• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Can't a Psychic make a buck??


I'm sorry, but if you are sending money from overseas to strangers. If you are giving away your cars and money to people and you are a grown human. Well, the word stupid comes to mind. :p If you are less than 16 years old but more than 70 years old you might get a pass on the stupid rule. Depends. 8)
 
And to think, I just got this astounding letter from the bank manager in some town in Nigeria that wants to know if I will send him my banking info, so he can deposit 25 million bucks in my account some poor schmuck left behind when he died ... and we can split the balance.

Decker
 
I just had a "relative" die in a firey crash in Burma or somewhere. All I have to do is send my information and a former diplomat is going to contact me with the information for me to claim my money. :p
 
I am very ready to stop this because there is just not enough time to be making all these tacking adjustments.
It's not hard to do. Just hit the reply and cut and paste the whole thing into a more appropriate thread ... we're here now.
No, because the 900 numbers are in the area of human psychology ...
Funny, that's not what the ads say. They say: Psychic

Also, this is your deal, you've set up this condition as stated above: 'then you need to' - that's your opinion - and it's based on an inability to read and understand content, as well as individual words. That's what I'm experiencing given the scale to which I have to address your accurate reading of the text delivered.
My ability to read and comprehend what is written is actually pretty good. I'm just not so good at psychically determining that what people write isn't what they mean.
You are absolutely riveted in how you are thinking about this subject. You display a significant lack of mobility in how you are able to handle disparate points of view. My impression is that you have a very definite sense of what you think reality and consciousness is - and rather than amiably accept a new opinion that is at variance to your ideas and see it as a welcome source of a new perspective - you seem challenged by endless 'wrong thinking' and appear bound and determined to corral the 'newbie' into your way of thinking, by hook-or-by-crook.
No hooks. No crooks. I also welcome new perspectives. It's just that I've already been through a lot of the perspectives and have already sorted a lot of this out. So it's not so much that I think anyone else should change their views to "my way of thinking". It's more that I need good reasons to change my present way of thinking. To do that the issues need to be explained in a way that makes logical sense and/or is supported by substantial evidence.

If you can do that, then you'll change my mind. If you can't, then I would suggest that perhaps you need to study the problem and perhaps adapt your own views. Whether that adapting results in a similar position to mine isn't important. In fact if it's different and solid, I would love for you to be able to reveal that to me. I'm a truth seeker. If you really think you've got it, then help me see it. But don't expect me to take it on faith, or without question.
No. Just exactly what is a 'trustworthy psychic'? I for one have intuitions - and I know intuitive people - and sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong, as are they, as is everyone. Everyone has an intuitive sense. The best psychologists and doctors and counsellors and teachers have an intuitive sense. Figure out 'trustworthy' from there.[/quote
We started out comparing science to "divining" the universe. Divining is a psychic power. So if someone can really "divine" something, then they are a trustworthy psychic. Take a dowser for example. If he or she claims to be able to divine the location of something, and actually locates it time and time again, they'll gain a reputation for being trustworthy. I hope that clarifies.

Here is an example of my using the word 'divining' - and I even put it in quotes - as in 'divining' the world - a poetic term - and you shoot the word to mean that I was referring to 'divination'. That's how you got to 900 numbers, I guess - and the whole scramble above. The word divining can be used in any number of instances without referring to divination. Scientists divine the make-up of the atom. A teacher divines the calibre of a student.
The only problem with that is that scientists and school teachers don't "divine" things. Scientists research the structure of the atom and teachers assess the caliber of a student. The word "divine" has religion and psychic all over it. I'd provide a dictionary quote, but I'm sure you can do that for yourself. So you can't blame me for interpreting it "non poetically". That being said, I'll accept your clarification. Unfortunately however, the same problem remains. Do we want our children's school grades poetically divined, or objectively assessed? I submit that the more objective we can be, the more fair the grading will be.
Anyway, it really is impossible to have a conversation with this level of informational scarmabling. So I agree, time to bow out.
Actually, now that you clarified your point on what you had meant by "divining", I think I've glimpsed a little more into the way you see things. So this hasn't been a pointless exercise. Do you mind if I help you to clarify this for me further? If you're OK with that, I'd say that I agree that there other ways to establish what is reasonable to believe than science alone, but what were you getting at with the crash and burn of science comment? Was that also a casual allusion to the problem with the crash and burn of Fukushima, a problem that we wouldn't have to worry about had science not meddled with atomic power? Were you using the disaster to cast judgement on science in general? Or was your intent geared more to the problems science has caused without being judgemental about the process itself? Maybe something else?
 
Last edited:
Ufology, I'm a little concerned over the fact that the material from "Tyger" you quoted here appears to have been copied from another thread. Why not respond there? Would you explain please?
 
They Gypsies should not be prosecuted because they did not defraud anyone.

Fraud is: "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."
 
They Gypsies should not be prosecuted because they did not defraud anyone.

Fraud is: "A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury."

100% agree.
 
And to think, I just got this astounding letter from the bank manager in some town in Nigeria that wants to know if I will send him my banking info, so he can deposit 25 million bucks in my account some poor schmuck left behind when he died ... and we can split the balance.

Decker
Don, along those same lines. I love reading about some dolt who sends his Paypal money to Africa so he can save two bucks over buying the same thing in the States. This person always ends up shocked to find out be has been ripped off. There's a sucker born....
 
Back
Top