Thread: if LDing is real then what about. . .

Originally Posted by magicdood

Jeez you must be dense. The standford information is separate from those two people. The person who posted it simply said that he had seen those two people perform it, not that it related to the scientific information. Glad that's been put into easier terms for you to understand though now.

I didn't post that paragraph, however, and I do not know what the information is regarding the Standford Research. I am just trying to clear up what the Guy who posted it meant.

You obviously believe in the paragraph enough because it has scientists and a big 'ole university (Stanford) to endorse it though, huh? I have no idea who posted it and don't care since all it says is "Studies dont at Stanford show..." (paraphrased). Sorry if I don't take some obscure blurb as TRUE FACT.

Neither did I....when did I endorse it? Never. All I said was that the two people who you were talking about, and the Standford Research were separate. And by the way, I'd say that scientists at a "big ole' universitity" are certainly people in the Scientific Community that you can trust. So, when you say that you want scientific proof, and then someone seemingly gives it to you, you won't even take the time to research the information?? That seems a bit weird to me.

And also, stop accusing me of false things. It only discredits your argument. I wasn't talking about my belief in the research nor endorsing it...simply telling you that the names were separate from the College research.

Originally Posted by magicdood

Neither did I....when did I endorse it? Never. All I said was that the two people who you were talking about, and the Standford Research were separate.

See, you accuse me of false things constantly, but it just discredits your arguments more and more so it's ok.

Why would you post a quote of something that "supports" your argument if you don't endorse it?

I've since forgotten what the hell you are talking about and would like to reiterate that there has never been a post that shows a scientific source that says Psi is real.

Originally Posted by magicdood

And by the way, I'd say that scientists at a "big ole' universitity" are certainly people in the Scientific Community that you can trust. So, when you say that you want scientific proof, and then someone seemingly gives it to you, you won't even take the time to research the information?? That seems a bit weird to me.

No one gave out proof "seemingly" or otherwise. Showing the actual study supposedly done at Stanford would have gone a lot further to suggest there was a proof. Just claiming there had been one without showing us the study is a bit like believing scientists have proven the existence of Santa Clause just because I tell you that is so.

Originally Posted by magicdood

Jeez you must be dense.

Listen buddy, in an argument, those who make outstanding claims need to supply outstanding proof. You have as yet only suggested that proof exists, not actually shown it.

If you refuse to back up your argument with actual information, you have no business pretending to argue, as your words are empty.

I am not the one who posted that argument. Can you realize that? I was simply stating that you guys needed to realize that the two people you were talking about were not included in the Standford Research. I never said anything about the actual research. So please, stop acting like I did. I said you were dense because you couldn't seem to read the entire paragraph. If you had, you would have realized what you were saying.

And no, I don't need to provide proof. Why should I? If this was a debate where I wanted to change your opinions then sure, maybe I would, but I don't. Again, it's all up to you. And I'm being 100% honest about that. You can believe what you want, but know, that when I say that I don't mind you not believing and that you can get the info yourself, I am being honest.

Originally Posted by magicdood

I am not the one who posted that argument. Can you realize that?

Yes, it's simple matter to see who posted what. It's equally simple to see that you believed the post was "proof." We were addressing YOU because we wanted to point out that your belief was incorrect.

I already stated that I have not checked the information and I do not know the validity of the information. I have made that so clear it's unbelievable you still made that post skysaw. However, I'll let you know again that I posted what I did simply to help you guys understand the difference between the two different subjects of the post. I can show you again if you still don't understand?! :p

The point is, I honestly have no idea if it's proof/real or not. I'd think that you would be more inclined to believe that post simply because of the "big ole' university", but since no one has made an attempt to see if it's true, I guess not. And I for one don't care whether the information is valid or not since it doesn't change my view at all. Therefore, it would probably only be useful to the skeptics, which is why I haven't formed an opinion about it nor have I gone to find it.

Originally Posted by magicdood

I already stated that I have not checked the information and I do not know the validity of the information. I have made that so clear it's unbelievable you still made that post skysaw.

Yes, it's called "back-pedaling."

Originally Posted by magicdood

Gumby made an earlier post listing many scientific websites providing proof towards parapsychology. Please go read his post before you post nonsense like that.

Originally Posted by magicdood

Funny how you said nothing about the research done at Standford Research Institute. You wouldn't wanna be proven wrong now would you?

Looks to me like you were pretty convinced there was a study that supported your claims. Excuse us if we all read that wrong, but you sure seemed ready to hold up this invisible report and wave it in our faces.

You again got confused. My post saying that I didn't know the validity of the information was directed to the post about Standford Research.

I support the information that Gumby posted. I still don't understand how you can be screwing this all up. It's so easy to understand, and yet you still can't.

And no, I never back peddled. It may have seemed that way because I had to keep clearing things up because you can't understand anything. You have to have everything put into "idiot terms" before you understand it. I'll try to write in less sophisticated terms so I don't seem like I'm back peddling when I'm only clarifying things so you understand them.

Originally Posted by magicdood

I am not the one who posted that argument. Can you realize that? I was simply stating that you guys needed to realize that the two people you were talking about were not included in the Standford Research. I never said anything about the actual research. So please, stop acting like I did. I said you were dense because you couldn't seem to read the entire paragraph. If you had, you would have realized what you were saying.

And no, I don't need to provide proof. Why should I? If this was a debate where I wanted to change your opinions then sure, maybe I would, but I don't. Again, it's all up to you. And I'm being 100% honest about that. You can believe what you want, but know, that when I say that I don't mind you not believing and that you can get the info yourself, I am being honest.

Once again, you do care or else you wouldn't post so damn passionately about this.

Originally Posted by magicdood

And no, I never back peddled. It may have seemed that way because I had to keep clearing things up because you can't understand anything. You have to have everything put into "idiot terms" before you understand it. I'll try to write in less sophisticated terms so I don't seem like I'm back peddling when I'm only clarifying things so you understand them.

We can't understand what? That you are claiming that you have blown the hinges off modern science with no proof? Oh, we can understand that. What we can't understand is how you can come here time after time and post without any evidence or proof as to what you claim. That crap Gumby posted is unsubstantiated bullshit with a huge number links going to Psi sites (who have a vested interest) and some going to universities who don't conclusively prove anything.

So what the fuck do you want from us? To believe you because you told us? Sorry, it's not going to happen. Just like you flying isn't going to happen.

I'll quote it one more time:

Originally Posted by magicdood

Gumby made an earlier post listing many scientific websites providing proof towards parapsychology. Please go read his post before you post nonsense like that.

YOU said it was proof.

I know. I said that I agree that that is proof. I was not talking about the Standford Research. I stand 100% by what I said. And wig, I'll stop talking to you cause you are obviously the least bright of the group. I've told you what I'm trying to do time and time again. The fact that you can't understand that shows that you have no place arguing something like this.

Originally Posted by magicdood

I know. I said that I agree that that is proof. I was not talking about the Standford Research. I stand 100% by what I said.

My apologies then... what did you agree was the proof?

Oh, I agreed that the Post by gumby, which had those list of links was the proof. The standford Research however, I am not sure about since I have not yet read any of it nor do I plan to hehe. But I was just clearing up the guys paragraph. As to that research, I wonder if it would be pretty good cause I would assume that Standford is pretty respectable hehe.

Originally Posted by magicdood

Oh, I agreed that the Post by gumby, which had those list of links was the proof.

Thanks. Clear as mud.

What isn't clear haha. The post by gumby with all those links, had links that lead to proof! Hopefully that's clear as murky water now!

Originally Posted by magicdood

What isn't clear haha. The post by gumby with all those links, had links that lead to proof!

Yes. Except, no... they didn't.

Well then, you got me there. I trusted gumby's word haha. I've never even read the info from those links. I just guessed I didn't need to since I've already got all the proof I need.

Originally Posted by magicdood

Well then, you got me there. I trusted gumby's word haha. I've never even read the info from those links. I just guessed I didn't need to since I've already got all the proof I need.

I have to thank you for owning up to this. This is all we were trying to say.

This is all you were trying to say. I don't think the word "we" there was appropriate. But anyways, maybe that Standford research will be conclusive? Who knows. I personally have no idea where you can find scientific evidence, or if it exist since I have spent no time looking as it doesn't affect me. However, if you find some let me know.

Until then, I stick by my case saying that it's very real. :p

Originally Posted by magicdood

This is all you were trying to say. I don't think the word "we" there was appropriate.

It was more than appropriate because it's what every one has been telling you for pages on end.

But anyways, maybe that Standford research will be conclusive? Who knows. I personally have no idea where you can find scientific evidence, or if it exist since I have spent no time looking as it doesn't affect me. However, if you find some let me know.

I've got to hand it to you, that was some world-class backpedaling in the last few posts. Bravo.

At least the others were able to back you into a corner and get you to admit that you have no clue. So that's good.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

It was more than appropriate because it's what every one has been telling you for pages on end.


I've got to hand it to you, that was some world-class backpedaling in the last few posts. Bravo.

At least the others were able to back you into a corner and get you to admit that you have no clue. So that's good.

Yes, all thoughts I had.

And though I admit it's hard to resist piling on once he's owned up to speaking beyond his measure, perhaps we should cut him a little slack. It's rare to see someone (especially in these forums) admitting they spoke out of turn. Maybe by instead welcoming his admission, we can help further understanding and goodwill here in general.

Sigh, you guys are still not getting it. I only back peddled as you would say, towards the information that gumby provided. Nothing else. I stick by 100% to everything else I said.

And saying that I have no clue? Are you joking? I might not know about the information that was posted by another individual, I'll give you that. But I still know what I have experienced. You act like I'm backing up on everything I said. I stand by everything, just not the links posted from gumby. Jeez. Don't take everything out of context. Psi is still real haha. And of that, I'm sure. That will never change.