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
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/01/health/psychology/01case.html?ex=1133586000&en=e287f4a5d4a24bc7&ei=5070
Here's a section of the article titled:
<font color="blue">"Speaking in the Third Person, Removed from Reality"</a>
"So tell me what's going on," I [Dr. Ablow] said.
[...] "I'm kind of like the quiet guy who goes to the gym, you know, keeps to himself, maybe hooks up with a girl here and there, but doesn't make a big deal of it. He's, like, sort of on the outside looking in, never letting anything get him too down."
Mark's lapse into the third person - "He's ... on the outside, looking in" - helped me realize what had disturbed me about him from the start.
He seemed fake, as if playing a role. He showed no anxiety or sadness or anger. He spoke in clich
This will be the last time ever I will be talking to you. I will only post one more message on this forum, summarizing this issue of Natasha and of your sloppy test on her. This next message (after this one I am writing now) will be my last message on this forum. For the benefit of our honest readers, I will comment on your feeble utterances below:
Skolnick:
Skolnick:
Skolnick:
Well, it has been a pleasure to be here at the forum Museum of Hoaxes. I would like to thank Charybdis and the other guys who keep this forum for their openness towards differing points of view. And I must say that it was a great pleasure and a true reward to meet Archangel, whose honesty is touching indeed.
We have managed to bust Skolnick severely. Even those who he summoned from far far away (i.e. the other side of the planet), could not help him, and ended up leaving him alone with his silly and utter dangerous lies.
From the very beginning of my contacts with Skolnick, I have warned him that this issue involving Natasha is a most serious one. Public Health is involved. Lives of people are involved. It is not an issue where we can allow ourselves to put our own private interests (either money interests, or career interests, or pride interests) above the public interest. And what is the public interest in this issue, and how CSICOP, and especially CSMMH, must have tried to meet it?
First, they should have tried to test Natasha as well as they could. This, they seem to have done, or almost to have done. Second, they should have reported the test, in its strengths and weaknesses, as well as they could. Here, they failed miserably... The third aspect that they could have addressed is to try to talk directly to Natasha and to educate her about her own powers and about her practice as an informal diagnostic therapist. This, again, they failed miserably.
Supposing that Natasha is indeed honest (as was the impression of all of the Discovery Channel personnel, according to the program producer/director Monica Garnsey; and as was also the impression of Wiseman himself, according to what he said in the documentary), and supposing that she does not have some problematic mental impairment (like some sort of schizophrenia or psicosis that may render her learning of moral issues problematic), it would be highly beneficial to the public health if these skeptics (especially Andrew Skolnick) had talked to her a little about all that. Warn her about how much even highly sensitive and esquisite devices (like PET scans or CAT and fMRI cans, or ELISA-Western Blot essays) can yield dangerous false negatives and false positives too. And so, her ability, even if true, most likely is subject to these very same limitations.
In a phrase: it would be highly beneficial to publich health if Natasha (assuming that she is honest and mentally healthy) would feel at the end that she was dealt with in a fair way, and that the people testing her were also interested in her as a human being and as a person who interacts with needed populations. The impression that, instead, she came out with was that she interacted with a bunch of thieves. And that is pretty close to what actually happended, sadly enough (And Skolnick
Does Natasha have any power? Personally I doubt it. That is, my bet is that she doesn
A fellow student and I have chosen to use your experiment with Natasha Demkina for a probability class project due next week. It is an interesting study. I would like to say that given the restrictions (time especially) on your team in creating and organizing many of the experiment logistics, I think CSICOP did a good job in debunking her extraordinary claims. Natasha may have a non-paranormal gift that I hope she can use to serve her community or country well in the future, but like many of the skeptics I've seen on this forum, I believe her hardcore supporters underestimate her talents (and people's in general) in gleaning information from the smallest clues - the majority of it body language.
I respect that you are defending your research and the scientific process, but without having the stomach to peruse all 29 pages in this thread, I am surprised to see that you are still involved in vitriolic exchanges almost a year after the initial post with those who wish to belittle the experiement, you, and/or your organization. Their numbers will be never-ending. On the other hand, there are those essentially in your camp who may question elements of the experiment in the spirit of the scientific method (or dwell on third order decimal places in probabilistic matching calculations), that would (and have) actively defend(ed) your work without you. Maybe its been suggested in an earlier post, but as a recent observer, please consider that I can't see your entertaining of this perpetual state of seige as doing any favors for your reputation, equanimity, or your state of health.
As I do not frequent this site, please don't feel obliged to reply. I wish you and your organization the continued best in working towards a rational world.
Russ
Nobel Laureate Prof. Brian Josephson:
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/%7Ebdj10/propaganda/
Julio Siqueira
Skolnick said:
<i>
Sorry Charybdis, but I could not stay away for far too long. I am back. This time to try and marry Skolnick once and for all. That is the only way for me to keep an eye on his neverending lies and etc.
Skolnick hides himself under the ip 64.65.247.81 in the Wikipedia, where he is trying, like a dog with rabies, to prevent me from showing the other side of the story of their phoney test on Natasha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Demkina
No way, QuackNick... And remember: you are no MS, your "comission" is no a true Comission, and your test on Natasha was no scientific test.
Hi Archangel, good to be back. Do not worry about Russel, for he will not be back. In fact, he is Skolnick himself, using a nickname. Never thought you would get to this point, Skolnick...
Best Regards,
Julio Boomerang
____________
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.
Skolnick should not just be reverting or deleting what Julio put there. Julio is presenting a completely valid opposite point of view and critique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes
That really fits my "projection" theory. Skolnick accuses others of that which he himself would do.
Sneaky rat-bastard. Shame on you Skolnick!
I think I have caught hacker-like activity on the Natasha Demkina entry in the Wikipedia that is highly suggestive of having been performed by Skolnick. I am going to let the mediators there know of my information on this matter in a few hours.
Best Regards,
Julio
_________________
IMPORTANT NEWS CONCERNING NATASHA ISSUE:
Skolnick and I have moved our fighting arena to wikipedia, where you can follow our exchange of viewpoints in the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natasha_Demkina
Julio Siqueira
It's repulsive.
Poor Natasha, having put herself in that lying shark's hands to become his target for manipulation and ridicule.
And worst of all, Skolnick thinks he's one of the "good guys" and acts like he's done something positive, when all he has done is to destroy.
Gosh!!! Mr. Porcupine (Skolnick) managed to get both of us (He and I) kicked out of Wikipedia with his intolerable bad temper... Just read the reaction of the moderator (who had been quite helpful until yesterday) after Porcupine's rude complaints against him:
Withdrawing from resolution process:
This article, and the resultant name-calling on the Talk page, is a prime example of why Wikipedia policies and guidelines should have been followed in the first place. Given that Andrew Skolnick and Julio Siqueira are closely connected to the subject matter, neither should have been, or be, permitted to directly edit this article. No one wants to suppress the views of primary sources of information, so they should be encouraged to post recommended changes on the Talk pages; however, the best way to ensure that articles contain valid and accurate information is for impartial editors to do the editing. I'm done here. Edwardian 01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) edited 23:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Julio Siqueira Withdraws from Editing"
And contrary to his claim that the moderator withdrew, he, another moderator, and I are continuing to clean up Wikipedia's Natasha Demkina entry.
Skolnick, you also threatened to "withdraw" from the Wikipedia process, twice. Just like you did in this forum, but you never withdraw, you just keep spouting your lies and misleading remarks.
Keith, the Wikipedia mediator, believes the truth to be somewhere between what Skolnick claims and what Julio has said. This in no way means that Skolnick is "cleaning up" the Natasha Demkina entry.
Here's what Keith had to say:
"I've partially rewritten the article, taking into consideration the content added by both Skolnick and Siquiera, based on long-scale diffs. I did not integrate any external information. I did make some rewords that were inferred from combinations of details among the edits. I took pains to remove POV, biased, or even content that showed bias in tone, focus, or reinforcement.
Remember I said at the beginning that I was not taking any side in the matter. What insights I have gained on this topic from this process remain my own. To be honest, it was somewhere in between the positions of the two disputants here.
I would ask that both of you contribute your concerns about the current version to the Talk page, and refrain from editing the main page from now on. This request has less to do with the fact that you are primary sources (or at least closely involved with the topic) but the fact that you are disputants over its content, and it is best to bring your disputes to the side, rather than take the conflict out on the main article.
I am going to update my request for protection to the version I just wrote.
Regards, Keith D. Tyler
BREAKING NEWS: SKOLNICK DISCOVERS HIS TRUE TALENT: HACKER ACTIVITY...
Believe it or not, Skolnick decided to change the entry "Natasha Demkina" _against_ the recomendations of the mediator Edwardian of the Wikipedia. As a consequence of Skolnick's unthinkable hacker activity, Keith decided that the entry should be blocked, as a way to hold back this rabis infected pitbull of pseudoskepticism. 😊.
The man simply did 29 (!!!) changes after Edwardian recomendation to the contrary of it...
Take a look at the link below, to see the unthinkable with your own eyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Demkina&action=history
Julio Siqueira
Skolnick, I think you understood wrong what I said. I did not say that I would quit commenting on the entry, or that I would quit Wikipedia. I merely said I would quit editing the entry "Natasha Demkina" directly (myself), following Edwardian's strong recomendation.
Get your sigh back, baby. You and I are gonna get married 😊:-):-)
See you soon and often, Ms Skolnick.
(see how I ended up accepting your "MS" title 😉)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natasha_Demkina
Skolnick said:
"I am taking off my Wiki "editor" hat and am picking up my reporter's hat. I'm going to suggest to the editors of Skeptical Inquirer that I write an article on my Wiki experiences as a follow up of the Natasha Demkina articles. I will be kind to you and Edwardian. The problems as I see them are not of your doing."
The man has GALL! What a terrorist!!
Fortunately, the Wikipedia mediator was not put off by Skolnick's threats and saw right through Skolnick's transparent attempts to lie, manipulate the facts, ridicule and threaten the moderator. Skolnick used those same tactics against a poor seventeen year old Russian girl who shined with honesty and managed to cause her a lot of harm, but he's not having the same success against the real world.
Skolnick, you are a bastard liar and manipulator!
Give him hell, Keith!!
-
BREAKING NEW: SKOLNICK DEFEATED AT WIKIPEDIA, AT LAST:
Yes, Archangel, Skolnick got defeated at wikipedia, as we can see from his desperate letter (blackmail...).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Natasha_Demkina#Letter_from_Mr._Skolnick.
What he does not seem to understand is that he was not defeated by Keith or by Edwardian or by Julio or by Archangel: he was defeated by himself...
The War is Over. The Allies Have Won! It is time to Party.
😊:-):-):-):-):-):-):-)
Julio Siqueira well understands this. He yelled like a stuck pig when Kentaro Mori sent me one of Siqueira's emails -- even though he had previously given Mori permission to quote from his emails.
When you disseminate someone's email without permission, you invite protests that are deserved. (As noted, Mori had Siqueira's permission -- yet he still howled a bitter protest).
Best Regads,
Julio
_________________
I think you did absolutely the right thing by posting Skolnick's email to you. As you rightly point out, it was necessary to maintain the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I think it was wrong of Skolnick to cheat by trying to get around the system, and then to threaten Wikipedia on top of it. It's just low behavior on Skolnick's part. That type of poor behavior by Skolnick is reflected on this forum, in Skolnick's Junkyard Dog Website, and his unfair representation of the investigation into Natasha Demkina.
And once again, Humpty Dumpty Skolnick strikes. You aren
What a maroon.
LOL!
I thought Keith was very even handed in dealing with Skolnick's clearly threatening, hostile and insulting email. I don't know what Skolnick thought he was going to accomplish by sending it, but all he did was confirm the worst about himself.
Skolnick proves his "porcupine personality" with his bristling hostility towards others, his arrogant insulting manner, and his attempts to manipulate and twist the facts to fit his views.
I think this is the real reason Skolnick was upset about his email being posted on Wikipedia. It exposes him for the abusive, manipulative and threatening skunk that he is.
He
News on Natasha Files. Link below:
http://www.geocities.com/natasha_xrayvision_files/
Julio Siqueira
<font color="red">"Skolnick, you are such a liar. I never complained about Kentaro Mori because he revealed private emails from me."<b></font>
Not surprising in the least, Julio Siqueira is lying through his teeth. Siqueira became enraged when Kentaro Mori warned me of Siqueira's actual intentions, by passing on to me Siqueira's boast of how he "peed on that moron Skolnick." Ever since Mori shared that email, Siqueria has been denouncing Mori as "Judas Iscariot." For example:
Siqueria's email to Skolnick on Dec. 3, 2004:
<font color="red"><b>"First, these were private emails that I was exchanging with Brazilian Judas Iscariot. Second, he had by then made me so upset that I was completely out of my mind and willing to bite even Jesus Christ if he came across me."</font>
Siqueria's email to Skolnick on Dec. 4, 2004:
<font color="red">So if Iscariot insists on sending you these inproper emails, and if you happen to have any questions about it, please feel free to contact me on that. And, specifically to Mr. Skolnick: please don't trust those that have already proved to be untrustable... Talk directly to me instead.</font>
As to Mori's right to forward Sequeira's emails, it appears that he had Sequira's permission:
Siqueria emailed Mori and three other recipients on Nov. 21, 2003, the following permission:<font color="red">
"Of course I give you all the right to publicize whatever I have ever told you. My emails have always been considered by me as 'public domain'."</font>
He obviously regrets that now, because those emails clearly document his malicious agenda and his reliance on lies and distortions -- such as his latest claim that he never complained over Mori's passing on his emails.
<font color="red">"I don't know exactly why he insists on keeping revealing private stuff to the world, especially to a world that is not to benefit from it in any way, nor is it interested in it to any extent... - maybe it is time I revealed HIS private emails to me to the world too..."</font>
To judge Julio Siqueira's integrity, compare that with what he says now:
<font color="red">"Skolnick, you are such a liar. I never complained about Kentaro Mori because he revealed private emails from me."</font>
This is now what you're doing with Julio and Mori's comments. You have failed to show any problems with the integrity of Julio and you have failed to show that Julio has ever lied or manipulated facts. None of what you
But he'll try to seem as if when he wrote he had "peed" on Skolnick, he meant something else -- or that he was justified, or that it was just an emotional lapse. That when he complained about me forwarding those comments, he wasn't complaining about the forwarding, but about the translation. That's because when he insulted numerous people, he actually meant something else.
For instance, when he said initially that Natasha seemed like a quack ["curandeira" is the exact word he used, anyone can look up the translation of it], he actually meant folk healer. Quack or folk healer, "curandeirismo" is defined as a crime in Brazilian law, and Julio knew that.
But he actually meant something else, because Julio disagrees with said Brazilian law, and went to great lengths to explain why.
When he called Wiseman a "calhorda", he didn't mean "bastard", the usual translation for that name calling; because he didn't want to offend Wiseman's family. He only wanted to offend Richard Wiseman, which is very, very different.
It's impossible to argue with Julio. You never know what he actually means. I gave up on that many months ago. I hope you're not that way, Archangel. But if you are, please, just ignore me and don't call me a liar.
Meanwhile, everyone keep ignoring that Natasha claims to diagnose people through a photo of one's face. Everyone except those that do their homework, or in other words, investigate things.
Are they the believers and supporters? In this case, surprisingly (?), not.
I will answer you first, then chop to pieces once more our Sushi Skeptic. 😊
Skolnick, you said of me that: "He obviously regrets that now" (i.e. the fact that I told Mori that he could consider my emails public domain) "because those emails clearly document his malicious agenda and his reliance on lies and distortions -- such as his latest claim that he never complained over Mori's passing on his emails."
No, Skolnick, I do not regret that. That is not something for me to regret or not. It is a point of honor in my personality. I consider, and always will consider, the emails I send to someone as a material that the person can use at his or her own discretion. Mori knew that already, even before we got to talk to you.
And then you quote me when I said: "I don't know exactly why he insists on keeping revealing private stuff to the world, especially to a world that is not to benefit from it in any way, nor is it interested in it to any extent... - maybe it is time I revealed HIS private emails to me to the world too..."
I told you and Mori about the problem of making public something that was meant to be private. Again: YES, I give permission for that. But NO, I do not approve of it always, especially because you lose the context where the thing was said. But anyway, that was the least problematic aspect of Mori's childish behaviour at that time (which unfortunatelly he still sticks to, as we can see from his message now, which I will wipe out in a few minutes).
As to your behaviour at Wikipedia, how pathetic, MS Skolnick. You could have asked the discussion about Natasha Demkina to be held in private emails, not in the talk page. They have that provision at Wikipedia. Instead, you decided to go against Edwardian's strong recommendation, and you changed the entry 29 times (What a lunatic; and he complains when I direct him to a psychiatrist...), removed again my MA credentials, and ended up deciding to blackmail Wikipedia, threatening to defame them at your Backyard "scientific journal" (Skeptical Inquirer...) and adding lies that we only got to see because of the brave decision from Keith to post it on the talk page. No one was interested in having private talks with you (just imagine, such a porcupine...). You agreed to an open discussion, sent an email without asking it to be private, and then threats to sue Wikipedia (or something similar to it) for revealing it. What a coward...
Ok, ChickNick, enough of you for now. Let me turn to the other side of the planet now 😊
Bye,
Julio
____________
Sushi Boy said: "Julio lies when he says I distorted his messages to me. He lies when he says he never complained about my forwarding of said emails.".
No, you did not distort anything, Candid Sushi Boy. Just take a look at what you said of me to Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick on November 20, 2004: ..."making not few excesses, some of which are almost as bad as Zammit's comparison of the investigators to a certain racist group and his priceless reference to a sexual assault on the scientific method.". Yes, Mori, you are right. You did not exagerate here, not a little. I have indeed, several times, compared skeptics to KKK members, or to something very close to it. But where the hell is this comparison of mine? Is it on any email that you have or that you know of? Did anyone tell this to you? Who? Please, let us know, because no one, me included, knows where the hell this brute comparison is. But, as you insist to believe, you did not distort a thing...
Sushi Boy said: "But he'll try to seem as if when he wrote he had 'peed' on Skolnick, he meant something else".
Oh, you now believe that I actually peed on him, wetting his shoes? Of course I meant something else. I meant to dress him down, to scold him. (I think they also say in English to "shit on someone").
Sushi Boy said: "That when he complained about me forwarding those comments, he wasn't complaining about the forwarding, but about the translation.".
Each situation is slightly different from the other. It is always like this in life (you should know it by now). In this particular case of the "peeing", I would prefer if you had translated the whole message to Skolnick. That would give him the full context and so you would have fulfilled your duty on this matter. But you decided to take the lazy and irresponsible way instead...
Sushi Boy said: "That's because when he insulted numerous people, he actually meant something else.".
Not quite, Mori. What happens is that when I insult someone, I insult someone with a certain word in a certain context, etc. What would you think if I get a passage here on this forum where Skolnick has said that, say (just a hypothetical example, ok?), that Zammit is a scoundrel, and I present in a Brazilian forum the information that Skolnick said Zammit is a "filho da puta"? Wow, "filho da puta" is the Portuguese perfect equivalent for "son of a bitch". You think it is just ok to do that. I think it is not advisable.
Sushi Boy said: "For instance, when he said initially that Natasha seemed like a quack ["curandeira" is the exact word he used, anyone can look up the translation of it], he actually meant folk healer. Quack or folk healer, "curandeirismo" is defined as a crime in Brazilian law, and Julio knew that."
This is a perfect example. See why. First, I said that in private email between you and our common friend Vitor Moura. He was trying to lure the two of us into this debate about Demkina and the CSICOP test. I used that word in a moment when I wanted to make fun of a situation, I said I wasn't interested in that russian curandeira, or something like it. Curandeira is a healer (female). I just looked up again the meaning of curandeira in two main Brazilian dictionaries of Portuguese (Aurelio and Houaiss). There is just no mentioning whatsoever to fraudulent conduct as being part of the definition for Curandeira. Yet, fraudulent conduct is the core feature of the definition of a quack. Curandeira is a term that both in its denotative meaning (literal meaning) and in its connotative meaning (figurative meaning) has no connection to fraud.
Sushi Boy said: "But he actually meant something else, because Julio disagrees with said Brazilian law, and went to great lengths to explain why.".
According to the law, Mahatma Gandi should be sent to prison. It is not only I that disagrees with this law about curandeira. Most judges in Brazil, and you are fully aware of it, do not take this law seriously. Many times it is highly problematic, and people end up dying indeed for mistreatment. Some other times, it is just harmless, or even accepted. Our Brazilian equivalent to the Discovery Channel, which is the Globo Reporter, many times portray indians and their curandeira. No crime in that.
Sushi Boy said: "When he called Wiseman a 'calhorda', he didn't mean 'bastard', the usual translation for that name calling; because he didn't want to offend Wiseman's family. He only wanted to offend Richard Wiseman, which is very, very different.".
Maybe it is not different to you, who seem to have come from a parent-less egg. But to me, who love my parents and my family, it does make a great difference. I know that in English the denotative meaning of Bastard has greatly been hidden by the connotative meaning. But it has not removed it altogether. So, please, quote me correctly, or shut up entirely.
Sushi Boy said: "It's impossible to argue with Julio. You never know what he actually means. I gave up on that many months ago. I hope you're not that way, Archangel. But if you are, please, just ignore me and don't call me a liar.".
It is impossible to argue with me simply because you dread to use a single and candid word: "sorry"...
Mori said: "Meanwhile, everyone keep ignoring that Natasha claims to diagnose people through a photo of one's face. Everyone except those that do their homework, or in other words, investigate things."
Mori, I just found out something. As a matter of fact, Skolnick and friends knew of this ability from Natasha before they did their test with her. It is fully reported by Monica Garnsey in that email that she sent to them sometime before the test. Strangely, Skolnick took out that part from the email he sent to us, regarding this matter, back in November 2004 or December. However, in the published article in May in the Skeptical Inquirer, Hyman cites that sections and adds some lines where Monica says that Natasha claims to be able to diagnose from photos. Once more, Skolnick (who you decided to elect as your own personal Santa Claus...), has either lied to us or hidden intersting information from us. It seems that Monica's report is not fully presented in the article too. They input the mark ... (three dots), meaning that some parts of her email was removed. I just wonder what they are still hiding from us...
And Archangel, besides my private fights with Mori, I must stress that there is a huge difference between Mori and Skolnick. Skolnick is a zero. Mori, on the contrary, has many virtues. We from Brazil who have had contact with him in skeptic forums and in psi forums have no doubt that he is indeed an authority in his area of expertice, which is ufology from a skeptic perspective. Once he confronted in his forum a man that is considered the strongest supporter of the E.T. interpretation of the Ufo phenomena in Brazil. To all of us in the forum, it clearly seemed that the man simply fled... I myself do not have expertice in this area. But the indirect evidence strongly and clearly attest that Mori and his works in this area are indeed of the highest quality. That is the reason why I just cannot (try as I might...) take out the reference in my webpage to his... Also, he is a superb forum moderator (he has a forum named Ceticismo Aberto - Open Skepticism). It is a pitty that we clashed. But... such is life.
Best Regards,
Julio
________________
He left bolding on and it affected this page until I put in multiple un-bolds. This is the second time Skolnick has been that sloppy.
"Whoops!" is right, Skolupine.
He did the same thing back on Page 19 of this forum.
I do not appreciate being called "Sushi Boy" by someone I always called by the proper name. But Siqueira has already called me many worse things, so I'm just mentioning it. I hope he doesn't write a long comment about why I shouldn't be annoyed by such a kind treatment.
I now acknowledge I shouldn't have joined here. And I just gave up on the idea of trying to contribute something on the Wikipedia clash over Demkina's entry.
Archangel, you called me a liar without doing any effort to know what I had to say. You seem to ignore what I wrote you on the issue. Well, just more wasted time.
Meanwhile, a Russian quack is risking people's lives with plainly stupid claims. And I acknowledge fully what I just wrote.
No, Mori, unfortunatelly you did not. You decided instead to keep sending emails to me AFTER I told you that I would not answer you unless you sent an email to Hyman, Wiseman, and Skolnick saying that I never made any comparison of skeptics to KKK or equivalents (and not even to something close to it), that I never called Wiseman a bastard, and that I never said Natasha was a quack. You bring news that are no news whatsoever (Natasha diagnosing from photos - Skolnick already knew it back in March 2004!!!). You refuse to say what you have to say (I am sorry, Julio). And you want to be called by your name, a name that you yourself have dishonored.
But yes, I called you by your name when:
1- You laghed at my back and mocked my site, in the middle of 2002, right after I alone was banned from a skeptic forum that you belonged (and only I was banned; those who offended me were not even warned against their offences by the moderator). Despite this, I received your emails with attention and with respect when you started to complain against my anti-skeptic site in Portuguese. I ended up softening enormously my tone at my site, agreeing to your reasoning and suggestions.
2- I called you by name too when you, back close to the end of 2003, said at your forum that I am not a serious person, even though you know that I have a meticulous critique of my own faith (Kardecist Spiritism) in my site. This time, too, my antispkeptic site had underwent a further softening of the tone, towards a more rational treatment of the subject of skeptics' mistakes.
3- I still called you by name right after you betrayed me for the third time, when you said that I had in the past compared skeptics to something almost as bad as KKK murders. This time, too, my anti-skeptic site had underwent its third and last change, to the point of becoming now a socio-anthropological analisis of the skeptic movement, almost devoid of any emotionally acid comment.
Now you want your name back... Sometimes we receive things for free in life, Mori. But sometimes, especially after we fail in our duties, things are taken from us until we prove ourselves honorable enough to deserve them back. Want your name back, Sushi Baby? Undo what you did. Honor your duties. Show your worth.
As to the "Quack Natasha" (as you now acknowledge as your own words, and not mine), prove that she is so, and I will be the first to acknowledge this in my website. My sources to believe that she is honest are the combination of Monica Garnsey's and Richard Wiseman's comments about her. Plus what I saw at the documentary myself. But I am still searching for the true answer. Bring some true feedback and, as always, it will be incorporated by me. So far, all that you have done is quackery...
"Archangel, you called me a liar"
I don't believe I did. Can you point out where I called you a liar? I've had no reason to call you a liar.
You and Julio were once pretty good friends, it's a shame to see you two fighting and insulting each other like this. It appears as though Julio is merely awaiting an apology from you. Perhaps if you both apologize to each other and shake hands (in virtual reality), then you two might be able to become friends again. I don't know how deeply the hurts and animosity go, but I thought I'd toss this idea out to the two of you.
I haven't ignored what you wrote Kentaro Mori, I just haven't yet had the chance to respond. Why do you give up on the idea of contributing to Wikipedia? The Wikians seem to be a pretty reasonable group, working honestly on the issues presented.
Kentaro Mori said:
"Meanwhile, a Russian quack is risking people's lives with plainly stupid claims."
If Skolnick-Hyman-Wiseman had done a good job, we'd know the truth about that, wouldn't we? There would still be die-hard supporters, of course, but a convincing series of tests, a solid analysis and conclusion would have been far more convincing than the hack job performed by csicop-csmmh. How do you come to the conclusion that Natasha is a quack? The only proven quack I've seen around here is Skolnick.
:cheese:
<i>"The snippets you posted prove exactly what Julio said he was upset about, that Mori