Natasha Demkina, a young girl living in Saransk, Russia, began to receive a lot of media attention around the middle of last month. It started with an article in Pravda, which hailed her as the 'Girl with X-ray vision'. You see, Natasha possesses the unusual ability to peer through human flesh and spot diseases and injuries that are lurking unseen within people's bodies. Or, at least, this is what Pravda claimed. It didn't take long for more newspapers to catch onto the story. The British Sun has been the most relentless about pursuing it. They've actually flown Natasha to London and are now parading her around like some kind of weird curiosity. Does Natasha really have x-ray eyes? Well, I doubt it. But I'm sure The Sun is going to milk this for all it's worth.
Comments
CORRECTING SOME ADITIONAL "MISTAKES" FROM A "ASKOLNICK"
I am not going to check everything that askolnick said in his very many postings. I took a look at the now sixteen pages of this thread about Natasha Demkina, and I want to comment now only on a few "problems" with two postings from askolnick. Sometime later, perhaps even today, I will begin to summarize the top problems in Csicop's (and appendixes') investigation on Natasha.
First Message (my comments will begin with ###):
Posted by askolnick on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 04:44 PM
"Uncle Bob" appears to be the author of an online "study," which contains virtually all the same false and defamatory remarks.
### Please, askolnick, point out a single false or defamatory remark and it will be immediately corrected.
Like that author, "Uncle Bob" makes things up
### Again, anything that you prove that I made up will be immediately corrected, with the due apologies.
-- like his claim that we "cheated" Natasha,
### Quote exactly what I said, so that we can begin the reviewing process right now.
that we "insulted" and "made fun of her,"
### Again, quote me. Let's get started.
and that we "changed the test when she got there."
### Quote me! But I did say, and I did prove, that you violeted your own protocols in very many ways (this is even worse than changing the test). The very title of your page about Natasha in your CSMMH site is a violation of the protocols. It reads: "The Girl with Very Normal Eyes". You claimed in the protocols that your test could not yield this kind of conclusion. And yet you have come to this conclusion and insist upon spreading this all over the world.
He even had the to post his "study" with the claim that I had reviewed
### Did I say it? Where? Quote me!
it and that he incorporated my suggested changes.
### Yes I did incorporate. But not your "suggested changes". I never said that. I incorporated your feedbacks. Quote me, please. Do not hallucinate over what I said. In fact I got to see problems in Natasha's alledged powers in part due to your description of how things happened.
And like him, "Uncle Bob" is a shameless liar.
### If I am a liar, show a single lie in what I said. I am challenging you. The least that I garantee is that it will be immediately corrected with due apologies. As to the mistakes and distortions that the four of you (Wiseman, Hyman, Nickell, Skolnick) have committed in the Natasha Issue that I, and others, have pointed out to you, none have been corrected. And, as it seems, none will...
And the most shameless of his lies is his claim that my colleague is now in trouble with his university because of scientific misconduct.
### I believe you may be referring to something "Uncle Bob" said. If not, I do not know what you are talking about. I do not know of any colleague of yours that might be 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.
### Someone warned you that you can check with the forum owner if the IP of Uncle Bob is a Brazilian one. Do that please. And check mine too. Anyway, anyone anywhere can be sued for libel (both my parents are lawyers; my mother now deceased, actually). The only pre-requisite for this suing is the libel itself. Show the libel then. It is a challenge from me. And a demand!
Second Message (again, my comments start with ###)
Posted by askolnick on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 07:46 AM
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.
### I have already commented on that. Unfortunately I live in a country where job positions are not easy to find. I presently (from 1999) work as an English teacher in primary public schools in the city of Rio de Janeiro. Such is life...
A year ago, Siqueria trolled for answers to questions about our test. He then distorted and rewrote our "quotes"
### Show a single instance of distortion or of rewriting of your quotes. Show yourself...
and disseminated them in a crude attempt to discredit us.
### Do you mean to say that I "raped the objectivity of scientific method?"... 😉. My God! Never thought you would plagiarize Victor Zammit...
http://www.victorzammit.com/archives/Nov2004.html
He eventually posted a collection of libelous statements on his web site,
### Show a single libel then...
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"
### Oh God, where the hell did I say that? What I said is that I sent it to all of you. I can't even know if you received it. I do not have a crystal ball of divination.
and that he had included my "feedback" in the final "publication."
### The feedbacks that came along the way were incorporated. Of course I did not incorporate the lies that you told me (that Natasha could spot molecules from afar, for example...).
None of this is true. Long before that, I completely stopped all communications with him upon discovering
### He "discovered" it because I myself sent the email to him at the very same time that I sent it to Natasha's fellows and to Discovery Channel's fellows... He should at least give me the due credit for this "brilliant discovery of his"...
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
### Well, at least he directed people to my link. That is why I say that Skolnick is not completely a lost case. Let's have some faith, guys. He only needs a helping hand 😊
Best Regards for everybody!
Julio Siqueira
________________
But I do know that you're a troll, Andrew.
We have been anxiously awaiting a response from Skolnick to your commentary, but all we hear so far is a vast silence.
The man that Skolnick so crudely insulted is here on the boards, putting forth a calm and civilized discourse on the flaws of the csicop testing of Natasha and the distortions and accusations made by Skolnick on this very board, but where is the cowardly Skolnick?
Vanished.
Perhaps he is giving his acidic tongue a much-needed rest.
:zip:
Perhaps Julio is so on-target that there's nothing Skolnick can even say. Well, I'm sure there's a typo or two Skolnick could insult..heh..
So I guess that means that she saw my hang down.
I mean how did she know that I had something on my p. I had clothes on. She looked me up and down. then said "You have a toomer on your, (then pointed to that dirction.)" I don't know weird.
The tests to Natasha are flawed only because she was put in a very stressful situation. You need to enter a relaxed state to access information such as "x-ray" vision. This is known as alpha level. Natasha, as a natural psychic don't know techniques to get to alpha at will and the fact that she took very long to make her diagnostics indicate that. She ended up guessing by fustration instead of trusting her instincts.
A natural psychic such as Natasha must be allowed to perform in conditions as close as posible to the ones they are used to, so they can relax and reach the level of mind required to access these "extra" senses we all have.
"Just want to let everybody here know that any of you can "develop" x-ray vision, just take a 2 day course like the Silva Method and you will see."
I think what you have said here is complete nonsense. If you sincerely believe it, however, I think you should apply to win the JREF Challenge. If you are able to show that you have those powers under controlled conditions, you would win one million dollars. That sounds pretty good, right? I respectfully direct you to randi.org where you will find the details about how you can apply for the Challenge. Good luck.
"Wow, I can't believe I can win a million dollars so easy. For me clarivoydance was a nice side effect from taking the silva method course. I just wanted to increase my concentration and learn to take 10 minute power-naps."
So, you WILL be applying for the JREF Challenge? Terrific. Please keep us informed as to the status of your application. Thanks.
Just to prevent missunderstandings I will posting copies of all interchanges between me and JREF to a blog. I will also post all recorded phone conversations. I will post the link when is ready.
Let's see if I've got "powers". This is going to be fun.
Does she have a website/email or regular mail address where to contact her or her agent?
please email me to spectro at gmail
Thanks
I would like to congratulate all of you for the very good messages on this forum. As for Randi's prize, it might be interesting to take a look at the links below:
A scanned copy of a letter from Randi to an applicant:
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm
The report about this letter:
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm
Randi talks about this issue in his website:
http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html
Radi acknowleges that the content of his letter is veridical, and not a forgery:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/printthread.php?s=6be76feb66bf37ca048a6f88cd5a021b&threadid=19874&perpage=40&pagenumber=2
Randi stresses that what he did was proper...:
http://www.randi.org/jr/070502.html
(this last link is the same as the one above, in his website).
Despite these moments of "bad temper", Randi has played an important role in fighting dangerous beliefs. But he has accumulated many sins while fighting this righteous war...
Julio
______________
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm
Julio
____________
Did not work again. The link should be www alternativescience.com, and then randi followed (without space) by the percentage simbol and then followed (without space) by 27s-letter.htm
Julio
___________
I think I will be hiring an attorney to make sure my claim is given a fair chance.
Sorry it has taken me so long to comment on Julio Siqueira's scurrilous attacks. I've had much more important things to attend to first. Correcting the false accusations of characters like Siqueira is a job no more gratifying than shoveling sewage up hill. But someone has to do it.
On Nov. 7, 2004, a Brazilian named Julio Siqueira contacted us by email and claimed to be a scientist sincerely interested in learning more about the CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina's claims. I regret that I took him at his word and failed to investigate his background. I spent a great deal of time patiently answering his questions and trying to correct his many misconceptions and false presumptions. I didn't realize that at least some of those errors were deliberate attempts to troll for material that he could misrepresent in a campaign to discredit us. It took me two more weeks to see through his game.
Siqueira claims to be a scientist who is dedicated to exposing the "lies" of leading critics of paranormal claims. However, Siqueira is no scientist. He self-publishes his "investigations" and "analyses" on a Yahoo web site (which Yahoo provides free to anyone, whether king or kook). Siqueira begins everything he "publishes" on line with a falsehood: He variously claims to be a "biologist," a "microbiologist," and even a "clinical bacteriologist," or "clinical microbiologist." However, he never worked as a biologist of any kind. He earned a non-doctoral degree in microbiology and admits he never held any kind of job as a biologist.
On Nov. 17, 2004, I began to suspect that Siqueira thinks words can mean anything he wants them to mean when he told me: <font color="red">"Hi Andrew, I said I would have no more questions. But I hope you understand that no more actually means 'lots more.'" </font> Although English is not his native tongue, Siqueira is quite good using word games to create "evidence" to support his "conclusions" that outspoken skeptics are "liars," "scoundrels," "crooks," and worse.
For example, when he inquired how far Natasha Demkina was from the test subjects, I explained, <font color="green">"I had deliberately placed the subjects' chairs in a semicircle <u>around the chair Ms. Demkina would sit in. That was about two meters from each subject.</u> Of course, when she would stand to study the subjects, <u>she came a foot or so closer."</u></font>
To my astonishment and anger, Siqueira altered my answer and sent the false information to Ms. Demkina's defenders. He deleted any mention about her chair being about two meters from the subjects and, by deceptively selecting words to quote, he claimed that I had said Ms. Demkina <font color="red"><u>"was allowed to come close to the subjects" </u></font> and <font color="red"><u>"sometimes came a 'foot or so' close to them." </u></font>
Of course that is false. By rewriting and distributing my statement to our most vocal detractors, Siqueira was helping to generate more false accusations that I am lying about how the test was conducted.
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:
<font color="green">"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."</font>
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:
<font color="red"> "'<u>Don't worry, for even if you get these two wrong, you will still pass the test, because there are five other ones'</u>. Well, to begin with, <u>this is technically untrue</u>, for there would actually be three people from which she could swap wrong diagnosis: resected esophagus, removed appendix, and none condition. She could have said that the "none condition" had resected esophagus, that the "resected esophagus" had missing appendix, and that the "missing appendix" had none condition, thus making three misses due to this poor design, due to this lack of direct talk to the claimant, and due to this violation of protocols. <u>Thus, she was taken in to accept the test by deceiving arguments (deliberate or unconscious) from Wiseman." </u>. </font>
The only deception here is Siqueira's deliberate rewriting of the quote to support a blatantly false accusation.
Here's another example of his alteration of quoted material in order to accuse others of dishonesty. This deliberately altered quote refers to Ms. Demkina's statement in the Discovery Channel program, in which she protested over not being allowed to perform her usual readings during the test. Siqueira claims:
<font color="red">"Also, Skolnick is misreporting (for the thousandth time...) what the translator said. What the translator actually said was: <u>'If you did it my way, I would probably guess not five but seven of them.'</u>. It was not something that Natasha said after the test, as a post hoc excuse, as Skolnick is trying to deceive his readers into believing."</font>
Once again, Siqueira is the only one practicing deception. Here's what the translator actually says in the program:
<font color="green">"If you did it my way, I would <u>have</u> probably <u>guessed</u> not five but seven of them."</font>
Siqueira deleted the verb "have" in an attempt to transform the sentence from the past tense to the future tense (while clumsily forgetting to transform the past tense "did it my way" into present tense "do it my way").
The next time the program is broadcast, listen carefully to see how shamefully Siqueira employs misquotations in his campaign to deceive, defame, and vilify.
Another of his many deceptions: At the beginning of one "analysis," Siqueira says:
<font color="red"><u>"The content of this text was presented to</u> the three parties involved (i.e. <u>CSICOP/CSMMH [Andrew Skolnick]</u>; Discovery Channel program producer/director; and Natasha's agent) <u>ten days before its posting on the internet [on Dec. 2, 2004]. After this, final feedbacks from Andrew Skolnick (CSMMH) were incorporated,</u> and the final version of this text was presented to them all four days before its posting on December 12, 2004." </font>
Email records show that this is also false. I never sent Siqueira "feedback" on his "analysis." I broke off communication with him on or around Nov. 21, after discovering that he was trolling for comments which he could misquote to use in a malicious and dishonest campaign.
Virtually every word Siqueira has written here and in his so-called analysis is a distortion, a misquotation, or an outright falsehood. If requested, I'll post more examples of his dishonesty.
What's Siqueira's motivation for this deception? Siqueira has much anger and contempt for critics of paranormal claims -- which he tries to hide while pretending to be a dispassionate "researcher." While addressing me in his email as "Dear Friend," he expressed what he really felt to others -- as in this email to a fellow Brazilian dated November 24, 2004:
<font color="red">"That Skolnick moron, after I peed on him yesterday, admitted that he 'had realized I hadn't watched the show' ... It's not unreasonable [to ask a critic to watch the documentary] for those who are stupid. What must have happened is that [Skolnick] must have got pressure from that Wiseman bastard ... I have already followed [the suggestions of Hyman's 'Proper Criticism']. You and Skolnick can't read. You maybe because you are stupid. Skolnick almost certainly because he's a scoundrel [por canalhice]".</font>
In emails and bulletin board postings, Siqueira has shown utter contempt for leading skeptics. He calls famed evolutionary zoologist and humanist Dr. Richard Dawkins, "Humanist of the Anus." He says psychologist Dr. Susan Blackmore is "scientifically dishonest." He dismisses James Randi as a "scoundrel" and calls Prof. Richard Wiseman "a big crook" and "bastard." It is his job to "pee" on us skeptics and to expose us as "liars," "scoundrels," "bastards," and "crooks."
By so doing, he has only exposed himself.
Hi Skolnick,
Good to hear from you, and to see that you are in... good shape.
Since you still have these soul-wounds from our email exchanges, I will try to tackle some of the relationship issues that you pesented. Maybe at the end we will all eat that pork of yours after all (the one you were dining last November).
Below are your comments, and I will begin my reply with $$$
On Nov. 7, 2004, a Brazilian named Julio Siqueira contacted us by email and claimed to be a scientist sincerely interested in learning more about the CSMMH-CSICOP's test of Natasha Demkina's claims. I regret that I took him at his word and failed to investigate his background.
$$$ You did not need to investigate
$$$ I stopped sending any feedback to anyone that might have any kind of
He self-publishes his "investigations" and "analyses" on a Yahoo web site (which Yahoo provides free to anyone, whether king or kook). Siqueira begins everything he "publishes" on line with a falsehood: He variously claims to be a "biologist," a "microbiologist," and even a "clinical bacteriologist," or "clinical microbiologist." However, he never worked as a biologist of any kind. He earned a non-doctoral degree in microbiology and admits he never held any kind of job as a biologist.
$$$ To be a biologist, one needs not be registered at the institution that gives permission for those who work as such. You can be a biologist due to your learning (academic), and due to the official diplomas that you get at institutions recognized by the government. (You, Skolnick, likes to be above truth; but be careful when trying to be above the law...). I have a degree in biology, and I have an MA in clinical bacteriology. What am I then, Mr. Know All? What I think is really important is that, when people talk to me, they know that I have specialized information in clinical bacteriology, and also in biology in general. (Just by the way: usually I do not
For example, when he inquired how far Natasha Demkina was from the test subjects, I explained, "I had deliberately placed the subjects' chairs in a semicircle around the chair Ms. Demkina would sit in. That was about two meters from each subject. Of course, when she would stand to study the subjects, she came a foot or so closer."
To my astonishment and anger, Siqueira altered my answer and sent the false information to Ms. Demkina's defenders. He deleted any mention about her chair being about two meters from the subjects and, by deceptively selecting words to quote, he claimed that I had said Ms. Demkina "was allowed to come close to the subjects" and "sometimes came a 'foot or so' close to them."
Posted by aaskolnick on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 09:59 AM
$$$ I already acknowledged and reported this event. It was indeed a bad misundertanding from me.
Of course that is false. By rewriting and distributing my statement to our most vocal detractors, Siqueira was helping to generate more false accusations that I am lying about how the test was conducted.
$$$ As I said, I no longer believed Skolnick then. Anyway, I sent to him a copy of the message at the very same time, and because of it he was able to correct me promptly, and I was able to correct my mistake so fast that simply no one used that against him. Just fair.
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'. Well, to begin with, this is technically untrue, for there would actually be three people from which she could swap wrong diagnosis: resected esophagus, removed appendix, and none condition. She could have said that the "none condition" had resected esophagus, that the "resected esophagus" had missing appendix, and that the "missing appendix" had none condition, thus making three misses due to this poor design, due to this lack of direct talk to the claimant, and due to this violation of protocols. Thus, she was taken in to accept the test by deceiving arguments (deliberate or unconscious) from Wiseman." .
The only deception here is Siqueira's deliberate rewriting of the quote to support a blatantly false accusation.
$$$ I ask all of you in this forum to carefully read the passages above. You will notice that, no, I did not quote exactly what Wiseman said. But yes, I did reproduce exactly the meaning conveyed by him. What Wiseman said (that is, meant) is that
This deliberately altered quote refers to Ms. Demkina's statement in the Discovery Channel program, in which she protested over not being allowed to perform her usual readings during the test. Siqueira claims:
"Also, Skolnick is misreporting (for the thousandth time...) what the translator said. What the translator actually said was: 'If you did it my way, I would probably guess not five but seven of them.'. It was not something that Natasha said after the test, as a post hoc excuse, as Skolnick is trying to deceive his readers into believing."
Once again, Siqueira is the only one practicing deception. Here's what the translator actually says in the program:
"If you did it my way, I would have probably guessed not five but seven of them."
Siqueira deleted the verb "have" in an attempt to transform the sentence from the past tense to the future tense (while clumsily forgetting to transform the past tense "did it my way" into present tense "do it my way").
$$$ But Skolnick, Natasha said this BEFORE the test. She was not talking about the past, but about the FUTURE. I will take a look at this passage of the documantary again (for the sixth time now). If this is a mistake from me, it will be corrected (as I always do; the very opposite of what you do). But let
The next time the program is broadcast, listen carefully to see how shamefully Siqueira employs misquotations in his campaign to deceive, defame, and vilify.
Another of his many deceptions: At the beginning of one "analysis," Siqueira says:
"The content of this text was presented to the three parties involved (i.e. CSICOP/CSMMH [Andrew Skolnick]; Discovery Channel program producer/director; and Natasha's agent) ten days before its posting on the internet [on Dec. 2, 2004]. After this, final feedbacks from Andrew Skolnick (CSMMH) were incorporated, and the final version of this text was presented to them all four days before its posting on December 12, 2004."
Email records show that this is also false. I never sent Siqueira "feedback" on his "analysis." I broke off communication with him on or around Nov. 21, after discovering that he was trolling for comments which he could misquote to use in a malicious and dishonest campaign.
$$$ If I said that feedbacks from him came to me, then they indeed came. Most likely through my ex-friend, who kept contact with Skolnick. So, Skolnick, if your
Siqueira has much anger and contempt for critics of paranormal claims
$$$ Oh, you should ask the English skeptic Keith Augustine or the Brazilian skeptic Ronaldo Cordeiro how angry I am when I adress them now... As a matter of fact, there were some
He calls famed evolutionary zoologist and humanist Dr. Richard Dawkins, "Humanist of the Anus."
$$$ I called him so in a public Brazilian skeptic forum. That was a play upon words. Dawkins, in his speech while receiving the prize
and "bastard."
$$$ Skolnick, listen to this: Never again, never, in your whole life, say that I ever called Wiseman a bastard. Right? You know that I protested vehemently against my ex-friend in the past. That was indeed one of the main reasons why I broke with him. Learn that words have not only their connotative meanings. They have their denotative meanings as well. The word bastard has semantic implications that in no way I would ever direct to Wiseman. Be passionate. But be honest.
It is his job to "pee" on us skeptics
$$$ I
<font color="red">"(You, Skolnick, likes to be above truth; but be careful when trying to be above the law...). I have a degree in biology, and I have an MA in clinical bacteriology. What am I then, Mr. Know All?"</font>
You're an elementary school English teacher. And you are a hypocrite, a phony, and a prevaricator. And the latter answer explains it all.
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. But you don't. You're an elementary school teacher and you don't even teach science. You "publish" your "scientific" "anlayses" on your freebie web site and you think that makes you a scientist. No, that makes you a phony.
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. Your bizarre attempt to explain why not viewing the program would lead you to more truthful conclusions only confirmed how hopeless communicating with you further would be.
I communicate now for the sake of readers. They deserve to know the facts behind your dishonest attacks and your disingenuous claim of scientific authority.
Honest debate requires honest debaters. Trollers like Archangel and Julio, who use deception in their arguments, make their own character the subject of fair debate.
Skolnick has accused people of telling falsehoods that merely had bad math. Even when someone makes a mistake and then admits it, skolnick calls them a liar and dismisses them. He will even use a typo as an excuse not to answer a question or address a point.
It's bad Public Relations, Skolnick. Hostility, cynicism, and ridicule on the part of the skeptics don
The audience that Discovery Channel and others (including csicop) seek to attract and inform, entertain and sell advertising to, is made up of the ordinary people of this world, who saw a lot of bad behavior by the investigators in the Natasha Demkina case. Whether the investigators were right or wrong, they left a bad taste in the mouth of many, many individuals. Bad form. Then, to add insult to injury
<font color="red">"I ask all of you in this forum to carefully read the passages above. You will notice that, no, I did not quote exactly what Wiseman said. But yes, I did reproduce exactly the meaning conveyed by him."
</font>
No he didn't. Siquera put quotation marks around a misrepresentation of what Prof. Wiseman said to accuse him of deception!
<font color="red">"What Wiseman said (that is, meant) is that
It seems that Archangel is no longer content to speak for his "family" of trolls. He has now appointed himself spokesperson for "the public."
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.
I do speak in agreement with many others. You'd be surprised at the number and identities of those I've been in communications with, and who are viewing this thread with interest. Your communications are very enlightening as to your integrity and professionalism, as well as the group you represent, csicop. And these communications by you are not something you should be proud of. Believe it.
It's clearly my opinion that you do not directly or adequately address questions, and continually attack, insult and ridicule. This not a falsehood, and many, many others have the same opinion of you. Including several comments to that effect on this very thread. Oh, and please check the definition of words, and common usage before you use them. Same goes for the humble quotation mark.
I'm certainly not alone in my negative views of both skolnick and csicop. You're helping drive the reputations of both right into the ground.
Please continue.
As far as I'm concerned, you have been put forth as a representative of csicop by representation from your position with csmmh, a very close association. You have been representing them on this very forum. You defend them, you explain them, you reference them, you speak of your work with them. You clearly have been representing csicop. If I
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
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
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.
😊
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.
:coolsmile:
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
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?
❓
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
Csicop et al have layers, not layes.
Machiavel is the Portuguese version for the name Machiavelli