Funny T-Shirts

Secretly control the TV,
anywhere, any time!

This from a guy who threatened to sue Brazil for libel..

Now he's going to take his ball and go home. Boo hoo. You can dish out insults and high-schoolish remarks, but you can't take 'em.

What a sad sack. Wish UncleBob were here to witness the last assholenick insult. Character assassin indeed. From a guy who wants to perform autopsies on teenagers. Great. I'm calling Southern Methodist Univ. tomorrow to enroll.

I just love it! Didn't clown-troll read his own posts? They're totally outrageous and insulting. Been that way for over a YEAR, with this mamas boy insulting people on the thread. Starting with poor Puck and his math skills.

You will return? What do you think, you're MacArthur?

Now that he's gone, here's a serious question:

CSICOP changed the test after Natasha got to New York. This change was by introducing two elements that she said she could not “see”. The original agreement was a test that would check the abilities she claimed she had. By introducing the elements that did not fit her claim, they changed the rules and very essence of the test. They cheated.

They tried to excuse this by saying “well, she agreed to the changes, so the test is still valid.” This argument is illogical and completely erroneous. She clearly and strongly resisted the change, and then they bullied and cajoled this young girl into agreeing. This is so improper that it screams out at every one who sees it. It’s unprofessional and completely unscientific. That one action completely throws out the entire experiment and all of its conclusions.

It was not the subject’s responsibility to create a test that adequately tested her abilities, it was the researchers. You failed to do this and then you have the unmitigated gall to blame it on the teenage girl. “Well, she agreed to, didn’t she?” Sounds like the excuse of a 12 year old and not a professional. Which is more or less how he acted on this thread. If she had identified all seven correctly, he would have said "well this proves nothing" and taken his ball and gone home. Or tried to insult the girl by saying that she cheated. They did that anyway.

They're just a bunch of creeps that play with science and wreck lives.

I've put forth this "change of test" comment before, but instead of truly addressing it, assholnick merely attacked me for being a "parrot". When in reality, this was my own thought from my first viewing of the documentary - only two days ago. I never saw it before last Sunday. All of a sudden I'm a "paid shill" parrot. Skolnick (if that was even him) seems to think that no one can have a thought that matches someone else’s without some kind of subterfuge. He's just an insulting troll. He mixes a few truths in with the insults and misleading comments, but overall - in my opinion, he's a fraud.

So, um, does anyone think I went too far by calling him "Supertroll"? I do feel a little bad about that one.

lolzer said:

"just because you things has to be "scientific" and it needs to be proven biologically means its true. people these day."

What did you intend to say there? That paragraph makes no sense.

"it's possible she could see through living tissues or see aura."

PROVE IT!

"we could find her ability really helpful. if she is doing the "cold reading" she is really skillful."

Yes, it would be helpful IF someone could see through solid objects. Unfortunately, no one can. As for the "cold reading" thing, many people are skilled at it. Actually, you don't have to be all that good at it if you have an audience that accepts you at face value.

"americans... anything is possible, but it doesnt mean it's impossible if you dont have the ability to do that. what she did up there was really amazing and you guys still trying to insult her claims."

The burden of proof is on the person making an extraordinary claim. Those of you who support this girl want to turn that around, but it isn't going to happen. If she can do what she claims to be able to do under controlled conditions, there is a million dollars just waiting for her.

"she even flown to london and japan. they were all impressed by her ability."

So what? David Blaine has travelled to London where many people were impressed with him. He's still just a magician.

"i don't see why nick has to prove anything. its almost like if nick doesn't understand women."

What ARE you taling about here?

askolnick's lover said:

"What ARE you taling about here?"

What are you talking about?
I'm making typos and talking random crap

"So what? David Blaine has travelled to London where many people were impressed with him. He's still just a magician."

Is David Blaine = Natasha Demkina? I never specifically said who were impressed and why they were impressed. Stop making assumption.


The post I made earlier was a bunch of random crap to get you guys goign with the argue, but I'm trying to say "where is the love"? LOVE!! love <3<3<3<3 LOvEvEevLover~ Stop hating. Just because you sit at home and eat American food (burgers fries and fatty stuff) doesn't makes you any better than her. LOVEERERE

Also... where is your proof of her claims are fake? Were all humans!!! Lovereoveelore

Cranky Media Guy, save your finger tips. The troll now has his children spamming this thread. It's not worth encouraging them. They'll eventually find another web site to troll if they're not fed.

Charybdis, my conclusion is that they are the same person, and that "they" may be named Julio Siqueira. Siqueira claims to be a "microbiologist," although he admitted in an email that he never worked as a biologist. A year ago, Siqueria trolled for answers to questions about our test. He then distorted and rewrote our "quotes" and disseminated them in a crude attempt to discredit us. He eventually posted a collection of libelous statements on his web site, which he calls a scientific "study." He even had audacity to claim that I had reviewed a final draft 10 days before he published his "study" and that he had included my "feedback" in the final "publication." None of this is true. Long before that, I completely stopped all communications with him upon discovering that he was reworking our quotes and disseminating them in an attempt to discredit us. Julio Siqueira is to truth as a uremic dog is to a fire hydrant. You can read his libelous document here and see for yourself why I think he and "Archangel" are one and the same:

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm

alskolnick says: "my conclusion is that they are the same person, and that "they" may be named Julio Siqueira"

Good. This further proves to me that alskolnick jumps to the wrong conclusions from the facts given.

Yes, indeed, UncleBob is posting from the same IP because he is Archangel's uncle - thus..Uncle Bob! Wow! Now guess Archangel's age and gender.

And, neither UncleBob nor Archangel are Julio. We watched the show for the first time a few days ago. UncleBob turned to Archangel and said, you know, if she's got x-ray eyes, maybe these smartasses should have brought a Gieger counter. Just because Julio had the same thought, and hit a lot of the same points doesn't mean we're him.

Does that look like a brazilian IP address to you?

Numbskull Troll. Askolnick, you are the master at reworking quotes. You do it all the time. Twisting things people say.

My hostility towards askolnick began when I first got on the board, shortly after I first saw the documentary “the girl with the x-ray eyes” I had never heard of CSICOP or Natasha before, I thought it was a b-movie from the 1950’s.

Part of the hostility may be my own fault. I was fairly aggressive with my questions and statements and I think my very first stentence may have been misinterpreted.

I said:

“askolnick says:"Once again, we did not set up a test to prove Natasha is a "fake" or to "get her."

Would you admit it if you did? I think not. I do think your test was at the very least inadequate.”

Now what I meant by that was, in my view, the constant repetition of a statement to the effect that there was no intention on the part of csicop to “get” Natasha wasn’t helping, because there would never be an admission even if it were true. So, to me, it was pointless for askolnick to keep repeating it over and over again. I should have made that clearer, because it could be construed as an attack instead of a comment on the futility of repeating the same statement again and again.

The rest off my initial post was fairly innocuous, putting forth my opinion on what I had just seen in the Documentary and asking questions about it. I was fairly aggressive with my comments, that I admit and part of the reason for that was because I read through some of the earlier posts by askolnick and was very surprised to find the almost vicious attacks on the character and intelligence of various posters. Askolnick’s posts were laced with insults, demeaning comments, misleading and parroted phrases. It really amplified the overall impression I had from watching the documentary that the “scientists” involved were just a bunch of arrogant witch-hunters that set out to prove this little Russian girl fake by ridiculing her and setting up a test with conditions that were unbalanced and unfair.

In response to my posts, askolnick launched an out and out assault with all the weapons at his disposal, which didn’t include any type of reason or good communications skills. He launched into character assassination, insulting remarks, vicious innuendo, all the things that he accuses others of.

I would probably take more blame for this, but reading through the historical posts by askolnick on this site, the pattern of his rude and abusive behavior is readily apparent. Perhaps this is because he sits in some type of ivory tower, looking down upon the unwashed masses, or perhaps it’s because he has been attacked from every side because of his team’s poor testing methodology and even poorer behavior. Or maybe he just uses this forum to work out his personal frustrations.

I do know that he has created an activist in me with his abuse. Had his communications been more civil, this might not be the case. I don’t know if Natasha is real or fake, but I do know that I do not respect csicop’s methods on any level.

You know, it would have been very easy for csicop to blunt the criticisms of the general “non-scientific” public while at the same time making the csicops look fair, balanced and human. While they admitted they made mistakes and could have done a better job, they made these admissions all the while smirking at the camera and inferring that the girl was a fake, a charlatan and not very intelligent. The audience caught this little bit of ‘wink wink’ ‘nod nod” and a lot of us didn’t like it. It looked like they lied to her and set up impossible conditions. That’s what it looked like to a lot of folks. But, maybe that’s only due to our limitations. Wink wink, nod nod.

"Archangel" is furious over being outed as a troll with a virulent anti-science agenda.

It's good you can read my mind, askolnick. Perhaps you should be tested yourself for mind-reading skills.

I think anyone can see who the real Troll is askolnick. You. Your responses are so predictably trollish that it's laughable!

Anti-science. Very funny. You left out something. I'm anti-bad-science.

Don't feed the Trollnick! And hey, didn't you say YOU weren't going to feed the Trolls, and make like MacArthur and "return" from your ivory tower to post your "respectable links" from the anals of bad science?

You actually like being part of the flaming message contingent, don't you? I think it's truly a means for you to get your frustrations out.

Furious virulence. Very poetic. Someone should use that as a screen name....heh...

BTW Charybdis, thanks for jumping in to try to keep this place more honest.

Once again, askolnick makes an innuendo. There's been no dishonesty here. Archangel and UncleBob have been very open that they knew each other and have been communicating on this thread. Archangel actually asked UncleBob to look at the troll-like behavior and make a comment.

When you're working from a NAT address on a SOHO, that's the way the IP ball bounces.

Good job on getting this thread off track and away from the solid points that have been made against askolnick and his bad science.

Archangel, you're a dishonest troll who has been posting under multiple names. You've been outed by the moderator. It's time to crawl back under your bridge and take your alter egos with you.

Oh! This is even BETTER! Archangel recalls the earlier post from askolnick actually SUGGESTS that a poster come back on the thread with a new screen name:

"Puck, your opinion of whether the passing score, which was agreed to by Natasha and her represenetatives, was too high is no more credible than your previous false statements about the statistics. You best return here under a new screen name because this one has been pretty much discredited. --ASkolnick"

This is on page 2 of the thread, December 10, 2004.

What was askolnick trying to do? (besides insulting the poster and belittling him/her) Encourage dishonesty? Set a TRAP for the poster? "Ah-hah! You're using the same IP adddress...gotcha! Fell into my diabolical trap! Got you like I got x-ray girl. Am I not so very clever?" Whoo-hoo!

This is like dealing with a child. alskolnick cannot be an adult. He sure brings out the child in me! Hey, wait...I may actually be a child. But not from Brazil....heh...

What a Troll!

Sigh. Somewhere, a lowly bridge is missing its ugly little troll.

Normally, I would just yes, you've got a point. Since both my uncle and I used the same network, it sure looks like one person has posted under different names. I'm the one who acutally got my Uncle into that position, when I could have done better to ensure that there was no confusion.

This is exactly what csicop should have done, created a test that ensured that there was no confusion about their results or motives.

It's a perfect example of that, however intentional it may have been.

It's also an example of how askolnick uses the worst possible scenario to evaluate a situation, and doesn't care to examine more balanced views. I'll bet if two of his supporters were posting from the same NAT, he'd be counting them as two different individuals.

I definitely admit to Troll behavior. But it's just reflexive biting at the Supertroll - aaskolnik.

"Sigh. Somewhere, a lowly bridge is missing its ugly little troll."

This is a great game. I'm rubber, you're glue, it bounces off me and sticks to you.

You know, I only have time for this because I just got out a month-long stay in the hospital and I'm recovering. What is the excuse for a "reputable" researcher like aaskolnick? It's just unbelievable. Interesting, but weird.