About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoaxipedia (the museum's online encyclopedia of hoaxes), the Hoax Forum, and the Top 100 April Fools' Day Hoaxes.

The museum was created in 1997 by Alex Boese. He's assisted by a staff of deputy curators and docents. Alex is the author of three books, most recently Elephants on Acid: And Other Bizarre Experiments (which has nothing to do with hoaxes). Check out the list of the Top 20 Most Bizarre Experiments of All Time for a preview.

Web Hoax Museum

Part 1

Hi Skolnick,

Good to hear from you, and to see that you are in... good shape.

Since you still have these soul-wounds from our email exchanges, I will try to tackle some of the relationship issues that you pesented. Maybe at the end we will all eat that pork of yours after all (the one you were dining last November).

Below are your comments, and I will begin my reply with $$$

On Nov. 7, 2004, a Brazilian named Julio Siqueira contacted us by email and claimed to be a scientist sincerely interested in learning more about the CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina's claims. I regret that I took him at his word and failed to investigate his background.

$$$ You did not need to investigate “my background”. I myself stressed to you then that I had an anti-skeptic site, that I had friends and foes on both fronts (the skeptic front and the anti-skeptic front), and I indicated to you texts of mine in English where you could see for yourself some of the things that I wrote against the skeptics, including Csicop ones, like late phylosopher Paul Edwards. Isn’t it true, Skolnick? Topmost, I warned that my intention was to post my “findings” in Brazilian skeptic forums and psi forums as well.

I spent a great deal of time patiently answering his questions

$$$ I already acknowleged this in this forum.

and trying to correct his many misconceptions and false presumptions.

$$$ That was the reason for my contacting you. I suspected that some of the things against Csicop (and appendixes; you included...) might be exagerations from the critics. Some turned out to be really wrong accusations. In my texts about the issue I even point out some (especially in my text “Embarrasing Answers”). But the amount of misconduct from Csicop (and appendixes; you included) far surpassed anything I could have imagined.

I didn't realize that at least some of those errors were deliberate attempts to troll for material that he could misrepresent in a campaign to discredit us. It took me two more weeks to see through his game.

$$$ Come on, Skolnick, you were quite cooperative. And I was very loyal to you (you know it). As I said, it all started with a discussion between three Brazilian friends through email: one a “non-skeptic” that was presenting the Natasha issue, the other a “skeptic” (and active member of the skeptic movement) who was to a certain extent supporting Csicop (or better, was pointing out that there might be serious misrepresentations of Csicop’s conduct by its critics), and the third, unwilling to get into the debate, me... When I started exchanging emails with you, I was keeping both of my friends informed about the information that you sent me. But soon after it, I only kept informed the skeptic one.

Part 2
$$$ I stopped sending any feedback to anyone that might have any kind of “non skeptic action” (I had contacted Professor Brian Josephson and Victor Zammit about the same time that I contacted the CSMMH for the first time; email exchanges with them were also interrupted then). I even kept away from my “skeptic” friend some of the content that you passed to me, because some of the things from you seemed too personal to be conveyed to third parties of any sort (contents that dealt with your deep felt emotions regarding some of the attacks that you received). My first report to you, criticizing your experiment, was sent only to you (to the three of you: Skolnick, Hyman, and Wiseman; I also sent it to my skeptic ex-friend). That text of mine already was very condenatory of Csicop’s (and yours) conduct in the affair. In that, I already spotted many many problems. It was based solely on the information that I gathered in my email exchanges with you, plus what you yourself wrote at your CSMMH site, and also on the test protocols, also available at your site (despite your having misunderstood, God knows why..., that I had seen the Discovery Channel documentary on Natasha, which I had not). Nevertheless, you reacted very well. You only became “angry” (and very closed, very non cooperative) when you were told, by my ex friend, that I had not seen the documentary. As I pointed to you, your anger was exagerated, since I never said I had seen the documentary, and since I was presenting my criticism first only to “loyal skeptics”, and since I was basing my critique on official material available (the protocols plus your report by email). Anyway, I accepted your demand that I must first see the documentary; and I only published my critique after I saw it (five times...). But when I saw the documentary, I was amazed to realize how much of what you said was untrue. And my suspicion was always that the true reason for your “getting angry” at this first time (the second time you got angry was when I misunderstood you “one foot closer”) was because my ex-friend told you (in an email to the three of you, including Hyman and Wiseman) that I had, in the past, said very strong words against James Randi and others. Words, as my friend put it, almost as bad as the ones from Victor Zammit where he compared you to the KKK members. As I stressed, this was an outrageous exageration. I did indeed use strong words, but nothing close to KKK adjectives. I acknowlegded the words that I actually used.

Siqueira claims to be a scientist who is dedicated to exposing the "lies" of leading critics of paranormal claims. However, Siqueira is no scientist.

$$$ Maybe I am no scientist according to your definition. What is important is that people should know exactly what I am. This, I make available. This I made available to you.

Part 3
He self-publishes his "investigations" and "analyses" on a Yahoo web site (which Yahoo provides free to anyone, whether king or kook). Siqueira begins everything he "publishes" on line with a falsehood: He variously claims to be a "biologist," a "microbiologist," and even a "clinical bacteriologist," or "clinical microbiologist." However, he never worked as a biologist of any kind. He earned a non-doctoral degree in microbiology and admits he never held any kind of job as a biologist.

$$$ To be a biologist, one needs not be registered at the institution that gives permission for those who work as such. You can be a biologist due to your learning (academic), and due to the official diplomas that you get at institutions recognized by the government. (You, Skolnick, likes to be above truth; but be careful when trying to be above the law...). I have a degree in biology, and I have an MA in clinical bacteriology. What am I then, Mr. Know All? What I think is really important is that, when people talk to me, they know that I have specialized information in clinical bacteriology, and also in biology in general. (Just by the way: usually I do not “begin” what I write by saying that I am a microbiologist; I usually “end it” by saying so  ).

On Nov. 17, 2004, I began to suspect that Siqueira thinks words can mean anything he wants them to mean when he told me: "Hi Andrew, I said I would have no more questions. But I hope you understand that no more actually means 'lots more.'" Although English is not his native tongue, Siqueira is quite good using word games to create "evidence" to support his "conclusions" that outspoken skeptics are "liars," "scoundrels," "crooks," and worse.

$$$ The meaning of words cover ranges (they are similar to onions, Shreks, and Skolnicks, which have layers...). If Skolnick were just slightly sofisticated in linguistics, he would know it. So, I ask the readers to excuse this misapprehention from him.

Part 4
For example, when he inquired how far Natasha Demkina was from the test subjects, I explained, "I had deliberately placed the subjects' chairs in a semicircle around the chair Ms. Demkina would sit in. That was about two meters from each subject. Of course, when she would stand to study the subjects, she came a foot or so closer."

To my astonishment and anger, Siqueira altered my answer and sent the false information to Ms. Demkina's defenders. He deleted any mention about her chair being about two meters from the subjects and, by deceptively selecting words to quote, he claimed that I had said Ms. Demkina "was allowed to come close to the subjects" and "sometimes came a 'foot or so' close to them."
Posted by aaskolnick on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 09:59 AM

$$$ I already acknowledged and reported this event. It was indeed a bad misundertanding from me.

Of course that is false. By rewriting and distributing my statement to our most vocal detractors, Siqueira was helping to generate more false accusations that I am lying about how the test was conducted.

$$$ As I said, I no longer believed Skolnick then. Anyway, I sent to him a copy of the message at the very same time, and because of it he was able to correct me promptly, and I was able to correct my mistake so fast that simply no one used that against him. Just fair.

Another example is Siqueria's blatant rewriting of a statement made by Prof. Richard Wiseman. If you listen to the Discovery Channel program, you will hear Dr. Wiseman telling the Russian translator:

"So if she scored these two [conditions] wrong it wouldn't matter; if these five were correct [pointing to the remaining test cards], we would still consider that a success."

Which is obviously a truthful statement. To accuse Dr. Wiseman of deception in his "analysis," Siqueira rewrote the quote, trusting that his readers won't bother to check:

Part 5
"'Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones'. Well, to begin with, this is technically untrue, for there would actually be three people from which she could swap wrong diagnosis: resected esophagus, removed appendix, and none condition. She could have said that the "none condition" had resected esophagus, that the "resected esophagus" had missing appendix, and that the "missing appendix" had none condition, thus making three misses due to this poor design, due to this lack of direct talk to the claimant, and due to this violation of protocols. Thus, she was taken in to accept the test by deceiving arguments (deliberate or unconscious) from Wiseman." .

The only deception here is Siqueira's deliberate rewriting of the quote to support a blatantly false accusation.

$$$ I ask all of you in this forum to carefully read the passages above. You will notice that, no, I did not quote exactly what Wiseman said. But yes, I did reproduce exactly the meaning conveyed by him. What Wiseman said (that is, meant) is that “five would do”. And what I reported that he said (the meaning he conveyed) is that “five would do”. Isn’t it clear to you Skolnick? Where is the difficulty? And remember: Wiseman was saying this to convince Natasha to get into the test. He was trying to assure her that even if she could not see the two difficult conditions (the appendix removed and the circular scar in the esophagus), even then she could get five. But this is terribly misleading, for if (supposing her claim of “X-ray like vision” is correct) she could not see any appendix or cicular scar in the target subjects, she would of course not be able to see these things in any other one of them as well, including the healthy guy. So, yes, she could swap wrong guesses between these three people. It is so God Damm simple reasoning. I can’t understand why you, Skolnick, do not get it. Now, I can even believe that Wiseman might not have perceived this very dangerous flaw in his reasoning at the moment he was talking to Natasha. But I do not believe that he did not perceive it soon, for he is very used to performing this kind of tests. It is very likely, I think, that he would soon perceive the danger in his reasoning. But what I do not understand, and do not accept, is the fact that you (you, Skolnick, and the rest of you too: Hyman-Wiseman) do not acknowledge this gross mistake now! This is dishonest.

Here's another example of his alteration of quoted material in order to accuse others of dishonesty.

$$$ Again, I ask the readers to carefully watch what Skolnick is about to say...

Part 6
This deliberately altered quote refers to Ms. Demkina's statement in the Discovery Channel program, in which she protested over not being allowed to perform her usual readings during the test. Siqueira claims:

"Also, Skolnick is misreporting (for the thousandth time...) what the translator said. What the translator actually said was: 'If you did it my way, I would probably guess not five but seven of them.'. It was not something that Natasha said after the test, as a post hoc excuse, as Skolnick is trying to deceive his readers into believing."

Once again, Siqueira is the only one practicing deception. Here's what the translator actually says in the program:

"If you did it my way, I would have probably guessed not five but seven of them."

Siqueira deleted the verb "have" in an attempt to transform the sentence from the past tense to the future tense (while clumsily forgetting to transform the past tense "did it my way" into present tense "do it my way").

$$$ But Skolnick, Natasha said this BEFORE the test. She was not talking about the past, but about the FUTURE. I will take a look at this passage of the documantary again (for the sixth time now). If this is a mistake from me, it will be corrected (as I always do; the very opposite of what you do). But let’s suppose you are right. And let’s suppose the translator translated Natasha right (we have to stick to this assumption, of course! And I do. Also, this was a part that was translated by the translator that the Discovery Channel provided, with the supervision of Natasha’s own translator.). So the worst that can be said is that Natasha was mentally imagining the near future and talking as if from this future where she would have had five hits in the test, and only missed those two impeding conditions. But the point is that in your site, in answerstocritics.html, you present it in such a way that it looks as if she was talking about the past. So even if this is actually the precise quoting from the translator, it is important to highlight this timeline. Anyway, I acknowledge that this is a point that I have to take another look, and soon I will comment on it.

Part 7
The next time the program is broadcast, listen carefully to see how shamefully Siqueira employs misquotations in his campaign to deceive, defame, and vilify.

Another of his many deceptions: At the beginning of one "analysis," Siqueira says:

"The content of this text was presented to the three parties involved (i.e. CSICOP/CSMMH [Andrew Skolnick]; Discovery Channel program producer/director; and Natasha's agent) ten days before its posting on the internet [on Dec. 2, 2004]. After this, final feedbacks from Andrew Skolnick (CSMMH) were incorporated, and the final version of this text was presented to them all four days before its posting on December 12, 2004."

Email records show that this is also false. I never sent Siqueira "feedback" on his "analysis." I broke off communication with him on or around Nov. 21, after discovering that he was trolling for comments which he could misquote to use in a malicious and dishonest campaign.

$$$ If I said that feedbacks from him came to me, then they indeed came. Most likely through my ex-friend, who kept contact with Skolnick. So, Skolnick, if your “email records” show that you did not send any feedback on that to my ex-friend, I will gladly place a disclaimer in that passage . Anyway, feedbacks were and will always be incorporated by me. What I am interested in is in the Truth. And topmost in Public Health.

Virtually every word Siqueira has written here and in his so-called analysis is a distortion, a misquotation, or an outright falsehood. If requested, I'll post more examples of his dishonesty.

$$$ Oh, yes. You did not say that Natasha can spot molecules from afar... Actually your precise words were slightly different... Let’s talk about that too. And about your claim that she said she can diagnose at the cellular level (even though you have no source to back you up on that)...

What's Siqueira's motivation for this deception?

$$$ I wonder it too. Not money. Not fame. Not glory. A better Public Health situation, maybe. Maybe to pull Skolnick’s leg... Prove him that he is good but not perfect... And also his “Know All” friends, Hyman-Wiseman. Also try to show them that they are actually fighting agaisnt their own alledged cause, just in case they are not dishonest.

Part 8
Siqueira has much anger and contempt for critics of paranormal claims

$$$ Oh, you should ask the English skeptic Keith Augustine or the Brazilian skeptic Ronaldo Cordeiro how angry I am when I adress them now... As a matter of fact, there were some “fights” with the latter. But so much unimaginably constructive exchange of information and viewpoints from then on. Just two days ago I sent to Keith some information that might weaken terribly the idea that “Pam Reynolds had a paranormal NDE experience”. Oh, what a biased man I am... Shame on me.

-- which he tries to hide while pretending to be a dispassionate "researcher."

$$$ I am highly passionate. But I know it, and keep it in check. So, my emotions motivate me. They do not guide me. (as opposite from you...).

While addressing me in his email as "Dear Friend," he expressed what he really felt to others -- as in this email to a fellow Brazilian dated November 24, 2004:

"That Skolnick moron, after I peed on him yesterday, admitted that he 'had realized I hadn't watched the show' ... It's not unreasonable [to ask a critic to watch the documentary] for those who are stupid. What must have happened is that [Skolnick] must have got pressure from that Wiseman bastard ... I have already followed [the suggestions of Hyman's 'Proper Criticism']. You and Skolnick can't read. You maybe because you are stupid. Skolnick almost certainly because he's a scoundrel [por canalhice]".

$$$ You were still dear then. But it does not mean that I would spare the rod on you (I even used then strong words when talking directly to you; I was not hiding my character; if you read this message that I refer to as “peeing on you”, you will see that it was a hard message). There are some problems in the translation above. I wrote it in Portuguese, and my ex-friend translated it to you. I never said Wiseman was a “bastard”, and you know that I protested against my ex-friend saying that I said it (“scoundrel” might have been a more precise translation of what I said of Wiseman). Why do you include such a lie here? Is this the way that you want to present yourself as an honest man? As to the “scoundrel” in referring to you, I do not quite remember, and I could not locate it now. But I believe it is actually precise. (and yes, you were still dear then; I was opening my heart when addressing my ex friend, who was already an ex friend; and this adjective directed towards you reflect how much I felt that you were not fair in the way that you treated me in your first anger episode; as I said: I am passionate). These words were never meant to be public. They were the words of heart ache. But anyway I neve prohibited my ex friend from publicizing them. I think that when one receives an email, one has the right to use it the way he pleases.

In emails and bulletin board postings, Siqueira has shown utter contempt for leading skeptics.

$$$ For some of them. For some of their actions.

Part 9
He calls famed evolutionary zoologist and humanist Dr. Richard Dawkins, "Humanist of the Anus."

$$$ I called him so in a public Brazilian skeptic forum. That was a play upon words. Dawkins, in his speech while receiving the prize “Humanist of the Year” (that actually mean: “Materialist of the Year” ) brutally offended, I think, an anonymous woman astronomer. It is in his article “Is Science a Religion”. He uses the expression “Up Uranus” when referring to her ideas and to her conduct in a debate in Christmas about the birth of Jesus. I think that was very unfair, very anti-woman, and very brute. According to his own report in this article the woman was not doing anything that bad. Year in Portuguese is “Ano”; and Anus in Portuguese is “Anus”. So instead of calling him “Humanista do Ano” (humanist of the year), I labelled him “Humanista do Anus” (humanist of the anus). But it was a long thread, and when I first used this witty coining there had already been many postings before, so it was a funny attack on people who refused to see Dawkins’s excessses.

He says psychologist Dr. Susan Blackmore is "scientifically dishonest."

$$$ I do not say so. I prove it. I carefully contrasted the article from Rick Beger (where he exposes her frauds in her own experiments) with her article (where she tries to rebut his arguments). She frauded indeed. I say this in some of my book reviews, especially the one in the link below:
http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/amazon_reviews.htm#stenger

He dismisses James Randi as a "scoundrel"

$$$ I think it is stupid to really dismiss Randi. I have already posted things about him in this forum. Randi has his value. But he also has very bad vices.

and calls Prof. Richard Wiseman "a big crook"

$$$ Not honest? Yes, he is not honest. Maybe he is in his heart. But not in his actions. It is not honest to have test protocols like the ones you had for testing Natasha and to say, like he said, that “She had the claim, we tested, she failed”. He knows that you violated your own protocols. The test is invalid (though not neglegible; it has important feedbacks that must be looked at carefully).

Part 10
and "bastard."

$$$ Skolnick, listen to this: Never again, never, in your whole life, say that I ever called Wiseman a bastard. Right? You know that I protested vehemently against my ex-friend in the past. That was indeed one of the main reasons why I broke with him. Learn that words have not only their connotative meanings. They have their denotative meanings as well. The word bastard has semantic implications that in no way I would ever direct to Wiseman. Be passionate. But be honest.

It is his job to "pee" on us skeptics

$$$ I “peed on you” (reprimended you) once for a specific reason.

and to expose us as "liars," "scoundrels," "bastards," and "crooks."

$$$ Some of “you” (skeptics), sometimes, act like scoundrels and etc (leave bastard aside...). Some of “us” (“non skeptics”) do so too. And topmost, all of us, I think, have good and evil in us, virtues and vices, vices and virtues. Of course if I use such bad words I may be revealing my own prolems as well. Or not, depending on the situation. But the important thing is to seek the truth. Truth does not lie in name calling. Name calling may come about because of many reasons. But if we are engaged in social endeavours, and science is a social endeavour, especially science when dealing with public health issues, as in this Natasha issue, if we are engaged in social endeavours we cannot act like oyesters, shielding ourselves from the feedbacks of the outside world.

$$$ Basically, Skolnick, you have two options: either you stick to this denying of the so very many defects in your testing of Natasha, and therefore end up acting contrary to your own interests (in case you are really honest...), or you admit your mistakes and try to correct them as best as possible (like I always do). The choice is yours; and yours alone. The road and the world, on the contrary, is ours. Just do not expect passionate fully informed people will spare the rod on you...

Best Regards,
Julio
P.S.: I like barbecue with little spice...
___________________

Julio Cesar Siqueira asks:

"(You, Skolnick, likes to be above truth; but be careful when trying to be above the law...). I have a degree in biology, and I have an MA in clinical bacteriology. What am I then, Mr. Know All?"

You're an elementary school English teacher. And you are a hypocrite, a phony, and a prevaricator. And the latter answer explains it all.

You've never earned a terminal degree in biology or in any other scientific field and you've never worked as a biologist a day in your life. If you had earned a Ph.D. in biology, you might have a credible claim as an authority in biology. But you don't. You're an elementary school teacher and you don't even teach science. You "publish" your "scientific" "anlayses" on your freebie web site and you think that makes you a scientist. No, that makes you a phony.

I broke off communicating with you when I realized the game you were playing. When I discovered you were going to "publish" a "scientific" "analysis" of the CSMMH-CSICOP test of Natasha Demkina WITHOUT bothering to view the documentary, I thought further communication with you would be hopeless. Your bizarre attempt to explain why not viewing the program would lead you to more truthful conclusions only confirmed how hopeless communicating with you further would be.

I communicate now for the sake of readers. They deserve to know the facts behind your dishonest attacks and your disingenuous claim of scientific authority.

I would think the readers are more concerned with having skolnick address the points brought up, rather than reading his attacks on the character of Julio. I have a lot of the same questions that Julio brings up.

I don't believe anyone should debate liars like Archangel and Julio. Debating liars give them the appearance of credibility. But their lies, I believe, should be exposed.

Honest debate requires honest debaters. Trollers like Archangel and Julio, who use deception in their arguments, make their own character the subject of fair debate.

I haven't lied or attempted to deceive. I do think it's illuminating that skolnick never really addresses the questions, observations and points being made by anyone. Skolnick is quick to try and find any excuse to distract, accuse and insult. Skolnick accused me of lying because I presented my opinion. That's ludicrous on the face of it.

Skolnick has accused people of telling falsehoods that merely had bad math. Even when someone makes a mistake and then admits it, skolnick calls them a liar and dismisses them. He will even use a typo as an excuse not to answer a question or address a point.

It's bad Public Relations, Skolnick. Hostility, cynicism, and ridicule on the part of the skeptics don’t present a good public image, even if those skeptics are right. This is a problem that I've heard csicop is actually attempting to address.

And skolnick, someone with as many character flaws and anger issues as you seem to have, certainly shouldn't be pointing any fingers.

I'm not certain that skolnick truly understands who he is communicating with. He's dealing with the general public. People who are not scientists, investigators, mathematicians or professional debaters. Instead of talking directly to these "ordinary" people, he talks to them from on-high, as if they were the unwashed masses below him. People can easily sense skolnick's arrogance and are offended by it. This leads to name calling and flame-matches. I think this is what skolnick really enjoys. Getting in a lot of low blows, insults and ridicule. Check the internet for the somewhat obsessive nature of skolnick's attacks on others. It's not pretty.

The audience that Discovery Channel and others (including csicop) seek to attract and inform, entertain and sell advertising to, is made up of the ordinary people of this world, who saw a lot of bad behavior by the investigators in the Natasha Demkina case. Whether the investigators were right or wrong, they left a bad taste in the mouth of many, many individuals. Bad form. Then, to add insult to injury…look at skolnick’s behavior on this site. Insulting. Demeaning. Unprofessional.

Of course, this does seem to be attractive behavior on some of these new reality shows. Maybe the public just likes watching these flaming matches, insults, put downs. Tear'em up entertainment!

I have to admit getting a few kicks myself...

Julio Siqueira is digging himself deeper into his hole of dishonesty. Above he defends his false quote and absurd argument:

"I ask all of you in this forum to carefully read the passages above. You will notice that, no, I did not quote exactly what Wiseman said. But yes, I did reproduce exactly the meaning conveyed by him."

No he didn't. Siquera put quotation marks around a misrepresentation of what Prof. Wiseman said to accuse him of deception!

"What Wiseman said (that is, meant) is that “five would do”. And what I reported that he said (the meaning he conveyed) is that “five would do”. Isn’t it clear to you Skolnick? Where is the difficulty?"

The difficulty is your continued use of quotation marks around words that were NOT spoken by others, and your use of these false statements as "straw man" to attack.

And remember: Wiseman was saying this to convince Natasha to get into the test. He was trying to assure her that even if she could not see the two difficult conditions (the appendix removed and the circular scar in the esophagus), even then she could get five. But this is terribly misleading, for if (supposing her claim of “X-ray like vision” is correct) she could not see any appendix or cicular scar in the target subjects, she would of course not be able to see these things in any other one of them as well, including the healthy guy. So, yes, she could swap wrong guesses between these three people. It is so God Damm simple reasoning. I can’t understand why you, Skolnick, do not get it. ...what I do not understand, and do not accept, is the fact that you (you, Skolnick, and the rest of you too: Hyman-Wiseman) do not acknowledge this gross mistake now! This is dishonest.

What is dishonest is Siqueira's use of altered quotes and twisted arguments to mislead or deceive. Here he is trying to convince readers that Natasha might not be able to see what ANYONE with normal vision could immmediately see just by lifting up the "normal" subject's shirt -- that he had NO surgical scar on his abdomen or thorax -- which means that he can't be the one with a resected esophagus or removed appendix! It would be virtually impossible for someone who can see through clothing to misidentify the "normal" subject as the one who has either a missing appendix or resected esophagus.

Siqueria's argument is therefore as dishonest as his habit of rewriting people's quotes.The use of altered quotes and twisted logic is what Siqueira calls "science." That's why he's teaching grade school kids English, not science.

Archangel, you haven't stopped lying and deceiving since your first post on this board. Your claim that, I "never really addresses the questions, observations and points being made by anyone," is only your latest falsehood.

It seems that Archangel is no longer content to speak for his "family" of trolls. He has now appointed himself spokesperson for "the public."

The public does not need Archangel to speak for them. I have faith in the public to see for themselves who the liars are in this thread.

Point out the lies in my first post.

I do speak in agreement with many others. You'd be surprised at the number and identities of those I've been in communications with, and who are viewing this thread with interest. Your communications are very enlightening as to your integrity and professionalism, as well as the group you represent, csicop. And these communications by you are not something you should be proud of. Believe it.

It's clearly my opinion that you do not directly or adequately address questions, and continually attack, insult and ridicule. This not a falsehood, and many, many others have the same opinion of you. Including several comments to that effect on this very thread. Oh, and please check the definition of words, and common usage before you use them. Same goes for the humble quotation mark.

I'm certainly not alone in my negative views of both skolnick and csicop. You're helping drive the reputations of both right into the ground.

Please continue.

Archangel, there's not enough time in my day to point out your lies and falsehoods. They're like the heads of the Hydra: Expose one falsehood and two more almost immediately spout in its place. And here we have a bunch more: One, I do not represent CSICOP. I am the executive director of the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. Second, you claim that your statements can't be falsehoods because they're opinions. Only in the world of Trolls would that be true. Opinions that falsely assert something not true are falsehoods. And when you offer an opinion knowingly based on a falsehood, that's a lie. This is why you can't defend libel in court by merely claiming it's your opinion. Third, even if your "Uncle Bob" and your many Troll cousins do agree with you, it certainly does not give you the right to speak for "the public." Only Internet Trolls and other kooks appoint themselves to that position.

You really need to review the definition and usage of "falsehood" as well as "libel". Neither of which apply to my statements or opinions, either legally or morally.

As far as I'm concerned, you have been put forth as a representative of csicop by representation from your position with csmmh, a very close association. You have been representing them on this very forum. You defend them, you explain them, you reference them, you speak of your work with them. You clearly have been representing csicop. If I’m wrong about that, well, then, sue me. You'll have to sue lots and lots of folks who think the same thing. You throw around threats and accusations of “lies” and “falsehoods” and “libel” but I don’t really see any substance to your inflammatory and overblown charges.

Clever wording, by the way in your statement: “This is why you can't defend libel in court by merely claiming it's your opinion.” With this statement, you’ve made one of your clever, misdirecting, circular arguments. It’s like saying that you can’t defend murder as shoplifting. Well..yeah…right. If it’s libel, it’s libel.

Opinion is not actionable, and is therefore not libel. You would need to prove libel. That ain’t happening. You’re outta gas, supertroll.

Essentially, with your close association with csicop and your position with csmmh, you're bringing down the reputation of both groups along with your own. Even better for you. Are ya happier now? Heh…