the same time there is no use in citing supportive evidence for it should be as irrelevant as unsupportive is in your thinking. I encounter this double-standard very often. A person I met cited evidence for the effect of some herbs. The evidence was completely in the physical proof tradition: The number of successes was counted and compared with a control. When it was pointed out to her that the research cited has some flaws and the controls were not adequate and that other reasearch had not found any positive effect, she quickly fell back into the 'well it has real effects, but by the poor methods of so called science can't show them'. Cite scientific research that is supportive and claim that the phenomenon is inaccessible for science when unsupportive evidence is mentioned. That's the way I have encountered too often to be fooled by it.
Just for the record: Wolfgang
|
|
03 Sep 02 - 09:06 AM (#776128) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Wolfgang: I never said anything about it "supporting meaphysical claims." I was speaking about the theories that have to do with the mutable and insubstantial nature of time, and space.
|
|
03 Sep 02 - 09:22 AM (#776140) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Wolfgang: I appreciate your point about double standards, I guess I have slipped into it sometimes. I was not asserting that the psyche cannot be tested; I was asserting that it is stupid to constrain such tests as though complete replicability, such as occurs in a simple physics experiment, were to be expected. The tests that examine ability are in particular on a slippery footing because -- well, because ability is not a particle. It varies with attention, intention, tolerance, and relevance to the being. The testing framework has to somehow take these factors into account. As for Targ and Puthoff, I suggest Randi has an axe to grind; he made his name asserting that anything paranormal had to be a parlor stunt. I have read Swann's descriptions of the test conditions and while they are probably not 100% bulletproof against attack, I think they can be said to demonstrate reliable psi activity with real effects and/or perceptions being observed. A |
|
03 Sep 02 - 10:16 AM (#776162) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang The GANZFELD experiment, developed by the late Charles Honorton, has been improved by the Koestler Unit in Edinburgh... Results of 36% compare with 25% expected by chance. (GUEST, 07:41 AM has copied this from the International Survivalist Society website)
That's a typical example how research becomes folklore in interested circles. Read here a 1999 abstract about the research on ganzfeld experiments from a research assistent of the Koestler Unit. It starts: Similar points can easily be made for the other points. The actual data and procedures by which they are gathered are much less convincing and clear-cut than parapsychology researchers would wish. Amos, I have cited Randi for the effect, but the actual case for the incompetence of Targ and Puthoff has been made by serious researchers (Marks, Kammann and some others). While I have only read small parts of Swann's description I have read all I could get about the Geller experiments in the SRI. That has convinced me that I don't trust these two (Targ and Puthoff) to perform a well controlled experiment in that field. Wolfgang
|
|
03 Sep 02 - 10:35 AM (#776172) Subject: RE: Quantum metaphysique' From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "......modern quantum physics is supportive of metaphysical claims ....." "Victor J. Stenger, The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology, 1995. Well , atleast for me , this path of convergence was first formally described by one Fritjof Capra ( Ph.D Theoratical Physics,Vienna) and his classic "The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of he Parallels Between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism"" first published in 1975. Ofcourse one can always add in the works of Tailhard de Chardin and Carl Jung , of a generation earlier , in defining where individual mind taps into and, draws from, a larger living *sphere of conciousness* . I mean ,this is more than familiar ground for we artistic/creative folk because *we* are all working from what I prefer to refer to as *creative intuition*. Being a right-brained south pawed artist I know of this because I've been playing and working from this resource all my life and I ain't quite through with yet. The key term here is *intuition* which can *not* , as yet , be quantified , but exists as a documented experience and used as a tool / guide nonetheless. Thus I find an amusing , perhaps unintended , combination of words arising from within the title of the book cited by Wolfgang: "The Unconscious _*Quantum: Metaphysics*_in Modern Physics and Cosmology* I'm suggesting that somewhere suggested in that combination of words we will see the "formal" convergence of the disciplines of what is *physically measureable* and the *intuitively knowable*. Ofcourse how it wil be applied is *the* moral dilemna which will define *our* 21st Century experience. Yep we're living in "interesting times" in the Chinese meaning so fasten your seatbelts folks.
|
|
03 Sep 02 - 12:51 PM (#776249) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Harvey Andrews said, "They tell me the human brain uses but a small part of itself as yet, but it uses a lot more than it did a million years ago." There are those of us who believe there are abilities of the human brain which have fallen into disuse due to various factors, incluidng witch-burning and other persecutions carried out over the centuries, punishing anyone who might have been a little "different" esp. by showing any of those ancient abilities. As Peg said, I agree that everyone has the ability; they've just never developed it or aren't open to it, or have been scared into denying it, etc. Proving the power of the mind is not an easy thing to do and I would never try to prove anything about it to anyone on here. We've had too many discussions which proved to me that most of the naysayers have made up their minds. For myself, I've studied an ancient discipline which includes experiments which prove to my satisfaction that I am on the right path, psychic and all. |
|
03 Sep 02 - 02:30 PM (#776300) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "incluidng witch-burning and other persecutions carried out over the centuries, punishing anyone who might have been a little "different" esp. by showing any of those ancient abilities." Yeah , the Europeans sure have quite a history on that front and as robust as is their history of elites & commoner alike delving into the Occult for , shall we say , *unclean* purposes driven by the usual "human" desires one need not list here seeking amplification. That is why care in the perfction of one's own human spirit by effective communing with one's higher spirit is always stressed otherwise it can be as miss-used a tool as any. And I am *not* one of those who subscribe to the quaint idea that "tools are neutral". We become what we think and then the tools we chose there from. Unfortunately the *psychic* realm can no less be a source of exposure to corruption of the human spirit as any simply because "humans" practice it and unless one is "immune" to the short-comings of that human spirit the same flaws can become amplified. (quote) "For myself, I've studied an ancient discipline which includes experiments which prove to my satisfaction that I am on the right path, psychic and all. " It's *all* Intuitive vision tapping into what always is and one need not have studied *ancient disciplines* to experience it. I mean it's a *gift* .
|
|
03 Sep 02 - 05:55 PM (#776402) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST The worst part of reading this thread is to realize how many idiots there are here on mudcat who believe this idiotic hogwash. And worse yet to realize that they may reproduce. If that is the case, the IQ of the human race is rapidly heading towards zero. |
|
03 Sep 02 - 06:34 PM (#776424) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Rick Fielding Better get this in before my IQ reaches the point where I spell EVERYTHING as badly as "Shipi" (thanks Wolfgang) I've often found that discussions like this (and ohhhh brother have I had a few, 'cause they're fun) tend to inevitably break down when the folks arguing strictly from personal experience run out of evidence. After all, how many times can you say "I'VE never seen a ghost"..."I'VE never caused objects to move"...."I'VE never had a vision of someone doing something a thousand miles away"....etc. On the other hand, someone can go on all night citing studies, papers, books, anecdotal evidence, even movies for Heaven's sake, all proving (to them) that psychic stuff DOES happen. So, I'm in the category of never having had any of that good stuff happen to me......But, I HAVE seen, heard and read since I was a young teenager, thousands of instances where people take money from others by claiming that THEY have information that others don't. I DID however spend an evening (in a concert hall) where a man bent spoons (with myself and ten or so others watching from three feet away), stopped and started several watches, and told several folks in the audience amazing personal things about themselves. He wasn't psychic...just a damn good magician (like Geller) named James (The Amazing) Randi Fun thread. Rick |
|
03 Sep 02 - 06:35 PM (#776427) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing I am not really clear on what you are trying to say, Taliesn, but what I meant was simply that all have innate abilities, which some I would consider gifts, and which most never tap into or "unwrap" to keep the gift analogy going. I didn't say I had to study an ancient discipline. I said the experiments therein proved things to my satisfaction. I do not accept things on blind faith and also learn better through doing things, rather than observation. Certainly, there are many paths; one need not follow and I would never presume to say so. |
|
03 Sep 02 - 06:48 PM (#776441) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Wow!! It happened again!! I must really be psychic. I'm sure of it, because my premonition about asswipes posting on this thread has come true TWICE!!! TWICE!! This is REALLY amazing. A |
|
03 Sep 02 - 09:39 PM (#776516) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bee-dubya-ell My personal attitude toward things psychic is one of open-minded skepticism. Having said that, here's a true story: About a week before last September 11, a close friend had a dream in which a jetliner crashed into a skyscraper. The dream was disturbing enough to him that he told his wife about it, something he claims to rarely do, and she has verified to me that such a dream did occur and that it occurred several days before 09/11/01. My friend is a physicist and is as skeptical about psychic phemomena as I am. He makes no claim that his dream was precognitive, nor do I. Yet, it makes one wonder if his dream was an isolated instance, or if there are thousands of other people who may have had similar dreams during the same time period. A handful of such dreams could be accounted for by coincidence - it's hard to imagine anything so bizarre that it has not occurred in somebody's dream. Thousands of people having similar dreams, though, speaks of something outside of coincidence. BWL |
|
03 Sep 02 - 10:04 PM (#776533) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bobert Taliesn: One heck of a party ya' got ragin' here, my friend. Heck, if I knew you were throwin' it, I'd a shown earlier, brought my reso and done my famous " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" for the folks. But, hey, better late than never... Sorry about the litter gettin' scratched on ya' but, afterall, it is the Catbox, afterall... Oh, and about the psychics. They're all workin' for the tabloids these days. More money and paid vacations... The Ornery Reverand Bobert |
|
03 Sep 02 - 10:18 PM (#776539) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond psychics... ya right... And Doug Henning, when he ran for PM of Canada, was gonna defend our borders with "Squadrons of tantric flyers"
Talk New-Age all ya want May as well believe in ghosts and goblins, and wishing wells, and horoscopes... For that matter, while yer at it, mail me 2 dollars and I'll tall you the secret to EVERYTHING...
|
|
04 Sep 02 - 12:55 AM (#776595) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Oh, CLinton, stop it!! You're such a Mugwump!! Bite your tongue!! A |
|
04 Sep 02 - 02:56 AM (#776618) Subject: RE: Hey, Rev Bobert From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "Taliesn: One heck of a party ya' got ragin' here, my friend. Heck, if I knew you were throwin' it, I'd a shown earlier, brought my reso and done my famous " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" for the folks. " Was wondering when y'all would weigh in here. I originally meant this thread with half a mind for folks to join in and contribute ideas for lines for a semi-humorous song along the lines of the "Sign of the Times Blues", but y'all can see what happened. Talk about the law of unintended consequences ,but "spiritied" discussion is healthy nonetheless. I *love* the idea of " My Crystal Ball's in the Pawn Shop Blues" . Kinda comes under a varaition of the time-worn phrase " there oughta be a law " otherwise known as "there oughta be a song". Anyway glad you came. A "lively" thread just ain't quite the same without a visit from the Right Rev Bobert. Much oblidged Rev. |
|
04 Sep 02 - 07:40 AM (#776698) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang BWL, just to give you an idea, how many dreams there must have been not to call it coincidence: There are very roughly 250,000,000 US-Americans. Assume that each of them only once per life dreams about a plane crashing into a building. Assume that the average American lives 25,000 days (roughly 69 years) to make it easier. Then per chance alone, each night about 10,000 Americans have a dream about a plane crashing into a building. Well, some may never have such a dream (that would make my 10,000 estimation too high), but a dream of that type a couple of day before it happened would still be called a coincidence (that would make my 10,000 estimation too low). Whatever the correct number is, it is in the region of several thousands. Therefore, even with several thousand of such dreams there would still be no need for any other explanation than simple statistical coincidence. Wolfgang |
|
04 Sep 02 - 07:56 AM (#776710) Subject: RE: C'mon Wolfgang From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "Therefore, even with several thousand of such dreams there would still be no need for any other explanation than simple statistical coincidence. " What an amusing statistician's fantasy equation. I just love all of these "what if this were so because of this number and , thus, this means that" .*Spseculative* equations , at best , of a statistically-minded *imagination*. Trying to quantify the qualitative is like trying to explain the French in Chinese. If it can't be quantified ,it becomes incomprehensible. How much of quantum mechanics is *probability* mapping? Nice try ,Wolfgang , but you hit a dry hole. Which calls to mind the wise saying : "The map is *not* the territory" |
|
04 Sep 02 - 07:56 AM (#776711) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Bagpuss There is some evidence that those who believe in paranormal phenomena are also more likely to have pooer understanding of coincidences and random events. The famous experiment is one where subjects are asked to generate a pseudo random string of numbers - as if they were tossing a die, 100 hundred times in a row. Those with paranormal beliefs are more likely to produce a string which is non random in particulr ways. They have fewer than expected "co-incidence" substrings, eg 2two sixes occurring consecutively, or 1 followed by 2 followed by 3. This suggests that part of the reason for paranormal beliefs may be that people misunderstand how likely an event to occur by chance, so that when they see a number of co-incidences, they believe that there must be something behind it and it can't be down to chance. Bagpuss |
|
04 Sep 02 - 09:50 AM (#776782) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Ringer 3) The HELMUT SCHMIDT effect.... experiment with nine lights in a circle showed that people could force the lamps to light in a clockwise sequence, an example of psycho-kinesis or P.K. (from up above) I'm being lazy here: rather than doing my own Google search I want to know about this, and would like Wolfgang's (whose opinions in this area I trust - mainly, I suspect, because I share them (but, I regret, not his scholarship)) take on it. At the moment, if it's based on radioactive decay, I don't believe it. And why the H/S effect? Wasn't he German Chancellor 2 or 3 ago? |
|
04 Sep 02 - 10:06 AM (#776790) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Bagpuss Helmut Schmidt is the name of the experimenter famous for conducting these experiments. I'm going to look up some balanced views of his work, if nobody beats me to it. |
|
04 Sep 02 - 10:21 AM (#776801) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky Uh oh, GUEST, Taliesn, you're outta your league. Ringer, here's a seat by me, want some popcorn? |
|
04 Sep 02 - 10:21 AM (#776802) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bobert Danged, didn't realize I was gonna need my Wes Ginny slide rule at this party.... Bobert |
|
04 Sep 02 - 10:31 AM (#776804) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST,Lyle Normally, (and that includes up to now) I stay far away from discussions of this type. But I do have one comment. Wolfgang, thanks for trying to bring some sense to this whole affair. You are, of course, completely correct. But I don't think I'd have your courage to try to bring truth to this group, because you'll always run into people like Taliesn (and others) who are simply too ignorant to understand. Anyway, my compliments to you, Wolfgang!! Keep up the good work. Lyle PS Maybe we should send some of the "lesser lights" a subscription to The Skeptical Inquirer!!" |
|
04 Sep 02 - 10:35 AM (#776806) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang Same name, (very) different persons, Ringer. Schmidt (and also Jahn) made quite ingenious experiments on PK (psychokinesis). The details differed from experiment to experiment, but mostly their subjects sat in front of a display and 'willed' the lamps to go clockwise/counterclockwise. They had novel features which made these experiments immune to several lines of critique applicable to older experiments: - the randomiser was based on radioactive decay (that's where radioactivity came into it): such a randomiser is better than random number tables or randomiser used in cumputers for those are not truly random but only random for some tests of randomness - the counting procedure was (as all of the experiment) computer controlled without any interference by humans: No (easy) bias in evaluation possible - They ran clever control experiments like e.g. letting the apparatus run all night without a human trying to influence it before it: that excludes a 'drift' in the apparatus (nothing as bad as a subject 'willing' the lights to turn clockwise when the apparatus has a clockwise drift/bias) as explanation. For the same reason they had the subjects 'willing' a clockwise movement just as often as a counterclockwise. Everybody I have read (or heard) believes the researchers to be completely honest. None of the usual counterexplanations that come easily to mind (bias in evaluation, trickery by subjects, wrong randomisation) holds here. Well, one of them could be true, in principle, but the researchers have taken all precautions against so it is not very probable. There are some minor technical points that could hint to a normal explanation, but none of them has been convincing to me. The main problem mainstream scientists have with the results is the tiny effect size. Jahn has reported a hit rate of 50.2 % (50.0 being chance) across experiments. That's highly significant with milions of trials, but it actually means that there is one extra clockwise movement among 500 trials. For me personally, the most probable explanation here is some not yet detected error. For such a small extra-chance effect, even a very minor error suffices. It is not chance operating here, so much is sure. One camp, you may guess which, thinks the paranormal explanation is the only left, the other camp bets on a yet not detected minor flaw. Wolfgang |
|
04 Sep 02 - 12:03 PM (#776863) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: McGrath of Harlow Well of course, it's probably fair to assume that, following September 11, the number of Americans and others who will now in the course of their lifetimes have had dreams about aeroplanes crashing into skyscrapers will have risen considerably. I don't know what that would do to Wolfgang's statistics.
|
|
04 Sep 02 - 12:10 PM (#776875) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing Ho-hum. It is still unfortunate that we have these discussions, yet they can never really be open to full discussion of what people who believe have experienced, without being bullied and told how stupid they are. Is it at all possible for one group to let the other group alone and just let them compare notes? I know, I know...don't tell me...I can *see* that it will never come to pass. |
|
04 Sep 02 - 12:14 PM (#776881) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Catherine Jayne I agree with Katlaughing. If someone believes that they are psychic let them believe. They do not deserve to be put down and slagged off about it. In an ideal world people would respect each other's belief's. But as you can see from this thread it is not an ideal world and ot everyone respects others beleifs. Cat |
|
04 Sep 02 - 12:17 PM (#776885) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Taliesn may well be out of his league, Mary; but he is pointing to a very strong point. Counting and statistics depend for their validity on certain mechanisms of space and time which make repeatability of mechanical processes workable and countable. Quality of and in itself is not countable, although you can dream up ways to attach metrics to it indirectly. If you put six apples in a bag it is easy to say they are six, but in doing so you are roundly ignoring the myriad differences between them, since they come from diferent places, have differences in hue and shape and flavor and chemistry. You have to ignore the distinctions in order to count the "samenesses", and you are also relying on the time-space mechanisms of separation, unidirectionality, spatial continuity and homogeneity, and so on. There is no guarantee that consciousness itself operates within those mechanisms and constraints. Imagination certainly does not, and there is some experimental indication that time-reversal is much more normal in the realm of consciousness and its effects on material systems, than it is in any material system. If, on the other hand, you assume as your initial premise that consciousness is a byproduct of complexity in material systems only, the "thought is all in the brain" school of thought, whose loudest proponents are people like B.F. Skinner, the father of stimulus-response psychology, and Francis Crick, then the whole debate is meaningless and the meatheads carry the day based on that premise. But personally, I think it is a dangerous premise riddled with inconsistencies. A |
|
04 Sep 02 - 03:02 PM (#776989) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky Amos, I agree wholeheartedly that we cannot superimpose objectivity on quality, (didn't Pirsig allude to the fact that we can go crazy doing this?), but I don't think the above discussion (number of people having dreams) is an incidence of quantifying a quality. Now if we were quatifying the substance/content of the dreams... "I rate this one a 10..." (Even in cases where this is used as a tool, the investigators (or people involved) understand the ground rules.) It's when we try to communicate (one of your favorite concepts *G*) and we don't all agree on the meanings of the words we use... (I'm still waiting for a song on this one.) |
|
04 Sep 02 - 03:18 PM (#776999) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Oh, I concur that Wolfgang's analysis-by-numbers is sharp as hell. I am not sure why we would assume anyone should have a dream about a jet crashing into a building particularly -- I don't know anyone who related one to me before July 2001. I know several people who had and related them betweene July and September. Not even counting that lieutenant of Osama's who claimed to have had one although he wasn't in on the top secret plan. So his statistical analysis has a premise in it which is set up to prove its own worth, not that he insists on the premise. Even if there were a distribution of people having such dreams evenly distributed across space and time, I would think that the number of incidences related to a given event would be more significant the closer to the event, because the time-thread including the event was becoming more and more probable. I'd actually expect that such dream-counts would go up before the actual event in a significant pattern, if all the incidents were known. But it is impossible for all the incidents to be known, since very large numbers of people don't have clear memory across the dream/real state boundary and couldn't say if they'd had such a dream or not. Let alone the questions of whether there are different kinds of communications, experiences, extrapolations, and such going on in dreaming states. It is pretty much wholly terra incognita, I think. So I think the picture Wolfgang paints, while very sharp mathematically, lacks real meaning. A |
|
04 Sep 02 - 04:37 PM (#777044) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Mary in Kentucky I think we still agree, but are talking about many different things here. One, (I can't speak for Wolfgang...and won't...but...) the explanation directed to BWL was simply that, one explanation, with a lot of roooooom in the numbers. Two, if you were to attempt a meaningful study of people and planes, you would have to somehow take into account other factors such as proximity to the event, possibly an estimation of unknown events, some kind of weighting of the importance of these factors...and even then your "conclusions" would only be meaningful in an appropriate arena with everyone using the same vocabulary. I don't think this is what the original discussion was. I'm reminded of the attempts to quantify economic laws. You can get some pretty wild conclusions when you try to oversimplify a complex situation and talk about it in the press. But there is nevertheless value in making a model, studying it and trying to understand things. Three, oops...gotta go. |
|
04 Sep 02 - 05:30 PM (#777074) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Paul Mitchell Peg... the name used by the guest is the same name used on at least one pagan newslist. He made several points several times... much as he's done here. Paul |
|
04 Sep 02 - 07:13 PM (#777126) Subject: RE: *Pagan newslist*?? From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "Peg... the name used by the guest is the same name used on at least one pagan newslist. He made several points several times... much as he's done here. " Oh ya just gotta looove this: an *unwitch hunt". Pagan Prosecutor: "Have you now ,or have you ever posted on a "Pagan newslist"? Accused: " Uhmm, no, your paganess ,sir . Actually I've never harbored any interest for a start..... " Pagan Prosecutor: " Silence. Then how do you explain the use of the same name on atleast one Pagan newslist we've been able to confirm? " Accused: " Gee, d'ya mind producing this alledged circumstancial evidence or is that *priviledged info*? You better have some hard evidence to produce publically there , Sparky , before this goes any further than it already has because I can already *intuitively* sense that a cyber-lynching is brewing here , with much "busy-ness" of hands & much muttering thorugh back-channels ,with a false accusation supplying the "warp & woof "for a kind of a paranormal paranoia most unbecoming begetting a cyber-vigilnate-ism most unclean . For shame you don't just ask *up front*. Make your case in the open then, I say . S'matter , 'fraid of the *light* Arthur Miller would get a kick out of this. ;-) |
|
04 Sep 02 - 11:42 PM (#777231) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos :>) From the p-eople who brought you the Uncola, Non-U, and Uncoolness in a Jar... A |
|
05 Sep 02 - 12:22 AM (#777241) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Preparing for the Equinox celebrations they were - occupied with more important matters. |
|
05 Sep 02 - 12:28 AM (#777244) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Bobert's "My Crystal Ball Is Stuck in the Pawnshop Blues"
I done sold my incense, All yers, Bobert!! Get ahold of Tweed and knock 'em out on a disc, and you're on your way to the top of the charts!! LOL!! A |
|
05 Sep 02 - 12:51 AM (#777260) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg hmm, GUEST Taliesn seems awful defensive 'bout sumthin'... other than that, this discussion still seems concerned with arguing about the methodology of proving psychic phenomena...I thought it had been established that such phenomena cannot BE proven by the traditional criteria? For reasons already stated? Yes? And I agree, kat, it's frustrating that people just slag off what they probably just don't understand. Or they lump everything into some lowest-common denominator sort of box. "Like, gee, paranormal stuff? Oh, that must mean they've watched too many episodes of The X-Files! Dummies!" I do not think it is true across the board that people who believe in psychic phenomena are of lower intelligence. Quite the opposite, I'd say. I am certainly of above-average intelligence and I fully accept that there is a wide range of psychological and psychical human experience that cannot be fuly explained by traditional scientific proofs. I think that makes me open-minded, not naive. I would agree stupider-than-usual people are the ones who get addicted to psychic hotlines etc. but haven't we established most of those so-called professionals are charlatans and scam artists? I DO find it funny that the majority of posts moaning about how "stupid" it is to believe in psychic phenomena are full of bad grammar and mispellings...or maybe that's just me.
|
|
05 Sep 02 - 04:22 AM (#777326) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Wolfgang 'mispellings'? LOL Wolfgang |
|
05 Sep 02 - 09:27 AM (#777427) Subject: RE: Awfully Defensive Peg From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) " hmm, GUEST Taliesn seems awful defensive 'bout sumthin'..." A case of a kettle, on the boil , calling the stove "defensive" I fear. Our entire dialogue was ignited by your most cordial invitation to your pre-judged indictment. Need I remind you of how you first burst onto thius thread: (quote) "I remember a few months ago when some idiot decided to pose that same question to the "leaders" of the pagan community; along the lines of, hey you guys are witches, why didn't you KNOW this would happen? Maybe it's even the same idiot, who knows? In any case this troll does not deserve a reply. " Right out of the gate your barely stifled snort of derision not only exposed an obviously raw-nerved hair-trigger of ready *defensiveness* over a completely *unrelated* incident , but in your moment of weakness let slip a rather "poor manners be damned" arrogance , barely couched , that doesn't exactly show a best face for a representative of one's presumably *evolved* culture. Your stated need to "get" the name betokens the cyber-vigilante-ism of which I spoke playing its hand and when someone else volunteers: (quote) "(quote) "Peg... the name used by the guest is the same name used on at least one pagan newslist. He made several points several times... much as he's done here. " ..then apparently "others" are doing some *checking*. I'm sorry that you've not once ever considered simply *asking* me up front in all of this. This suggests to me that you've already made up your mind from day one and I'm guilty till proven innocent in your exclusive court: (quote) "Yup. As I thought. Same idiot. " Obviously whatever psychic "gifts " you and your "pagan newslist" believe you possess have failed you, on the most fundamental level of spiritual wisdom , so far as the common courtesy to simply asking me? That is why I made a point of distinction over *pyschic* abilities are *not* to be confused with airs of any level of *spiritual advancement*. Your behavior has proven this caveat once again. I've apologized for allowing your initial bad manners for getting my Irish up and my giving in to my passions of the moment. On the other hand it's appaent to anyone reading our little dialogue that you believe any apology on your part even sugesting that you've got it all wrong is proposterous and quite out of the question My one and only email address : taliesn@mac.com Have a Happy Solstice and good luck contributing to the balancing the world's karma. ;-) |
|
05 Sep 02 - 09:36 AM (#777434) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos You kids better play nice or I'm putting you in separate rooms, so help me!! :>) Taliesn, relax. You're obviously intelligent and articulate and we can always use more of that around here. I don't care, FWIW, whether you've posted to pagan groups, architectural groups, or groups for coprovores! Little collisions happen all the time in this medium, as I am sure you know. No need to get all stirred up. It's not to sweat over, pal. I assure you from long acquainance that Peg is puredee Good People, and if you will just stop bristling like a pair of surprised kittens, I reckon you'll get along fine! A |
|
05 Sep 02 - 10:07 AM (#777447) Subject: RE: Much Appreciated Amos From: GUEST,Taliesn (quote) "I assure you from long acquainance that Peg is puredee Good People, and if you will just stop bristling like a pair of surprised kittens, I reckon you'll get along fine!" Point well-taken and appreciated. I can be stubborn and ,at times ,give in to the passion of the debate when holding my ground . Then readily apologize , *especially* when I've been wrong, for feathers ruffled and have even on occasion offered a fistful of the one's that I've lost in the maelstrom to cover the bare patches I've caused. I guess that's why it's a kind of tradition how two Irishmen , fresh from a fight , can then buy one or the other a drink in toasting of providing a *good* fight. It's also understood in America why there are so many marriages between Irish & Italians; it's simple , they *fight* divinely ;-)
|
|
05 Sep 02 - 10:14 AM (#777449) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Rick Fielding On the other hand, Amos is pure trouble! I wouldn't listen to a thing he says! Cheers Rick |
|
05 Sep 02 - 10:16 AM (#777452) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Jeri Taliesn, I am annoyed because you re-title messages to reflect who you're having a conversation with. I can't tell what thread it's in and many of these messages involve personal pissing contests. No offense - there's a tradition of pissing contests around here. I'd just prefer it if you had manners not to shove it in my face in the titles, which I DO read. The "Re: Original Subject" DOES have a purpose, especially to those who read from an index of messages instead of threads. Thank you. |
|
05 Sep 02 - 10:53 AM (#777463) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Thanks a lot, Rick. But, well, at least it's out in the open now!! I can stop wondering whether you're listening! :>) A |
|
05 Sep 02 - 11:07 AM (#777468) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Wolfgang: oops! That was a typo actually. I used to misspell misspelling so often I had to buckle down and get it right. But I frequently have typos on Mudcat posts. My grammar is usually purty good tho. ;) Taliesn: get a life already and stop being so damn self-centered. I see your ego rearing its head in other threads now. You really need to stop inserting motivations and intentions into what I have written here. What is this crap about my "stated need" to "get" your name? As I said before I never accused you of actually being anyone and to people who are used to reading English sentences, the words "maybe" and "who knows?" in such sentences generally imply one is speculating, not accusing or blaming. Then when you went all nuts about it I figured I should play along. You keep accusing me of being defensive, but about what? I have not been accused of anything. I certainly don't care if people disagree with my opinions on psychic ability as long as they do it with some form of logic or reason or forethought. In some cases it is dismissed out of hand with bad grammar as I said already. If I seem to be calling you a jerk without actually doing so, well, fine, glad you picked up on that. Happy Solstice? In December? There's a couple holidays before that.
|
|
05 Sep 02 - 12:19 PM (#777506) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Ah, sweet Peg....sigh. :>) There ya go makin' me a fool!! What's a puir feller tuh do??? :>) A |
|
05 Sep 02 - 12:39 PM (#777523) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Bobert Amos: Thanks fir the song. I'm amazed at your creativity and how you just seem to pull this stuff out while on the run. If it's possible for you to PM me the words, I'll record it and get you a copy. I'm sure there's a way I can print it but not too sure how. Last time I tried to print a post I got the whole danged thread. Everyone Else: Ladies and gentlemen, The 1st judge scores the fight: Peg 113, Taliesn 111; the 2nd judge scores the fight: Taliesn 114, Peg 113 and the 3rd judge has it Taliesn 113, Peg 113. We have a draw! Hey, what's everybody looking at? Move along, fight's over! (Strange thing is that you two are both really intellegent and good people and it's time to just "let it be". It's like a scab at this point. Keep picking at it and it'll never heel. Hey, if it were excluslively about ideas then fine. But it has become a little too personal. I'd suggest taking that part into a quiet room.) Now, as for "psychic phenomena (sp)", hmmmmmm, I haven't figured this one out but both my wife and myself have a knack for knowing what the other is thinking. Happens all the time. We're riding in the car and it's been afew minutes since either of us has spoken as we're consumed with the beauty of the ride and each in seperate thoughts (or one would think) and then one of us enevitably vocalizes that thought and, bang, you guessed it. And the stuff is so many times just so unrelated to what we had been conversing about earlier. And this happens *a lot*! Bobert's 3 cents worth...
|
|
05 Sep 02 - 12:46 PM (#777535) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Peg Amos; you are no fool, I just hate trolls. Sorry to make you resort to being the referee. Thanks for your peace-making. Bobert: judges? Oh my. I hope you at least have popcorn or good beer! Good advice in any case. Have been enjoying your political discussions elsewhere too. |
|
05 Sep 02 - 01:34 PM (#777573) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos You got it, Bobo-me-boy! A |
|
05 Sep 02 - 01:47 PM (#777584) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond "both my wife and myself have a knack for knowing what the other is thinking" There's nothing 'psychic' about that dude... It happens to all married people... Psychics schmychics... put up or shut up I says... Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence... On the other hand, if such a belief is what helps ya get out of bed in the AM, then that's good for you I guess... Just don't expect me to take it even a little serious...
|
|
05 Sep 02 - 02:22 PM (#777606) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing CH, nobody asked you to...you've made no mystery about how you feel since way back when. Why, then, do you feel compelled to keep slinging mud into a thread where some of us would like to have a discussion, free of bullying, whether it meets with your approval or not? I ask once more, is it possible for skeptics to be respectful and allow others to have a discussion about their experiences without the ridicule, etc.? Can Mudcat be tolerant? |
|
05 Sep 02 - 02:46 PM (#777618) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond "is it possible for skeptics to be respectful and allow others to have a discussion about their experiences without the ridicule" No deal! ,-)
|
|
05 Sep 02 - 02:48 PM (#777620) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos CH: You're contradicting yourself pretty fast. "It happens to all married people" means there's nothing psychic about it? Means its evidence, although anecdotal but dismissed because it happens too often to be of interest? Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence? Well, I guess that depends on wyhat you mean by anecdotal. Someone reports an experience, you have to assume they are falsifying it? In any case, if it is not evidence, then what are you left with? Test tubes, labs with Zener cards, and Ingo Swann making thermocouples change temperature which were buried in vacuum bottles ten feet under a concrete floor. Oh, that's only anecdotal because someone didn't like the controls? Get real, amigo -- more things there are under heaven and earth than in your skeptical, matter-delimited view of existence, and I believe you know more about that then you are letting on, to be honest with you. I grant you it is a difficult and uncomfortable subject, riddled with smoke, personal confusaions, and overlays and alterations and god-knows-what-all. But it might be worth the trouble to sort through those things, IMHO. Or at least not jjeer at those who are giving it their best effort. A |
|
05 Sep 02 - 02:51 PM (#777622) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Blah de blah de blah... Quick... some one start a part 2 to this nonsense... ;-) and then call up that Pet Psychic! |
|
05 Sep 02 - 02:59 PM (#777626) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos I just knew you were gonna say that, CH!! :>) A |
|
05 Sep 02 - 03:02 PM (#777631) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond LOL!!! Now! SEE!!!! That's the level of seriousness this thread deserves! Good on ya A! ,-)
|
|
05 Sep 02 - 04:15 PM (#777672) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: katlaughing CH, I am in touch with YOUR cat, but I don't think you'd want me to repeat what she has to say about you.:-) BTW, resisitance is futile - once you've experienced a "knowing" you will never feel the same way about such things ever again. And, you will have such an experience, even though your mind may be too much of a locked up steel trap door to recognise such when it happens. |
|
05 Sep 02 - 04:39 PM (#777689) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Clinton Hammond Which cat? ,-)
|
|
05 Sep 02 - 08:02 PM (#777793) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: Amos Some of you already know there is a Part 2 to this thread!. Isn't that AMAZING??? Seriously though, you know where it is.... A |
|
06 Sep 02 - 02:25 AM (#777945) Subject: RE: Where were the *psychics* on 9/11? From: GUEST Why did you do that Amos? |