|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Torkova Regular user Astoria, NY 192 Posts 
|
I saw a Larry King Live about a month ago with either Rosemary Altea or Sylvia Browne - I can't remember who. The interesting thing was that since she was the only guest, Larry started taking a lot of calls. She had a very tough time doing readings since Larry would let the caller ask a question and then cut the caller off leaving little or nothing for her to work with. Larry gently pressed her for more than the very vague and general responses but it was rough night for her (and the audience I suspect).
|
|||||||||
|
mystic1 Veteran user 342 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-01-22 16:36, mysticz wrote: Joe, Agree she's guite good at getting attention. But she's waaaaaay off on her "stuff." And, yes, repeatedly I've heard her say disturbing things to questioners...things I wouldn't dream of saying....and I know you wouldn't say either. |
|||||||||
|
PK Regular user 131 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-01-22 13:00, Jim Reynolds wrote: Randi has devoted his life to studying the paranormal. He uses science to do so. There is nothing wrong with psychic entertainment. You pay to be entertained. There is something wrong in accepting payment for pretending to speak to dead relatives. You do not pay to be entertained. You pay to contact a dead person. If you use mentalism techniques to cheat then this is fraud. It is a fraud on emotionally weak and vulnerable victims. Kevin Craner [quote]On 2003-01-22 16:04, mysticz wrote: Quote:
Financial disruption? Explain your definition. Kevin |
|||||||||
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-01-22 18:20, Jim Reynolds wrote: JR, You made this same statement in another thread. Another participant of this forum said he saw the same Larry King show and that your version of what happened is a perfect example of "selective memory" (or words to that effect) and that it never happened as you have described it. Maybe someone taped this show and would be willing to make it available? Is there some way we can get a transcript? If your version bears out, then it might support the need for further investigation; if your recollection is inaccurate, then you probably should stop citing it as some evidence of "psychic phenomena." In another post, you say: "I wouldn't just blindly follow what James Randi has to say either. As an Atheist, he is not all that interested in studying psychic/spiritual phenomena, as he is in challenging it. His career depends on it." I have two problems with your statement: (1) It seems to presume the very conclusion that is disputed: that there are, in fact, psychic/spriritual phenomena. This makes me wonder if you are any more objective than you claim Randi is. (2) You mention Randi's atheism as support of your contention that he is not likely to be objective. I doubt that Randi's atheism per se has anything to do with his objectivity and I wonder why you make reference to it. Are we to dismiss, out of hand, all Christians' research on human life cycles (as an example) because they believe a virgin had a baby and a dead man came back to life? Randi may not be particularly impartial, but the fact that he is an atheist seems to be pretty irrelevant. The best way to determine if what Randi says has value is to read what he has published and see if it meets generally accepted standards of research. I agree with you, though, that we need not "blindly to follow" what anyone has to say. :nose:
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
mysticz Special user D.C. metro area 680 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-01-23 08:50, PK wrote: In reference to my previous statement, financial disruption would be the significant loss of money as the result of nefarious deception (e.g., extorting superstitious individuals thorough a fraudulant curse removal scheme as exemplified in the classic "gypsy fortune-teller" scam). I hope my definition is clear. Joe Z.
Joe Zabel
"Psychic Sorcery" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare's Hamlet I.v. 174-175 |
|||||||||
|
sethbek Regular user New York 161 Posts
|
Where does one learn Cold Reading? Which books?
 
*poof*
|
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Kevin, there are many other other possible conclusions. Here are just three:
(1) Sylvia is sincere, but misguided; (2) Sylvia does, in fact, "see dead people;" (3) Sylvia does not believe it either, but sees no harm in what she does. If we tentatively accept the possibility of conclusion #2, then there is a lurking issue of who bears the burden of proof. I think Sylvia, and others who claim to communicate with dead people, have the burden of proof of their abilities. To date, I've not seen much evidence that they really do what they claim to do. What I have noticed is that the dead people they talk to are apparently rendered incredibly stupid (perhaps by the death process itself?). My gods, they often don't even know their names, or even what letter their names start with; they forget or confuse their gender; seem to be vague about how they died, and sometimes, even appear to wonder if they are dead at all! 
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
Philemon Vanderbeck Inner circle Seattle, WA 4696 Posts
|
I know quite a few 'live' people who have the same problem.
:firedevil:
Professor Philemon Vanderbeck
That Creepy Magician "I use my sixth sense to create the illusion of possessing the other five." |
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote: Joe, I think the disdain is not because she may instill a sense of mystery. I think the passion springs from the possibility that she (and others) may be fomenting superstition, exploiting people's weakened emotional states for profit, and potentially doing harm. No magician I know of, for example, is antagonistic toward Max Maven, Larry Becker, Banachek, and other mentalists who "instill mystery" without running the risks I mention above.
On 2003-01-22 15:09, mysticz wrote: Quote: Well, as you say, apparently, a lot of magicians care... The question is, of course, should we care?
Who cares that she portrays herself as a "real psychic" and people are willing to believe that? Quote: Well, that's the point, isn't it? If she is peddling falsehood and knows it, and if the "buyers" think they are getting "the real deal," then she is, in fact, robbing people. (And, I use the word "robbing" in a very loose way here.) The question is unanswered. She may, in fact, be robbing people. That's what the antagonism you sense is all about, I think.
She isn't robbing people -- they willingly listen to her, buy her books and tapes, and apparently are greatly entertained by her appearances on Montel, et al. Quote: Yes, I suppose many people would like to make as much money as some "psychics" and "mediums" make. But, the fact that she may make a lot of money doing what she does doesn't really address the issue, does it? I don't think the antagonism you mention is because she is making more money than most of us. Do you.... really? And, do you really think the fact that she may make a lot of money doing it somehow validates what she does? We both could list many awful things people have done that have made them lots of money.
As a professional psychic entertainer, I say good for her. And for the naysayers (most of whom I assume are not paid workers in the mystery craft), you should wish that you could be even one tenth as successful in your bookings as Ms. Brown.
Quote:
On 2003-01-23 11:52, Philemon Vanderbeck wrote: Thank you. I needed that! 
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
Jim Reynolds Elite user Special Guest 431 Posts
|
Quote:
JR, You made this same statement in another thread. Another participant of this forum said he saw the same Larry King show and that your version of what happened is a perfect example of "selective memory" (or words to that effect) and that it never happened as you have described it. Maybe someone taped this show and would be willing to make it available? Is there some way we can get a transcript? If your version bears out, then it might support the need for further investigation; if your recollection is inaccurate, then you probably should stop citing it as some evidence of "psychic phenomena." Here you go: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/lkl.00.html Randi's explaination is very weak. John- It’s not that I dislike James Randi, I just think he’s not a good ‘debunker’. Yes, I do think his Atheist views play a big part in his thinking. I find his views to be as closed minded as true believers IMO. As I’ve said before in these debates, I am not defending Sylvia Browne, or others like her. I just think it’s funny how after learning some cold reading techniques, many magicians suddenly find themselves “experts” on psychic entertainment and psychic phenomena. They become, as myticz said on another thread, “Missionary Magicians” who feel the need to save these poor, “emotionally weak victims”. Ask these magicians to explain their thinking and most will just point James Randi’s website, or an article from Skeptic magazine, rather than personal experience. I realize this is a magician’s forum and not really the place to discuss the legitimacy of psychic phenomena. I am no expert either, but my personal experience (not something I read somewhere) tells me that there are some gray areas between the extreme positions of true believers and the Randiites. I think we agree more than you think John. Now back to the peppers!!!!!! 
|
|||||||||
|
mysticz Special user D.C. metro area 680 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2003-01-23 12:07, jdclarkson wrote: This so called "passion" springs from a decidedly arrogant position many magicians take (i.e., that because they may understand the basics of conjuring, this enables them to make definitive judgements concerning matters of a spiritual or supernatural nature). Just being a "magician" does not present an individual with a better perspective than someone else to decide on matters concerning superstition vs. spirituality or the validity of nontraditional belief systems. It seems that Houdini's interest in debunking spiritualist mediums in the latter part of his career has given magicians the idea that this should be their private crusade. Unfortunately, I believe many crusading magicians are probably both ignorant and narrow-minded in their approach to psychic investigation. Quote:
The question is, of course, should we care? Of course, that is any magician's personal decision. Personally, I would not be so quick to judge that which is not so easily understood. There are always two sides to every controversy. Quote:
I don't think the antagonism you mention is because she is making more money than most of us. Do you.... really? Actually, more likely it is due to the fact that Ms. Browne is very successful as an unabashed psychic personality, and this galls many conjuring enthusiasts. Quote:
And, do you really think the fact that she may make a lot of money doing it somehow validates what she does? No, I find that her success merely reflects her ability to tap into the public's interest in the occult and psychic matters. And I don't think Sylvia Browne is hurting anyone with the exception of those magicians who can't stand to see a psychic in the limelight. Joe Z.
Joe Zabel
"Psychic Sorcery" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare's Hamlet I.v. 174-175 |
|||||||||
|
roguemagic New user bizarre iowa 96 Posts
|
I'm wondering...Do Psychics have boards such as the Magic Café where they discuss ethics and techniques? Or would that open them up for an opportunity to prove that what they purport, is not real? Where do they learn their "powers?"
If their powers are indeed real, would they even need to learn them? Take care, Craig |
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote: JR, Thank you!!! At least we have some data to look at. Thank you for providing it. The reader did not, however, out of the blue, mention two rosebushes for the caller to verify. The caller first mentioned a rosebush. The reader then fed back the information and doubled it. The caller then "verified" that there were, in fact, two bushes. Of course, we cannot know what the reader would have said if the caller had simply responded, "No, I'm pretty sure there was only ONE rosebush. I paid for the darned thing and was present when he planted it." This particular exchange between reader and sitter is not very convincing to me, since the original information was offered by the caller, not by the reader, and the reader could have many "outs." After reading the transcript quickly, it also seemed that all the rest of the information about the rosebushes was also supplied by the caller. Did I miss something?
On 2003-01-23 13:21, Jim Reynolds wrote: Quote: I am not particularly enamored of Randi's style either, JR. In fact, in the very transcript that you supplied, he threw a bit of a tantrum, it seemed to me. I am unclear about your position about Randi's atheism. Do you believe that atheism somehow prevents someone from being objective about these issues? If this is so, then please address my previous comment about Christians' research on life span development, for example. I think that one could be an atheist and still consider whether human consciousness survives death of the body. Although most atheists probably would not subscribe to that theory (perhaps for reasons other than atheism...), there is nothing necessarily inconsistent with it and a lack of belief in a supreme being. Or, is your position more that Randi is blinded by his atheism in the same way that some fundamentalists and spiritualists are blinded by their religion?
John- Quote: That may be true, JR. I certainly don't think Randi's web site is the definitive source of information. However, I'll trust a well-designed and properly conducted experiment before I will trust "personal experience." That is precisely why the scientific method was designed: to minimize the danger of inaccuracy of conclusions based on "personal experience" rather than demonstrable evidence. After all, "flat earth" theory and the Ptolemaic earth-centered model of the universe were based on personal experience. As magicians we rely on how easily "personal experience" misleads us. Our art depends upon it!
...Ask these magicians to explain their thinking and most will just point James Randi’s website, or an article from Skeptic magazine, rather than personal experience. Some of my "personal experiences" have also led me to ask these same questions. We may differ, however, on how much weight one should give to subjective experience versus replicable experimental data in formulating the answers to the questions. Quote: JR, actually, I never doubted that we have a lot to agree about. If my previous post seemed to indicate the contrary, it is probably because I have a fairly sterile style that comes across more adversarial in print than it does in person.
I think we agree more than you think John.
Quote: Gosh, Joe, I've not heard any magicians say that they can judge Sylvia, or others, because they can conjure or because Houdini didn't like mediums. I have heard both magicians and non-magicians say that they are unwilling to believe in Sylvia Browne, or others, without some modicum of acceptable evidence of their paranormal/praeternatural abilities. That doesn't sound particularly arrogant to me; I guess reasonable minds can differ on that point.
On 2003-01-23 14:24, mysticz wrote: Quote: Hmmm, maybe. Or, then, to avoid the appearance of arrogance, perhaps we should also allow that they are not ignorant and narrow-minded.
...Unfortunately, I believe many crusading magicians are probably both ignorant and narrow-minded in their approach to psychic investigation. Quote: Maybe even more than two sides! That's why reasonable people ask for supporting data: to make better decisions about which position makes the most sense.
Personally, I would not be so quick to judge that which is not so easily understood. There are always two sides to every controversy. Quote: I suppose you can ascribe bad faith motives to many conjuring enthusiasts if you want, Joe, but, I am unconvinced by that non-argument. I would be interested in reading the supporting evidence of your claims, though.
Quote: This is really more of an ad hominem attack, don't you think, than a reasoned response? I haven't heard a single magician say that (s)he has been hurt, or even galled, by Sylvia's occupying the limelight. I have heard some concern, by magicians, therapists, and even other mentalists, that some of what Sylvia Browne, and others, do, may do harm to the sitter. It is clear you don't believe that, but there are people (including non-arrogant mentalists) who do. Have you checked out Richard Busch's article (about John Edward) on Banacheck's site?
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
brownbomber Regular user Edinburgh 156 Posts
|
Could you provide the URL for the Busch article about John Edward you mention, John, I'd be very interested to read that?
Shouldn't we be just watching and learning from these so-called 'psychics' rather than arguing about their morality? I don't need James Randi to know that they're frauds, but I'm certainly interested in their techniques and their skills in convincing large numbers of people of their powers. My own cold reading skills have improved exponentially since I started regularly viewing these programmes. Since they have to use different stratagems for each programme that goes out on air, you can acquire a vast amount of notes and ideas and avenues to explore. I should note that I don't at any stage pretend to be 'psychic', or be able to talk to the dead. BB 
|
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
http://www.banachek.org/Fakes%20and%20Frauds.htm
If that doesn't work, go to http://www.banacheck.org When you get to the main page, click on "Fakes and Frauds" button on the left margin. Go to the Article "Talking to the Dead, Part Two." Quote:
Shouldn't we be just watching and learning from these so-called 'psychics' rather than arguing about their morality? I don't need James Randi to know that they're frauds, but I'm certainly interested in their techniques and their skills in convincing large numbers of people of their powers. Yep, as I said in my first post about Sylvia, I learned a lot about "presentation" by watching her. I do, however, think that it is important to discuss ethics while learning about technique. But, let me say clearly: I have not said that Sylvia Browne, or John Edward, or anyone else who claims to talk to the dead, is a fraud. I have said that there is great potential for abuse and that the burden of proof rests with the mediums. I have also said that, in the absence of acceptable evidence, there is no reason to believe their claims. Quote:
My own cold reading skills have improved exponentially... Yes, I believe it is entirely possible to give readings without making claims of psychic, paranormal, or praeternatural abilities, and without claiming to see or hear dead people. I'd be interested in hearing how you "frame" your readings, how you describe to your spectator/client/sitter what you are doing.
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
mysticz Special user D.C. metro area 680 Posts
|
[quote]On 2003-01-23 20:13, jdclarkson wrote:
Quote:
Gosh, Joe, I've not heard any magicians say that they can judge Sylvia, or others, because they can conjure or because Houdini didn't like mediums. I have heard both magicians and non-magicians say that they are unwilling to believe in Sylvia Browne, or others, without some modicum of acceptable proof of their paranormal/praeternatural abilities. And I have heard some of these individuals call Ms. Browne (and others) fakes and worse based on little more than their "learned" judgement that these psychics use cold reading techniques and are not legitimate. Where is their proof? Should one judge the validity of a psychic (or the gullibility of the believing public) on the one-sided viewpoint of a Randi or Magic Café magic enthusiast. Quote:
...Unfortunately, I believe many crusading magicians are probably both ignorant and narrow-minded in their approach to psychic investigation... No, I stand by my original statement. And I believe it is not an arrogant one in that I do not feel I have all the answers any more than the crusading magicians do (Note: I previously stated "many of the crusading magicians," not all.) I am merely advocating an open-minded viewpoint concerning psychic phenomena, and I fear many magi on this forum are far from open-minded. BTW, I have developed this cynical viewpoint as the result of my own experience over the past year or so reading various postings on the Magic Café. Quote:
It is clear you don't believe that, but there are people (including non-arrogant mentalists) who do. Have you checked out Richard Busch's article (about John Edward) on Banacheck's site? I am aware that many of my colleagues have differing opinions from my own and that is their privilege. And, I might add, stating your assumption that I am one of the "arrogant mentalists" is certainly your privilege as well. And it is my right to disagree with that assumption. Joe Z.
Joe Zabel
"Psychic Sorcery" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. -- Shakespeare's Hamlet I.v. 174-175 |
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote: If you think you hear voices of dead people, or think that Sylvia Browne and others do, the proof of that positive proposition rests squarely with you. It is not up to the rest of the world to prove a negative.
On 2003-01-24 13:28, mysticz wrote: Quote: Your attitude is a little puzzling. If other mentalists claim Edward (for example) is a fraud and potentially harmful, it is simply their privilege to have a differing opinion; but, may the gods help any poor magician who holds a similar viewpoint!
I am aware that many of my colleagues have differing opinions from my own and that is their privilege. Quote: Joe, of course you may disagree with whatever you wish, even if your disagreement has no basis in reality. I never said, nor especially believed, that you are one of "those arrogant mentalists" (whatever that means). What I meant by my parenthetical remark was that even mentalists whom you could not dismiss as arrogant (as you have dismissed some "crusading magicians") disagree with you.
And, I might add, stating your assumption that I am one of the "arrogant mentalists" is certainly your privilege as well. Given your inclination to read the very worst into what I write, your admitted cynicism, and the tenor of your posts, I think it would be best to end our dialogue. Good luck, Joe.
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
David Numen Inner circle 2076 Posts
|
"If you think you hear voices of dead people, or think that Sylvia Browne and others do, the proof of that positive proposition rests squarely with you. It is not up to the rest of the world to prove a negative"
JD, given the undoubtedly high income Sylvia and the likes of John Edward and James Van Praagh earn I'm quite sure they feel no need to prove anything to anyone. As for the rest of the world proving a neagative I don't think anyone seriously suggested that. However, for some reason some magicians feel it is their duty to prove the negative. Usually it's just weak attempts at riding on the back of someone else's fame. Of course, they are flogging a dead horse as the majority of the public aren't interested as the ever-increasing popularity of people like Sylvia proves. Regards, David. |
|||||||||
|
John Clarkson Special user Santa Barbara, CA 749 Posts
|
Quote: True enough, Dave. They make amazing amounts of money. If they were held to some reasonable standard of proof or to the same standards of liability for malpractice as, say, mental health workers, I wonder if they'd still make so much money. I think it is ironic that we require more verification and cold, hard data to back up claims in hamburger commercials than we do from people who charge money to talk to your dead friends and relatives.
On 2003-01-24 15:03, bartlewizard wrote: Quote: Oh, I don't know, if someone complains that some magicians dispute the validity of Browne's abilities (the negative proposition) and then asks, "Where is their proof?" I think he is shifting the burden of proof; he is asking for proof of the negative. That seems backwards, don't you think?
... I'm not particularly interested in disproving anything, either, Dave. I do think, though, that when we intervene in people's lives in a significant way, we should be able to offer good evidence of the efficacy of our (proposed) intervention. I have, by the way, made the same comment to psychologists and physicians who use "alternative" therapies, or who rush off to try a new technique before the data are collected. My concern with this is not limited to "psychic phenomena." Cheers.
John D. Clarkson, S.O.B. (Sacred Omphaloskeptic Brotherhood)
Cozener "There is nothing more important to a magician than keeping secrets. Probably because so many of them are Gay." —Peggy, from King of the Hill (Sleight of Hank) |
|||||||||
|
sethbek Regular user New York 161 Posts
|
If Browne IS real, why not use her "powers" to contact famous dead people and ask them questions:
Hitler: Why? Jimmy Hoffa: Where are you? Amlia Einhart: Where did you land? etc, etc, etc... Why is Browne not using her powers for something perhaps more productive if they are real? If the powers are REAL, why not work for the FBI or CIA? Find out secrets that are hidden. Use your metal ability to read sealed envelopes. etc, etc, etc...
*poof*
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Sylvia Browne (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Jan 23, 2003 04:45 am 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.13 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|