Funny T-Shirts

Holy Toast!
The Miracle Bread Stamper

skolnick, julio is one of the few honest skeptics there. at least he acknowledges and moves on, everything i've seen from you is nothing more that bitter intransigence. the fact that you called for a 'show of hands' and didn't even get one is quite telling, if not rather pathetic.

now, i have a question for you, what do you think of the jref publishing on behalf of claus larsen the contact details of a woman in my family in order to intimidate and cause alarm and distress for her personal safety?

I'd need to see proof of that accusation before I would give it a single thought. So far, every word out of you has been a baseless accusation or a baldfaced lie.

I especially find eye-popping your claim that Julio Siqueira is one of the few honest skeptics. He's not a skeptic and he's certainly not honest. His lies have been exposed innumerable times here and in other forums. And so have yours.

The Everlying Bunnies Julio and Judy are at it again:

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!

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.

Forum readers should read my entire post and see how low these two jerks will stoop. They deleted the part of my message that clearly shows I was using Siqueira's own twisted words against him to show how unethical it was for him to make such revoltingly baseless accusations.

Silly me to not think that these moral morons would cut and paste from one forum to deceive readers in another forum.

See for yourself the actual post showing that this sleazy tactic was Julio Siqueira's, not mine:
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1369019&postcount=516

skolnick; look at luke t's post, 2nd on page. the jref have written over the links on that page with other threads, presumablty to bury the evidence. thank goodness google has a cache. if you're a jref forum member, you can search using that cache key words. - the woman larsen was terrorising has now moved:

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:pCAmqL2ZX3sJ:www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870554768&highlight=Lucianarchy

skolnick, i've looked at your link there, julio does not associate anyone with child abuse. so why did you?

"Most people who fall for Claus Larsen's lies and deception don't even realise that I have respect for much of what Randi does. He is one of the greatest showmen, ever, and the JREF an excellent resource for attracting young and old with enquiring minds to the examination of both positive parapsychology and the commercial side, of scams, cons and deceptions.

This forum is the responsibility of a registered charity. It is registered as being an 'educational resource'.

Claus Larsen's recent behaviour is clearly abhorrent to anyone with any sense of decency.

There is no way that any one of sound mind would agree that the behaviour of Claus Larsen, by posting those details, is in any shape or form an appropriate or relevant behaviour to be published in a forum registered under the current status.

The internet is fantastic. But as in any aspect of human society, there are boundaries set by common human decency, and some by law. This JREF fourm has a clearly defined use and attracts people for those clearly defined reasons. People read the guidelines and join by agreeing to them. Not only do the members enter a contract to refrain from certain behaviours, the admin of the forum also have a duty to not subject their members to those behaviours by the misapplication of their powers.

The recent statement py Randi, and the subsequent changes in guidelines and rules have been made a mockery of by Claus Larsen and the administrator(s) of this forum.

There is no doubt that people are leaving because of Claus Larsen's uncivil behaviour. No doubt, anyone new reading the recent sinister and vile behaviour of Claus Larsen would be too scared or stupid to choose to begin a dialogue, or even express an opinion on their beliefs should they be different to Claus Larsen's.

How soon will it be before such behaviour empties the forum like a pervert empties a swimming pool?

And how long will it be until that sort of behaviour mentioned above brings the attention of other agencies, educational, media onto the JREF for having these things going on on their website?"

enjoy your swim, skolnick.

"In the context of the thread, it's pretty apparent that Claus put those significant place names in grey type purposely as if to say, "Psst! I know where you go, Lucianarchy. I know where you and your family are in real life!"

The various threads (and Claus's non-responses to a variety of good questions) show there wasn't any guesswork or fishing involved. He had one purpose: intimidation and harrassment that would be obvious to Lucian, but he could explain away as "off topic curiosity" to anyone else. He refuses to answer the clear-cut questions he's been asked--questions about why he posted this and how, exactly, he obtained the personal information.

Quote:
I'm just curious about how one would go about determining with reasonable certainty the actual identity of a poster without IP addresses and ISP assistance.

Claus has said that he has Lucian's IP address, and has apparently had it for quite a while. I'm sure he found out Lucian's full name, and used it to research additional information about his real life.

When someone says "I'll be wherever you are" (supposedly meaning "on the Internet") and then adds that you should be worried or scared about that...well, its no wonder Lucianarchy would be upset to have the added bit, private information that seems to say, "Guess what? I don't like you and I also know where you or your family members live and work."

And Girl6 showed someone could use the information Claus posted to find out personal things about Lucianarchy through a web search. That makes it even worse."

"Lucianarchy is a hardcore believer in just about everything paranormal. And damned proud of it. Very fervent, and a long time member of the JREF forum.

Claus has been pursuing Luci in his usual style. And the usual punches have been thrown back and forth, with Luci resorting to histrionics and Claus resorting to repetitive doggedness.

Luci started a topic to "warn" other believers that Claus was trying to censor him. During the topic, Claus started dropping odd little words/phrases in very light text that had nothing to do with the conversation.

Luci has stated these are pieces of personal data relating to the location of a relative of Luci's. Claus has been very coy and said he has not posted any personal data that is not publicly available.

It is up to the individual to believe whether or not Claus knew this information was not Luci's personal information. But Claus would like us all to believe he did not know it was connnected to Luci in any way at all, which is total bullshit as far as I'm concerned. Why post it during a converstaion with Luci then? And for those of us who know where the information came from,it is obvious it is connected to Lucianarchy. The only question that remains is if Claus mistakenly thought it was Luci him/herself or a friend/relative of Luci's.

Whatever the case, a completely innocent third party's personal data has been posted on JREF by Claus. In the face of this, Claus bats his eyes and asks us to tell everyone whose information it is. He also says he did not post any personal information. That Luci is the one who did by laying claim to the data he (Claus) posted.

Bullshit."

what do you think these people are talking about skolnick?

sorry for the temporary derailment, but skolnick wants to know what sort of 'skepticism' he is involved with.

Lucianarchy, I went to that URL and all I saw were the same kind of angry accusations that you are posting here. I saw no evidence of Claus' wrong doing.

I repeat: I won't consider your accusation until you document it. The fact that you would describe Julio Siqueira, who has been exposed as a liar here and in other forums, as one of this forum's most honest skeptics, shows that you have little respect for truth.

are you seriously saying that you, andrew skolnick, after being provided with the above evidence, can see no evidence of wrong doing by claus lasen on the jref forum?

away with your sophistry. yes or no.

In fact, what I read at that URL seems to show that the threatening conduct was yours:

"Go **** yourself you sick bastard."

"I will take every means available to me to stop them dead in their tracks and make that person immediately accountable for their actions."

You’re an even bigger fool than I thought Skolnick. I don’t know what makes you think the one sentence mitigates the rest of your statement involving allegations of Child Abuse. It doesn’t.

I’ll post the whole statement, then Skolnick. It makes absolutely no difference. What you wrote is criminal and morally wrong. You’d best ask a criminal defense attorney for an opinion on making these kinds of statements. I think you’ll be quite shocked at the criminality of your statement. If I were you, I would never make such a comment again about anyone. There’s nothing funny, clever or entertaining about such allegations, even worded in the manner you have below. People have been arrested for less. Believe me.

Skolnick said:
"Let's apply Julio Siqueira shameless tactic against him and see if he thinks it's fair:

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).

Is there any argument that is too sleazy for Siqueira to use? I now doubt it."

Well, there’s the whole thing, and I still don’t see anything in there that makes your statement “ok” or even close to being acceptable. You are obviously the only “shameless” and “sleazy” one involved, Skolnick. That is absolutely an accusation of child abuse by intimation. Completely unacceptable.

It’s just incredible. Instead of apologizing for his outrageous and unwarranted remarks, Skolnick has the gall to go on the attack! Skolnick, you are definitely the sleazy one. There is no comparison between what Julio said and what you said. Your allegations of child abuse, even coached in the terms you placed it, is clearly and undeniably criminal and morally bankrupt.

Julio actually gives a reasonable “what if” example, because Skolnick has clearly shown his true colors of making outrageous and obsessive attacks against his critics. Look at Skolnick’s junkyard dog website, and his attacks on a Nobel Prize winner, I can only imagine how Skolnick would attack even Doctors if they disagreed with him.

And, Skolnick, you are oh so wrong in your defense of your statements of Child abuse. Nothing in this country even comes close to child abuse or making false allegations of the same. You go too far, Skolnick, in your obsessive assaults against your critics.

Here in the USA, I don’t think Julio would even have to be investigated for Child Abuse to be able to get you criminally charged and convicted for making such a statement as you did on JREF. The area of false child abuse allegations is a serious and sensitive area. My god, I don’t know how you could be that stupid, Skolnick. I really don’t. The context you try to place it in means nothing, you’ve rung a bell that cannot be unrung. That’s one of the major points, you’ve made a statement in a public forum that can be taken out of context and used to try and ruin someone. It is a Criminal act. And it is morally wrong. Clearly and definitively.

Here’s Julio’s remark, which doesn’t even come close to what Skolnick twisted it into:

Julio said:
"Skolnick likes to threaten people, and they may, let's say, sometime in the future submit an article to an American medical journal (just suppose it) and just imagine if their article is somehow barred via Skolnick's bad fingers. These guys just answered my questions. They did not ask to remain anonymous. They did not even comment on my promise to keep them anonymous. But I can only say who they are if they agree with it. No, I do not believe that Skolnick would do such a terrible deed. But people sometimes surprises us. Both for the good, and for the bad (and what Skolnick did at the Amazon.com site was very inappropriate, to put it mildly). If you really think it is necessary, I can ask them and put them directly in contact with you. Ok?) and just imagine if their article is somehow barred via Skolnick's bad fingers. These guys just answered my questions. They did not ask to remain anonymous. They did not even comment on my promise to keep them anonymous. But I can only say who they are if they agree with it. No, I do not believe that Skolnick would do such a terrible deed. But people sometimes surprises us. Both for the good, and for the bad (and what Skolnick did at the Amazon.com site was very inappropriate, to put it mildly). If you really think it is necessary, I can ask them and put them directly in contact with you. Ok?"

I find Julio's remark to be completely reasonable and in-line with Skolnick's outrageous and obsessive behavior. Skolnick has been shown to pull out all the stops to attack, insult and degrade his opponents. Skolnick made similar threats to publish a negative article in SI against Wikipedia, so it's perfectly reasonable to assume he would do the same against an individual identified by Julio as someone who goes against what Skolnick claims.

Can anyone doubt that?

Hell, Skolnick has falsely accused Julio of being a racist, a liar, an idiot, and now a child abuser. Can he go any further with his obsessive assaults?

Apologize now, Skolnick. Retract your statements.

Darat, I don't know if you read this forum, but I would seriously consider removing Skolnick's remarks about child abuse from your site. CDA 230 might protect you if there is any legal action ever taken, but I wouldn't take the chance where allegations or even intimation of Child Abuse is involved.

Better to be safe than sorry.

skolnick, you are one hell of adispicable creep. not only did you refuse to answer a simple 'yes' 'no' question, you posted my response to what claus larsen did to an innocent woman in my family, but for some reason, you HIGHLIGHTED one word. yes i was furious when i discovered what was (is) really going on, as would anyone else. but why did you highlight / emphasise one word?

at least you've put your cards on the table, skolnick. what a legacy you leave.

karma.

Just as I thought. Skolnick is the one who highlighted the word "dead", which completely changes the meaning of what lucianarcy wrote.

You are despicable, Skolnick. A proven liar and cheater. Shame on you.

How Skolnick can defend the illegal and depraved act of posting a female relative of lucianarcy's personal contact information which led to harassment of that innocent person is well beyond me. How terrible. What kind of man does that?

I guess the same kind of man that misleads and ridicules a poor seventeen year old Russian girl like Natasha.

How awful.

Hi Skolnick,

You said:

"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."

The problem is that you simply never, NEVER, provided any evidence whatsoever for this statement of yours above. BillC, on the other hand, provided a piece of evidence that, to my eyes, seems worthy of trust. That is why HIS contribution is brilliant. Whereas YOUR contributions (or better, babblings...) were sloppy, to put it mildly.

As to child abuse, you had just no right to coin those unthinkable phrases of yours. You may think that they were cute, but they were actually hideous. The only occasion that I mentioned your private family life, in the Museum of Hoaxes, I said it in a very respectful way. I said that there is awesome beauty in your website, and that I bet there was very much of this beauty elsewhere in your life.

Julio
_________

andrew skolnick,

where are now?

holed up at the jref?

thankfully, future programme researchers will now be able to research your name and find out what a disgracefull charlatan you are.

i am sure csicop will be forever in your debt for your involvement in the 'the girl with x-ray eyes'.!!

in terms of your 'scientific methods', the words 'brewery', 'piss-up', 'organise' and 'couldn't' spring to mind.

this expose is a text-book example for all students of science and skepticism to study.

what a legacy you leave this life, skolnick.

Lucianarchy, you just don't understand: The measure of a skeptical researcher's contributions to society can be measured by the number of kooks and cranks who curse his name.

Thanks for the complements.