For a journalist, skolnick sometimes has an amazing lack of communications skills and word knowledge. For instance, his incorrect usage of "hypocrisy".

Hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

By my pointing out the fact that Skolnick has an "insulting manner" while I exhibit the same traits isn't "hypocrisy". Especially when I've admitted to it.

Skolnick needs to review what an “Internet Troll” is. He fits it perfectly. An “angry rant” really doesn’t qualify. But I have been Trolling. Mainly to bait the real Troll here, and that is Supertroll Skolnick himself! What fun! Archangel's "trolldom" doesn't excuse SkolTroll. But I've obviously hit a nerve in skolnick...look at his obsessive attacks on me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Especially pertaining to Skolnick in that definition is: “Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation.”

“Fruitless confrontation” is the main game of Skolnick. Look at his posts. “Troll, troll” “lies, lies” “falsehoods, falsehoods”. Nothing of substance. Fruitless confrontation, using insults, misleading remarks, deliberate misinterpretation of the remarks of others, incorrect usage of words, pointing out gramatical errors or typos on the part of others, taking statements out of context, attacking the character of the person, it’s really an endless list of “hydra” type attacks. That’s a good alias for Skolnick: Hydratroll, or Superhydratroll.

Methinks this doth shine poorly on skolnick's investigative and analytical skills, and conclusions drawn from such.

Whether or not Archangel is angry, a liar, a hypocrite, or a troll, is beside the point. The real thing to consider here is how the Skolnick attacks, obsessive assaults, misleading remarks, and generally bad behavior patterns bring into focus what happened with Natasha Demkina. Archangel was not involved in her public humiliation; it was at the hands of the man who undeniably and continually uses ridicule and humiliation in his insulting and obsessive attacks on those who do not agree with him. That’s what skolnick proves to everyone with his continual assaults on Archangel and others. Take a look at the big picture. Include the junkyard dog website. In my humble opinion, this is all evidence that skolnick is a hypocrite when he states that he wasn’t trying to ridicule, make fun of, or to find Natasha to be a fake – he does it all the time to many others. Bam! That's a lot lower than anything Archangel may have done.

Read the real “angry rant” by skolnick here: http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/

No anger at all from me, as a matter of fact, I’m enjoying this byplay while exposing skolnick’s true nature. LOL!

Gosh, sorry. I didn't mean to bold all that.

I love it. The massive input from my "socketpupet" UncleBob has outraged skolnick. All two posts by UncleBob..or was it three? What a joke. UncleBob is amused at skolnick's obsession with that. Archangel doesn't need anyone to "sustain, or to inflame" Archangel's "position or theory or attack." Archangel is perfectly capable of doing that alone.

However, if there are others besides skolnick who would like Archangel to quit posting here, please feel free to say so.

Report in Live Science Other News

Report on the report in: How Not To Perform an Experiment

Ah, the so-called "Skeptical Investigation's" critique of our study. I should give the author, Mr. Guy Lyon Playfair, credit for barely getting a single fact right. For example:

"In any case, the whole experiment was not designed to replicate what Natasha actually claims to do, which is diagnose people's current complaints."

Natasha Demkina does not diagnose health problems. She looks at the person from top to bottom and describes the abnormalities she claims to "see." The people then try to match their medical diagnoses to Natasha's usually vague descriptions. Often, it requires highly liberal interpretations. For example, she told British TV doctor Christopher Steele that she "saw" something wrong with his gall bladder and that he had kidney stones and an enlarged liver and pancreas. The frightened nincompoop rushed off to have a battery of invasive and expensive medical tests done on himself -- which found that nothing Natasha told him was true. Yet he still calls Natasha's reading a success because the tests found some enlarged lymph nodes -- which are common at his age and not a health problem. Never mind that Natasha never said he had enlarged lymph nodes. Unfortunately, for many people, the will to believe is much stronger than the power of reason.

The CSMMH-CSICOP test was designed to replicate just what Natasha claims she does. She doesn't "diagnose." She describes what she claims to "see" inside of people. In a number of her more famous readings she described healthy organs or problems -- such as a broken wrist -- that had healed decades before. And that's what we had her try to do.

If there's any doubt about this, Natasha was asked if she could do what our test required, when she was still at home in Russia. She said yes.

Mr. "Guy Lyon Playfair" certainly doesn't live up to his name. His critique is sophistry based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Naturally.

Hi Guys,

Hyman has recently wrote again about this Natasha issue. His article, which appears in the Skeptical Inquirer Sep/Oct, is available at the link below:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_5_29/ai_n15622949#continue

As usual, it is an esquisite blend of good things and bad things. I will soon be analyzing this one too.

Julio
_____________

Julio, I think your time -- and certainly ours -- would be better spent if you first correct all the false and misleading statements you've made. You can start by removing from all your self-published writings the claim that you are a "biologist," "microbiologist," "clinical microbiologist," etc. You've never worked a single day in any of these professions and you don't even have a Ph.D. in any field. You're nothing more than an elementary school English teacher. That's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a "biologist." It makes you an elementary school English teacher.

If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.

People who lie about their credentials should not be trusted when they lie about others.

Hi again,

Part 1


FEEDBACKS ON SKOLNICK'S COMPLAINTS:


I took a careful look at the points raised by Mr. Skolnick. I want to inform this forum of my present view on them. To make this exposition clearer, all my present paragraphs will begin with $$$:

$$$ Complaint number 1 - Skolnick complained about my deceiving quotation marks when I reported what Wiseman said. According to Skolnick:

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:

"'Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones'.

$$$ Skolnick, consciously or unconsciounally, forgot to include my words RIGHT BEFORE my re-phrasing of Wiseman actual statement. He said that I trusted that my readers wouldn’t bother to check for the exactness of what I was reporting, but actually I myself clearly made available to my readers how “exact” (or better, how “not exact”) my quotation was. The full extract of my writing, that Skolnick should have reported and failed to do so, was this one below:

...“Wiseman conforted her by saying something like "Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones".”.

$$$ I clealy indicated: “BY SAYING SOMETHING LIKE”. Any reader will clearly see what it is meant to be, that is, an imprecise rephrasing of the actual words from Wiseman. Of course I am, nevertheless, bound to the duty of keeping the original meaning, and that I did. So, fortunately, no mistake in that.

Part 2
$$$ Most important: this passage appears in my first critique of the CSICOP test (the one that I first posted in my site). This first critique was presented beforehand ONLY TO THE THREE CSICOP/CSMMH RESEARCHS. None of them bothered to correct this point before. Only three days after it, did I send this first critique to the three parties involved (that is, skeptics + Natasha people + Discovery Channel people). I will post below my emails concerning this.

$$$ First, on November 29, 2004, I sent this email below to Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick, and to them only.

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 20:06:05 -0200
From: Julio Siqueira
To: Julio Siqueira
Cc: (Andrew Skolnick email, Richard Wiseman email, Ray Hyman email)
Subject: Critique of CSICOP/CSMMH Test with Natasha
Dear Sirs,

I am sending in an attached html file a critique that I will soon be posting on the internet about the tests that you made with Natasha Demkina.

This critique is being presented now (November 29, 2004) only to the designers of the test.
In three days from now (on December 2, 2004 - thursday), I will send this text to all interested parties (that is: Natasha's agent, Discovery channel producer, and also to some psi researchers: Brazilian psi researcher Wellington Zangari, and Professor Brian Josephson).
In ten days from then (on December 12, 2004), this critique will be published in my site "Criticando o Ceticismo" ("Criticizing Skepticism").

Thank you very much beforehand for your kind attention, and I hope to hear from you soon. Factual mistakes that you might point out will be corrected. Differing opinions, if you wish, will be posted at the end of this text.

Sincerely,
Julio Siqueira
________________

Part 3
$$$ After waiting for their answer, I sent on December 2, 2004, the following email:

Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 06:54:09 -0200
From: Julio Siqueira
To: Julio Siqueira
Cc: (Andrew Skolnick emai, Richard Wiseman email, Ray Hyman email, Brazilian ex-friend skeptic email, Monica Garnsey Discovery Channel Producer email, Natasha friend and translator email, Professor Brian Josephson email, Will Stewert Natasha agent email, Wellington Zangari Brazilian psi researcher email, Vitor Moura Brazilian friend and psi researcher email)
Subject: Critique of CSICOP experiment on Natasha

Dear Sirs and Mams,

I am sending in an attached html file a critique that I did of the experiment designed and conducted by CSICOP/CSMMH to test Natasha Demkina last May.

It will be posted on the internet in ten days from now (i.e. on December 12, 2004).

My main conclusion is that the experiment was invalid, and that the researchers are misreporting the events, both on internet official sites (CSMMH) and in email exchanges (Skolnick to me).

I had already sent this file to the three researchers involved (Skolnick, Wiseman, Hyman) three days ago. This version of the critique now has some minor changes, that appear in this color.

Any feedbacks from you regarding factual mistakes will be used for correcting the text. And differing oppinions will be added at the end of this text if any of you want to (i.e. any of the parties involved: CSICOP/CSMMH - Discovery Channel - Natasha or representatives).

Thank you for your kind attention.

Sincerly,
Julio Cesar de Siqueira Barros.
Biologist.
M.A. Clinical Bacteriologist
_________________________________________

Part 4
$$$ So I hope this clarifies all the issue.


$$$ Complaint number 2 - There is a passage in the Discover Channel documentary where Natasha is saying that if she was allowed to do the test her way, she would probably guess all the conditions correctly. It is right after the passage where Wiseman deceived her into accepting the two alien clinical conditions (missing appendix and resected esophagus - these conditions were beyond what was declared in the protocols and beyond the attested claims from Natasha). I talk about it in my second article, the one entitled “Embarrasing Answers”. In it, I “corrected” Skolnick, and I said that he had reported wrongly what the translator actually had said. Let’s take a careful look at it:

$$$ First, in his article “Answer to Critics”, Skolnik indeed presents wrongly what the translator said. Skolnick wrong quotes are:

“"If you did it [the test] my way, I would probably have guessed not five but seven of them [all the conditions of the seven subjects]."

$$$ I spot the problem, but ended up correcting him wrongly. My wrong correction was:

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

$$$ Now, at this forum, Skolnick corrected me in the proper manner, and also corrected his own first version (which that was also wrong):

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

$$$ I will correct that in my site. But I must stress that the underlying situation is still the same. Natasha said this BEFORE the test. It was not a post hoc excuse from her. And most important: this is a passage where she clealy PROVES that Skolnick is wrong in his assumption that she claims never to fail. Instead, she is clearly indicating in this passage (if the translator translated her correctly) that even if she was allowed to do the test in her way, she could not garantee that she would not fail. All that she thought was that she would PROBABLY guess all the seven conditions correctly.

$$$ Anyway, I took the trouble to convert this passage of the documentary into a 250 kbytes mp3 audio file. If anyone might be interested in it, I can send it through email easily.

Best Regards to all of you,
Julio
____________

Hi Skolnick,

My comments begining with $$$

Julio, I think your time -- and certainly ours -- would be better spent if you first correct all the false and misleading statements you've made.

$$$ I am working on it. But first I must really agree that there is something either misleading or false. I hope my analysis in the previous four-part message will be of help in that.

You can start by removing from all your self-published writings the claim that you are a "biologist," "microbiologist," "clinical microbiologist," etc. You've never worked a single day in any of these professions and you don't even have a Ph.D. in any field. You're nothing more than an elementary school English teacher. That's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a "biologist." It makes you an elementary school English teacher. If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.

$$$ My intention is not to inflate my curriculum (and I am proud of being a teacher of English, and I am proud of my “little minds”). The fact is that I came across many situations where I did not mention my academic background and then people ended up “wasting their time” trying to teach me things that I knew far better than them. This was the time when, some year and a half ago (or a little before that), I started to lay clear my background.

$$$ As far as I know (and as far as you have shown too...), technically and legally I am a biologist, a clinical bacteriologist. Neither law nor technical regulations depend on your or on my approval of them. The PhD degree does not add nothing, either legally or technically, to this situation. It only adds status (and also academic rights).

$$$ So, just to come to terms, why not do the following: for now, I stop saying that I am a biologist or a clinical bacterialogist until I find what law or regulation gives me the right to do that. And as for you, you stop saying that I lie when I claimed it until YOU find any piece of law that discredits me on that (even though the law of USA does not necessarily apply to Brazilian law). Ok? Instead of pouring our own private acid (yours and mine), let’s have some true technical and legal information into the debate. Nice, ain’t it?

People who lie about their credentials should not be trusted when they lie about others.

$$$ I see. So, since you do not lie about your credentials, that is the reason why you should be trusted when you lie about others...

Best Regards,

Julio
_______________

Julio, the elementary school English teacher says:
"And as for you, you stop saying that I lie when I claimed it until YOU find any piece of law that discredits me on that."

Nice dodge. There is no law against lying about your profession (accept on an application for a government job). I didn't accuse you of breaking any law. I accused you of being a phony and a liar.

You've never worked a single day as a biologist or in any scientific profession. You don't even have a Ph.D. in any field. You're nothing more than an elementary school English teacher. That's a fine thing to be, but it doesn't make you a "biologist." It makes you an elementary school English teacher. If you don't want to be exposed as a fraud, stop lying about your credentials.

A barber cuts hair. A brick layer lays bricks. A carpenter builds with wood. A biologist works as a biological scientist. But you wipe the noses of children while trying to teach them the meaning of English words. It's about time you learned their meaning too and stop using the English language in false and misleading ways in order to build yourself up and tear others down.