Funny T-Shirts

No, Judy. You're the sick one. You've spent decades of your life as an apologist for a crackpot cult, lying, cheating, and obfuscating, hour after hour, day after day. What a terrible, sorry life you wasted.

in the field of psychology, we often refer to the term of 'projection'. i'll leave the educated reader to spot examples ...

In response to Archangel's latest false and angry rant, here's what the administrator on the JREF forum says:

"As Admin. I posted a proactive cautionary comment to both askolnick and Julio Siqueira, neither of which so far have been judged to be in breach of their Membership Agreement. To state that either of them (at this point) has broken their Membership Agreement is incorrect."

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1372121&postcount=536

Judy, Judy, Judy, why do you lie, lie lie?

here it is:

"And now some concluding comments. The fact that Wiseman's main reaction to the critique of his work on my web pages was to suggest that, since it has not been refereed, it "does not carry much weight", may suggest to some (a) that there is little he can find to say in defence of his position, and (b) the name of the game is indeed propaganda (action directed primarily at putting the other side in a bad light), as opposed to proper science. Admittedly, these web pages here are also propaganda, but I hope that the science and the logic are sounder.

In an email, Wiseman explained that he thought it important that the public should understand about peer-review. I equally think (as noted) that it is important that people understand CSICOP better. Seeing how Wiseman chooses to respond to my critique may help them do this.

Notice the comment "I don't see how you could argue there's something wrong with having to get five out of seven when she agrees with the target in advance." I have already indicated on the web page what is wrong with this, thus: 'real science does not work on a basis of getting someone to sign their agreement to a long list of conditions, then later coming back saying "this is what you signed; the challenge goes to us!" '. How pleasant just to be able to ignore such arguments, on the basis of an assertion to the effect that the web page they were brought up on had not been subjected to peer-review!" http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/

"Many viewers of a recent Discovery Channel programme, previewed in a Guardian article, where the claims of Natasha Demkina, a 17-year-old Russian girl who says she is able to "look deep inside people's bodies, watch their organs at work and spot when things are going wrong", were investigated, ended up with a strong impression that the main test in the investigation had been deliberately set up with a view to ensuring that she would fail it. The test involved her being given a set of seven cards, with a medical condition indicated on each. Medical subjects with these seven conditions (one of which was 'no condition'), each bearing an identifying number, stood in a row and Natasha had to mark each card with the number of the person whom she thought had the condition indicated on the card. Despite the difficulties associated with the rigorous and unfamiliar conditions imposed by the experimenters, she identified four of the seven correctly. A fairly straightforward calculation shows that the odds of getting 4 hits or more out of 7 by chance are more than 50 to 1 against. Surely a case for celebrating Natasha's success?

Well, no, actually. The experimental protocol, to which Natasha and her agent had been asked to agree, rather curiously states:

"If Natasha correctly matches fewer than 5 target medical conditions, then the Test Proctor will declare that results are more consistent with chance guessing and does not support any belief in her claimed abilities."

Accordingly, it was announced that Natasha had 'failed the test'. In the article about the programme in the Guardian, Richard Wiseman, one of the investigators, emphasised this conclusion, declaring "a failure is a failure".

(added November 11th., 2004) The investigators' own account is now available on the web: observe that the 50 to 1 statistic does not feature anywhere in it. The fact that "everyone [had] agreed to the written protocols" (including the above italicised condition) is given as sufficient justification for asserting "[the] test, as preliminary as it was, will likely close the chapter in this case". I think not: real science does not work on a basis of getting someone to sign their agreement to a long list of conditions, then later coming back saying "this is what you signed; the challenge goes to us!". http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

Sophistry will get you nowhere with me, Skolnick.

A warning was clearly given to you by the JREF moderator with more “leeway than normal” allowed. From the wording of the warning, and the actual postings by Skolnick, one can easily see that the rules and guidelines were broken. The severity of the break was judged by the Moderator to be less than required for further action - if Skolnick discontinued his personal attacks against Julio.

Darat: “Given the past exchanges between you and Julio Siqueira I've allowed more leeway then normal however please concentrate on the issues and claims not the individual…”

It’s not even good sophistry to try and disguise the fact that Skolnick was in clear violation of the JREF rules and guidelines.

Warnings, Suspension, Banning & Appeals
When possible, and where appropriate, requests and warnings will be issued publicly, in the thread where the Guideline or Rule violation occurs. Moderators or Administrators will send private messages with requests if they feel it is more appropriate to do so. Depending upon the severity of the violation, Moderators or Administrators may include a warning that continued violations will result in suspension. (Only Administrators are able to suspend users.) Members who have ignored prior warnings or committed a serious breach of their membership agreement may have their membership suspended for a period of time. If necessary a Member will be banned from the forum.

Darat:
"attack the claims not the person making the claims"

I believe the warning was only given to Skolnick because he so egregiously violated the rules in his personal attacks against Julio. Note that Julio’s warning came first, even though Skolnick had been breaching the rules and guidelines well before Julio ever posted on that particular forum. Further, Skolnick’s continued assault on Julio’s professional credentials in the JREF forum is defamatory libel. Moderator should have commented on that as well.

This is one of the reasons given for not posting to JREF is that the moderators trump up charges to ban by using deceptive reasoning. The opposite apparently holds true for the “darlings” of skepticism like our dear Skol-boy.

So, go back and huddle with your little buddies, Skolnick. Like I said, they can protect you, oh master pseudo-skeptic..…LOL!

Oh, please note that Skolnick didn’t address the very clear rule/guideline breaking of amazon.com or Wikipedia. Very clear there.

At least I never got blocked for violating Wiki rules as you did. LOL!

Archangel rants, "Further, Skolnick’s continued assault on Julio’s professional credentials in the JREF forum is defamatory libel."

What professional credentials? I never attacked Siqueira's professional credentials. As far as I know, he's an excellent elementary school English teacher. You never, ever speak the truth.

And while we're on the topic of teaching English, Archie, you could use some lessons. Have you ever heard of "libel" that wasn't "defamatory"? ROTFL! That's as silly as referring to your posts as "dishonest lies."

Hi Everybody,

Posting from far far away...

Skolnick said:

"What professional credentials? I never attacked Siqueira's professional credentials. As far as I know, he's an excellent elementary school English teacher. You never, ever speak the truth."

Archangel, Skolnick repeatedly said lies and offenses about my professional credentials (here, at Wikipedia, at Amazon.com and at JREF). Even though he now admits that I am a good English teacher (in his own words, an "excellent" one) after I pointed out several of his incredibly silly mistakes in the English language at James Randi's forum (that would be acceptable to anyone but to those that claim to be journalists...; so far as we have been able to attest, Skolnick is only a supreb photographer and nothing more than that, which is a nice and honest thing to be), he still keeps saying lies and offenses regarding my other professional credentials, that is, my professional specialization as a biologist and as a clinical bacteriologist.

Believe it or not, he didn't even know (ex-JAMA-associate-editor...) that every clinical bacteriologist is a microbiologist, and that every microbiologist is a biologist, so he expressed his "amazement" at the fact that I call myself a biologist and a microbiologist and a clinical bacteriologist. The man thought these three categories belonged to three different graduation courses (Mama Mia)!!!

Perhaps we should start to be just a little more understanding towards Skolnick, because it seems that not all of his offenses come out of malice, but rather out of ignorance.

And he has shown us some wonders that we must cherish. Like the extremely rare phenomenon (rarest than comet Halley's appearance) of a top skeptic being reprimended at James Randi's forum... That one goes to the History of the Gretest Fiascos of the Skeptic Movement.

Thank you so very much, MS Skolnick, for Making Our Days Simply Unforgettable.


Julio Siqueira
P.S.: use your Magister Scientiae to teach Troll Larsen about molecules that will grow.
___________________

Here we go again. Siqueira, you haven't a clue (nor an honest bone in your body). I said that as far as I know you're an excellent elementary school English teacher. I would never say that your command of English is anything better than pathetic. I'm sure you're quite capable of reading your school's teaching assignment book and teaching the little kiddies in Brazil how to say, "See Dick Run! See Jane chase her dog Spot!" However, your own English reading and writing abilities are terrible.

For example, you keep referring to your "professional" credentials as a "biologist" and "clinical bacteriologist." If you had a clue what these words mean, I doubt you would utter them -- unless of course if you're a totally shameless liar.

"Professional" describes activities that are done to make money or earn a living, as opposed to "amateur" activities. You have no "professional" standing in science. You've never held a job in any field of science.

You claim to have some academic credentials in science. If true, that's not a professional credential. I think we all know insurance agents or businessmen who earned a masters degree in subjects like English Poetry or French History. Unlike you, they don't lie about their profession. They don't claim to be professional poets or historians. They have something you don't: Honesty.

Skolnick, you've got to be the worst "investigator" on the face of the planet. I have never been banned from Wikipedia and I'm certainly not posting as "Lumiere" as you incorrectly assume on JREF. I also have no interest in TM.

I am so tempted to leave you with your mistaken identity identification, which is another in a long line of them. It would be fascinating to see if you started treating Lumiere on Wikipedia as if he were me. With your lack of emotional control, I can only imagine the escalating arguments you would engage in over there.

Your analytical skills are just pathetic. Stick to insults and misleading remarks, at least you have some talent with those.

You’ve accused me of being at least five or six people that I’m not. Give up while you’re only in the single-digit negative territory – double-digit negatives could be embarrassing for you! LOL!

You know, my first impulse was just to call you a liar, like so many others have. But I have to agree with Julio that it may be you are just a misguided and impulsive zealot that desperately looks for anything handy to obsessively attack, ridicule and discredit your critics. You continually do this, and in these obsessive, insulting attacks you manage to broadly insult not only individuals, but entire professions (like teachers), various groups of people (like the uneducated or illiterate), industry (Wikipedia) and regions (non-English speaking countries). I don’t understand how you can see this as acceptable behavior, but you do it without apology or concern. This arrogant zealotry also leads you to break rules and guidelines.

Oh, by the way, “defamatory libel.” Look it up, you braying jackass. Here’s a reference right off your beloved Wikipedia:

“Defamatory libel as a criminal offence under the Criminal Code is equally valid, according to the Supreme Court of Canada: Rv Lucas, [1998] 1 SCR 439.”

And Educational degrees such as Julio holds are absolutely Professional Credentials. You’ve attacked his use of the degrees he holds, which is just a pathetic attempt on your part to try and discredit one of your critics.

Skolnick, you are classic Humpty Dumpty, you meathead. LOL!

Ah, now I understand the weird "Judy" reference from Skolnick. Skolnick believes that "Lumiere" is a female named Judy that he has had a long "bitter" relationship with. LOL!

Definitely not me, Skolupine! Wrong again! How does he do it, folks?

According to Webster's dictionary, biologist is anyone who specializes in biology, and we can extend this linguistic use to microbiologist and to clinical bacteriologist as well. The specilization as a biologist and as a microbiologist is not an amateur specialization. It is a professional specialization, and as a consequence it is a professional credential. Skolnick confuses professional credential with career history... What a Decaying buch of neurons he's got... Once I had an amateur graduation in the English language. It was a University level course (graduation course), but with it I could not work. It did not give any professional specialization (any professional credential).

Skolnick not only is a failure in his understanding of the meaning of English words. Topmost, he seems to be a man that never fought for the job positions that he got. He does not understand how the real professional world works. He is the boy in the bubble. Most likelly, he always got all his professional positions as free gifts from relatives and friends. And I bet is is quite a big apple polisher: very brave when afar and when above, but totally submissive when below...

Julio Siqueira
____________________

I have just posted to the JREF moderator the following message:

Hello Darat,

I have been refraining from reading Skolnick's posts for obvious reasons; therefore, only some minutes ago did I come to see the following piece, followed by your swift reply:

"Siqueira likes to attack and abuse people. Let's say that sometime in the future, he abuses his children. And just imagine that in some deranged state he puts his bad fingers on them. No, I do not believe that Siqueira would do such a terrible deed. But people sometimes surprises us. Both for the good, and for the bad (and what Siquieria did at the Museum of Hoaxes and Wikipedia sites was very inappropriate, to put it mildly)."

askolnick - please read your Membership Agreement you are in danger of doing nothing more then continuing a personal feud you have with another Member.

When we are brutally hit by the unthinkable, it is recomforting to see that we are indeed in a serious forum with rationally balanced moderators, where at least the family of the forum members will not be offended without due corrective measures.

Thank you enormously.

Julio Siqueira
_______________

julio, they allowed larsen to publish the work contact details of a woman in my family on their forum. i protested, of course. darat refused to even reply to my protests. she was eventually contacted at work by some of these fanatics and the darat eventually had to shut the embarrasment off by banning me and hope things would be forgotten. there are plenty of jref members still there who know about this and the terrorist tactics they used caused a rift in the forum which exists until this day, i can email or pm you the links where you will see the proof of this disgraceful internet terrorism, but sincerely hope you don't go down the same path as i did, hence my interest in your discussions over there. these fanatics do not discuss. they will go to whatever lengths it takes to censor any voice which debunks their cult or the information they want to censor.

i am sure skolnick is proud of the sort of 'skeptics' he has run to.

in fact, it has just occured to me, some of these 'skeptic' fanatics will do whatever they can to stop and control some information and the more extreme their beliefs about that information, the more extreme some of them are prepared to go in order to control it.

i just wrote this on another forum i am involved with, and it made me think about the similarities in pseudo-skepticism, ranging from clear inherent bias flaws with randi's challenge, to personal attack (skolnick) and internet terrorism (claus Larsen), when you genuinely have to fear for the personal safety of loved ones.

about the jref 1m$ challenge "[...]adjudication and arbitration has be be present throughout the whole process of the challenge - from application onwards, the test comes alongway down the line. and the fact that not even one single test has gone ahead supports the bias hypothesis about impartiality at the early stages of the challenge.

and it is to the jref's shame that no one with any psi proof will take the challenge seriously, as all it does is raise serious, rational doubts about the agenda of some professional skeptics.

don't get me wrong, and i've said it before, randi is the greatest show man ever. the greatest. but he is no true skeptic and imo only damages the public perception of skepticism in general. in the long run, which is worse, i believe such coa*se skepticism actually hinders the true progression of science, rather than advance it. and that is a shame."

http://badpsychic.proboards53.com/index.cgi?board=OtherPsychics&action=display&thread=1133368546&page=12

Oh my god. I didn’t see this statement from Skolnick on the JREF forum. I thought the moderator had warned Skolnick for his continued "standard" personal attacks. I didn’t realize that it had gone this far!

"Siqueira likes to attack and abuse people. Let's say that sometime in the future, he abuses his children. And just imagine that in some deranged state he puts his bad fingers on them. No, I do not believe that Siqueira would do such a terrible deed. But people sometimes surprises us. Both for the good, and for the bad (and what Siquieria did at the Museum of Hoaxes and Wikipedia sites was very inappropriate, to put it mildly)."

Julio, that's not just the unthinkable, it's sheer evil. Skolnick's innuendo and outright statement inferring child abuse goes far beyond "personal feud" or a mere risk to a "membership agreement" on some internet forum. It's not normal or right to make such a statement, and it's not only unlawful but morally corrupt.

One cannot make charges (even through innuendo) like Skolnick does in that statement.

Skolnick, you should immediately apologize, retract the statement and try to ensure that no one has even the slightest impression that what you said has any truth or facts behind it.

The forum moderator on JREF should have immediately banned Skolnick for making this type of remark. It’s an unacceptable attack. It’s criminal and well beyond any of the “flaming” messages that have been posted by anyone. It’s amazing to me that Darat then defended the “warning” as though it was not due to a breach of the JREF Membership Agreement, but merely some type of “proactive” comment. I cannot imagine that such an egregiously criminal attack could be defended in such a manner.

Including phrases like “Let’s say” or “just imagine” and “No, I do not believe that xxx would do such a terrible deed” are no defense. The inference is loud and clear, and as such is criminal.

Then when you add on what they did to lucianarcy by posting contact information in such a public forum and then harassing that female family member at work, the entire forum becomes completely and outrageously unacceptable! I knew the JREF posters were insulting trolls, but this behavior goes well beyond that. It’s unforgivable.

-
-
-
-
------------BREAKING NEWS---------------

Skolnick got expelled from http://www.amazon.com. His phoney book review can be found no more in the link below:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591020182/sr=1-1/qid=1137164932/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5688544-4080651?%5Fencoding=UTF8

It has been sent to the trash area, where it belongs :-)

Julio Siqueira

*****IMPORTANT INFORMATION POSSIBLY "AGAINST" NATASHA******


Dear Everybody,

In the James Randi forum (JREF), the member BillC has recently posted a piece of information that, to my eyes, seem like the first preliminar evidence of some sort of fraudulent conduct from the part of Natasha Demkina. He found a site which seems to be her official site in Russia, in the Russian language. There, they detail her claims, and indeed say that she has many special powers of vision, including cellular level vision, the ability to see biochemical processes and physiological ones, etc. This is particularly suspicious (to me - IMHO) especially because these extended and detailed powers WERE NOT mentioned by the Discovery Channel producer (Monica Garnsey) to the researchers back in the beginning of 2004 (when they were designing the test). The impression that I got is that, to a more demanding audience (i.e. the Discovery Channel personnel), Natasha made her claims more "humble"...

These things have to be checked with care. But I cannot help saying that the impression that I got from this report was not a good one.

Best Regards,
Julio Siqueira
_________________

Yet more of Siqueira's lies. I told the jackal shortly after the Discovery Channel program was broadcast that Natasha claims to see on cellular and molecular level. He denied she ever claimed this. He insisted that she can only see details no smaller than 2 cm. (a "fact" that he simply pulled from his blow hole). I told him that we had ample evidence that she claims to see on the cellular and molecular level. When I cited some of that evidence, he dishonestly dismissed it. I provided the liar with no more information when I saw how he twisted and misquoted anything I told him.

For more than a year, he's been accusing me of lying about Natasha's claims. Just look through this forum and see how many times he called me a liar for saying that we know what Natasha claims to be able to do.

Now, he happears to be backtracking. Could there be hope that Siqueira is turning from the Dark Side?

Nope. He just got a serioius group ass-kicking over on the JREF forum about this lie and his other mendacious conduct. So he's now pretending that Natasha only recently began claim that she can on the cellular and molecular level. The Everlying Bunny just keeps going, and going, and going...

As all the records show, he was told the truth well over a year ago, but he didn't accept it because it didn't fit his dishonest agenda, which is to discredit skeptical investigators.

Siqueira, if you keep posting your dishonest nonsense on the JREF forum, they will make Everlying Bunny stew out of you. Your main tactic is to wear out a skeptic with your inexhaustable willingness to post lie after lie. On the JREF forum, there are many skeptics who are willing to share the duty of exposing your outrageous deceits. You're not going to like their stew pot.