Funny T-Shirts

Holy Toast!
The Miracle Bread Stamper

Archangel, your bridge just called. It wants you and your "Uncle" back.

While you may be a nasty little troll, when it comes to lying, you're as big as a giant.

Did you get a number so we can call it back? You have to take better messages than that.

Was it the bridge in Brazil or the one in Russia? Or the one across the River Kwai?

Hello Moderator.

Since we have been identified as posting from the same IP address, are we no longer welcome on your site? I know we have participated in lots of flaming communications with one of the other posters, but we have genuine concerns and questions that we'd like to continue adding to the forum. But, if we're no longer welcome, then we will be happy to quit giving our clicks.

Thank you,
Archangel, UncleBob and the rest of the as-yet-unposted household.

"..the rest of the as-yet-unposted household."

Not that anyone else necessarily wants to post from here. Mom's not to thrilled with our "obsession" Well. Ok. Archangel's seeming obsession. UncleBob could really care less and he's having a beer.

Archangel, we've had problems with people creating multiple personalities to support their position before. Therefore, when I see one IP on two different users I make mention of it, just in case. It's perfectly valid to share a computer, and we have no problem with it if that's what you're doing.

Charybdis,

Thank you. I completely understand the concern about multiple personality creation, and I really appreciate your kind response.

It's not something either one of us would do, and we didn't really even think about it when we posted. Once I realized how it must have looked, it was a really strange position to be in and I had no idea how to fix it. Even if I posted photos of me and my uncle, what would that prove?

We acually have five pc's in the house using the same router connection. Glad my mom didn't post, that probably would have resulted in a total breakdown on the thread...heh..

I'll also try to keep things toned down a bit. I'm hoping the other poster will too.

Thank you again, Charybdis in Hell.

I like your screen name, btw. I'm a fan of ancient mythology - ok, well, I'll admit it, I really connected the name from the tv show "Hercules, the Legendary Journeys" one of my favs..

Thanks!

askonick is a ticked off troll at the moment now. He's not being honest in anyway and he's losing his ability to type 500 word nonsense that makes him smart.

So face it, atrollnick. You don't understand the situation of the test and what happen if you were there. You're just making up bogus to support your fantasy world of "I am right no matter what you say".

Bottom line... Natasha can "see" the actual flow of inside the human body.

Trollfeeder: LOL!

I think this askonick claims that he actually IS one of the csicop researchers who performed the "x-ray eyes" test and appeared on the documentary.

Let's say that I have my doubts...but there are indications that he could be one of the guys who put together that poorly constructed "test" and then littered the process with insulting barbs and innuendo that really have no place in good science, at least when dealing with it's subjects. It's bad enough when researchers and scientists insult their own peers, but to insult the subjects, that's worse than unprofessional.

If this truly is A. Skolnick, csicop, then his lack of professionalism on this very site are very enlightening. I've had a thought that someone might even be impersonating him here in order to make him look bad. But then again, it does match some of the poor behavior seen on the documentary and in the csicop journals on the subject.

Also, I think his analysis of the evidence where my "identity" has been concerned shows certain little gaps in his abilities, as he has been oh-so-off-target in his wild and strongly worded accusations.

Archangel, I see you're talking to yourself again -- or is he another one of your "relatives" who lives with you beneath the troll bridge?

You write: "If this truly is A. Skolnick, csicop, then his lack of professionalism on this very site are very enlightening."

What's the matter, did you forget you were no longer typing as "Tollfeeder?"

Do you think anyone here with at least half a brain is fooled by your posting as an illiterate numbskull to cheer the "brillance" of your own posts? Archangel, most people aren't as stupid as you apparently think. I suspect most can see right though your troll games.

Nope. Wrong again. Trollfeeder is not Archangel, nor is Trollfeeder anyone Archangel knows. Archangel is perfectly capable of talking to himself and cheering himself on in his own posts...lol!

Verify with the Moderator, if you like.

You're just classic troll. Picking on an obvious typo, then claiming I'm posting as an "illiterate". Insulting Trollfeeder in the process. What a champ you are. You obviously know how to speak to the unwashed masses. I learn from the master. Sheesh.

I think the original sentence was actually:

"If this truly is A. Skolnick, csicop, then his lack of professionalism, insulting behavior, wild and outrageous comments, and continual displays of troll-like behaviors on this very site are very enlightening."

It bears repeating, with the inherent correction involved..thanks for the opportunity..heh..

Then you prove my point IMMEDIATELY! It's brilliant!

Trollfeeder is right, though...you are quite the "ticked off troll" I'm truly impressed at your almost exacting ability to exhibit true, classic, Internet Troll behavior.

I like the way everything is a big conspiracy with you. You know what they say about "projecting".

Yep, I've done a little trolling on this site, but my god, man, you take the cake!

Archangel said, "I like the way everything is a big conspiracy with you."

I would hardly call a troll sitting alone in his room, pretending to be multiple posters, a "big conspiracy." I'd call it "sad."

Archangel, you're fooling no one. You're a conspiracy of one.

Yep, it would have to be conspiracy according to your claims. If SuperTroll remembers, he first accused Archangel of being a "paid shill". That implies that someone paid him. Conspiracy.

Everyone who disagrees with askolnik is a Natasha supporter and is "anti-science".

Conspiracy.

Askolnick's accusations follow this weird and paranoid trail:

UncleBob was some Brazilian dude.
UncleBob and Archangel both were some Brazilian dude.
Archangel, UncleBob, and the Brazilian dude were all posting as illiterate "junior highschooler trolls"
Then Archangel and UncleBob were Trollfeeder and god only knows who else. But apparently not the Brazilian dude any longer.
UncleBob and Archangel cannot be separate people, because askolnick has no idea as to how networks function!

Some scientist, eh?

Maybe this entire thread is the result of a wild, insane paranoid delusion on the part of A. Skolnick: insane and paranoid csicop! Weirdo at large. Maybe every single post is from A. Skolnick and his multiple personalities.

Everybody's out to get poor little askolkinck.
I'd call that a borderline paranoid delusion in which everyone is 'conspiring' against askolnick. Yep, askolnick definitely has feelings of inadequacy...er, uh, conspiracy.

Or, askolnick's out to get everyone. That sounds more likely.

I think what everyone sees is that askolnick focuses on ANYTHING except the real issues. Misdirection is the name of the game. Well, along with insults, intimidation, repeating the same thing over and over...basically...trolling.

"Conspiracy of one" eh? I didn't know you were a rock fan!

http://www.offspring.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Offspring.woa/wa/albums?releaseName=Conspiracy+Of+One

Wanna play some more troll?

I was really hoping to get UncleBob to post again, he’s got an excellent theory about some of the latest events on this thread. But he doesn’t see the need to post further. Not because of the IP address incident, but because he feels that he debunked not only the askolnick poster on this thread, but the entire csicop “investigation” into Natasha, and probably won’t post again until those points are addressed, instead of merely being attacked in a diatribe of insults, innuendo and misdirection that do not even come close to addressing the points being made. Here's the essence of UncleBob's comments:

Earlier in this thread, when asklolnick claimed he was going to stop posting and leave the forum to the “character assassin and the junior highschool trolls,” Archangel took that as somewhat of a compliment and thought he drove the Troll right off the site by being the bigger, cleverer smartass – along with some prodding from the funny highschooler trolls..heh...

UncleBob, however, sees a different sequence of events, starting on pages 11 and 12 of this forum thread.

UncleBob believes that the questions and observations he posted, and the belief this engendered in askolnick that these remarks were a reference to the masterful debunking of csicop by Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros, both of which contain questions that askolnick could not answer and totally nailed csicop’s hide to the wall. The points made by both UncleBob and Julio, seriously undermine the entire csicop “x-ray eyes” experiment and the subsequent analysis put forth by csicop. Not being able to answer those questions, askolnick resorted to his usual insults, attacks and misdirection. One of the most masterful misdirections being his “reason” for withdrawing from the forum.

It’s interesting to take a close look at askolnicks assault on Julio Siqueira’s site. Instead of addressing the valid points being made, askolnick merely insults, degrades and attempts to throw the whole thing out as invalid, without all without providing any solid evidence to invalidate the statements made on the site. Or even those made by UncleBob.

The only thing askolnick could provide was more misdirection, insults and troll-like behavior. Likening someone to a “uremic dog” isn’t going to win you any points at a science-fair debate, much less anywhere else.

The above is all very enlightening. It seems to show that csicop and this askolnick-poster know they cannot win on the facts, so they insult, misdirect and just plain don’t fully answer. Shoddy work.

Insulting the public is not going to win them over, askolnick. You’ll have to explain yourself and prove your critics wrong with solid, understandable and non-insulting statements. I don’t think you can make one single statement without making it an attack or a belittling insult.

I’m still amazed at the attack on a Nobel Prize winner. I’m still waiting to hear about the Nobel Prize won by askolnick. To tell the truth, I think that’s actually the comment that drove the troll off the site…how can one even come close to answering that? Insulting a Nobel Prize winner because he believes in something you don’t is like insulting Einstein’s theories because he had funny hair….heh… It really only makes one of them look like a fool. And I think a lot of us agree on who that is… I think these members of csicop act more like the Spanish Inquisition than any scientific organization I’ve ever heard of.

Here’s Julio’s site:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm
Here’s the Nobel Prize Winner’s site:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

So, anyone care to predict askolnick’s response to this? I’m sure there will be absolutely no troll-isms…

Yep. Couple o' typos in the above. Too bad I'm so damned illiterate.

lol!

Part 1

Hi Everybody,

Well, first of all I am not either Uncle Bob or Arch-angel. My name is Julio Siqueira and I have written some stuff on the web about the "investigation" (...???) that CSICOP and their "appendix" (CSMMH... - Skolnick included) have performed on poor Natasha girl in that TV program by the Discovery Channel. Just today I received an email letting me know of this list, and the guy asked me if I think it is really Skolnick that is posting on it. I say, Yes! It very much looks like him, and he knows things (even in his latest postings) that only Skolnick (or almost only him) knows. Anyway, I will be sending my postings to this list with a copy directly to Skolnick's email, just in case he has a "double" (Who knows? With so much paranormality and so many ghosts hanging around). As has been already indicated by some members, my main page about Natasha is at the link below:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm

Professor Brian Josephson has kindly placed a link in his web page to my analysis, and I very much thank him for his public efforts to make parapsychology better respected and less prejudiced against. I think all mankind benefits from it. At the same time, I thank CSICOP and friends (avowed skeptics in general) for the counter-balance they give to the excess of credulity in the paranormal. Mankind also greatly benefits from their work (again, Skolnick included... yes, I do not satanize Skolnick. Just like Disney's Shrek, and onions, he has "layers"). But I am nevertheless highly critical of CSICOP's unscientific procedures (again, Skolnick included), which actually are procedures that end up being counter-productive to what they claim to be their very social goal. I want briefly to "correct" some (but not all) misinformation posted by the one that calls himself "askolnick", and then briefly state my general position regarding Natasha and "the Natasha Affair" (i.e. the Csicop investigation of her).

I had many exchanges of email with Skolnick about their investigation. I did not want at first to investigate this case. Actually, two friends of mine in Brazil, one a believer and the other a skeptic (one still a friend; but the skeptic is now an ex friend, unfortunately) ended up luring me into that, because as a matter of fact I did not agree with either of them. Topmost, I saw signs of serious misconduct from the part of Csicop et al (as I have spotted so very often; please look at my anti-skeptic site for a better account of it, including book reviews where I show that some Csicop members do not read what they cite, including late phylosopher Paul Edwards and physicist Victor Stenger).

Continues in part 2

Part 2

I can say that being a man of so explosive a temper, Skolnick resisted pretty well the questionings and criticism that I advanced to him along the way (I, also having a temper, resisted also well his touchy and stingy way of adressing me...). Basically we broke because I misunderstood something he told me. He said something like Natasha was, during the test, say, seven meters from the subjects when she was sitting, and when she stood up she would get one meter closer. I wrongly understood that she would get one meter close (One Meter CLOSE, and not One Meter CLOSER, that is, I understood it as if she was allowed to stand up and walk as far close as one meter), and thought that he was misreporting the event (as I had seen in the documentary). Instead of cheking this only with him, I sent an email to Natasha's parties and Discovery Channel's people regarding this "discrepancy" of account. I sent a copy of this email to Skolnick at the very same time, keeping him informed of it. He blew! Eight hours after I sent the email to everybody, I read his reply where he laid clear my mistake. Immediatly I sent an email to everybody emphasizing that Skolnick had not said that Natasha got one meter close to the subjects. I also explained the reason for my misundertanding. Bad as my mistake might have been, I did not like Skolnick's reply to it in such a, let put it this way, "informal manner". He said he was "pissed off to say the least". I do not give him the permission to use this kind of language in that kind of situation. English is not only the language of America. It is an international language. I do not care if he uses the expression "pissed off" when he adresses the priests and judges in his home town. This is strong language, and when one uses strong language in delicate situations, the aftermath can be explosive. So I blew as well. My response to him was just as impolite. Since I am not afraid of hard talk, or of hard data, I did not chicken out of the debate. It was him that stopped the email exchanges.

The most important thing in this incident above is that the reason why I did not ask Skolnick beforehand about the discrepency is because I stopped believing in what he was telling me. Technically and factually, he lied to me in many instances. I describe this in detail in my review of their experiment with Natasha.

Continues in part 3

Part 4

So, basically, what is the problem with the experiment that Csicop did with Natasha? Did they do their best, given the conditions? I would say, yes. Is their statistics acceptable, and is their demand of five hits proper? I would say, yes. Is their conclusion that there seems to be serious problems with the alleged "X-ray" vision of Natasha a sound conclusion? I would say, yes. The problem is not these ones. The problem is that they violated their own protocols in very many ways (as I describe in details in my review), and nowhere do they acknowledge this. The problem is that they know that their test cannot yield final proof, and yet Hyman is happy to appear in the documentary saying that Natasha is living an illusion. The problem is that they know that there were conditions that favored Natasha during the test but also conditions that hindered her, and nowhere do they acknowledge this. The problem is that they are (or better, were) dealing with a girl that was quite amenable to being tested, that seemed to be very very honest, a girl that might incorporate the skeptic feedbacks from them, and yet they were indeed very dishonest to her. And since she is not supid, she perceives this; and this may have a bad impact on the way she accepts being tested by skeptics from know on, therefore pushing her to what Wiseman labelled "the soft option" (the non skeptics), which is an action against the cause of the organized skeptic movement. The problem is that they are dealing with someone who is indeed an informal diagnostic therapist, and therefore she may be contributing to people's death with her possible false negatives and false positives. Csicop guys (Wiseman, Hyman, Nickell) seem to have led a happy life, and have never lost a loved one by the hands of the so called "alternative medicine". Those like me who have indeed lost close relatives to these clumsy (or even criminal) hands know how serious this situation is. What is really a shame is that Skolnick, instead of being part of the latter group (as I, naively, had imagined before...) seems to belong actually to the former happy group. What a deception!

So what about Natasha? I myself would not let her diagnose me. I would not trust her diagnose. But I do not say that she does not have power. She may have. It has to be investigated. There is a public health issue here at stake. Her powers, if any, seem to have serious problems (as I have clearly commented in detail in my review). So she has to learn more about them. That is what she seems to be willing for, and what she is doing indeed. She entered medical school. Good for Natasha. She scored a hit. As for the Csicop (and appendixes) losers, again they scored a miss...

continues in part 4

Part 4 - final

Other misreportings by Skolnick will be corrected later. And as he said, yes, I claim to be a biologist, graduation in State University of Rio de Janeiro in 1993 (Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro) with a M.A. in clinical bacteriology in the same university in 2001. I have one article published as first author in the scientific medical journal Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. I claim to be Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros. And only that. A meager curriculum. But an honest and painstakinly acquired one. And I never worked as a biologist, I always stress. Just to warn the readers of the potential rust in my knowledge. I may not be perfect. But I am honest. Especially when dealing with public issues, and topmost when dealing with public health ones...

Best Regards for everybody,

Julio Siqueira

Just to inform that all my messages were posted correctly, in four parts (I commited a mislabeling of one of them, but the content is all correct)

Julio Siqueira