fantastic psychic

[lhuiling]

hi flebowitz
do you have any reviews on lynda woolf? heard some gd reviews on her. perhaps u can share more. thx

[flebowitz]

I heard about her from a friend who heard from a friend so there is a chain of people who have been impressed. She's just very articulate and specific and grounded. I knew exactly what she was telling me and when I listened to the recorded session a few weeks later, I noticed nuances that were really specific and accurate and helpful.

She was able to tell my kids things about their friends and that was freaky. For me, it was mostly just kind of organizing my sense of myself. For my husband, it was somewhere between the magical experience my kids had and mine which was more down to earth, like a good friend.

I know she has clients from Hollywood like Demi Moore and some royalty as well. She's a funny sweet person and whether or not ESP exists, it's not something I can rule out one way or another just like religion and afterlife etc. So, it's a chance to learn. Thanks for asking

[lhuiling]

Thanks for your post.
Jus one more question : is she able to pre empt what is going to happen specifically
In your life in near future or even many years down the road? If so, are there specific cures
Or things she said to avoid things happening?
Thanks for your input...

[chococat]

wow, how clever you all are. no one has ever been skeptical of psychics before. and, gee whiz, no one has ever suggested that the majority of them are frauds either.

grow up.

denying the plausibility that some humans may have a greater aptitude for reading the microtexts and microsubtexts of the universe is akin to defending the flat-earth theory.

YOU DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW!


more things in heaven and earth Horatio...

[JR8]

Psychics are bull$hit.

If you feel a need for one, it is better to look for the hole in your life that you are trying to fill. Rather than paying $250 to someone ('who has serviced Demi Moore, Madonna, all their adopted children, and royalty oh oh <breathless> and Hollywood and and...') to do it for you.

The whole thread was a set-up anyway. Hope no-one got suckered in...

[nakatago]

skeptical open-mindedness and critical thinking are vastly different from
naiveté and gullibility.

many credible scientists have already tried to test psychic phenomena; unfortunately--aside from anecdotal evidence--psychic abilities have failed to be a consistent and reliable means of cognition.

also, hindsight is always 20-20. and look up what cold reading is.

[JR8]

Yeah yeah, so you agree it is bull, and that there is a slim avenue for the gullible to be fleeced at $250 ph ... lol

p.s. 'skeptical open mindedness' in such matters, is the preserve of the young, or where someone else is paying the bill...

[nakatago]

'skeptical open mindedness' in such matters, is the preserve of the young, or where someone else is paying the bill...

it should be the default mindset for scientific thinking. you don't discount the possibility but you don't also reject it outright pending proof. however, when a large bill is presented, all equations compute "bullshit."

personally, I don't close my mind to the possibility of enhanced mental abilities. however, until someone out there withstands credible tests and performs consistently--which to date, no one has--all these psychics are street magicians (or mentalists) rather than conduits to another realm. like i said in the other thread, there are actually mundane ways of "exhibiting psychic abilities."

short story long, yeah, it's bull.

[JR8]

.... I defer to Karl Popper, and the idea that in trying to prove something (i.e. as in science), you have already assumed a conclusion, a 'positive' outcome to your test.

I'll recount my experiences of psychs another time lol...

[nakatago]

.... I defer to Karl Popper, and the idea that in trying to prove something (i.e. as in science), you have already assumed a conclusion, a 'positive' outcome to your test.

I'll recount my experiences of psychs another time lol...

Some say, to put it succinctly, it's 'assume something and then try to prove it wrong.'

Speaking of psychics, the new season of Psych premiers July 14.

(No, I don't work for the network. But it seems mighty relevant to the topic anyway)

[QRM]

... having major celebs as clients

Ha ha that just about sums it up nicely. Celebs are the most level headed normal group of people you can find on this planet. Once "Hollywood" enters the equation you know you are onto a major scam, thats what the place is all about, getting people to part with cash for brilliant illusion.

To much money and time makes the mind the wonder....

If theres a void in your life that needs filling better off handing the cash to some starving kid in a mud hut to make yourself feel better.

[nakatago]

If theres a void in your life that needs filling better off handing the cash to some starving kid in a mud hut to make yourself feel better.

ah, great. http://www.paulyshoreadopted.com/

[JR8]

.... I defer to Karl Popper, and the idea that in trying to prove something (i.e. as in science), you have already assumed a conclusion, a 'positive' outcome to your test.

I'll recount my experiences of psychs another time lol...

Some say, to put it succinctly, it's 'assume something and then try to prove it wrong.'

Speaking of psychics, the new season of Psych premiers July 14.

Well. You don't imagine a say 'mumbo-jumbo sub-atomic particle' and then set about trying to disprove it's existence. Science tends to seek to prove assumptions, the existance of the Higgs boson particle for example: any experimentation assumes it exists, and seeks to find it.

[nakatago]

.... I defer to Karl Popper, and the idea that in trying to prove something (i.e. as in science), you have already assumed a conclusion, a 'positive' outcome to your test.

I'll recount my experiences of psychs another time lol...

Some say, to put it succinctly, it's 'assume something and then try to prove it wrong.'

Speaking of psychics, the new season of Psych premiers July 14.

Well. You don't imagine a say 'mumbo-jumbo sub-atomic particle' and then set about trying to disprove it's existence. Science tends to seek to prove assumptions, the existance of the Higgs boson particle for example: any experimentation assumes it exists, and seeks to find it.

ah, but these particles are predicted to exist by the math. so, these theoretical physicists didn't just pull the notion of these particles out of their arses. of course, this is giving experimental physicists a hard time to design the experiments to find them (hence, the LHC for starters).

but i see what you mean when you cited Popper.

the point is, things have to be logical which can't be said for the original topic--psychics.

PS. There's a site somewhere that explains how true science and the scientific approach is done which explains things degrees better than I do. Have to remember the key words, though.

[chococat]

what...anything that sounds "sciency" will prove psychics/those-with-extra-abilities are frauds. do you know how freaking out-there unified field theory is?