The Girl With X-Ray Eyes

Oops! Posted that baby twice by accident! I thought it got lost in transit...looks like my posting skills are fatally flawed...😉

Archangel,

"Would you admit it if you were [a hired shill working for Natasha's agent to rationalize her failure to past the test?] I think not." I do think your arguments and false statements are "at the very least inadequate."

You resort to absurd arguments like the one you started with because you have neither facts nor reason to make your case. Your comments are either clearly false or as illogical as the one you start with -- that we are probably guilty because we deny our guilt. This is the logic of the Dark Ages, when they convicted "witches" on the basis of accusation supported by the accused's refusal to admit guilt. It seems to me that the logic of the Dark Ages may appeal to you at least as much as the period's unquestioned belief in the supernatural.

You've made no effort to get your facts straight. There was not two tests or test phases but one. Natasha does not claim to see "auras." Nor does she "diagnose." She says she sees organs, tissues and foreign objects inside of people's bodies down to the cellular level and by doing so, she looks for abnormalities -- including signs of long healed health problems. It appears that you are simply parroting the latest rationalizations being circulated among Natasha's apologists to explain away her failure to demonstrate the supernatural abilities she claims. And no, she did not pass the test. Merely repeating falsehoods do not make them any less false.

You and her other supporters are simply making up claims to explain away her failure, but you fail to back up those claims with anything but misstatements and baseless opinions.

You began your unreasoned tirade by chastising us for setting up a test to "prove Natasha a fake." And you end by chastising us for failing to prove that she's a fake. There are only two things consistent in your arguments: Your belief in Natasha's supernatural claims and your unreasoned hostilitity towards us.

You're a slacker, Skolnick. Your attempt to twist my statements is as ludicrous as is the scientific methodology you purport to utilize. Instead of actually addressing the arguments, you resort to insults and intimidation.

To illustrate this, one merely has to look at my statements and your interpretation of the same. For instance, I questioned whether or not you would admit it if the test were indeed set up to cause failure. This in no way indicates any thought on my part that you are guilty by "dark age" reasoning that because you failed to admit guilt, that you were indeed guilty. Silly, Skolnick. It merely questions if you would actually admit it if you did set up the test for failure. it draws no conclusions of guilt from failing to admit guilt. Nice job getting things off track Skolnick.

What this shows me is that you either purposely misunderstand and twist things or that you don't truly understand what you are reading. Bad for scientific methodology, either way.

One thing that does make me think you are guilty are the unbelievable lengths you go to in your offensive attacks to defend your scientific methodology. That and your methods were flawed. Even your math is flawed.

There were TWO phases of your test. First phase (or section) of the test was with five persons, the second phase was with seven people. Simple. Are you even really Skolnick??

As for what the girl actually sees, I think you are the one who really does not understand what the girl is seeing. I can excuse verbal gaffes from the young lady who does not know English and doesn't know proper medical terminology, but you are a completely different story. You didn't do your homework on many levels. Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake. You merely proved that CSICOP is either inept or just a fake.

My hostility towards CSICOP is completely reasoned, and comes from my own thoughts and observations. I happen to agree with your critics, which doesn't make me a parrot.

I'm not even a supporter of Natasha. I merely would have liked to see a series of fair and reasonable tests that showed whether or not she could do what she claimed. CSICOP failed. Miserably.

Statistically speaking, four of seven is passing the test. No matter what your "higher bar" expectations were, or what your "agreement" of testing conditions was. Plus, I think you cheated by setting up a hostile and uncomfortable environment and changing the rules at the last minute.

Your attacks on my comments are actually pretty funny. Dark ages and all that. The twisting of my words is nice, too. I never said she saw auras; I said it might be something like that. Seeing some type of energy that she translates into an image of internal activities of the body. The girl may not even know what cellular means. You didn't bother to truly research all that, did you?

Continued below

Skolnick, I really enjoyed your attacks on word utilization, for instance the word

On reflection, maybe I did say that I thought she saw auras. However. The real point I was trying to make was that she is young, uneducated and inexperienced. So, she may not have the proper tools to describe what she is seeing. To make sure of this would require research and detailed questioning of Natasha. CSICOP didn't do this properly. Instead of addressing that lack of preparation and investigation, we merely get the "Attack-of-the-insulting-Skolnick". A dark-ages b-movie. Heh....

This is hilarious. I just can't stop laughing at the way you took my words and twisted them. I like the "hired shill" part. I tell you, if they did hire me to rationalize her failure, I wouldn't be doing here on this forum. I'd be on The Learning Channel doing a show that debunks your pathetic tests, and I'd have a spot on CNN where I'd really set up a smackdown of CSICOP's inept and obviously biased "investigation". Yeah, get me professionally involved.

Right now I'm just a viewer that didn't think your methods or motivations were good.

Natasha may be fake or delusional, but you guys are a joke. I'm not certain when this first aired in the USA, but I just saw the show last night. When I first saw the title, I thought it was a b-movie from the '50s or something. Then when I saw it, I was appalled by the lack of professionalism on the part of the CSICOP members. Outrageous.

Archangel, I haven't twisted your words. That's the way they come out of your fingers. Merely repeating falsehoods, as you continue to do, will never make them any truer, nor will twisting the facts into even bigger knots make them easier to swallow. Anyone comparing your comments with the facts on record should see the kind of game you're playing. Like your criticizing us for not testing to see whether Natasha sees "auras," and then denying you said she may be seeing "auras." You demonstrate absolutely no respect for the truth.

A review of the written test protocols will show that your claim that the test had "two phases" is false:
http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/demkina.protocols.doc

There was only one test which consisted of one phase. The demonstration Natasha performed the day before the test was not part of our test. The fact that you would repeat the falsehood instead of admitting error hardly serves your credibility.

Nor does your repeating falsehoods like a parrot: "Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake."

Only badly misinformed or dishonest people have been making this accusation. From the beginning, we made it clear that our test was NOT designed to prove anything. It was a fact-gathering test to see if further study would be warranted. That you would keep repeating such demonstratable falsehoods incicates you have no interest in fair or honest discourse.

The rest of your baseless accusations have been answered here repeatedly. That you would simply ignore the answers is not surprising.

"There was only one test which consisted of one phase. "

I see. The first part with the five individuals, which I and many others took to be part of your test wasn't part of the test at all.

That's disappointing because I thought it was a far more legitimate test than the one performed with the seven individuals. It just makes CSICOP even less credible.

Plus, the documentary made it seem like it was part of the test. Which, I would think is a valid assumption based on the fact that you flew her to NYC to test her...then the first element isn't part of the test?

And. You did twist my words. In no way did I claim you were guilty because you failed to admit guilt. Dark ages, not..

[Nor does your repeating falsehoods like a parrot: "Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake." ]

It's not a falsehood, numbskull. It's my opinion. There's a difference. It may be wrong, but it's not a lie.

I guess you've been attacked so much on so many sides that your defensive posture is automatic and goes right towards the theory that everyone is a hired shill or some nonsense like that.

"From the beginning, we made it clear that our test was NOT designed to prove anything."

If you made it clear, then I wouldn't be questioning you on it. But, just saying something doesn't make it true. It appears to me that you designed the test to prove she was a fake - whether she was fake or real.

That's what it looked like. To me.

Deal with it.

My point to these posts is to let you know that in my eyes, the eyes of a television viewer who had just viewed "The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes" and who had no preconceptions or bias one way or another about either Natasha or CSICOP, the analysis performed by CSICOP was lacking and unconvincing.

The events on the show made CSICOP look like they were either inept or so one-sided that they concocted an unfair test that was meant to disprove any claimed ability by Natasha, whether she had the ability or not.

My opinion has been further reinforced by my reading other opinions on the web, both for and against CSICOP.

I am adding my voice to those who have expressed disbelief in CSICOP's methods, conclusions and excuses. I'm adding my opinion that CSICOP is completely biased and did a hack job on the girl with the x-ray eyes.

CSICOP members are insulting and hostile towards anyone who questions thier validity and methods.

I have no hidden agenda, nor am I some superstitious clod from the dark ages. I just see a bunch of old men who formed a group called CSICOP that appears to have no true scientific validity or agenda, and even when they admit to their mistakes, they cannot see the impact of those mistakes or the appearance their group makes in the public eye.

This whether or not Natasha eyes are x-ray or normal.

Obviously, any true discussion around the scientific or social merits of the CSICOP investigation is impossible.

Ooo, maybe we can have a heated discussion on my utilixation of the word "impossible" in that paragraph...or the use of the word paragrapsh...maybe it was only a sentence. How foolish am I? Sheesh.

By golly, you do like the word "parrot" though, don't you? I just love that....

Wanna cracker?

Anyone comparing your comments with the facts on record should see the kind of game you're playing. Like your criticizing us for not testing to see whether Natasha sees "auras," and then denying you said she may be seeing "auras." You demonstrate absolutely no respect for the truth.

Ok, I admitted that I was wrong and said she was seeing Auras, now why don't you address the core of my comment, which was the lack of investigation into what Natasha was actually seeing, considering her level of education, knowledge, experience and powers of description. Instead of addressing that question, you merely attacked my use and definition of "Aura".

I don't think you know what she thought or claimed she was seeing.

And if you did investigate it...it certainly didn't come across that way.

Anyway, I'm done here. I've said my piece on this and will be awaiting the next appearance of CSICOP in the anals of lousy science.

Archangel repeats, [Nor does your repeating falsehoods like a parrot: "Your testing was so pathetic that you in no way proved she was a fake." ]

"It's not a falsehood, numbskull. It's my opinion. There's a difference. It may be wrong, but it's not a lie."

Archangel, your lie here is by innuendo. Your statement dishonestly implies that we attempted to prove that Natasha is a fake. You've been told that this is false more than once. The written test rules and our published reports make it clear that a) our test was not designed to "prove" anything; and b) we never claimed Natasha is "a fake." Your persistance in posting these falsehoods disguised as "opinion" is only more evidence of your dishonesty.

Another falsehood you're now repeating is that we did not investigate Natasha's claims. You appear to just make things up (like your claim that she reads "auras"), but that's not how we conduct an investigation. The record shows we had researched published reports and also asked Natasha what she claims to be able to do. Furthermore, we submitted the exact test design to Natasha for her approval a week before she came to the United States to be tested and we received it. If we were not testing what Natasha claims to be able to do, she would have agreed to come and be tested by us.

Like all careful researchers, we built a public record trail. Like many of our critics, Archangel has nothing to respond with but innuendos, falsehoods, and appeals to the expertise of his own opinion.

Sorry to disappoint Archangel, but CSICOP will not likely join him "in the anals of lousy science." I doubt there's a more fitting place to put his comments and opinions. 😊

"in the anals of lousy science."
You thought that was a typo? Nope. Purely intentional. Just like your anal-ysis of Natasha and your parroted responses. You merely show yourself to be the hack that you are.

I have to personally laugh at your persistence that I'm "lying" and telling "falsehoods" by presenting my opinion. I'm not saying anything by innuendo - I'm OUT AND OUT SAYING DIRECTLY AND CLEARLY THAT IN MY HONEST OPINION, I BELIEVE CSICOP INTENTIONALLY SET UP THE TEST IN A CLEAR ATTEMPT TO PROVE NATASHA IS A FAKE. No innuendo, it's my direct opinion. Not a falsehood, 'cause I'm not lying, you dope. You may not agree with it, and it may not even be true, but because it's my real opinion, it's not a falsehood. Your consistent comment that you've already addressed this and said it's true has done nothing to prove that it is true. A falsehood is not something that's merely incorrect or wrong, it's a lie. I'm not lying or telling a falsehood when I say that it appears to me that CSICOP was doing their best to make this girl fail. My 12 year old niece could set up a better test than did CSICOP.

I think YOU are the liar when you claim that you weren't trying to prove her fake.

Further, you performed a very superficial investigation into Natasha's claims, any reputable scientist would throw your methodology and conclusions out the window.

Why would a reputable scientist be jousting with people on this forum? Makes no sense. Either you're not Skolnick or you're the hack I believe you to be.

Anyway, you appear to be just a troll. I've gotta stop feeding the troll.

Although I rarely address internet Trolls, let me add to Archangel's comment:
[lack of a "proper and in-depth" investigation into what Natasha was actually seeing, considering her level of education, knowledge, experience and powers of description.]

Researching "published reports" and the superficial questioning of Natasha performed was not a correct or complete methodology for any scientific investigation.

It does not appear that any true or proper in-depth direct questioning of the subject was performed by CSICOP to either design the test, or to find out the details about what Natasha was claiming to see. In reality, CSICOP mainly relied on hearsay and information from a third party, Monica Garnsey. From the documentary, I am quite unsure as to why the researchers didn't understand why the subject couldn't see through a cloth hanging in front of the subjects. This is only one example. What does it mean when she uses the word "concentrate" what does it mean when she says she sees a the cellular level? Did she even say that to them, I didn

"If we were not testing what Natasha claims to be able to do, she would have agreed to come and be tested by us."

It is not the subject's responsibility to make sure the researchers are testing the proper things; it's the complete and total responsibility of the researchers. Being able to bully or

I don't usually stoop to name calling, but I have to admit that this skolnick character fits the description to an absolute T.

A Troll:
Inflammatory, sarcastic, disruptive or humorous content is posted, meant to draw other users into engaging the troll in a fruitless confrontation. The more attention the troll's activities draw from users, the more persistent the troll's behavior in the forum. This gives rise to the often repeated protocol in internet culture: "Do not feed the trolls."

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

Interestingly enough, this "troll-like" behavior seems to apply to the entire CSICOP contingent that appeared on "The Girl with the X-Ray Eyes"

Facinating.

One point to add to my earlier remark:

?the researchers failed to fully take into account the available data about Natasha's vision, both its scope and its limitations."

Scope, limitations and functionality. And the understanding thereof.

"Uncle Bob" appears to be the author of an online "study," which contains virtually all the same false and defamatory remarks. Like that author, "Uncle Bob" makes things up -- like his claim that we "cheated" Natasha, that we "insulted" and "made fun of her," and that we "changed the test when she got there." He even had the to post his "study" with the claim that I had reviewed it and that he incorporated my suggested changes. And like him, "Uncle Bob" is a shameless liar. And the most shameless of his lies is his claim that my colleague is now in trouble with his university because of scientific misconduct. "Uncle Bob" appears to think that because he's is Brazil, he cannot be sued for libel.

Troll! Yes, askolnick! Thank you for proving that you are indeed an Internet Troll! This is exactly the behavior we defined earlier! It matches almost all the Troll qualities, except for humor. You provided a completely predictable response! I knew Archangel wouldn't steer me wrong. This is actually marvelous, because I've had no direct dealings with a true Troll before. What fun! Troll!

Additionally, this illustrates the true depth of the research and analytical skills of askolnick, which clearly and undeniably shows that askolnick has no investigative or analytical skills, and has absolutely no feel or talent for making a conclusion from the facts given. Exactly the same poor showing as in the case of Natasha.

This is a truly remarkable showcase of the half-baked investigative skills of this man.

Wrong person, wrong target, wrong country, wrong conclusion and someone else's study. Truly powerful investigative skills! Hah!

I'd take credit for it if I wrote it, because I completely and totally agree with everything it states.

I was very curious to see how Trollish your response would be, and I'm not at all disappointed.

Thanks for the excellent laugh. Troll.

Oh, and obviously everyone should read the article I posted earlier, it must hit home like a ton of bricks to Mr. Trollnick.

Gee, I kinda like feeding the Troll.

<a href="http://www.csmmh.org/demkina/answerstocritics.html">Answers to Our Critics

<center>http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/cover.jpg
<font size="+1">
_"Testing Natasha"

"The Girl with Normal Eyes"</center> </font>

<font size="+1">Live Science</font>
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/reason_demkina_050128.html

<font size="+1"Wikipedia</font>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Demkina

<font size="+1">Reference.com
</font>
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Natasha_Demkina

I found these to be far more fair and balanced than the above drek.

(Oh, and thanks for the support, UncleBob! Glad you enjoyed Troll Fishing...told ya...classic..I'm sure he's not done with you yet. You must have hit the mark because he's reposting all the crap he and his cronies wrote...if it's even him and not some crack-head imposter....😉

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/observer/X-ray_sequel.htm

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/THES1.html

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/viewnews.php?id=38855

http://dream-detective.com/_wsn/page9.html

http://www.unexplainable.net/artman/publish/article_1899.shtml

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina

<font size="+1">High Beam Research</font>
http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:132190057&ctrlInfo=Round18%3AMode18c%3ADocG%3AResult&ao;=

I don't expect Internet trolls like Archangel to understand the difference between respected published literature and the e-bleatings of cranks and trolls. But normal readers here should appreciate the difference by noting which references are cited by researchers and university faculty -- such as for the Fall 2005 course on The Scientific Method being taught at Southern Methodist University, which lists the Skeptical Inquirer reports on Natasha Demkina as recommended reading: <a href="http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/syllabus.html">
http://www.physics.smu.edu/~pseudo/syllabus.html

I never knew that lol!!! They are everywhere these day. stupid troll people seriously. they never admit they are wrong because they have no life. esp nick.

just because you things has to be "scientific" and it needs to be proven biologically means its true. people these day.

it's possible she could see through living tissues or see aura. we could find her ability really helpful. if she is doing the "cold reading" she is really skillful...unlike nick here. who tries making money for making other people look like a fraud.

americans... anything is possible, but it doesnt mean it's impossible if you dont have the ability to do that. what she did up there was really amazing and you guys still trying to insult her claims.

she even flown to london and japan. they were all impressed by her ability. i don't see why nick has to prove anything. its almost like if nick doesn't understand women.

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/natashacansue.html

Feed the Troll!

Does anyone understand a 17 year old girl?
Does anyone understand the chemical inbalance of a women after giving birth to a child?
Does anyone understand that even though they are wrong they wont admit it?
Who are we to say she is a fraud?
I don't see any harm done so far...

"Does anybody understand the chemical imbalance" that makes a person seek attention by posting mindless and illiterate drivel?

If Loozer and Trollfeeder would kindly submit themselves for an autopsy, they could greatly help scientists discover what goes wrong inside of broken minds.

LOL! Thanks Trollfeeder and lolzer. I needed a good laugh. I think nick takes himself too seriously, and he may have gone over the edge when he basically insulted every internet user on the planet...

The only reason I can see that he's so defensive is because he knows he's wrong and if he admitted it, it would be the end of his career and reputation - not mention the reputations of his cronies. So he fights every little battle with every weapon at his disposal. He even has the balls to attack a Nobel Prize winner on page 10 of this thread, saying "I don't think Brian Josephson has done anything "truly scientific" since winning his Nobel prize in 1973 -- the same year he turned to the dark side and endorsed the real, genuine fake psychic powers

Can you handle the truth? Not many people are able to do that. The truth is Natasha could see what is going on in the human body.

Natasha isn't dumb if she's really a fraud. Just like Nick isn't a really an ass. Some people are recieving bad information or being mistreated. Just like Natasha is being mistreated with her test.

Oh my god. I submitted my last post before I saw the Troll's 'autopsy' comment. What in the hell is wrong this man?

Definite Trolldom. And ya know what, he's used that little jewel before.

The guy is out of control.

Hahaha... Archangel so smart! I didn't know Nobel Troll Prize exist! *sarcasm*
Nick must be awesome winning that prize. I want to nominate askolnick as the best Troll of the year. :coolgrin:

Trollfeeder, I second your emotion...

Actually, I'm a little worried about our little Troll. Someone commented earlier in this forum's thread the askolnick gets wilder and wilder. Threats, insults, condescending putdowns.

Is he getting drunk? Is he off his meds? Is he just an unbelievably classic Troll? Can he really be the respected and renowned Andrew Skolnick, tamer of the young Russian teenage girl, who is required reading at a respected university? Can he leap tall buildings in a single bound; is an alien from another world? Look, up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's SUPERTROLL!! Nothing mild-mannered about this reporter for a small, he's rude, he's abusive, he's insulting, he's INSANE!!!

Oh my. UncleBob, where are you when we need you...

askolnick, this is what you get when you insult the unwashed masses. Snark.

It's a shame that one character assassin and several junior highschool trolls are taking over this thread. I'll leave it to them. But I will return to post links to information on Natasha Demkina reported in respected print and online publications.

lols

This from a guy who threatened to sue Brazil for libel..

Now he's going to take his ball and go home. Boo hoo. You can dish out insults and high-schoolish remarks, but you can't take 'em.

What a sad sack. Wish UncleBob were here to witness the last assholenick insult. Character assassin indeed. From a guy who wants to perform autopsies on teenagers. Great. I'm calling Southern Methodist Univ. tomorrow to enroll.

I just love it! Didn't clown-troll read his own posts? They're totally outrageous and insulting. Been that way for over a YEAR, with this mamas boy insulting people on the thread. Starting with poor Puck and his math skills.

You will return? What do you think, you're MacArthur?

Now that he's gone, here's a serious question:

CSICOP changed the test after Natasha got to New York. This change was by introducing two elements that she said she could not

So, um, does anyone think I went too far by calling him "Supertroll"? I do feel a little bad about that one.

lolzer said:

"just because you things has to be "scientific" and it needs to be proven biologically means its true. people these day."

What did you intend to say there? That paragraph makes no sense.

"it's possible she could see through living tissues or see aura."

PROVE IT!

"we could find her ability really helpful. if she is doing the "cold reading" she is really skillful."

Yes, it would be helpful IF someone could see through solid objects. Unfortunately, no one can. As for the "cold reading" thing, many people are skilled at it. Actually, you don't have to be all that good at it if you have an audience that accepts you at face value.

"americans... anything is possible, but it doesnt mean it's impossible if you dont have the ability to do that. what she did up there was really amazing and you guys still trying to insult her claims."

The burden of proof is on the person making an extraordinary claim. Those of you who support this girl want to turn that around, but it isn't going to happen. If she can do what she claims to be able to do under controlled conditions, there is a million dollars just waiting for her.

"she even flown to london and japan. they were all impressed by her ability."

So what? David Blaine has travelled to London where many people were impressed with him. He's still just a magician.

"i don't see why nick has to prove anything. its almost like if nick doesn't understand women."

What ARE you taling about here?

askolnick's lover said:

"What ARE you taling about here?"

What are you talking about?
I'm making typos and talking random crap 😊

"So what? David Blaine has travelled to London where many people were impressed with him. He's still just a magician."

Is David Blaine = Natasha Demkina? I never specifically said who were impressed and why they were impressed. Stop making assumption.


The post I made earlier was a bunch of random crap to get you guys goign with the argue, but I'm trying to say "where is the love"? LOVE!! love <3<3<3<3 LOvEvEevLover~ Stop hating. Just because you sit at home and eat American food (burgers fries and fatty stuff) doesn't makes you any better than her. LOVEERERE

Also... where is your proof of her claims are fake? Were all humans!!! Lovereoveelore

Cranky Media Guy, save your finger tips. The troll now has his children spamming this thread. It's not worth encouraging them. They'll eventually find another web site to troll if they're not fed.

Charybdis, my conclusion is that they are the same person, and that "they" may be named Julio Siqueira. Siqueira claims to be a "microbiologist," although he admitted in an email that he never worked as a biologist. A year ago, Siqueria trolled for answers to questions about our test. He then distorted and rewrote our "quotes" and disseminated them in a crude attempt to discredit us. He eventually posted a collection of libelous statements on his web site, which he calls a scientific "study." He even had audacity to claim that I had reviewed a final draft 10 days before he published his "study" and that he had included my "feedback" in the final "publication." None of this is true. Long before that, I completely stopped all communications with him upon discovering that he was reworking our quotes and disseminating them in an attempt to discredit us. Julio Siqueira is to truth as a uremic dog is to a fire hydrant. You can read his libelous document here and see for yourself why I think he and "Archangel" are one and the same:

http://geocities.yahoo.com.br/criticandokardec/CSICOP-vs-Natasha-Demkina.htm

alskolnick says: "my conclusion is that they are the same person, and that "they" may be named Julio Siqueira"

Good. This further proves to me that alskolnick jumps to the wrong conclusions from the facts given.

Yes, indeed, UncleBob is posting from the same IP because he is Archangel's uncle - thus..Uncle Bob! Wow! Now guess Archangel's age and gender.

And, neither UncleBob nor Archangel are Julio. We watched the show for the first time a few days ago. UncleBob turned to Archangel and said, you know, if she's got x-ray eyes, maybe these smartasses should have brought a Gieger counter. Just because Julio had the same thought, and hit a lot of the same points doesn't mean we're him.

Does that look like a brazilian IP address to you?

Numbskull Troll. Askolnick, you are the master at reworking quotes. You do it all the time. Twisting things people say.

My hostility towards askolnick began when I first got on the board, shortly after I first saw the documentary