My experience with a medium. Feeling depressed

The best course of action was to risk calling someone who is distraught and depressed a liar? And using your authority as a moderator is a reasonable way to let people "judge for themselves"?

Real nice, Craig.

Linda

I deal with distraught and depressed people all the time. They email me, they leave notes for me on my blog and on rare occasions I've spoken on the phone to them and I help them as best I can. So after seeing a few hundred of these I pretty much know what distraught and depressed looks like. Based on my experience, this seemed phony to me. The writing style is all wrong.
 
Bill, I am sorry that you got the reception that you did, but please don't give up on this thread yet.

I can totally relate to your hesitation to 'believe.' It is not easy to do so when, in our culture, there is so much weight on the side of science, materialism and secularism. I went through that struggle too and like to think I came through it with both a healthy respect for science and spirit. The subtleties of the spirit realm can easily be ignored by those who chose to do so. But equally you can train yourself to recognize the signals, and get answers to your questions. I agree with tim that you can contact your loved yourself perhaps with the help of your spirit guides. Look into it, it may help you find the validation that you need.

If you have a spiritualist church near you may find the services

Look at Red completely fooled by the faker. Red has been tricked by Sandy Hook, Global Warming and now tricked again by the faker. How embarrassing.
 
Look at Red completely fooled by the faker. Red has been tricked by Sandy Hook, Global Warming and now tricked again by the faker. How embarrassing.

Did you miss me Bro and felt the need to call me back?

Yes I do believe Bill and I think he is pretty upset that his reading was so generic. No I do not believe Sandy Hook is a hoax. Climate change, gun control, politics, trolling people online....we disagree on it all Bro.

The most embarrassing thing to me is the number of proponents (who claim to have so much spiritual knowledge) who can be so defensive and rude to others.
 
Last edited:
Did you miss me Bro and felt the need to call me back?

Yes I do believe Bill and I think he is pretty upset that his reading was so generic. No I do not believe Sandy Hook is a hoax. Climate change, gun control, politics, trolling people online....we disagree on it all Bro.

The most embarrassing thing to me is the number of proponents (who claim to have so much spiritual knowledge) who can be so defensive and rude to others.

Come on, even if the medium was a complete fraud, what are the odds that he would use exactly the same question and the same MO that a propaganda organization "quoted" in the attack piece? He would have to be incredibly dull to do so, and expect all of his clients to lack both an internet connection and web search skills... Had that been the case, I would have expected to see more reports than two. Clearly your experience with con men is limited, since being dynamic is almost a requisite for that "career".

And nevermind that it was absolutely ridiculous for Bill to claim that his beliefs were shaken when he has been pushing a skeptic agenda in all of his posts. He is not sitting on the wall, and apparently, the only time that he even comes near that wall is to take people for a ride.
 
Come on, even if the medium was a complete fraud, what are the odds that he would use exactly the same question and the same MO that a propaganda organization "quoted" in the attack piece? He would have to be incredibly dull to do so, and expect all of his clients to lack both an internet connection and web search skills... Had that been the case, I would have expected to see more reports than two. Clearly your experience with con men is limited, since being dynamic is almost a requisite for that "career".

And nevermind that it was absolutely ridiculous for Bill to claim that his beliefs were shaken when he has been pushing a skeptic agenda in all of his posts. He is not sitting on the wall, and apparently, the only time that he even comes near that wall is to take people for a ride.

Now look at it this way.

Maybe the CSICOP propaganda was true. Maybe this medium who may be, or at least once has been, a legitimately good reader at one time under certain circumstances is doing readings for vast amounts of money and feels pressure to come up with something. In such cases I have heard repetition from mediums so the fact that it happened here does not surprise me. The fee was the same because it is a fee. Well intentioned mediums are willing to admit that there is fraud in this field. It is not an exact science and it is difficult to interpret messages from the Otherside.

I did not sense that Bill is trying to con everyone. I see him more as a person who is struggling with believing in something that is "veiled" and hard to understand. As a person who also struggled with that I see his questions as perfectly feasible.

It is possible that I am wrong but the damage from responding to him as a legitimate inquirer is nothing compared to accusing him of lying when he is not.
 
Last edited:
You are free to assume what you want, don't let me stop you. But, again, the fee was only a small part of the whole picture. Someone in the spotlight knows when to change the script and it has been a few years since the article came out. If the intend of the medium was to cold read Bill, he could easily pick other methods and queries, since the CSICOP propaganda is among the first links that pop up when googling his name.

If you failed to see the inconsistency between this thread and the others authored by Bill, then it must be because you haven't read them yet, because the assertions that he makes most definitely don't come from somebody struggling with his ideals.

So, I'm sorry if my incisiveness in this particular thread seemed rude to you, but manipulation seems like the most likely possibility and if that is the case, slander carries repercussions that are far worse for a person's well being than hurt feelings. Furthermore, even in the off chance that he was saying the truth, let's remind Bill of that old saying...You reap what you sow.
 
You are free to assume what you want, don't let me stop you. But, again, the fee was only a small part of the whole picture. Someone in the spotlight knows when to change the script and it has been a few years since the article came out. If the intend of the medium was to cold read Bill, he could easily pick other methods and queries, since the CSICOP propaganda is among the first links that pop up when googling his name.

Good point.

If you failed to see the inconsistency between this thread and the others authored by Bill, then it must be because you haven't read them yet, because the assertions that he makes most definitely don't come from somebody struggling with his ideals.

I did look into it and I saw what you are saying.
I was also reminded of an old forum favorite, "sniffy," the reincarnation of a previous name that I forget: ("something.something..atheist")
I did, however, decide to give Bill the benefit of the doubt.

So, I'm sorry if my incisiveness in this particular thread seemed rude to you, but manipulation seems like the most likely possibility and if that is the case, slander carries repercussions that are far worse for a person's well being than hurt feelings. Furthermore, even in the off chance that he was saying the truth, let's remind Bill of that old saying...You reap what you sow.

Fair enough. But, if he is not playing games I hope that he will stick around on the forum as we need more people who are able question their most fundamental beliefs and entertain both ends of the spectrum in earnest.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry, I know that the response was mainly for BBN, but felt a need to point out the oddity of the situation (again) and explain why I'm straight shooting in this particular thread. Also, I do agree on that last assertion, we need different viewpoints. And as long as they don't go into dirty tactics, you won't see me asking for their heads.
 
Did you miss me Bro and felt the need to call me back?

Yes I do believe Bill and I think he is pretty upset that his reading was so generic. No I do not believe Sandy Hook is a hoax. Climate change, gun control, politics, trolling people online....we disagree on it all Bro.

The most embarrassing thing to me is the number of proponents (who claim to have so much spiritual knowledge) who can be so defensive and rude to others.

Take it easy. I'm just joking around. I love you, Red.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Now that I'm done working I'll weigh in here. I have experience with psychics, mediums and more importantly in this case, their customers. Where this story fails to impress me is that the described reading is wretched by any measure and while I suppose this kind of thing happens, everyone involved would see it for what it was. No one would put up with that crap. In all the time I was doing psychic fairs and hanging around these people, I never saw a customer caught up in a swoon of gullibility unless they were mentally ill. (There were some of those too.)

Listen to this recording of a telephone reading done by George Anderson and tell me it's not wretched by any measure:


The thing is, the woman who posted it felt George was accurate and that he provided in depth information. It didn't seem to occur to her that her yes/no responses to his statements provided valuable feedback for him to recreate the details of her brother's passing, one drawn-out step at a time. Considering that on his website, Anderson is billed as "Astonishing," "The Gold Standard by which all mediums are measured," and "A Stradivarius among mediums.", this telephone reading is very painful to listen to.

The tale being spun here is of the gullible believer, so blinded by their desire to connect with a loved one that they can't tell that they're getting scammed. But along comes the sensible skeptic to set everyone straight. Ya, I don't think so. People who are familiar with psychics and mediums damned well know a cold reading when they see one and anyone would certainly recognize something this obvious. Grieving doesn't turn your brain off, particularly when you're paying a lot of money.

Tell that to the legions of grieving people who were scammed by Sylvia Browne, Sally Morgan and a host of other high-priced celebrity mediums and psychics.

That's why I think this is just some made up story to spin a tale of El fabuloso Señor Skeptic and his adventure with the Evil, Money Grubbing Fake Medium.

I think you've overstepped your administrative authority in this case.

Doug
 
Last edited:
Listen to this recording of a telephone reading done by George Anderson and tell me it's not wretched by any measure:


The thing is, the woman who posted it felt George was accurate and that he provided in depth information. It didn't seem to occur to her that her yes/no responses to his statements provided valuable feedback for him to recreate the details of her brother's passing, one drawn-out step at a time. Considering that on his website, Anderson is billed as "Astonishing," "The Gold Standard by which all mediums are measured," and "A Stradivarius among mediums.", this telephone reading is very painful to listen to.



Tell that to the legions of grieving people who were scammed by Sylvia Browne, Sally Morgan and a host of other high-priced celebrity mediums and psychics.



I think you've overstepped your administrative authority in this case.

Doug

I'm not especially impressed by cherry picked readings with no way of verifying the facts surrounding them. And that applies both ways. That is the case here. It is unverifiable. The video is also categorized as comedy, which makes the motives suspect.

And Anderson is not on trial here. The veracity of the OP is.

Bear in mind that I did not take down the thread and have allowed all manner of discussion surrounding it, including all accusations against myself. People are free to make up their own minds. Since this appeared to be a deliberate attempt at deception, and not a difference of opinion or interpretation of evidence, I felt it needed a warning label.

if a warning label was put on a talk by Rupert Sheldrake, say, by TED, would you object?
 
And Anderson is not on trial here. The veracity of the OP is.
I was not going to post any longer in this thread. However, I don't accept the premise that the questions raised should be framed in this black/white context of a trial. Even in real-world trials, there have been miscarriages of justice, I honestly don't see what purpose is served by taking such a combative stance.
 
I was not going to post any longer in this thread. However, I don't accept the premise that the questions raised should be framed in this black/white context of a trial. Even in real-world trials, there have been miscarriages of justice, I honestly don't see what purpose is served by taking such a combative stance.

Well, I thought I made that clear. This appears to be an attempt at outright deception. It's quite a bit more aggressive itself than the usual fare.
 
Back
Top