There are a few bits and pieces that cropped up over the last couple of days that have been entertaining me greatly.
Firstly, remember this daft post from a week or so ago? Just a dumb sign in a shop that said, “WE STOCK LADIES SIZE 4 – 24″. I’m easily enough amused that I posted a photo of the sign under the title, “Looking for a wife or girlfriend?”
I got a comment on that post. It has no web link attached, nothing apparently being spammed or pushed in any way. Just a name and the following:
hi dear
my name is taher , i am 22 i am from afghanistan , i am looking for a wife
Well Taher, if you’re still reading, it’s really not a good idea to call me “dear” and I’m afraid I can’t help you. But good luck in finding a wife. You’re only 22, so there’s really no rush.
When it comes to misrepresentations, I really enjoyed this article at news.com.au. Basically, an Indian man, Vaibhav Bev, is suing the makers of Lynx deodorant. He claims that he:
…has been using Lynx deodorant since 2002, in the hope the company’s promotional campaign – which features scantily clad women throwing themselves at men – had some basis in real life.
Mr Bev is suing the maker of Lynx – marketed as Axe in his home country – for more than $100,000, seeking compensation for “depression and psychological damage”.
“I used it for seven years but no girl came to me,” he told the Daily Record.
Truth in advertising or blatant stupidity notwithstanding, the makers of the product (Unilever) have been encouraged by Indian compensation lawyer Ram Jethmalani to settle out of court. It would obviously be fairly easy for Unilever to say something along the lines of, “Lynx can help you get a girlfriend, but it’s no guarantee. You have to be attractive and desirable too, just like the men in our ads.” However, Jethmalani doesn’t think that Unilever can use the excuse that Mr Bev is too ugly to get a girlfriend. As he apparently told The Daily Record, “In fact, some of the best-looking women have been known to marry and date absolutely ghoulish guys.” What a great line. Not necessarily a great compensation case, however.
And not as great a line as this one in an article I read in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning. It’s all to do with a big stoush over the Enmore Spiritualist Church in Sydney, “a haven for Sydney’s tight-knit community of clairvoyants and psychics”. There have been big arguments about who should run the church, who should act as treasurer and where a lot of funds have mysteriously disappeared to. The previous treasurer, 87 years old Patricia Cleary has suggested that spirits must have taken the money. Sure, I bet there’s a distinct lack of ATMs on “the other side”.
But the line of the week goes to church member Chorel Terelinck: “I know we’re meant to be psychics, but none of us saw this coming.”
Ah, you can’t write comedy like that.
.
People should be wary of believing everything they read-especially in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Ms Terelinck seems to demonstrate she doesn’t quite believe in her own abilities but more importantly the Reverend Cleary said no such thing as quote :”The previous treasurer, 87 years old Patricia Cleary has suggested that spirits must have taken the money”: unquote.
Chorel terleinck and Symn Waters who made these outrageous and false claims have now admitted they were untrue as shown in the Judgement /Order handed down in the NSW Supreme Court on the 27th November 2009 by Hon Justice Bergin.
That court order can be accessed at the church’s blog.
And in the January minutes of the church’s committee meeting it was in fact one of the defendents Recy Kypri who said “spirits may have aported any missing money”
But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?. The author of the SMH article certainly didn’t. There was no missing money-there was no “unreceipted expenditure”-just 3 years of normal spending , the majority on insurance, electricity and other dull articles as the defendents quite wekll knew and as they admitted in court-they removed the receipts for this expenditure and twisted the facts to make it all sound like something else.
For the record-unlike Ms Terelinck 87 year old Reverend Cleary DID see what was about to unfold and had mentioned for at least 6 months to several church members that there was one last ordeal she would face concerning the management of the church. That ordeal came true and she triumphed as she always knew should would.
Well, she’s in charge of a church and foresaw “an ordeal”. Suitably vague. I’d be more impressed if she foresaw a complicated court case and did something to prevent it happening. I’m no psychic, but I foresee at least one ordeal in my future. Hmm, maybe I am psychic after all.
How does one “do something to prevent it happening” ?.And indeed why should she have ? Everyone is psychic- just some suppress their ability or don’t develop it.
Really? If you could foresee some horrible ordeal wouldn’t you want to avoid it if possible?
who said it was a “horrible ordeal” ?.Unpleasant yes but think of the fun we’ll have during the defamation case.
Defamation cases are fun? I don’t think that word has ever come to mind when I think of any court case. Plus, if it’s true that everyone is psychic, then why don’t people develop their abilities rather than spenind $2.99 a minute talking to these people.
Come on people! Get psychic! Let’s put Jojo out of business!
The Enmore Spiritualist Church operates like most other churches. It only takes donations via plate collections at services. People are free to donate nothing or anything they wish. It doesn’t operate advice phone advice lines and the Spiritulaist world is as full of as many diverse perosnalities as any other religion. There will be fakes and charlatans in any religion. Any funds raised beyond operating funds-and all who work there donate their services and receive no payment-is given to local charities like Rev Bill Crews kitchen in Ashfield etc.
Perhaps a court case isn’t ‘fun’ although I personally find them fascinating.
One thing Rev Cleary did say was that the dramas at the Church would be over by December which as the day drew near seemed an impossibilty as you generally cannot get a court date for several months. Most at the Church believed this would drag on until late February and beyond.
But a morning came free within 4 days of papers being filed and the case was heard and over within the week. So she got something right.
“The Enmore Spiritualist Church operates like most other churches.”
Well, there’s your first problem.
“There will be fakes and charlatans in any religion.”
Absolutely. Religion being, after all, a form of socially acceptable insanity.
…y’know, this is just *too* easy. I’m not gonna bother.
p
Jokes aside, it’s a pretty disturbing comment from Taher, evidently looking to buy a wife and a happier life outside of Afghanistan.
In the book In Xanadu, travel writer William Dalrymple goes across Asia and in Afghanistan (I think) when locals ask him to describe life in the UK, the first thing he’s asked is: “Do you have a house where a man can…” [then the made a graphic gesture].
It seems with all the restrictions Afghan men are sex-obsessed, horny as hell and look on the immorality of the satanic west pretty fondly with that respect.
Also if he’s 22 he’s already considered over the hill
“Absolutely. Religion being, after all, a form of socially acceptable insanity.”
In your mind maybe. I dont see the problem with a bunch of people with a common belief getting together to discuss their beliefs or put them into practice.
You may as well say the bowling club or thos efollowing afoorbal game is insanity.
that’s a foorball game..not a furball game !
wrong again..FOOTBALL !
Furball game: Where two cats sit up either end of a court and hack lumps at each other.
I’d get together and discuss that with a group of like-minded people any time.
“You may as well say the bowling club or those following a [football] game is insanity.”
Hardly. Both bowling and football clearly exist.
I’ve seen the Collingwood army on the march, and I agree that following some football games can be considered insanity, particularly if you’re dressed in Essendon or Carlton colours, however I don’t believe it’s quite the same as organised religion regardless of what the PR engine would have us believe.
What Alan said.
I’ll also peevishly add that I’d never say “the bowling club or those following a [whatever] game is insanity” because, well, I’m literate.
And Damien, I’d definitely prefer to watch furball rather than football.
Okay, I cannot keep silent on this: “I dont see the problem with a bunch of people with a common belief getting together to discuss their beliefs or put them into practice.”
Here are things wrong “with a bunch of people with a common belief getting together to discuss their beliefs or put them into practice.”
1. Crusades
2. Spanish Inquisition
3. 9/11
4. Holocaust
I’m sure there are many more examples, but these are the main ones off the topd of my head. Religion is the single largest cause of war in the world. Always has been. The second largest is money, but religion always seems to be a factor as well.
There are many reasons why organized religions are wrong, and, in my opinion, should be abolished. War is only one of those reasons.
But, this goes to show that a group of belief who get together to practice a common belief is in fact very harmful.
Joseph, apart from omitting Collingwood Football Club, I agree with you almost entirely.
I have my own religious beliefs which I’m not going to share here, and I think it is possible for a bunch of like minded people to get together and discuss their beliefs. Unfortunately, I believe I’m in the insignificant minority in that I’m more than happy to discuss, debate, and more importantly take on and consider new facts (or theories) and points of view.
The main reason I never discuss religion is I find anyone who wants to discuss their religious opinion with you rarely wants to hear yours. I have no problem with sharing beliefs. I have a problem with imposing them on others (either through attempted guilt trips which don’t work on me, or on the world in general i.e. crusades etc).
I believe in Furball.
I dont see the problem with a bunch of people with a common belief getting together to discuss their beliefs or put them into practice.
Well obviously it depends on what they’re putting into practice doesn’t it?
““You may as well say the bowling club or those following a [football] game is insanity.”
Hardly. Both bowling and football clearly exist.”
The Enmore Spiritualist Church cleary exists at 2 London St Enmore.
“Well obviously it depends on what they’re putting into practice doesn’t it?”
You need to come to the Church if you want to see what they practice but it isn’t anything too disturbing.
I know it’s never been involved in any of the following :
1. Crusades
2. Spanish Inquisition
3. 9/11
4. Holocaust
Further proof in the unexplainable: Giant’s Causeway
Now I’m going to find somewhere to hide from Fionn, who clearly exists from the evidence provided.
Joseph and Michael – yes, yes, yes!
Damien – I can go one better than that. I personally own a christmas tree, so I can personally prove that Santa Claus exists. I’ve also seen Easter Eggs in the shops, so that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Easter Bunny exists.
A man-made building built for worshipping [whatever] doesn’t actually prove that [whatever] exists, Craig. (Just in case the analogies were too obscure.)
Well, this has taken an interesting turn. Craig?
Santa Claus and the easter bunny do exist.
Unless you have proof they don’t.
“Santa Claus and the easter bunny do exist.
Unless you have proof they don’t.”
This is a great philosophy. Put the onus on people to disprove stuff, so you don’t have to be bothered to prove it. Let me try that:
I have an invisible chicken in basement who gives me stock tips and can predict the winners in every horse race. Prove that I don’t.
The onus is on the person to proove the existence of something, since you can’t prove the non-existence of something. This is just another tactic people use to attempt to show their religion is “true” because people can’t prove otherwise, yet you refuse to prove that it is true. Waste of time and energy.
To the contrary-I saw Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny when I was young and they both told me who they were and no-one has ever said to me they were not who they said they were.
That’s despite people sometimes posing as them today.
Lucky you with that chicken !
“To the contrary-I saw Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny when I was young and they both told me who they were and no-one has ever said to me they were not who they said they were.”
What the hell kind of drugs are you on? Seriously. You’re babbling. Here I thought this was going to be an intelligent conversation about religion, and this is what you come up with?
I don’t really have time or the inclination for a discussion on religion-intelligent or otherwise.
I only came here to correct some rubbish printed in a tabloid newspaper.
Besides, I’m not too sure from the comments posted so far a discussion would be very productive-I think banging my head on a brick wall might be more fun. No point in preaching to the unconverted.
Just out of curiousity, since you didn’t want to get involved in the discussion, were you able to “foresee” a discussion happening and decided to post anyway? Because if you had, ignoring it would have been a good way to stop it.
LOL Joseph.
“No point in preaching to the unconverted.”
I think you’ll find that the saying goes “no point in preaching to the CONVERTED”. After all, if there’s no point in preaching to the UNconverted, what’s the point of preaching at all?
“I don’t really have time or the inclination for a discussion on religion-intelligent or otherwise.”
Trust me. This definitely falls into the “or otherwise” category.
And yes, Joseph is quite right. The onus is on you to prove that something *does* exist, not on us rational folk to prove it *doesn’t*. You should google “invisible pink unicorn” and “flying spaghetti monster”.
Or not. It would probably break your brain even further.
Santa most certainly does exist. I remember hearing him scrabbling around downstairs a few Christmasses back, although I must have been naughty that year because when I went downstairs in the morning to open presents, the DVD player was missing.
I’m going to agree with Craig a little, but adjust it slightly by saying I think that blocking your ears and categorically screaming something must exist just because you can’t prove it doesn’t is as stupid as saying it doesn’t exist just because you don’t want it to and there’s no proof for it. The world was flat until we proved it wasn’t.
It bugs me when people are so certain something does or doesn’t exist based on available facts. In this sense athiests can be as big offenders as religious types. There’s no such thing as ‘no proof’, just ‘no proof yet’ or ‘not enough proof’. Plus there’s always misinterpreting the facts based on what you want them to show. Statistics are great for this.
Someone once told me that a cat has four legs and a dog has four legs, therefore a cat is a dog. I couldn’t think of anything to say to this brilliant interpretation of the facts at the time, but in hindsight, I’ll bet the catdog would lose at Furball.
Craig, I’m interested to know as well if you foresaw all of this happening.
Also, Felicity is absolutely right about needing to prove something does exist. The onus is always on someone to prove something they are claiming, not for everyone else to prove against it.
Damien – “as saying it doesn’t exist just because you don’t want it to and there’s no proof for it”
You’ve added an emotional level here that doesn’t exist.
It’s got nothing to do with wanting it or not. It’s purely based on the fact that there’s absolutely no proof, has never been any demonstrable proof and doesn’t look like there will be.
And there’s a difference between saying, “I don’t believe in god” and “There absolutely is no god”.
Also, you can think religion is a dangerous, self delusional form of willfull ignorance (as I do, incidentally) and not be an atheist. Think on that one for a minute.
Lastly, if there *is* such a thing as a god in the Judeo-Christian sense, he’s certainly a capricious, nasty, vindictive arsehole. Ask the devoutly Christian people of Haiti what they think of their god at the moment. Most of the survivors would thank god for saving them. Seriously, WTF?!
I think it was the movie “End of Days” Satan said God just had the greatest PR department ever. If something good happened it was his will, and if something bad happened he moves in mysterious ways.
I completely agree with you when you say there’s a difference between saying, “I don’t believe in god” and “There absolutely is no god”. Same with people who staunchly shout there is no life on other planets despite never visiting any of them to look.
Lack of proof isn’t a categorical way of saying something does or does not exist, it just means it’s uncertain. Yet so many people are still so certain about it. I sometimes wish I had their self-assurance.
Just for the record, I did forsee roughly how this was going to pan out, which is why I’m still here banging on. It certainly beats working as entertainment.
1. I repeat-I haven’t the time to enter a philospohical argument.
2. I’ve already said I entered this board to point out some factual errors concerning a newspaper report which as an ex-journalist I know get repeated ad finitum especially now with the net.
3. I am psychic (as everyone is) but not very developed even though I’ve been a Spiritulaist all my life but did I see “all this happening”..to a degree. I certainly knew it would end in a court case and what would fun there be in life if we could see everything single thing that’s coming to us.
4.”uncoverted”-it’s a Joke Joyce.
5. And ta ta, it was fun while it lasted.
Craig, that’s twice you’ve taken the time to leave a comment informing us you don’t have time to comment. I don’t think we quite get the message. Perhaps you need to return a third time to tell us you’ve got nothing to tell us?
I think you misunderstand the word “psychic” to mean “raving loon”. Never mind, common error.
I don’t know if I can agree that this has been “fun”. Just quite sad and a little disturbing, really…
Please get your facts straight..I said I don’t have time to debate. A different thing.
And I don’t insult people I don’t know.
Craig Bennett – “I am psychic (as everyone is)”
There are those that would consider this insulting.
repeat-my job is done .
I have placed on the record that the information you placed on your blog was incorrect and repeated the defamatory claims in the Sydney Morning Herald.
No time for silly internet tennis matches.
Meanwhile, the million dollars remains to be won by any of us, psychic or otherwise.
oh please..come up with someone at least with credibilty. By all means question anything but not via this old conman.
James Randi is an old charlatan who does not have a million dollars to give to anyone and if he did I’m sure his numerous creditors would be first in the queue.
Wait, wait, wait! You, a “psychic from a spiritualist church”, are calling Randi a charlatan with no credibility!? Ahahahaha. Oh man, you’re actually a stand-up comedian, parciticing your material, right?
Good grief…does everyone get ad hominem insults on this board?
no-I’m not ‘parciticing’ my material but by his own account Randi is a magician. He isn’t a scientist-he’s a showman.
and he doesn’t have a million dollars to spare and he does have a line of creditors from his various failed enterprises. One being Uri Geller who took him into a British libel court, won and that’s why he never mentions Geller’s name these days.(yes yes ..I know what you think of Geller)
Does some research before you sound off.
So I guess you’ve rethought your four consecutive statements that you don’t have time to interact with us, eh, Craig? What a pity. (For us.)
This has been embarrassing for quite a while now. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Craig, you apply the same reasoning to Randi as you do other aspects of your life – Just focussing on the bits that suit your agenda.
Indeed, Randi was a magician. A stage magician, using trickery and sleight of hand and admitting it. When he was challenged once for being a fraud he replied: “Yes indeed, I’m a trickster, I’m a cheat, I’m a charlatan, that’s what I do for a living. Everything I’ve done here was by trickery.”
The person actually challenged back that Randi was a fraud because he was actually using magic and pretending he wasn’t. *shakes head*
With regard to Geller, Uri won a case in Japan, Randi refused to pay and Geller later agreed not to pursue the money in a seperate case. Later Geller UNsuccessfully sued Randi and the case was thrown out. Geller and Randi settled their difference confidentially out of court. Hardly damning evidence and more like a very shaky premise.
The James Randi Educational Foundation is the body that sponsors the $1 million challenge and it still stands.
What was that you said about research?
Hehe, losing in a British libel court! Well then he must be guilty.
http://www.libelreform.org/
This one is particularly enlightening:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/04/roman-polanski-nick-cohen-law
Now Craig, to be fair, my bringing up of the prize was not directed at you (since at that point you indicated that you didn’t have time for writing these comments) but at those remaining. But if you believe the JREF does not have a million dollars and that they have a forged deposit slip from Goldman Sachs on their site then I think this says more about you and your use of argument than it does about Randi.
As for use of the ad hominem label, this page is always enlightening:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
Whoa. Alan and Michael, you just handed Craig his arse on a platter. I bow down before you.
*So* owned.
I do my research and I think you are quite clever at keeping this match going to boost your board-which is not a bad thing.
I’ll believe Randi when he hands over the million bucks.I could make a similar claim especially when I know I don’t have to pay up. I know Geller personally and have spent a lot of time with him and have seen him do extraordinary things and he’s a far more impressive person than Randi (who also forgets to mention his conviction for sexual assault)
How many times do I have to say it-I’ve put on the record that the lies told in the Sydney Morning Herald which were repeated on here have been shown to be false and that’s all that matters to me.
I’m not here to preach, convert or defend what I believe in especially as I think the level of debate on this particular board borders on personal abuse.
Craig – this isn’t “my board”. It’s my blog and a website I use to promote my writing. This is my house. You come and play, you play by my rules. I’m happy to have you correct facts – that’s not a dispute here. This has gone well beyond correcting SMH errors.
This, for example, is gold:
“I’ll believe Randi when he hands over the million bucks.”
You’re basically saying that you’ll only take him seriously when he agrees with you. Which he won’t, because neither you or anyone like you has managed to pass even the preliminary stage of his challenge, which is there for the taking. Amazing! One million bucks, all yours, but you don’t seems to want it. Or you can’t get it because your supernatural powers and those of everyone you know are fake.
There’s been no personal abuse – it’s all people’s opinions, almost all of them based in fact and logic. Except yours. You don’t have to engage with us or respond to us, but you should get used to people calling you on your claims and ridiculing things that are well outside the realms of grown-up logic.
Ignore the perceived insults and address the issues. So far everything you’ve claimed has been fairly openly and honestly rebuffed.
Felicity — careful before you get accused of cheering other members of this “board” in a cultlike manner
Craig, hang on — the first claim is that Randi is a charlattan because he doesn’t have $1M. But now the “debate” has shifted to whether he will give the money. Looks like a classic [fallacious] debating move, make one point after the other in rapid fire. Again, if you think there is no $1M I can let that speak for itself.
As for the mention of sexual assault, now that’s a REAL ad hominem since you seem to be throwing it in to undermine whether or not Randi’s magic is/was “impressive”? In any case I haven’t heard of this conviction nor has a Google search yielded anything so I’ll reserve judgement until I see something more.
Now about whether the money will actually be given, that’s obviously a weird one as per what Alan said. Are you saying there’s been an applicant who should have won? Hmm.
I do like it here.
I’m just concerned things have moved too far off topic and away from cat tennis.
I didn’t see that one coming.