Funny T-Shirts

Since you so carefully separate yourself from csicop, please explain the cfi affiliation of csicop, csmmh and csh so that everyone can be clear on how you in no way, shape or form "represent" csicop. I admit that I've been using "csicop" as an umbrella to describe two of the three cfi "affiliates" csicop, and csmmh. This may be technically incorrect, but I don't believe it rises to the level of "lie" or "falsehood". As far as I'm concerned, that's just inflated rhetoric on your part.

My understanding is that csicop stopped doing actual investigations, and began using other groups to investigate, such as csmmh. With this relationship and the affiliation of the groups under cfi, it looks very much that csmmh is representing csicop as it’s investigative arm. Please correct any errors in that understanding.

Interested readers can find more information on cfi at:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/affiliates/

Or, perhaps this mistaken association of mine is from your own unclear statements, notably "I was asked to join CSICOP" on the lovely csicop Natasha-of-the-x-ray-eyes-bashing site...

Archangel, repeating lies and falsehoods will not make them any truer. Even though you were corrected, you continue to falsely claim that I represent or speak for CSICOP. You also are lying when you say that CSICOP no longer conducts investigations but uses other organizations like CSMMH. I represent CSMMH. We do not conduct investigations for CSICOP or any other organization. You've been informed now several times that the test of Natasha Demkina was a joint operation of CSICOP and CSMMH, yet you insist on repeating your deceptive statements. Archangel, when it comes to misrepresentations, falsehoods, and outright lies, you're the Everyready Bunnie. You keep going, and going, and going...

Oh, please. I'm not falsely claiming anything. I'm just explaining why I had the impression that you represented csicop. Giving you my reasoning and asking for you to clarify any misconceptions and incorrect information. So, don't get your panties in a bunch! You sound so damned pompous "You've been informed now several times..yet you insist on repeating..." yadda, yadda.

Geez, relax, will ya? Can the overblown, dramatic rhetoric.

Perhaps I'm reading old information:

http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm

Quote from the site on csicop: "Despite the name of the organization, actual research is a very low priority of the Committee. In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOP’s highest priority has been to influence the media."

Against doing research itself. Hmmm. Guess that changed, or the site was wrong.

Another statement either on that same site or elsewhere gave me the impression that csicop partnered with other groups or "affiliates" to perform investigations. This seemed to match what happened in the Natasha Demkina case. So, excuuuuse me for having the wrong impression.

By the way, "Represent" is another word you should really bone up on. There's a broader meaning to it that actually allows it to fall correctly into my stated impression. To an individual, you could "represent" or be "representative of" csicop even if you never met them, worked for them or heard of them. I think you're defining the word too narrowly. Perhaps it's just your zeal to whip out the accusations of "falsehood" "lies" and "libel."

I'm sure you knew what I meant, but you jumped immediately to the attack.

Represent:
"to bring clearly before the mind"
"to take the place of in some respect"
"to describe as having a specified character or quality"
"to serve as a specimen, example, or instance of"

"Represent" doesn't mean you work for csicop or are a member or have been asked by csicop to be their official spokesperson. There's a broader sense to the utilization of the word "represent" or "representative" of.

I'm sure you "represent" a pile of dog poop to some people. Perhaps even junkyard dog poop.

Do you realize just how hilarious you are?

This statement:

"Even though you were corrected, you continue to..."

Even though you were corrected? Too funny. You sound like an old, frustrated, overbearing, obnoxous nanny talking her 8-year old charges. And getting nowhere.

Chill, baby. You're not talking to a bunch of students in class.

To get back on the point, I asked you to point out falsehoods in my first post. Instead you attempted to claim that three items in my most current post were lies (or falsehoods - essentially the same thing for our purposes). You failed to show that any of the three items were lies.

This means to me that your definition of both "lies" and "falsehood" is so completely out of whack with reality as to be meaningless.

We can add those words to your list of words to define further, eg. "Diagnose" "Libel" "Represent" and etc...

I may be repeating this, but I think Victor Zammit says it best in his comments about Skolnick on Victor’s website:

http://www.victorzammit.com/archives/Nov2004.html

“Obviously, his (Skolnick’s) toilet humor will amuse the lowly intelligent. His idiocy shows huge frustration of someone who does not have the vocabulary or intelligence to rebut any of the charges of fraud against himself and CSICOP’s debunking skeptics. Is this the best that CSICOP can do- sending an unbalanced juvenile to do a man’s job?”

Saaay, there's another person who seems to think skolnick "represents" csicop....lots of them out there, apparently.

Let's try to clarify one more thing. My problem with your use of the word "falsehood" is that it looks to me as if there is an implication of telling an intentional lie or series of lies.

Falsehood. An untrue statement; a lie. The practice of lying.

You might be using the word to represent just an "untrue statement" or "mistake" or "incorrect information". However, with your tendency to overstate and make inflammatory remarks, I believe your use of falsehood to be an implication of an "intentional falsehood" or at least using the worst possible word without actually saying "lie," but strongly implying "liar".

It appears to me to be at least innuendo when you use it.

Do I have the wrong impression?

In addition to being an unbridled liar, Archangel was caught posting messages agreeing with "himself" on this thread under the name "Uncle Bob." He was outed as a dishonest Troll.

Hi Archangel and Skolnick,

Skolnick said:

"Even though you were corrected, you continue to falsely claim that I represent or speak for CSICOP. You also are lying when you say that CSICOP no longer conducts investigations but uses other organizations like CSMMH. I represent CSMMH. We do not conduct investigations for CSICOP or any other organization. You've been informed now several times that the test of Natasha Demkina was a joint operation of CSICOP and CSMMH, yet" ...

My view on this matter is that Skolnick does not really represent Csicop. They are birds of a feather, they flock together (they have layes...), but they do have some differences. Also, I think it is correct to say that the "research" they did was a joint venture (or better: a “joint disadventure” ). I also read that article about Csicop (the link suggested by Archangel). It seems that during many years Csicop refrained from engaging in “paranormal tests” of its own, apparently due to the embarrassing Mars Effect issue. But they have been back for some years now, especially with the foxy aid of Mr. Wiseman (;-)), who has the anti-Midas gift of turning the brightest paranormal phenomenon into utter trash... His meta-analysis of the Ganzfeld database, co-authored by Julie Milton, in 1999, is a masterpiece of cunning political strategy that could make even Machiavel blush. Their motto now at Csicop seems to be: “Why retreat if you can cheat?” (sorry for those quotation marks, Andrew... - I just couldn’t help it).

Best Regards to all,

Julio Siqueira
P.S.: Andy, stop being so belligerant. You can do better than that.

Just two minor corrections:
Csicop et al have layers, not layes.
Machiavel is the Portuguese version for the name Machiavelli

That's quite incorrect. I have shown that there was a different person posting from my computer network. If I actually did post to myself under another name, I wouldn't have stayed on the thread. I've explained the situation in detail, and the board's moderator has agreed that I am welcome on the site. Unclebob too.

We can all see who the Internet Troll is. Skolnick's behavior fits that definition perfectly. Not that my own behavior has been stellar, but at least I admit it. Skolnick is in deeeeep denial...

My above post was for Skolnick, not in response to Julio! Just to make it clear!

Archangel a.k.a. Uncle Bob said:

"We can all see who the Internet Troll is."

Yes, at least the readers with a lick of sense can. He's the one who was from the same computer using more than one alias.

I post under my real name, not a bunch of Troll alias like Archangel/Uncle Bob.

See, Skolnick? Julio corrected my mistaken impression in a wonderful way, by giving the correct information in a positive, upbeat manner that was informative and made me feel good, even though I had the wrong information and was mistaken in my assertion.

Julio did this without calling me a "liar" or accusing me of telling "falsehoods," like you would have done. Thank you Julio!

Take a lesson, skolnick.

Correction: (Sorry for the typos)

Archangel a.k.a. Uncle Bob said:

"We can all see who the Internet Troll is."

Yes, at least the readers with a lick of sense can. He's the one who was posting from the same computer using more than one alias.

I post under my real name, not a bunch of Troll aliases like Archangel/Uncle Bob.

See, Skolnick won't even admit to his own troll behavior. Deep denial.

As for using real names, skolnick has a penchant for absolutely vicious, unwarranted and obsessive personal attacks on people. He’ll create multiple web pages just for attacks. So, be careful.

Look at this site:.
http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/

What an evil, cruel, obsessive creep Skolnick appears to be. The junkyard dog diatribes are so full of his venom and bilge that it’s shocking. He is a mean, unhappy little man. I almost feel for pity for him. At the very least, the site shows the anger he brings out in others. Not by being right or wrong, but by his insulting manner.

Repulsive.

Part 1

Hi Skolnick,

Your comments below, followed by my answers to them, always my comments starting with $$$.

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.

$$$ What the hell is this “terminal degree” of yours? Could it, perhaps, mean something like a methastatic degree... (can’t think of anything more “terminal” than that, except Mr. Schwartzmann in his cybernetic version of course - The Terminator). There is no end to progress in ones knowledge or achievements in Science. The biology degree (that now you have decreed that is no degree) is a first step. The MA is a second step. PhD is not the last one.

No, that makes you a phony.

$$$ Call me as you wish, Andy. But know exactly what I am. That is what I want. And that is what I make available to people. Always.

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.

$$$ Helloooo, Skolnick, it was ME who told you at the very beginning that my aim was to publicize the information I would be getting from you. And even though I completely disagreed from your reasoning that I must first see the documentary, I ended up abiding to your terms, and only published my views (and my findings) AFTER I saw the documentary. What more do you demand, Mr. Owner of the World?

$$$ Also, you said that “I broke off communication with him on or around Nov. 21” (2004), but actually I received your emails until November 27, 2004. Further feedbacks, via ex-friend, came in on December 3. What can I do? It was YOU who decided to keep in touch with Brazilians...

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

$$$ Skolnick, stick to the facts! His reasoning was deceptive indeed. I clearly said in my text that it might have been unconscious. But the net result was deception.

Part 2
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.

$$$ Granted. This quotation stuff may be problematic. I will take a careful look at that in my texts, and add proper corrections or similar stuff. That may take some two weeks, and I will keep this forum informed of it. See how it did not hurt? You point the problem, I correct it. It is that simple. Nothing of that bureaucracy that you have at Csicop or at Csmmh...

$$$ By the way, when will YOU correct those so very many mistakes in your own site about Natasha? Just to refresh your mind, I present a sample below:

1 - The title of your page is a violation of your own protocols: “The Girl with Very Normal Eyes.”
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/
Remember that the rule 25 stated that: ...”the CSICOP/CSMMH test is not in any way a definitive test.”. Do you really know the meaning of “is not in any way a definitive test.” ? What the hell have you done with your Webster?

2 - There are quotes from you for which you never showed anything to back them up:
"Ms. Demkina and her supporters claim she can see abnormalities on a cellular level and that her diagnoses are 100 percent accurate,". When will you substanciate these statements of yours? Please, Skolnick, hurry. The Sun is likely to evaporate in the next four billion years, and we just cannot wait that long .

3 - Further violations of protocol from you (again, rule 25 - you guys really did not like this rule, did you?): "That's why I think this test, as preliminary as it was, will likely close the chapter in this case,". With this “Closing Chapter Compulsion” of yours, you’d rather be in the writing business...

Part 3
4 - You wrongly attributed to Natasha claims that were never shown to be hers, and have managed to take in poor Dr. Yale Rose in your tricky game. “Natasha Demkina made this drawing of what she claims are abnormal cells in the lungs of a man who says he had been treated unsuccessfully for tuberculosis for a year.” - and - “During her reading, she drew a picture of what she claimed are abnormal cells (her special powers include microscopic vision as well as x-ray vision).” . How do you know that “she claims are abnormal cells” and that her drawing was of what she saw at the cellular level if no one ever said that she said that? Any hope of your substatiating that one either? The link for that absurdity is:
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/sarcoidosis.htm

$$$ Ok Skolnick. We are all waiting for these corrections. Soon you will learn the hard and painstaking lesson that correcting mistakes (and presenting due apologies) is far more difficult and painful than calling names... But it is better for the soul. And better for society too (including public health).

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.

$$$ How do you know that that guy does not have scars on his chest or in his... pelvis, you old rascal...??? . What more happened during that test that you did not tell me? .

$$$ Ok, Skolnick, jokes aside, your point above is a good one indeed. I must confess I had not thought of the scar on the skin ( :-( ). I only thought about the missing appendix and about the circular scar in the esophagus itself, joining the two sections that were not removed. You see how much it is important that you not hide yourself like an oyester? Present your arguments, Man! Show yourself. We are all ears!!! Anyway, there are many problems with that above. First, a scar in the chest might be due to the esophagus extraction or to the operation in the heart (another clinical condition - ok, the heart guy had staples in his chest plus the scar, so this might not be really a problem to our wonder babe). I wonder too if the operation in the lung might not leave a similar scar... (the artificial joint hip operation might have left a scar that resembled somewhat an appendix operation; just might, maybe...)

Part 4
$$$ Also, like I said in my joke above, how do you know the “healthy” guy did not have these scars, or how do you know of any other subjects scars etc? As a matter of fact, how do you know that they did indeed have their “alleged” conditions if you never, as far as I know, saw any proof of their clinical conditions? And that too is a violation of protocols! A most serious one.

That's why he's teaching grade school kids English, not science.

$$$ Oh, Picky Die-Hard, that is not the reason why I teach kids English and not Science. Go learn a little about the laws and regulations for teaching before pouring your acid around . The reason why I do not teach kids Science is because, according to the Brazilian law, I can, at any time that I wish, teach Science at Universities (I already turned down two invitations for that), and I can even be a promoter teacher for biology undergraduates, but I cannot teach Science for either elementary or high scools kids. For having that permition I would have to attend one year in a course where I would “learn to teach science to the little minds”.

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.

$$$ Archangel is part of the public. Let the voice of the people be heard, then!

Get ready, Skolnick. Next time I am going to bring heavier ammunition.

Best Regards to all of you,

Julio Siqueira - clinical bacteriologist (whether Shrek likes it or not - Let the Law be Respected).