2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Skeptics' Circle #39 The RantsYou Might Need Arnica Montana »

Polar Opposites
2006.07.26 (Wed) 22:50

Some of you may notice that we've been closing down comments on our Allison DuBois rants, slowly but surely. It's just too tiring and distracting to constantly fend off credulous prosimians whose comments essentially add up to "Alison ROX! U R loosers!" Sure, none of them present any challenging arguments to counter (most of them are barely able to string two words together), but one of our ground rules around here is that no moron gets the "last word" — ever. It's as simple as that, folks. If any of you creduloids want to "definitively" finish the argument, get your own site. The point being, while there isn't much substance to counter in these comments, we're loath to leave them unanswered, just on basic principles. So when the idiotrons crawl out of the woodwork after another DuBois event sends hundreds scurrying off to Google her, we're inundated with incredibly dull and repetitive diatribes. Our response nowadays is to answer what little there is to answer, and close the comments down to avoid any more pathetic drivel from these fools.

That's what's going on, on the surface; but just to give our readers a peek behind the scenes — and we're sure many of our Usual Suspects encounter the same damn problem — the credulous raving doesn't stop there. Once they're rendered incapable of spewing forth utter bullshit in one of the DuBois threads for all to see, these stalwart morons see fit to fill in our contact form, so they can at least spew forth utter bullshit privately to us. Oh, joy. The only advantage here is that we seldom feel the need to respond to such e-mails — they're welcome to get the "last word" in private, where it has nothing to do with what's on our public website and where the only people who are forced to read their drivel — us — are not in any danger of believing that it has any merit.

In addition to the morons, however, we also get some wonderful e-mails that really make us happy — or justifiably and sympathetically outraged, as the case may be — from people who really understand the problems with Allison, and often even have their own personal horror stories about her that they wish to share.

So it seemed a fitting symmetry when, in the past 24 hours, we received two very different e-mails from two very different people. We present these below in the original text:

What your accusing allison of is absurd. I know allison personally, she's AMAZING. Maybe you should go in for a reading, then see what you think afterwards. You tell me, how does one know the most intimate details of you and your passed husband, his favourite foods, expressions, his full name, how would you know that from a phone call, without even knowing my name, she gave me the most amazing details, how do you explain it huh? you rekon its bullshit? Your pathetic. If you go for a reading, and you arent a 100% convert, ill give you my house. Dickheads

If we wanted a trailer home, we'd take this moron up on his/her/its offer (excuse the pronoun confusion; this e-mail was sent to us twice, with a different — and potentially differently-gendered — name each time. As a note: the second version of the e-mail omitted the "Dickheads" at the end, presumably because the sender was no longer quite as sure of our Dickheaded status). We get more e-mails like this than we can shake a divining rod at.

The second message was from Karen:

I want to thank you for your rantings on Allison Dubois because I was just ranting to my sister and my mom about her five minutes ago. Ali, as my sister Domini called her when she was still alive, wrote about my sister in her first book. She didn't ask for permission and used it as a story that "proves" her validity. It pissed me off then and pisses me off now. My sister's death from cancer was bad enough, but Ali's bullshit makes it worse.

...

Anyway, my issue is totally personal, and I guess my point is that she uses the deaths of people who are cared about, and it does hurt the family who are left behind. I don't like the fact that she uses my sister's death in her book, and she says at the front of it, "Domini, I love you, and please visit me regularly." How the hell am I supposed to feel when she acts like she still talks to my sister after she is dead? I'll never see her again, and that is bad enough. So, anyway, I am glad you call her on her bullshit because I have known Ali almost as long as my sister did, and she was a bitch when they were friends. Incidentally, Ali and her mom came to my sister's funeral. This is what her mom had to say about the fact that my mom, my other sister, and I were all there. My mom, my other sister, and Domini always had a rocky relationship, but when Domini was dying there was no question we would be there for her. Anyway, Ali's mom said at the funeral when I was standing by my sister's casket about to be lowered into the ground, "So it takes something like this to get your family together." I was mortified--what in the hell had Ali been telling her mother about my family? So, as far as Allison Dubois is concerned, she is a bullshitter 100%. I will never forgive her for using my sister as a prop in her pathetic lie. She was and is one of the biggest bitches I know.

Note the grasp of spelling, syntax and grammar in Karen's e-mail as compared to the first one; are we saying that intelligent people see through Allison's bullshit, while morons buy it hook, line and sinker? In a word: yeah.

When we contacted Karen to ask if we could post her correspondence on our site, she agreed. She also provided some additional details. First, she directed us to an interview with Allison from ABC Radio National in Australia:

Rachael Kohn: Allison, you write about a very close friend of yours, I think her name is Domini, who died of cancer at the age of 31, which was really pretty harrowing for you. You'd known her for half her life. Now I was surprised to read that when she was ill, you actually told her she was going to die.

Allison DuBois: I actually told her that when we were like, 19, when we were teenagers I said, 'I see you passing around the age of 30' and I said, 'You need to stop smoking because that's something that's going to contribute to your demise, and she was like 'Oh Allison', whatever. And she did die at 31 of cancer, and that was hard to watch but the prediction of that came at an earlier age, where I was actually trying to prevent it. But then when she was dying, we did sit together and talk with our friend Stacey, and she said, 'You told me', and I said, 'Domini, please, not the time and the place, don't worry about it.' But the thing that was nice was I was able to take her fear away, that when she died that that was going to be it. And when she was getting ready to pass, she was like, 'You're right, I can see my grandfather, and I know that they're there.' And so it was very important to me that she knew that before she died.

So, this is Allison's version of what happened. What's Karen's?

Let me just say that my sister died from melanoma that had nothing to do with her smoking. In addition, she was petrified of dying because she thought she was going to hell. She never lost that fear. A couple days before she went into a drug-induced coma, she told my mom she was still afraid to die and asked her what she should do (even though her death was about two weeks away). My mom said, "Don't stop breathing." My sister held on to that thought and kept fighting even though we could see her body already decomposing while she was still alive. At any rate, she never "saw" my grandfather--if anything she would have claimed to see my grandmother because they were closer, but she never did that either. Allison didn't see my sister at all for about 3 months before her death at least. Domini would not have "seen" anyone on the other side when Allison was still around because she was still extremely cognitive. In hospice care, the only people who came to see her were family members. My mom was the only one present when she actually died. So why Allison would talk about "when she was getting ready to pass" is a mystery to me since it had been several months since she had seen Domini. The next time I saw Allison was the funeral when her mother was so disrespectful to me and my family.

So, let's recap. According to Karen, Domini's death had nothing to do with her smoking, she was afraid to die right up until the end despite Allison's claim that she was "able to take her fear away," there was no known grandfather sighting, and Allison hadn't seen Domini for months at the time of her death. Sounds like another home run for Allison!

Yes, both sides of this particular story are anecdotes, but given Allison's track record when it comes to telling the truth, as well as her vested interest in "creative embellishment," we are inclined to believe Karen, especially since she has no discernable motive for making this up. At the very least, it gives those who would worship Allison something to chew on that isn't coming from our mouths (the morons hate us so).

In this day and age, it's truly amazing how cold reading can astound rubes like the bozo who wrote the first e-mail above; but rubes, please try to fucking grasp this basic fact: it's still just a carny trick. Give us a few minutes of your time, and we could probably give you detailed information about your life, too (or at least make you think that we did). It's a skill, to be sure, but it isn't any sort of "mystical" power.

But even more truly amazing is the sheer BITCHINESS of Allison DuBois...which, by Karen's account, she apparently inherited from her mother. Allison, you are a tool of the highest order, and when your ride on the gravy train comes to an end, we only hope that you use your "powers" to play the stock market...and lose all of your ill-gotten gains as a result. What a fucking whore.

Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)

— • —
[  Filed under: % Allison DuBois Week  % Bullshit  % Greatest Hits  ]

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/tpc-trkbk.cgi/361

Comments (250)

Brian, 2006.07.27 (Thu) 00:44 [Link] »

are we saying that intelligent people see through Allison's bullshit, while morons buy it hook, line and sinker? In a word: yeah.

Could be that the intelligennt people who buy into the duBois thing don't feel the need to post rebuttals and figure she's a big girl and can take care of herself? I toss it out as a suggestion, s'all.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.07.27 (Thu) 10:44 [Link] »

To be sure, there are certainly intelligent people who believe stupid things. We aren't doubting that. However, the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to understand that people like Allison are not psychics.

We just find it interesting that most of the ardent defenses of Allison that we receive are written with the skill of a two year old.



Eric, 2006.07.27 (Thu) 14:34 [Link] »

This fucking woman. Pardon my French, but... this makes me sick to my stomach, the way she lies and uses the death of someone to make herself look better. And it's all lies. I just... there are really no words.



Glintir, 2006.07.27 (Thu) 14:49 [Link] »

I'm still hung up on Allison's mother's comment at the funeral. If Karen were Karl, and Allison's mother were her father, would it be appropriate to cold cock her right at the grave site? That's the kind of comment that deserves to get you knocked out. Just not sure if it's enough of an offense to further disrespect the ceremony.

And for the feminists, I only change the gender because women show their aggression with fists less often. Usually, they do it with nasty comments are funerals.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.07.27 (Thu) 15:48 [Link] »

Yeah, we're with you, Eric. That's why we can't understand the people who seem surprised by how angry we get at people like Allison. From our perspective, anger is the natural and, more importantly, appropriate response to her behavior. We can't fathom how any rational person can feel otherwise.

Since our original posts on Allison were published about a year and a half ago, we've boggled at a variety of incredible responses, such as:

"why do you have to single out Allison for criticism?"
"If you have a problem with her, so what - move on."
"Why are you so negative?"
"It can't hurt."

We mostly wonder what the fuck is wrong with people who feel that way about a piece of subhuman garbage like Allison.

And Glintir — we absolutely agree. As far as we're concerned, the only reason for not knocking Allison's mother on her ass in response to such words is because of the setting and occasion. So essentially, it seems that Allison's mother has also learned to exploit the pain and suffering of others for her own self-satisfaction. Perhaps Allison learned by example. What lovely people.



IAMB, 2006.07.27 (Thu) 16:14 [Link] »

Fuck the stock market... I want her to use her "powers" in a poker game against either me or Ed Brayton. If she can win three out of five heads-up games, I'll become a believer on the spot.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.07.27 (Thu) 17:04 [Link] »

Agreed. After all, Allison has made it known that her powers extend specifically to poker. From a previous Rant of ours, which quoted an interview with Allison:

Q: I bet you're good at gambling.

A: Yes, when I'm playing poker I can hear other people's thoughts. But I can't pick lottery numbers because people aren't attached.

Just don't take all her money before we get a chance to play.



Kris, 2006.07.27 (Thu) 19:15 [Link] »

My name is Kris. I am older sister of Domini who Allison writes about in her book. First let me say that I had no idea that Allison's book had even been published until my sister Karen brought it to my attention this week. I was struck by the fact that all that information could be published about her without my mother's, my sister Karen's or my knowledge. I was also curious as to how the chapter on my sister had ended up as Allison had let me read a rough draft of the chapter at Domini's son, Jake's, birthday party after Domini had passed away. I felt it was incredibly inapproriate to ask me to look over something like that at my nephew's birthday but I did nonetheless. In the rough draft, Allison had the day Domini went into hospice, the date and time Domini died and who was with her when she died wrong. There were other inaccuracies, however, I felt those were pretty glaring since she talked about her 'guides' giving her that information. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the last time Domini saw Allison was in November of 2000, just before her (Domini's) birthday. Allison never came to see Domini in hospice and Domini had refused any visitors the last 6 weeks she was still at home because she didnt want anyone to see how she looked. Domini died in April of 2001.
I, too, did not like Allison inferring in her interview with Rachael Kohn that Domini's smoking had anything to do with her death. She died of malignant melanoma (skin cancer) as my sister Karen already stated, which was completely unrelated to her smoking. I also agree with Karen that Domini was petrified of dying right up until she slipped into a coma which was something our family wished could have been different for her. If Allison thinks she eased any of Domini's fears concerning death she is misguided to say the least.
Primarily I am struck at how not only Allison seems to be benefitting financially from my sister's death but using her as a means to validate her so-called 'gifts'. If that's Allison's idea of how to treat the memory of a friend I would say she's no friend at all.



Adam Scanlan, 2006.07.28 (Fri) 01:37 [Link] »

What a loathsome woman that Dubois is. It would be nice to see a story such as this published in the mainstream media. Perhaps Karen and Kris would consider it. It's about time this bitch got her comeuppance.

For the TPC, I must admit to some regret at the closing of comments on the Allison rants. Watching you guys lay a vicious smackdown on a moron was one of life's little joys.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.07.28 (Fri) 10:28 [Link] »

Allison is a poor excuse for a human being, Kris, and you're not alone in thinking so (as this thread has already begun to demonstrate). We sincerely appreciate you and Karen taking the time to let us know about Domini. By showing how the true events don't coincide with Allison's account, we hope that more people will come to understand the truth — that Allison is a sick, self-glorifying sideshow act out to profit on the pain of others. Thanks for helping us get that truth out there.

And Adam — don't worry. There will always be posts for the morons to comment on.



Pool Guy, 2006.07.28 (Fri) 10:52 [Link] »

I have nothing specific to say. I just want to offer my appreciation to the combined brain trust at TPC for doing a lot of the heavy lifting in dealing with these predatory pieces of garbage like Allison.



Mark Cote, 2006.07.28 (Fri) 12:20 [Link] »

It's very difficult for people to grasp that some of those who claim to be loving, helpful, or godly, can be absolute cold hearted liars. Benny Hinn is a terrific example.

I'm enraged.

I wish, really wish that I could be convinced that a day will come when we as a human race will discard this medieval thinking. But it'll never come.

Thanks for your expose.



Yahzi, 2006.07.28 (Fri) 23:38 [Link] »

I am particularly struck by how quickly Allison and many other psychics will agree that there are many, many frauds out there.

Matched, of course, by the speed with which they become incensed when you ask them to prove they are not one of the frauds.

Kris & Karen - your story is important. Thank you for sharing it. The fact that I have not seen your stories in the public media only goes to explain how lazy and inept the media has become.



Rajah, 2006.07.30 (Sun) 20:01 [Link] »

I've never heard of Allison but it's quite obvious that she takes her lessons from Sylvia Browne. Ms Browne can be seen on Wednesdays on the Montel Williams show. If you really want to see some blatant stupidity check her out. She makes a fool of herself - yet has an apparent AMAZING following. At $700 a whack - she'll give you a reading like you've never had before. Or if that's too rich for your bood - you can try her son Chris for only $300. Larry King Live also promotes her. What a joke.



mouse, 2006.07.31 (Mon) 00:31 [Link] »

REgarding Allison's mother at the funeral. I enjoy the TV show supposedly base on Allison's life. That said, I despise the real life woman for things just such as this. Even if Allison were really a psychic (assuming the existence of of course), that comment at the funeral had no place being made in such a fashion. Completely inapporpriate regardless of Alison's "gifts."



The Two Percent Company, 2006.07.31 (Mon) 20:50 [Link] »

Pool Guy: No thanks are necessary, but we appreciate it anyway. In this particular instance, the overwhelming majority of gratitude should go to Karen and Kris for allowing us to share their story.

Mark: Boy, do we understand that rage. And while it's true that we'll probably never see an end to ridiculous beliefs like these (certainly not in any of our lifetimes), each and every person that we can steer away from predators like Allison is a win in our book.

Yahzi: That's one of the things that pisses us off most about Allison — her arrogant dismissal of all of the "frauds" out there pretending to be psychic. It's amazing that the very things she points to as revealing the duplicity of the "fakes" are the things that practically define her career, history and behavior. She's truly a reprehensible individual.

Rajah: Yep, we know all about Sylvia Browne. Though we don't devote as much time to her as we do to Allison, we've written about her line of crap in the past. Montel Williams and Larry King should be ashamed. Well, more ashamed.

mouse: To our way of thinking, we can't imagine how anyone could defend what Allison did in the above account, no matter what they might think of psychics in general, or the existence of psychic powers. Complete asshattery, it seems, is pretty universally recognized.



elvila, 2006.08.05 (Sat) 23:20 [Link] »

"But then when she was dying, we did sit together and talk with our friend Stacey, and she said, 'You told me', and I said, 'Domini, please, not the time and the place, don't worry about it.' "

wow, that particular response made me feel sick to my stomack. i mean, even if it were true, wich i have no doubt that it isn't, what is the point of telling such an anecdote other than her own self-glorification!!! what a bitch, someone really needs to punch her in the face.



Allison SUPPORTER, 2006.08.20 (Sun) 02:04 [Link] »

I disagree with all of the above comments. I DO believe in Allison's gifts.
I am also highly intelligent (Re: read above), extremely well spoken and written, and would outdo most of you in a MENSA challenge without even thinking about it. I resent the comments that only the unintelligent and uneducated believe in the gift Allison is blessed with.
If you have set your sights on defaming Allison, I wish you luck. She will always have supporters and there will always be believers - many of them.
Perhaps this website would have more credibility and benefit from using less undesirable language (which generally comes from less educated people), and from being a little less harsh with the terminology used.

As for the story concerning the young lady's passing from melanoma, it is truly heartbreaking and my sympathies extend to her family for the loss they have endured. However, it appears that this particular family had a dislike to Allison long before their sister lost her fight. Naturally, they are not going to have touching words to say about her, and the hurt they feel from Dominmi's death is only going to heighten those emotions. I'm not saying Allison (or her mother) never made comments which appeared inappropriate, however perhaps given the setting, the emotional upset at the time, and the feelings of dislike this family already harboured for Allison the comments were taken out of context.

Most of the above texts were written by people based solely on what they read on this page. It helps to have an open mind about such things, and not always believe what you read. Maybe inappropriate comments were made; maybe they weren't.

I have a strong belief in the abilities Allison possesses, however I also respect the feelings of the non-believers who visit this forum.

As I stated before, the credibility of this site would rise dramatically if the abusive language was curbed somewhat. There isn't any need for it and it appears highly unprofessional.



Skeptic Approach, 2006.08.20 (Sun) 12:35 [Link] »

Dear Allison supporter,

Maybe you should've read some more postings from this site because you bring nothing new to the table.

Doubting the credibility because of the language used has long before been refuted. These guys as are as fucking entitled to use any foulmouthed language they see fucking appropriate as they fucking want. Just yanking your chain here, but you should get the point. Using 'foul' language does in no way deminish credibility! In my opinion, it only does so when you're already looking for an excuse to diminish it in the first place.

Regarding the open mind, please, in my experience it's quite the opposite. I've tried having discussions using credible sources and facts with believers of the Sylvia Browns that are around. They usually go like this:

Poster 1: "Hi, I'm a medium, anyone else too?"
Poster 2: "Sure, I believe you, why wouldn't I?"
Me: "Uhm, how about some proof?"
Poster 1: "You don't have to believe me but it's true."
Poster 2: "Yeah, you just don't understand!"
Me: (after giving sources as to why Sylvia Brown is a fraud and even giving the link to the fabulous Allison-debunked-week) "See, this is why I don't believe. Again, show me some proof, maybe even use the scientific method, whatever. Don't just take my word for it, investigate for yourself"
Poster 3: "Well, look at Quantum Physics. Tests have proven that photons can be in two places at the same time. How's that for proof! Explain that!"
Me: "Erm, yeah."

Don't try to tell me that the true believers are really the ones with the open mind...

About the familiy already harbouring ill feelings towards Allison. Well, that doesn't really change anything about the situation, does it. Allison still changed the story to use in her book and make shitloads of money! I'd sooner take the version of the story provided by the two sisters than that of dear Allison.

As you can catch from my elaborate posting, I still haven't learned my lesson about discussions with 'the believers', and thus I still try. And, my apologies for any mistakes in my spelling and grammer, even though I work for an international organisation and use English everyday, this is not my native language and I make mistakes often enough.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.08.21 (Mon) 09:59 [Link] »

Skeptic Approach:

Thanks for the sane words. We're always happy to have others helping us fend off people who drop the same old comments we've responded to dozens of times already. So thanks very much! We'll be double-dipping here, because we'd like to set A. SUPPORTER straight, too.

As a note, there's nothing wrong with your written English at all. Besides, simple mistakes don't bother us (we all make those). It's the people who clearly aren't even trying to use comprehensible English that drive us up the wall. You certainly are not in that group.

Allison SUPPORTER:

You are an IDIOT (as are most people whose arguments rest solely on capitalizing a few key words). We know you don't like our "terrible language," so we'll write this comment using alternative words, just for you. With or without the "bad words," our points are the same, and they are valid and supported by reason and logic no matter what you think of our vocabulary; but we'll humor you anyway. You can thank us later. And now, as people like you always seem to fail to do, we will present our rational arguments supporting our positions and refuting yours.

Let's dissect your comment, shall we?

I disagree with all of the above comments. I DO believe in Allison's gifts.

Okay, fair enough. That's your basic assertion; but what are your reasons for believing in Allison's "gifts"? As an intelligent person, surely you must have some rationale, right? Oh, whoops! No, you don't. Or at least, you completely fail to mention any logical, testable reasons why you believe in Allison's "gifts." Good start, bonehead.

I am also highly intelligent (Re: read above), extremely well spoken and written, and would outdo most of you in a MENSA challenge without even thinking about it.

First of all, you have presented no evidence thus far to support your assertion that you are "highly intelligent," other than your own assertion; based on your blind belief in a carny act like Allison, we aren't willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, here. Second, we reject your claim that you are more intelligent than most of us since you have no way of measuring the intelligence of all of the people who've contributed to or commented on this site. We can assert right back that "No, we would beat you in a MENSA challenge!" But that wouldn't really get us anywhere, now, would it? Third, MENSA doesn't particularly impress us, from what we've seen — it largely appears to be intellectuals with self-esteem issues patting each other on the back; nothing special or "super-intelligent" about that. So, all in all, we reject your argument from authority on multiple grounds.

You then say:

I resent the comments that only the unintelligent and uneducated believe in the gift Allison is blessed with.

Whew! Then it's a good thing that we never said that, isn't it? What we did say was:

To be sure, there are certainly intelligent people who believe stupid things. We aren't doubting that. However, the more intelligent someone is, the more likely they are to understand that people like Allison are not psychics.

Do you see the difference here? Surely, someone of your staggering intellect must.

You continue:

If you have set your sights on defaming Allison, I wish you luck. She will always have supporters and there will always be believers - many of them.

We agree. We'll also add that White Supremacists will always have many believers. However, we'd argue that countering their fallacious claims is still important, both for public education, and to let them know that there are those who would stand up to them. But credulous fools like you never make this kind of simple connection (even though we've used this same example at least three times before). As an aside, one of the hallmarks of intelligence is seeing connections between disparate concepts where others may not. Thus far, you haven't impressed us.

Then you delve into one of the most common and least useful arguments that we see on our site:

Perhaps this website would have more credibility and benefit from using less undesirable language (which generally comes from less educated people), and from being a little less harsh with the terminology used.

And:

As I stated before, the credibility of this site would rise dramatically if the abusive language was curbed somewhat. There isn't any need for it and it appears highly unprofessional.

Oh, for the love of Steve, grow up. Swears are words. If you can't handle them, then go pound sand, you prelingual paleolithic prosimian. If the mere presence of "curse words" renders you incapable of parsing and understanding the arguments presented in conjunction with them, then, once again, we are unimpressed by your intelligence. And as a note, please forgive us if we don't jump at your "constructive criticism" on how to be more credible — when the person leveling said criticism blindly believes in a joke like Allison DuBois. Our sincere advice is that you focus on how to make yourself more credible before you start working on others.

You continue:

As for the story concerning the young lady's passing from melanoma, it is truly heartbreaking and my sympathies extend to her family for the loss they have endured. However, it appears that this particular family had a dislike to Allison long before their sister lost her fight. Naturally, they are not going to have touching words to say about her, and the hurt they feel from Dominmi's death is only going to heighten those emotions. I'm not saying Allison (or her mother) never made comments which appeared inappropriate, however perhaps given the setting, the emotional upset at the time, and the feelings of dislike this family already harboured for Allison the comments were taken out of context.

This is all quite lovely (if utterly deranged), but you have completely failed to address the more important part of this account: that Allison completely boned her "predictions" about Domini. Heck, Allison had an event that had already transpired, and she had access to firsthand knowledge of the details from family members, and she still couldn't be bothered to get the story right. Why? Probably because she knew that she didn't have to bother, because credulous idiots the world over would believe her anyway. Thanks for proving Allison right.

We'll also note that we presented this account as an anecdote, and not as definitive evidence of anything. However, we also stated our reasons for believing this account over Allison's, and we stand by that assessment. You have provided no rationale for why you believe Allison over Karen and Kris. Oh, wait, here we go:

I have a strong belief in the abilities Allison possesses...

Well, there you go then. If you have a "strong belief," then it must be true, right? Simpleton.

So to sum this all up: intelligent people certainly can believe stupid things, but then again, we are far from sold on your claim that you are intelligent. Swears are words. If you can't see the arguments for the swears, then you really need to grow up. Even more, the anger that we feel toward people like Allison absolutely warrants the language that we use. She is a vile individual who preys on the suffering of others in order to make a buck. Anger is the appropriate response to her nefarious deeds, and we have to question both the intellect and the compassion of anyone who feels differently.

Finally, on the off chance that you actually are one of the intelligent creduloids, we pose this question to you: can you actually build a case for your belief in Allison? If you are truly intelligent, you will understand that such a case would have to consist of independently observed, testable, replicable and falsifiable scientific evidence, and not merely of assertions of your "strong belief" or anecdotes about guessing that "an L name" had passed after "a chest feeling." If you have such a case, then please, by all means, lay it out for us. If not, then surely you must realize that your belief in Allison is ill-founded. Or you could just be turning off your intellect in order to support a silly, faith-based belief. Then again, you could just as easily be an idiot in general.

We await your response with bated breath.



Jonathan, 2006.08.25 (Fri) 16:53 [Link] »

TPC - What i would give to work with you guys. I don't think i have ever encountered people with common sense and who are so on point with what i stand for and believe in. I want facts. Not fiction. I want the truth, not what one wants to believe is truth. But then i came to this site. And wow, you guys just blow my mind sometimes. It's just a sad world we live in these days when people decide to just follow others like a mindless zombie, babbling useless fiction into peoples brains until it turns to incoherant mush.

If only some believer out there could match your posts with the detail and honesty behind them then maybe you guys would have your work cut out for you. The only problem is noone will ever be able to match you solely because there is NO proof to back any of their claims up. There isn't even common sense that can conclude what some people choose to make truth. However every sentance that comes from you guys is always backed up with common sense and even fact most of the time. It's just unfortunate that most people can't even grasp common sense.

Well i await eagerly a response from this super-sentient being who seems to know alot about a little. It will be intresting to see some fact back up claims to this crazy womens insanity.

And to Kris and Karen, my thoughts are with you and i hope you take your facts to the media to disproove this lunatics fallacies. She deserves to be exposed for what she really is. A demonic being who is usurping our innocents.



Steve, 2006.08.28 (Mon) 23:15 [Link] »

Hello, folks. My question: Is there any objective/ scientific evidence that any of these people who claim to converse with the dead are really doing so? My mother recently passed away and we are all devastated. My sister is seriously considering spending a wad of bucks on consulting one of these types (to whom she was referred to by Dubois) and, while it's her money to spend and might make her feel better, I'd rather she consulted with someone who is really capable of the feat if such a person exists. Is there anyone out there who has been the subject of reliable scientific research and passed the test? Personally, I believe in an afterlife, especially since I've started checking out some of the research on near death experiences, such as that conducted by Dr. Raymond Moody and Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. But "talking" with those on the other side is a whole different ball of wax, is a good place for frauds to squeeze money out of people who are hurting, and I don't want my sister wasting her money on a screwball. Can you folks give me any suggestions?



The Two Percent Company, 2006.08.29 (Tue) 11:25 [Link] »

Steve,

We're very sorry for your loss. We certainly understand how pain like this can cause people to look to psychics for assistance. In fact, that's one of the things that angers us the most about these supposed "psychics" — the fact that they prey on people who are grieving over the loss of a loved one. What your sister is thinking about doing is not weak or stupid — it is human nature. The psychics who are ready and willing to turn her suffering into easy cash? They are the ones to blame here.

It's important that you know that there is not a single psychic or medium anywhere in the world that has passed scientific muster. Not one. If they could do so, they would have collected James Randi's million dollars by now. Many self-proclaimed psychics have been tested by many researchers, and they have all either failed outright, or the testing that was conducted was later shown to be faulty (as is the case with Gary Schwartz, the researcher that tested Allison DuBois). Remember, one of the critical steps in scientific validation is the ability for others to repeat the tests and get the same results. As a result, any time you read about research validating the paranormal, it's important that you check to see if the results in question have ever been repeated. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the answer is "no." So if you're looking for a psychic who stands up to scientific scrutiny, the answer is simple: there is no such thing.

The best reference that we can provide to show how these people pretend to be psychics is the premiere episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit (season one). They show precisely how cold reading and subjective validation (among other things) work to give the impression that someone is communicating with the dead. The episode even includes a former fake psychic performing his old act, just to show that someone who definitely isn't psychic can have the same effect. This is a thirty minute program that sets the record straight quickly and easily, and we can't imagine anyone who has watched that program still believing in people who clearly employ these same tactics.

We also want to point out is that Allison DuBois is a bullshit artist. She has no psychic powers. The answers that she gives can easily be divined through normal means (as discussed above), she is generally vague, and even then, she is still frequently wrong. So even if someone does believe in such abilities, they need to know that Allison is not the real deal. She's a sideshow act, and frankly, she's not even very good at what she does. John Edward is far better at the act than she is (he's not a real psychic, either). So even if real psychics did exist, taking a referral from Allison is about as ill-advised a step as we can imagine.

But even more importantly, these people aren't helping anyone except themselves. Yes, they may say things that lessen the pain of loss temporarily (then again, they may say something that increases the pain as well), but do we really want someone else — someone who didn't even know the person we lost — inserting their words and their phony perceptions into the relationship that we had with that person? Do we really want some high-priced carnival act fabricating the last memory that we will ever have of a loved one?

Our advice to you and your sister is to avoid wasting any time or money on these so-called psychics. None of them are real, but all of them will walk all over your actual memories of your mother. We understand the suffering that your sister is going through, and we understand why she's thinking about doing what she's thinking about doing, but in the final analysis, it's just not worth it. It's much better to remember your mother for who she really was; not for what any so-called psychic will pretend she was.



Steve, 2006.08.29 (Tue) 22:47 [Link] »

Good advice. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. Really appreciate it.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.08.30 (Wed) 08:57 [Link] »

No worries, Steve. We hope it all works out.

— • —

Jonathon,

People like Allison SUPPORTER are a dime a dozen. They come by, drop an asinine and unsupported comment on our site, then never come back again to see the points we've raised countering their crap. But then again, what more can you expect of people who have no desire (and probably no capacity) to learn anything?

Thanks for the kind words — it's always good to find others who value commons sense, reason and logic in this mad, mad world.



secretsomeone, 2006.10.27 (Fri) 09:32 [Link] »

after reading all what everyone says here i have to laugh you start out saying about whether or not you belive in mediums ect, but then start fighting over stupid things like competing in a MENSA challenge!" i mean come on focus on what the original subject is not foul language or intelligance but where or not you belive its the truth



The Two Percent Company, 2006.10.27 (Fri) 11:34 [Link] »

Focusing on the original subject sounds like a good idea to us, secretsomeone, so let's make sure we all know what the original subject was — namely Allison's reprehensible behavior toward Domini's family, and her dishonest treatment of the story in her book, which goes a long way toward establishing her credibility (or, more accurately, the lack thereof).

As a note, our "discussion" of MENSA and swearing was, in its entirety, a counterpoint to Allison SUPPORTER's ridiculous assertions, and not something we were interested in discussing with regard to Domini's family or Allison's credibility. However, we have a firm policy around here that idiots don't get the last word on any topic, ever; so we responded to SUPPORTER's assertions and moved on with our lives. No big deal, and if you have something to contribute regarding the original subject of the Rant (as we've outlined it), please feel free.



ana, 2006.11.30 (Thu) 16:48 [Link] »

i can see the INFERIORITY COMPLEX and JEALOUSY in the people who criticize psychics on this website,but as any evil people do comes back against them...



dikkii, 2006.11.30 (Thu) 19:21 [Link] »

Ana,

I might pre-empt the Two Percenters by recommending that you click here.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.11.30 (Thu) 19:26 [Link] »

We can see the FUCKING STUPIDITY and the ASININE GULLIBILITY in the people who defend these fucking phony psychics without even bothering to look at any actual facts. Hey, that's like you, ana! Yay, people are noticing you!

AW, what's the matter, ana? Did we contradict your pathetic and utterly moronic world view so much that, in your abysmally rockheaded angst, you had to post the same comment five fucking times? And you wonder why we don't give much credence to the half-assed psychoanalysis of a moronic fuckhead like you?

Do you really want to prove us big bad skeptics wrong? Then do us all a favor and rely on psychic "feelings" instead of scientific observation and analysis the next few times you cross the street. Really, just close your eyes and trust the Force, or whatever the fuck it is you believe in. Hell, we'll even offer to buff what's left of your tiny fucking brain off of the car bumper after you're fucking dead, okay? Now piss off, you pathetic simpleton.



Darth Kyle, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 14:59 [Link] »

To all the faithful believers out there:

In my own experience I have come across things that are not easily explained. I personally am open to the possibility that some individuals are more intuitive than others, might be able to access capabilities that are beyond average. Perhaps this woman does have some abilities beyond what an average person may have. Even if she did, her behavior shows that she is unwilling to admit that she can make an error. It is also clear that she has published accounts of stories that have been found to be incorrect. I consider myself wise enough to know there are many things beyond my knowledge. Do some people have gifts? Perhaps. I am a professional magician and have performed routines than convinced some people I had gifts of psychic power when I can assure you that if I do have any such powers, I am totally unaware of them. It was immediately following a gig at a college that I did run into someone who may have had some sensitivity or abilities. What impressed me about this man, who was doing readings at the psychic fair portion of the event, is that he did not tell me what I wanted to hear. He was packing up and gave me a quick reading at my fiance's request. The two things he said that stuck with me were as follows. He stated in my mid thirties I would have a new career path. I immediately thought I would be successful in performing magic to the extent I would make it a full time career instead of a lucrative side business. He informed me that it would not be what I expected. This has come to pass as I am now a computer trainer and did not expect this turn of events. A lucky guess? Perhaps. Also, upon being told that the event coordinator was my fiance, he said sometihng to the effect of "You two? I don't think so..." Not in such a way that I was inclined to get angry, mainly because I did not really put any credence to his "abilities", but as if he saw it as a bad match. Well, in this he was correct again, as I am now divorced from that event coordinator. Did he have abilities? I'm not sure. I know he was correct in what he said. I am open minded to the concept of people having abilities, but will not accept someone's word that they have them without proof. Allison DuBois may have some kind of abilities. I have not met her and haven't really paid much attention to her. But according to this account even if she has gifts, she is full of pride, deception and appears to be taking advantage of people. Even if she has gifts she has too much pride to admit when she makes a mistake or misreads something. No one is infallible. She has also altered stories to promote herself for monetary gain. Plus she is apparently getting very rich taking advantage of people who take her word as gospel. So my thinking is, even if she has some talent beyond that of your average individual... she's still an asshole. Not to mention those who listen to her with more than an intent to be entertained are morons. Take responsibility for your own actions, don't base your life on the supposed pronouncements of others no matter how impressive they may appear. Use your own brain and stop looking to supposed psychics for guidance. That psychic who may have read a bit of my future... it was entertaining. It didn't change my life. I wasn't breaking up with my fiance on his say so nor did it affect my career to listen to what he told me. He may have had a gift. Allison may have a gift. SO WHAT? Unless she starts using her gift in some way that benefits people instead of lining her own pockets, she's not exactly someone I would listen to anyways. If she has such a gift... why couldn't she have warned people about terrorist attacks and gave authorities pointers to find evidence to confirm them and avert them? Well, I'm starting to ramble... but people need to realize even if such things exist... most of the people who are out there doing it successfully have more reliable marketing gifts than psychic ones.



Amanda, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 15:59 [Link] »

Wait, let me get this straight...you guys are passing on a free trailer?!?! You should really seek this turd on a stick Allison Dubullshit out. I mean, she'll have seen it coming and will no doubt have some really killer retorts.



Marilyn, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 16:32 [Link] »

My, , psychic abilities...tell me that you're expecting a bit much if you'd call it a "trailer."



Brandy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:07 [Link] »

TPC-
I completely agree with Jonathan. It is nice to find a website that I agree with 100%. These "psychics" are vile, irrehensible people that do not care about anyone or anything except their pocketbooks. And their "SUPPORTERS" must have been dropped on their heads one too many times as a child! It truly amazes me how easily some people buy into this shit. Are they that lonely and insecure that this is the only way that they can feel good, or that they matter?

Come on people, go take some self-esteem classes, or pull your head out of the sand and join the rest of us in the real world! Believing in these people and their harsh, cruel treatment of others' pain is what makes them worse over time. They "see" that no matter what they do, or how badly they screw up and hurt someone, that they can just keep on going like it never happened.

Oh, and MENSA is just a bunch of poorly misguided, smarter than average, insecure lonely people. At the age of 17, I was smart enough to get away from those people before their emotional and social inabilities started to rub off on me.

Anyway, keep up the outstanding work TPC! Your site is truly refreshing!



Brandy, 2007.01.23 (Tue) 19:23 [Link] »

Dear Steve,

How truly sad, I am sorry for your loss.

I do believe in ESP, however, these tv psychics are money-grubbers. If your sister insists on going to one in order for her peace of mind, then hopefully it will help her more than it will hurt her. But please, try to do all you can to talk her out of it. Help her find something else to focus on that will put her mind and heart at ease.

When my best friend was murdered by her husband, the police reports said that she died instantly. Her mother didn't believe them, so she went to a psychic who told her that Nikki suffered at the hands of her killer. I have read the police report and taken it to my Dr., from a medical standpoint, it would have been impossible for her to live longer than a few seconds after the attack. My point is, her poor mother now inaccurately believes that Nikki suffered and is tormented by this thought on a regular basis. It has destroyed what life she had left after losing her youngest daughter.

These people are cruel and insensitive, they are in it solely for the shock value and the money.

Good luck Steve, things will get better with time.



Anthony, 2007.01.25 (Thu) 00:23 [Link] »

I actually just finished watching the video clip of Sylvia Browne that you had posted and found it pretty amusing. It's sort of refreshing to watch liars get outted, especially those who are just plain rude. The comment she made took me by surprise, i'm shocked the lady she made the comment to didn't flip out on her. (though, we are talking about live tv and it's probably best that the woman kept her bearings. Rather just stick to embarassing Sylvia rather than herself.)
I don't really know anything about the DuBois woman, well aside from knowing that the show Medium is apparently based on her? Anyway, I do believe myself that anyone who claims to be "psychic" and exploits their "power" in any way (on television, in a studio) doesn't have much credibility to them. I believe in supernatural things, psychic abilities included, but I honestly do not believe that you can just call upon the ability at the drop of the hat. Oh well, let the "psychics" have their spotlight. It's only a matter of time before someone else rains on their psychic parade.



Jessica , 2007.02.03 (Sat) 09:59 [Link] »

I am only 16, and I personally find it very amusing that I have the intellect and capabilities to see past the phasade of psychics like Allison DuBois while others who wish to counterract your ideas dont. Just like any 16 year old, I dont usually speak like this. I use slaying and cursing and the typical teenage vernacular to express myself. But I wanted to demonstrate how someone such as my self, my age, could still post a much more articulate and educated comment than some of the...misguided souls above. :D. So I just wanted to say that I completely agree with what you are saying TPC. I had never given much thought to psychics and the like, but when I did, I thought the same things you have expressed. But I thought most people believed the bullshit. I am so glad to see that I'm not the only one. Thanks.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.03 (Sat) 15:26 [Link] »

Glad to hear from you, Jessica! Folks like you show that it isn't age or "wisdom" that allows people to see through the flimsy bullshit psychics fling at all of us — it's simply some inherent intelligence and an actual willingness to do the research and educate yourself. It's fantastic that, at sixteen, you've already shown a propensity for these traits. Sure, it's common that sixteen-year-olds direct some "maverick" resistance at somebody...but it's very rare that they direct it at those who really, really deserve it.

And for the record: yes, you do come across as far more articulate and educated than the utter tools we deal with day to day. Comparing you to the general population, you're way ahead of them. Check out this poll from 2005 showing how many people believe in utter nonsense. It's staggering.

We're always glad to meet more people who embrace science, skepticism, reason and logic, and we hope to hear more from you.



N, 2007.02.06 (Tue) 10:39 [Link] »

I just wanted to say I don't know much about Allison Dubois and I don't really have an opinion as to whether I believe she is a fraud or not. I just wanted to say that for those of you that believe melanoma is not caused by smoking, you are wrong. Melanoma (skin cancer) is not only caused by sun damage, cigarettes contribute to this cancer as well. My grandfather died from melanoma caused by his smoking. So I do not doubt this woman is a fraud and has done many disgusting things but I just wanted to clear that part up.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.07 (Wed) 21:11 [Link] »

We appreciate your input, N, but actually, we think you're mistaken on this one. We haven't seen anything that ties smoking to melanoma. You might be confusing different types of skin cancer. There have been studies linking smoking to increased incidents of squamous cell carcinoma...maybe that's the type of skin cancer you're thinking of?

[Jan Nico Bouwes Bavinck, MD, of the Leiden University Medical Center and his] team of researchers compared the risk of smoking in 580 patients with different types of skin cancer, and in 386 people without skin cancer. The researchers found that smoking was only associated with development of squamous cell carcinoma, not basal cell carcinoma or melanoma.

[Our emphasis]

Or you could be referring to the poorer prognosis that smokers sometimes have when it comes to melanoma. But that, according to the medical research, is more likely just a result of smoking weakening the immune system, rather than evidence of smoking actually causing melanoma. (Kind of like how folks tend to say "He died of complications from AIDS" instead of "He died of AIDS." Sure, the AIDS — or the smoking — may have knocked him down, but it's technically not what finished the job.) As noted on eMedicine:

Although no evidence exists that associates smoking with an increased risk of melanoma, several studies suggest that when compared to nonsmokers, smokers (1) are more likely to have metastases on initial presentation, (2) have lower disease-free survival rates after diagnosis, (3) are more likely to have visceral metastases, and (4) are more likely to die from the melanoma than nonsmokers. Smokers probably have a poorer prognosis with melanoma because of the adverse effects of smoking on the immune system, including impaired immunosurveillance and a lowered capacity to mount an immune response to transplanted melanoma tumors.

[Once again, our emphasis]

If you're aware of any studies that show that smoking can directly cause melanoma, please send the information our way; we'd be interested in getting a look at it. We're not aware of any such studies, though, so our conclusion hasn't changed: since Domini died from melanoma, which hasn't been found to be caused by smoking, Allison's prediction — like most of her claims — remains 100% false.



Medium, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 08:27 [Link] »

Allison appears to be a brave woman. It is a hard life being a medium and it's one that most mediums feel they have to hide in order to be acceped into society. I myself am a medium and am only 20 years old. I always found it hard to fit in and could never talk about my gift because no one would ever understand. I am so glad to have someone like Allison show me the way to accept who I am. It's hard to tell people you see the dead... so thats why I never usually do. In my opinion you are all the Bitches! Allison needs to make a living too.. so if she can do this by using her gift then how is this any different from an artist or doctor using their gifts to make money. Fuck you all! I'm just very greatfull I'm not a loser like all of you!



medium, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 08:31 [Link] »

You must all understand that most messages come through unclear so it is hard to be 100% accurate. I tend to recieve messages from my Grandma all the time and try to translate what she means. It isn't untill the event happens that I understand the full message my Grandma was trying to give me.



medium, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 08:41 [Link] »

Karen and Kris... you can both kiss my ass! I have no sorrows for you!



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 10:34 [Link] »

Yes! Another self-deluded moron to make excuses as to why their so called "powers" never work! I might've been nice, but you started off like an ass so I'll return in kind:

It is a hard life being a medium and it's one that most mediums feel they have to hide in order to be acceped into society. I myself am a medium and am only 20 years old. I always found it hard to fit in and could never talk about my gift because no one would ever understand.

Maybe we'd have reason to understand if you were to say...oh...back your fucking claim up? Seriously, there's a little man out there who will pay you $1 million dollars if you can do what you claim under scientifically controlled conditions - in other words, if you can do what you claim when you can't cheat.

I don't want to hear the usual excuses; all you have to do is do what you claim and you win. Simple as that. If you need help with a protocol, you could use the same testing format approved by Sylvia Browne.

In my opinion you are all the Bitches!

Fair enough. You're a deluded dipshit who lies to people (knowingly or unknowingly) and refuses to believe that you could be wrong.

What would it take for you to think you're wrong?

You must all understand that most messages come through unclear so it is hard to be 100% accurate. I tend to recieve messages from my Grandma all the time and try to translate what she means. It isn't untill the event happens that I understand the full message my Grandma was trying to give me.

Then why is it any different than making a guess, then saying it was magic after the fact? What use is your "power", then?



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 12:54 [Link] »
I am so glad to have someone like Allison show me the way to accept who I am. It's hard to tell people you see the dead... so thats why I never usually do.

Maybe if you gathered evidence, by taking the JREF Challenge, people wouldn't think you're silly.

Allison needs to make a living too.. so if she can do this by using her gift then how is this any different from an artist or doctor using their gifts to make money.

Boy, are you avoiding the issue: She doesn't have a gift! She's doing the equivalent of plagiarism or quackery: Faking a service. Get her to pass a skeptical challenge, and I may reevaluate that conclusion.

You must all understand that most messages come through unclear so it is hard to be 100% accurate.

We don't demand 100%. We only demand that it be statistically higher than blind chance under controlled conditions.

I tend to recieve messages from my Grandma all the time and try to translate what she means. It isn't untill the event happens that I understand the full message my Grandma was trying to give me.

Just like people who only know what Nostradumass was predicting after it happens.

Karen and Kris... you can both kiss my ass! I have no sorrows for you!

I won't mince words: You're evil. What other kind of person would say such things to the victims of deception and vultury?



Lauren, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 15:04 [Link] »

So I was playing World of Warcraft the other day and I was killing this slime thing and I thought to myself wow that would be cool if a little disgusting oozling pet dropped... and omg it did! I must be psychic... because the chances of the dropping are like .18%. Wow... maybe now i will quit my job and open my own psychic store.
Here's my point. I may not be the brightest crayon in the box but I'm pretty damn sure that people cant talk to the dead. They are dead... What happens to them after that no one knows. If all these wack jobs that claim they can talk to the dead were actually telling the truth dont you think it would be some sort of a fact? I dont know maybe I'm not making sense but I just dont believe it any more than I believe that there is a pink elephant dancing on top of my computer...



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 15:48 [Link] »

Lauren:

If all these wack jobs that claim they can talk to the dead were actually telling the truth dont you think it would be some sort of a fact?

No, because evil atheist Darwinbot religion-is-science meanies would hold them back! Except for the fact that we are the ones who want them to prove it...which would mean we are wrong...



medium, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 16:27 [Link] »

You all think that I'm a lier and that Allison isn't a Medium... how do you know that the Kris posting messages on this board is actually the Kris mentioned in Allison's book? For all you know it could be someone fucking around and all you "stupid" bunch off morans actually believe it's really her! I bet you never thought of that, you just all jumped to your usuall conclousions that you are "always right"... Why? Because your all started to post comments like crazy when you didn't even think first. Haha What a bunch of LOSERS!



Medium, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 16:31 [Link] »

Another thing... Allison has also solved cases with the Federal Police on many occasions. Sometimes she has lead the police to the "Villlian" and the Villian has then come clean and admitted to his/her crimes. How do you explain that? Do you think the police would continue to work with Allison if she wasn't the real deal or wasn't producing the results? Please explain your theory!



Tom Foss, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 16:59 [Link] »
You all think that I'm a lier and that Allison isn't a Medium... how do you know that the Kris posting messages on this board is actually the Kris mentioned in Allison's book? For all you know it could be someone fucking around and all you "stupid" bunch off morans actually believe it's really her!
What would someone have to gain from that? So far, we have two stories about Domini sent freely to a site that isn't going to pay the authors or give them any real measure of fame (sorry, 2%-ers), which corroborate each other. Then, we have a story from a woman who has been shown repeatedly to mislead, misinform, and lie to increase her fame and fortune, a story which makes her look good, sells books for her, and which contradicts the two corroborative stories. Gee, who do I believe? It's such a tough question...
I bet you never thought of that, you just all jumped to your usuall conclousions that you are "always right"... Why? Because your all started to post comments like crazy when you didn't even think first.
Wow, you're a nutty one. See, the thing is, we're skeptics. We never assume the rightness of anything. We don't jump to conclusions, we examine the evidence. And so far, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Allison DuBois is a horrible charlatan.

Talk about jumping to conclusions before you think...okay, Medium, which is more likely: Allison DuBois is a greedy fake, who fabricated a story about a former friend's death in order to make herself look better, or she's a real psychic and a wonderful person, and two people with nothing to gain came here with corroborative stories about the same event, because they wanted to mess with us and make us hate Allison for her amazing powers?

Another thing... Allison has also solved cases with the Federal Police on many occasions. Sometimes she has lead the police to the "Villlian" and the Villian has then come clean and admitted to his/her crimes. How do you explain that? Do you think the police would continue to work with Allison if she wasn't the real deal or wasn't producing the results? Please explain your theory!
How do I explain that? Three words: get a clue. If you'll read, oh, I don't know, any of the other posts in this series, you'll see that no law enforcement agency will admit to having worked with Allison. From here:
According to Texas Ranger senior management, the Rangers have not used psychics, including Ms. DuBois.
And:
We have to wonder, though: if she really did provide such an invaluable service to these agencies, then why would they flatly deny using her services? Sure, they could be embarrassed that they turned to psychic assistance, but again, if her assistance really was as effective and beneficial as she claims it was in cracking the cases, we can't really understand the hesitation to acknowledge her contributions. We also wonder why Allison hasn't taken any steps to set the record straight given her assertion that these agencies are misinforming the public about her record. In effect, they are publicly stating that Allison is lying about her involvement with them, which could have legal ramifications if Allison has in fact worked with them. Given that such accusations, if untrue, would be harmful to Allison's livelihood, we would think she would have a solid litigious leg to stand on. Yet she does nothing. Perhaps Allison operates like the Impossible Mission Force, and being interviewed is tantamount to capture...or perhaps, she never worked with these agencies after all. We may never know the truth.
As to your claim that Allison has led police to a "Villlian" (actually "villain," you vacuous gasbladder), please cite the source for this. Tell me, where did this case happen? What was the crime in question? What is the name of the accused? If you know it happened, surely you have more information than you've given. If you can't verify it, then there's a good chance that it didn't fucking happen.


Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 17:20 [Link] »

I'm pretty much done with this person; if they were a Transformer they'd be Optimus Slime.

Medium:

Unless you can back up your claims, you are just taking people at their word. If I tell you that I have psychic powers, why would you not believe me?

Unless you can back up your claims, your words mean dick. As far as those 2 people you mentioned go, I take it as an anecdote - meaning I would never use it to "prove psychics wrong", since that is impossible.

And unless you can back up your claims, I nominate the rest of your vaccuous, baseless, shameful, hurtful banter to be relegated to the urinal.



Tom Foss, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 17:47 [Link] »
I'm pretty much done with this person; if they were a Transformer they'd be Optimus Slime.
See, I'm thinking Smegmatron.


The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 19:08 [Link] »

You lier! We aren't morans!

Whoa. Sorry, we just got caught up in medium's raging case of stupid.

How original — a "true believer" who tells us how mean we are, and how wrong we are, but who fails to even acknowledge (let alone refute) a single one of our arguments. Like most dipshits who leave comments like this, medium didn't even bother to read enough of our posts (or even this post itself) to see that all of her bullshit arguments have already been thoroughly answered. Will wonders never cease? We were a little surprised by medium's escalating bitchiness, though. What's up with that? The spirits must have been shouting in her ear, giving her a headache or something. Try some Tylenol, medium.

(And yes, we're making an assumption that "medium" is female, for the sake of brevity and clarity. We acknowledge that this assumption may be incorrect, but none of our responses would be altered should it prove to be so — just the pronouns.)

Now, let's cut this fuckhead down to size, shall we?

It is a hard life being a medium and it's one that most mediums feel they have to hide in order to be acceped into society.

Yes, we imagine that on some levels it is hard for bullshitting scumbags who prey on the suffering of others to be accepted into society. Damn society for not accepting leeches and jackals more readily! Society is mean, isn't it? But...on the other hand...we're sure that all that money that Allison takes from the grieving people she fleeces, and the fame from her television show help to wipe away her bitter, bitter tears. So in the end, we don't feel sorry for her at all. But hey, we're hard asses — we don't feel any sympathy toward rapists or cannibalistic serial killers, either.

I myself am a medium and am only 20 years old.

Oh, well, see if you tell us that you are a medium, then that changes everything. Now we believe! Amen! Or, uh, what's the woo equivalent of "amen"? Anybody?

It's hard to tell people you see the dead... so thats why I never usually do.

And thank you so much for breaking that rule on our site. We don't think we could have gone another day without some random idiot proclaiming their special powers here for our readers to see, then failing to provide a single shred of proof to back up their claims.

In my opinion you are all the Bitches!

Um, okay. In our opinion, which is considerably more educated than yours, it seems, you are a self-delusional dipshit who finds a sense of self importance in her make-believe powers. At the same time, you revel in the persecution complex that these "powers" create in your own mind. Of course, this is just our opinion based on the three posts you have written here, but even that seems to be more research than you've done on us, though you have an entire website to study. Where, pray tell, did your conclusion that we are "the Bitches" come from? The spirits? Grammy whispering in your ear? Boy, your grandma's got a foul mouth (and/or a good grasp of modern slang) for a senior citizen...especially a dead one.

Allison needs to make a living too.. so if she can do this by using her gift then how is this any different from an artist or doctor using their gifts to make money.

Okay, we'll take up this Herculean challenge. First, we'll go with comparing a doctor to a psychic.

A doctor is trained in medicine, and receives a degree from at least two accredited universities that validate his or her skills. Their education doesn't end there, though, as they work their way through internships and residencies for many years. When they see clients, they leverage their very real knowledge and very hard-earned skills to provide a service that science has shown to be the most effective steps currently available to treat medical problems or to maintain health, and their success rate is enormously high. And better yet, if doctors are demonstrably wrong, there are potential consequences for their actions in the form of peer review, lawsuits, and potential loss of license.

A psychic, on the other hand, is trained in nothing, and receives no degrees at all in their chosen profession (though some get a "license" that apparently requires — oh, the effort! — filling out a whole form). They make up their own "powers" and turn themselves loose on the public. When they see clients, they use their imaginations and/or cold or hot reading to pretend to talk to their clients' dead relatives, and their success rate is abysmal. And if psychics are demonstrably wrong, as they often are — including the example in this very post — there are almost never any consequences. In addition, dipshits like you just keep on believing in them, not matter how many mistakes they make.

And hell, we'll take the twofer: comparing artists to psychics? Not only do artists practice and learn and apprentice to augment what idiots like you apparently assume is "perfected" natural talent, but when they're done working, you have something tangible you can point to. Whether it's a painting, a book, a recording or video of their performance — there's something there. Something that took skill and talent — and lots of practice and work — to create. And, most importantly, the artist doesn't have to make shit up to get you to recognize that they've done something; you can see it with your own eyes. Not so with psychics.

How's that any different? Shut your trap, asshole. We know far too many artists and doctors who would bitchslap you for saying such a thing, and we'd applaud heartily.

You must all understand that most messages come through unclear so it is hard to be 100% accurate. I tend to recieve messages from my Grandma all the time and try to translate what she means. It isn't untill the event happens that I understand the full message my Grandma was trying to give me.

And this...is your "special power"? Applying vague, imagined messages to events once they transpire and calling them psychic revelations? Jesus Anklegrabbing Christ! But maybe we shouldn't be too shocked — after all, that's exactly how Nostradamus achieves his posthumous prognostications.

Look, if you take a vague statement from any source, then wait around for a while, eventually something will happen that can fit right into the vague statement that you started with. From there, it's not too difficult to fill in the gaps with creative "interpretations" that fit the event that you are trying to fit. That's what's going on with your "special powers," medium. It isn't a message from beyond, it's just a simple function of the human mind. Fuck, this is such a simple concept that we really do marvel at the fact that not everyone can see it for what it is.

And we, too, often hear the voices of our deceased relatives in our heads. We, however, don't attribute this incorrectly to psychic powers. We know that it is a combination of memory and imagination, and nothing more. Once again, the human mind at work — nothing more mysterious than that.

You all think that I'm a lier and that Allison isn't a Medium... how do you know that the Kris posting messages on this board is actually the Kris mentioned in Allison's book? For all you know it could be someone fucking around and all you "stupid" bunch off morans actually believe it's really her! I bet you never thought of that, you just all jumped to your usuall conclousions that you are "always right"... Why? Because your all started to post comments like crazy when you didn't even think first. Haha What a bunch of LOSERS!

You bet that we never thought of that? How much do you bet, dickhead? However much it is, please contact us so we can arrange for you to pay-the-fuck-up since we already addressed this exact point in our fucking post. How fucking dense do you have to be to not even bother reading something before you open your ignorant piehole and comment on it? Yes, we know how hard it must be for an utter moron (or "moran") like you to take the time to remove your head from your own turd-cutter long enough to scroll up on the mousewheel, so we'll reprint our answer below — we're just that fucking accommodating:

Yes, both sides of this particular story are anecdotes, but given Allison's track record when it comes to telling the truth, as well as her vested interest in "creative embellishment," we are inclined to believe Karen, especially since she has no discernable motive for making this up. At the very least, it gives those who would worship Allison something to chew on that isn't coming from our mouths (the morons hate us so).

In addition, our offline correspondence with Karen further cemented our belief that her accounting of these events is accurate. Either way, it is clear that we have certainly "thought of this" before. So exactly how much do you owe us, asshole?

Another thing... Allison has also solved cases with the Federal Police on many occasions. Sometimes she has lead the police to the "Villlian" and the Villian has then come clean and admitted to his/her crimes. How do you explain that? Do you think the police would continue to work with Allison if she wasn't the real deal or wasn't producing the results? Please explain your theory!

Did those comments from Ryan and BD not get through your thick, thick skull at all, medium? Evidence! You can't make bullshit claims like this without evidence, and then expect any intelligent person to believe you. You claim that Allison has solved cases with the Federal Police (who are they, exactly?). Which cases? Which organizations did she work with? Who from these organizations has confirmed both her involvement, and the extent of her help? Did her information actually lead to the apprehension of one or more "Villlians," or was it meaningless guesswork that dipshits like you later "reinterpreted" to fit the facts that unfolded?

Don't bother answering any of this, medium. We already know the answers — not through unfair assumptions on our part, but from previous experience and actual research regarding Allison herself. You have no evidence whatsoever to support any of these fanciful claims. Using our psychic powers, we'll predict (after the fact — neat trick, huh?) that you saw the skunk-haired whore on Oprah last week, and lapped up every ounce of self-promoting horseshit that fell from her lips. Here's some advice: instead of believing every line of shit that comes down the pike, why not do some research first and think for yourself? Sorry, it's unfair of us to suggest a course of action that is so far beyond the scope of your pathetic mental abilities.

Unlike you, you fuckheaded asshat, we have researched Allison's claims to have worked with law enforcement. In fact, we wrote an entire post on the subject — a post that you clearly didn't read and/or understand. Go read it and learn something, you fucking simpleton.

Karen and Kris... you can both kiss my ass! I have no sorrows for you!

And here's what it all comes down to — you are a worthless, spiteful human being. Hey, we're used to shit-stains attacking us (and failing to counter any of our points), but really: Why? Why Karen and Kris? What did they do to make you hate them so much? Their sister died of cancer — isn't that enough to make you feel some sorrow or compassion for them? Hell, we don't like Allison DuBois very much, if at all, but if her daughter died, we'd feel sorry for her, you disgusting asshole. What kind of sick fuck makes a statement like the one you just made, medium? You are clearly a vile, disturbed person, so don't even reply to this post, please.

In fact, don't ever comment here again. Any further comments from you will be relocated to the Urinal (Ryan had it right), and if you persist in your revolting behavior, you will be banned. As far as we're concerned, you've effectively given up the privilege of adding your voice to the entire sphere of rational and compassionate human discourse, let alone our website. You love Allison? Congratulations — just like her, you're fucking scum.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 20:10 [Link] »

Hey! Go easy on the jackals. ;)



interupt, 2007.02.20 (Tue) 20:34 [Link] »
What kind of sick fuck makes a statement like the one you just made, medium?

Alison DuBois?


on another topic. You've been De-wiki'ed on the Alison DuBois reference page.



Two Percent Co. References

I'm removing references to the Two Percent Company per Wikipedia's policies on Biographies of living people which holds a higher standard as to the reliability of sources for negative claims against living people.

I don't see how they meet the WP:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources standards for something publically controversial, but more importantly the website referenced as a source falls under the following sources to avoid: WP:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet, WP:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources, and possibly others.

Like I said, Wikipedia has higher standards for living people and according to the policies, questionable sources need to be removed immediately.--~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 07:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify why I removed the references (and I can't mention the actual statements per policy), a statement like those must come from a published official statement released by the agencies that supposedly said them in order to be reliable and verifiable. Someone saying they said that isn't reliable and definitely isn't verifiable. Normally I wouldn't be so picky, but this is a living person involved and defamation of character is pretty serious, hence the policy. --~Nealparr~ (Talk|Contribs) 07:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lesson = make a statement, back it up with endless links, but the statement is still 'unverifiable' WTF?!



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.21 (Wed) 01:56 [Link] »

Optimus Slime and Smegmatron are both excellent! May I suggest Santorumbot as another possibilty?



The Two Percent Company, 2007.02.21 (Wed) 02:24 [Link] »

Yeah, we were aware of our removal from the text of the DuBois Wiki page. In the past, we've been removed for asinine reasons, but luckily we were always added back. This time is a little different. While we don't agree with the rationale for removing the references to our posts (something as researched and well-documented as our articles should not be kept out of Wikipedia entries), we do agree that the person who removed us was following the Wikipedia guidelines, and we acknowledge that his motives were sound. In addition, note that they still have a reference link to us at the bottom, appropriately, as a voice of dissent to Allison's claims.

The problem is simply one of accountability. Yes, we can firmly state that we have contacted the Texas Rangers; if it came to an actual legal dispute, we could easily produce and verify the e-mails we exchanged with them (which, we'll also assert, is one of many reasons why Allison never would attempt to bring legal action against us — she knows as well as we do that we're damn well telling the truth). However, here on our site, it is remarkably easy to make that claim — true or false — and print excerpts from the correspondence, real or imagined. We've seen dishonest bastards do it all the time, and despite our own knowledge that we are telling the truth, we have offered no valid method by which anyone else could ascertain that. In the grand scheme of things, we're "nobodies" — there's no reason for anyone to simply believe us, which is why we constantly exhort others to do the research themselves. We made that bed when we decided to keep our site semi-anonymous, a decision we still stand by for our own personal reasons. (Unlike some bullshit "psychics" we might mention, we're not in it for the fame. The money, we'd take — but you can keep the fame.)

So thanks for checking in about this, but we're not crushed. It was a legitimate justification for removing us from the main body of the Wiki article, and though, as mentioned, we don't agree with the Wikipedia policy in this case, we don't have a problem with what was done. Since the reference link to our site is still intact, and — let's face it — any search for Allison still inevitably leads to us either directly or via the Wiki article (both of which are happy little accidents which we did not make any overt effort toward, by the way), we'll deal. In point of fact, after the vile jacka— er, bitch (sorry, BD) appeared on Oprah last week, we noticed a surge in hits on our Allison DuBois posts, both via Google and via Wiki. For us, it's good to know that we can do our part to counter the damage done by asshats like Oprah when her audience finds our essays that handily debunk Allison's ridiculous claims.

In the end, as long as Joe DuBois doesn't try vandalizing Allison's Wiki entry again, with counterpoints and "facts" supported only by Allison's website (check the history of the Wiki page to see what we mean), we think Wikipedia — as unreliable as it may sometimes be — is working quite well as a representation of a fairly democratic repository of knowledge. Heavy back-and-forth editing is to be expected on pages covering controversial subjects — even ones that we don't think are all that controversial.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.02.21 (Wed) 10:31 [Link] »

Hey, there's nothing wrong with using moran on teh intarwebs.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.25 (Sun) 12:34 [Link] »

Well, Maar, you obviously haven't been paying attention to the believers. They endorse depraved leeches like DuBois, redefine lies to be "metaphorical truth", and what's really nasty is that they've littered the media with the "Hollywood Skeptic" so that they can make big money by selling people false hope while bashing the people who stand up for truth, justice, all that stuff as Gothy nihilists, despite revealing truly wondrous things in the world through the scientific method, expanding horizons, and standing against the stagnation of the status quo of our woo-woo filled world.

I hate their militant apathism.



Bronze Dog, 2007.02.25 (Sun) 13:52 [Link] »

Wait, how'd that comment end up here?



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.25 (Sun) 15:08 [Link] »

That is weird! It's too bad, because it's a good reply to Maar on the "Putting the Fan in Profanity" thread.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.02.25 (Sun) 17:22 [Link] »

I can solve this mystery. Maar's comment was originally on this post. Bronze Dog left his comment here at the same time that I was moving Maar's comment to the Rant about profanity (as we said we'd do whenever someone left a vacuous comment like Maar's that consisted solely of a bitching session about how rude and offensive we are). So Maar's comment was originally here, but by the time Bronze Dog's response was posted, the original was already moved.

Rather than moving BD's comments to the other post, I'll just point out that Maar's pointless comment can be found here. It literally said nothing more than "you're rude and offensive," so if you choose not to read it for yourself, you aren't missing anything at all.

Sorry about the confusion — I was just excited to have the first dipshit to move to the new Rant!



TimmyAnn, 2007.02.25 (Sun) 17:35 [Link] »

Ah, okay, now I understand. Thanks for clearing that up.



Ben McKnight, 2007.03.01 (Thu) 00:35 [Link] »

I'm so glad I found this website. I recently had a mini-rant on my blog about John Edward (Biggest Douche in the Universe, for you South Park Fans) and Allison DuBois. Nothing remotely close to the breadth and depth found here, but this has been fun to read too.

I think I mainly felt that liars didn't deserve very much of my time. This site has proved otherwise. It's imperative to inform the public as much as possible. The stupids outnumber the smarts by a bunch, and they multiply faster. I've linked you on my blogroll. I can only hope to help in the never ending battle for damage control.

Thanks for all you do here, guys.



Sarah, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 01:27 [Link] »

i just think that it is entirley right for people to believe what they wish about the whole 'medium' theory. but i do have to say that you shouldn't have to see physical proof to be able to believe in something. and that we should all give Allison a break. oh and the makers of this website need to get a life and instead of criticising others, take a look at their own lives because they obviously have some problems that need to be dealt with.



TimmyAnn, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 01:35 [Link] »

Here we go again! How many variations on this same song and dance do these people have? Next time try actually reading some of the posts before typing, Sarah! It may save you from repeating the same crapola everyone here has heard from countless others just like you.



Belinda, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 02:26 [Link] »

It comes from having such a closed mind TimmyAnn. All they hear is the echos repeating back in that impenetrable skull of theirs - so all they can say is the same thing over and over again. We're just the unfortunate ones who get to see/hear it.

But look on the bright side, we get to watch 2%Co rip them to shreds.



TimmyAnn, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 03:46 [Link] »

True, and that is always entertaining!



The Two Percent Company, 2007.03.08 (Thu) 09:50 [Link] »

How many fucking times do we have to go over this shit? Sarah, your insipid and pointless comment has been posted on our site in so many slight variations over the years that we can barely stand to respond to your raging case of "moron" by now. You are clearly either stupid, credulous, ignorant, oblivious, apathetic, or — far more likely — some combination of any or all of the five. Seriously, fuck off. Go read some Doggerel and see how many ridiculous statements you've managed to pack into one useless comment. Then try reading what we've actually written and see how many false implications, irrelevant and laughable accusations, and blatant logical errors you've made, you fucking useless lump of meat.

i just think that it is entirley right for people to believe what they wish about the whole 'medium' theory.

Yeah, so do we, dipshit. If we've linked to the post that addresses this statement once, we've linked to it three-dozen times. In fact, we aren't even going to link to it here. If you can't find it on your own, you are clearly too stupid to be allowed to use the internet. It's called Believe What You Want to Believe. Find it on our site, and read it, you ignorant wretch, and stop pestering us with your asinine nonsense. Of course, your right to believe whatever bullshit you want to believe doesn't mean that the intelligent members of society cannot point and laugh at your stupid, stupid beliefs. This is us pointing and laughing, you credulous, fuckheaded asshat.

but i do have to say that you shouldn't have to see physical proof to be able to believe in something.

Hey, wait, yeah! You're right, Sarah! Let's just believe in every silly bit of crapola that comes down the pike, okay? In fact, if you close your eyes the next time you're crossing a busy street and believe with all your might that you'll be okay, we're sure that you'll make it across. Go on — believe us. Forget that there's no proof of our claim, and forget that hundreds of years of knowledge plainly indicate that our claim is bunk. You've just got to have faith! Let us know how that experiment works out for you, moron.

and that we should all give Allison a break.

No, you fucking vile fuck, we will not give a break to someone who preys on the suffering of others. We are so fucking sick of people like you who not only enable vultures like Allison to continue to fuck people over, but who tell us that we should do the same. Go fuck yourself, you apathetic asshole.

oh and the makers of this website need to get a life and instead of criticising others, take a look at their own lives because they obviously have some problems that need to be dealt with.

Is that...why, yes, it is! The obligatory half-assed psychoanalysis portion of your moronic comment! We were a little worried that we might not get one of these...only a little though. Thanks for coming through for us, Sarah. And thanks so much for telling us all about our miserable lives. You are correct on one point, though — we do have some problems that need to be dealt with. And the number one problem that we have to deal with, sadly, is that most of the people in this world appear to be utter idiots. Thanks for compounding the problem, Sarah, by adding your name to the idiot list.

Now unless you're planning to address any of the actual points we've made in any of the posts we've written about Allison, please take us up on our street-crossing challenge. Until you're ready to do one or the other, just shut the fuck up.



richard, 2007.03.15 (Thu) 08:47 [Link] »

I just discovered this site and felt compelled to post my thoughts. I have just come to the realisation that I must be a "medium" too.
I predict that somewhere in the world there will be a war, that a political figure will be involved in corruption, that taxation will increase, and that gullible fools will continue to believe in the spurious claims of low life scum like John Edwards, Alison DuBois et al.

Thankyou TPC for being a bastion of sanity in this crazy world.
Keep up the good work.



Peta, 2007.04.22 (Sun) 00:50 [Link] »

This is a first time visitor to this kind of site, and clearly people have way too much time on their hands!!

As I obviously had too much time on my hands on this one Sunday afternoon, I promise never to waste anymore time in life by reading such, waste of time, material!

Why, don't you put all your energy into something life changing??? What good is this bagging some medium or talking up some medium doing for you or the rest of us?!?!?

Wierd!!!!!!



TimmyAnn, 2007.04.22 (Sun) 01:15 [Link] »

Gee, thanks so much, Peta. Your words have shown me the error of my ways. (Smell that? That's sarcasm.)



Bronze Dog, 2007.04.23 (Mon) 10:40 [Link] »

Oh, gee, Peta, you've certainly convinced me that it's a waste of time to help people by exposing societal leeches for what they are. What amazing constructive criticism you provide!

[/sarcasm]



data, 2007.04.25 (Wed) 12:24 [Link] »

My mother is law claims to visit with the dead....has seen aliens and predicts the future. I think she is goofy...or mentally ill....both. Like DuBios and Browe she will back peddle if she's wrong and reinterpret what she said to fit the event. She will also take an event that has happened and claim to have predicted it. This woman gives me the shits. What kills me is when she is telling me a story she gets this look on her face that seems to say, "aren't you impressed by me and my gift?' I see the same expression on the TV psychics. I know she is fully aware that she is lying and it's disgusting. Just like I know DuBois and Browne know thay are lying to people.
There is this person who I know who says she watches Browne on Montel so I asked , "Do you believe in that crap?" She said, "I dunno, it's fun to watch." It annoyed me that she said that she is amused by this. Why?
It's because these so called psychics take a situation where a person is needing something to help ease their mind....or give them some help and use it to their own advantage with NO regard for the welfare of the seekers involved. They simply do not care. All they want is fame and fortune...nevermind that the tips they give on missing persons cost the tax payers money when law inforcement stop their investigations to follow one of their leads or that it waste valuable time that could go to looking into legit leads. Nevermind that the parents of a missing child are raped emotionally on top of all they are going threw. Nevermind that the things they predict almost never come true. It doesn't matter to them....they could not give a shit. They want your money...they want to hang out with the movie stars.
So I ask myself how people can say that what they do is harmless and to let it be.....it's because these people are ignorant. So I try to educate people on the facts, I encourage them to do some research online.... to see if what they believe in is right or wrong. Funny but most of the people who are entertained by this mind fucking shit that I have encountered won't even check it out...making them both ignorant and stupid.
How can a person who is decent be entertained watching someone abuse a person who is deperate and hurting? No decent person could.



Leigh, 2007.04.28 (Sat) 05:07 [Link] »

People are so quick to judge something they dont understand. It amazes me that billions of people need physical proof that there is such a thing as ghosts/mediums/psychics yet most of these same people believe in a god with no proof. You never see people trying to prove that religion is fake, yet so many people spend their time trying to get people not to believe in mediums. My personal favourite is when they ask mediums to prove that the afterlife is real. I would like to see them prove that is isnt.



Leigh, 2007.04.28 (Sat) 05:11 [Link] »

AND another thing. How do you know that "Karen" is actually who she says she is? and that what she says happend at the funeral is even true? She may just be someone trying to discredit Allison.



Akusai, 2007.04.28 (Sat) 05:25 [Link] »
You never see people trying to prove that religion is fake, yet so many people spend their time trying to get people not to believe in mediums.
Umm...You don't? I ask, you see, because I myself to this all the time, as to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Bill Maher, a number of regular posters on this blog...Really, quite a lot of people.
My personal favourite is when they ask mediums to prove that the afterlife is real. I would like to see them prove that is isnt.
Oh, Leigh, you dear, dear girl, have you never heard of the"burdern of proof?" It's this thing, see, where the person making the positive claim has to provide evidence for it. Seeing as it's logically impossible to prove a negative absolutely and without a doubt, nobody can prove there isn't an afterlife. However, in the absence of evidence for a claim, the proper thing to do is hold the null hypothesis (that means "Don't believe it without evidence"). Claims require evidence, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until I have a reason to believe in the afterlife, I will not.

I claim that there's a statue of an orange monkey in a party hat sitting deep inside the Olympus Mons volcano on Mars. Can you prove that there isn't? No? Then I guess there is.

Do you yet see why your thinking was wrong?



data, 2007.04.28 (Sat) 08:57 [Link] »

Leigh, the only creatures that follow without question are trained pets and stupid humans. Questions are a form of getting to the place were we can ascertain....judge whether something is worthy enough to wrap your brains around. If we went threw life without judging things we would fall off of cliffs, jump into scalding baths,eat poisenous shit and believe facades setup to take our hard earned cash , as is the case with psychics. It's my opinion that only a person who is either trapped by fear or dim-witted believe in psychics. So which are you? Fearful or dim-witted. My guess is dim-witted, JUDGING from your comments. And no I'm not quick to judge as you say, I'm a slow careful judger.



Cindy, 2007.04.29 (Sun) 06:33 [Link] »

I believe this sister of domini is just very jealouse of allisons elationship with her sister, I have saw this so many times. Allison was closer to her and the sister wanted what they had, she is jealouse! peiod. there is to much here that proves it.



Bronze Dog, 2007.04.29 (Sun) 13:46 [Link] »

Oh, yes, Cindy, let's just pretend that hypothetical jealousy proves everything. It's just like what mainstream media's been implicitly teaching us: Emotions and opinions are all that matters. Let's not bother with facts.



TimmyAnn, 2007.04.29 (Sun) 18:19 [Link] »

I would ask Cindy what it is that she thinks "proves it", but I'm afraid she'd tell me and that would just be that much more nonsense to read.



Leigh, 2007.04.29 (Sun) 23:48 [Link] »

I am neither fearful or dim-witted. My thinking is not wrong, just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them wrong.

Data, JUDGING by your comments, you've judged me - pretty quickly I may add and you've read what 2 comments of mine - I do believe thats quickly. So stop being hyprocritical with what you say. Dim-wit.

I have experienced this for myself andd have been told things that can't possibly be known or guessed by them. When you experience it for yourself coem back and talk to me.



Akusai, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 01:02 [Link] »
My thinking is not wrong, just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't make them wrong.
Christ. And to think I tried to be polite. Yes, your thinking is wrong. Putting the burden of proof on those claiming the null hypothesis is wrong. It is not a different opinion, you empty-headed bint, it is an incorrect factual statement. (Side note: your writing is wrong, too. It's called a comma splice; don't do it.)
I have experienced this for myself andd have been told things that can't possibly be known or guessed by them. When you experience it for yourself coem back and talk to me.
Well, gee golly whiz bang, yet another moron with an anecdote who thinks that proves something.

Look, you dumb, dumb bitch: your little experience is meaningless. It was uncontrolled and you are credulous and have demonstrated pretty adequately that you wouldn't know critical thinking if it kicked you in the face. Some money-grubbing fraud swindled you because you are too stupid to do anything other than believe what you want to believe. Let's say it yet again for the people in the cheap seats: there is no proof whatsoever that "psychic powers" exist. "Psychics" repeatedly fail well-designed tests of their so-called "abilities." If you want to posit the existence of psychic powers, it is up to you and the others in your corner to provide the evidence. The burden of proof is on you.



TimmyAnn, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 02:02 [Link] »

I was watching a comedy show in which someone was pretending to be a psychic. A volunteer was picked from the audience and the phony psychic guesed her name........He was right. There was no way he could've known or guessed it, and yet he did. No one was more stunned than he was. He did not, however switch careers and start selling his services as a psychic. He chalked it up to a coincidence and laughed it off. He wasn't even trying to be convincing and he got one right. Do you really think that those who do it for a living can't figure out how to pull it off? You are gullible, Leigh, and they can recognize an easy mark coming from a mile away.



Leigh, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 04:44 [Link] »

Oh my god you people are so pathetic. This will be my last message on this site because I am sick of arguing with people who are so obviously scared of something they dont understand and are so close minded.

Firstly to the person who felt the need to give me grammer advice should probably take another look at your own writing. I dont know where you are from but clearly your not as intelligent as you like to pretend that you are.

Secondly to the person above who feels that I am "gullible" and "an easy mark" let me just say that I am neither of these things. You do not know my situation, or anything about my experiences so dont pretend as though you know me.

Lastly if you are all so against mediums why are you googling Allison Dubois websites? Are you really that bored with your lives? I dont understand why you can't just let people believe what they want to believe.



TimmyAnn, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 04:50 [Link] »

"This will be my last message on this site because.... "

Promise?




Akusai, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 05:51 [Link] »

That's funny, I couldn't find a single error in my entire post. The only arguable problem is that I started an early sentence with "And," but I did that on purpose, for stylistic reasons, kind of like Dr. Seuss's book And To Think That I Saw It On Mulberry Street. "And to think that I tried to be polite." Same construction, see? Of course, the fact that you couldn't point out any specific problems with my writing made me pretty sure right off the bat that there were none, but I went back and checked to make sure, because, of course, I know I am capable of mistakes, unlike some people.

Seriously, if you're going to start an argument, come armed with facts and data. Don't post substanceless nonsense around people who have heard it all a million times before. "You're scared!" "You're mean!" "You're closed-minded!" "You have no lives!" Throw in a liberal dose of 12-year-old-on-Maury-Povitch style "You don't know me!" and we have your empty, worthless post.

Congratulations, Leigh. You are a fucking moron. Are you happy being that stupid? Do you have enough mental capacity to understand the meaning of the word "happy?"



GOD777, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 07:15 [Link] »

That is not Leigh's last message. He'll come back, they always come back.



Bronze Dog, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 07:48 [Link] »

Yup, and they always come back avoiding doing anything that would prove their point to us. They don't want to do anything that involves more effort than typing trivial whines into a blog post.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 12:48 [Link] »

Leigh:

I realize that your experience may have "proved" a psychic's power to you. But what you're failing to realize is that you are not perfect, and you could be wrong. The easiest person to fool is yourself. Since we are not perfect, we rely on double-blind tests to prove things, something no psychic has ever done.

What would it take to prove to you that psychic powers don't exist?



Tom Foss, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 16:09 [Link] »
That's funny, I couldn't find a single error in my entire post.
Nuh-uh, Akusai! You made a swear!


Akusai, 2007.04.30 (Mon) 19:20 [Link] »

Well, fuck.



Tim O'Connor, 2007.05.09 (Wed) 07:52 [Link] »

I find it difficult to believe that people stupid or otherwise are convinced of the ability of some people to speak to the dead, we are a form of biological life we are born we live we die, it really is as simple as that. To prey on the vulnerability of people who are grieving the loss of a loved one is obscene. This " ability " has never been proven and never will be.



Ann, 2007.05.12 (Sat) 18:50 [Link] »

I do not believe that you can speak to dead people.....but I do believe that you can dream of dead relatives and receive messages from them.
Sometimes the messages are direct....sometimes you have to interpret them.
I do believe in this,because it happens to me.
Has any of you have dreamed of dead relatives?
I understand that some people are sceptic...but I respect everyone's opinions.
Best wishes to all of you.



TimmyAnn, 2007.05.12 (Sat) 19:12 [Link] »

Well, yes, I had a very poignant dream about my father shortly after his death, in fact, I woke up crying. However, I recognized that the only "message" contained therein was from my subconcious mind, not from my father. I loved him. He is gone. End of story.



Rockstar Ryan, 2007.05.14 (Mon) 11:44 [Link] »

Ann:

but I do believe that you can dream of dead relatives and receive messages from them.

You mean they are communicating with you via dreams? Don't you think it's a little more rational to go with TimmyAnn's suggestion that it's just your subconcious mind?



TimmyAnn, 2007.05.15 (Tue) 18:54 [Link] »

I hope I don't dream of Jerry Falwell tonight!! I sure as hell don't want any "messages" from him!!



Jason Spicer, 2007.05.16 (Wed) 00:59 [Link] »

TimmyAnn, Falwell asked me to pass along to you that you're going to hell. Me too. Well, pretty much everybody who posts regularly on this site. And probably my dog.

Of course, he didn't tell me that from beyond the grave. That's just the general vibe he gave off for the last 50 years or so.

Too bad sanctimonious fucks like Falwell aren't around to discover that there's no afterlife. Ah, but that would be too much justice, I suppose.



TimmyAnn, 2007.05.16 (Wed) 01:35 [Link] »

It's times like this that I almost wish I believed in hell so I could revel in the thought of him arriving there today and then rotting away there for eternity!



Bronze Dog, 2007.05.16 (Wed) 11:13 [Link] »

My mother takes great comfort in that either way, we won't be stuck hanging around with the likes of Falwell for eternity.



raquel , 2007.05.19 (Sat) 20:32 [Link] »

gostaria que a allison dubois se interessa-se pelo caso madeleine Mcann, uma menina de 4 anos que foi raptada da praia da luz , no Algarve - Portugal. Não sei se será possivel, mas fica aqui o pedido.( please help Madeleine Mccann)



GOD777, 2007.05.20 (Sun) 15:49 [Link] »

What does that mean?



TimmyAnn, 2007.05.20 (Sun) 17:13 [Link] »

According to the AOL translator:

"it would like that allison dubois if there is interested by the case madeleine Mcann, a 4-year-old girl who was kidnapped of the beach of the light, in the Algarve - Portugal. Não know if ser possivel, but the request is here."

Obviously, it loses something in the translation, bu I think you can get the gyst...sort of.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.05.20 (Sun) 20:34 [Link] »

Pesaroso, Raquel, mas ele não é o mais definitivamente possível para Allison DuBois para ajudar encontrar esta menina faltante. Por que? Porque Allison DuBois não é um psychic. E como nós sabemos aquele? Porque os psychics não são reais. Se houver alguma esperança para encontrar Madeleine McCann, descansa com enforcement de lei, e não um ato asenino do carnaval.

Como uma nota, qualquer um que acredita o crap de Allison é um imbecil e um chapéu do cú.



Rik, 2007.06.06 (Wed) 08:59 [Link] »

Im not sure I like either camp supporter or skeptic in this discussion... I don't believe in Allison's gifts but the other skeptics here seem a little too spiteful towards the believers.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.06.06 (Wed) 10:24 [Link] »

Hey, Rik — that's not spite you're hearing in our comments. It's disgust. We are disgusted by people who leverage the pain and suffering of others in order to make themselves rich and famous. And by extension, we are disgusted by people who blindly accept the claims that these jackals make and, in doing so, enable them to continue to perpetrate their bullshit.

But let me ask you something, Rik. You state that you don't believe that Allison is psychic. That means that you believe she is lying, correct? If that's the case, then your belief is that she is perpetrating fraud on those who have lost loved ones. Please explain why you aren't outraged at someone who does such a thing as a matter of their daily lives? For our part, we can't imagine not being outraged.

What Allison is doing is repugnant, and if you think you can hear the hate in our voices, then you're fucking right. But please don't myopically label it as spite.



Ryan, 2007.06.06 (Wed) 11:20 [Link] »

Rik:

Im not sure I like either camp supporter or skeptic in this discussion... I don't believe in Allison's gifts but the other skeptics here seem a little too spiteful towards the believers.

I feel sorry for the believers; they're getting duped. But if they come here, read the article showing just how wrong this evil bitch is and still continue to believe, they are morons who feed this bitch's will to keep screwing people. Those particular believers (the ones who show up here) can apply suction to my genitals, and fornicate themselves with an iron rod.



JC, 2007.06.09 (Sat) 00:14 [Link] »

It is also possible that Browne is sincere but deluded, although there is scarcely more evidence for this than there is for the hypothesis that she is a real psychic.



LB, 2007.06.11 (Mon) 20:31 [Link] »

I used to watch Medium sometimes, and thought it was just entertainment. However, having come across the two % page a while back and read the entries for Allison Dubois week ... I haven't watched the show since. I can't. What a nauseating bitch!

I'm sure none of the "fellow psychics" who posted here will ever come back to read this (how could their sensitive natures deal with all the negativity, hah!), but on the off chance they do, it's okay. I understand about the hearing voices. You see, I do too. Am I a psychic?

Absolutely not. You've got three choices here. You're either a.) lying b.) deluding yourself c.) you've got migraines like me, and that's your aura.

Lemme guess, within 30 minutes to an hour after a "reading" or "communication" you've got a bad headache. Some people have forewarning of migraines by flashing lights, some by odd smells (like that nasty orange cleaner they use in some public toilets), and others will hear buzzing/whispering.

Stop trying to understand what the voices are saying (your misfiring neurons will never give you a coherent message), and go take your effexor, or topamax, or whatever the neurologist gave you.

I know it's much more fun to imagine you're getting messages from beyond than accepting the fact that you just get really shitty headaches, but once you do, it gets a lot easier to take.



Alison Carlyle, 2007.06.23 (Sat) 17:42 [Link] »

I just wanted to say, I'm note sure. I think that there is an element of the self serving about Ms Dubois. I love the show and the idea that people who do bad things will get caught and punished. I also like CSI, Bones etc.
I've had some personal experiences which I have tried to rationalize but find my own answers personally unsatisfying.
Incident 1.
My Grandfather died. My mother got a phone call, said she was going to see my Grandma mentioning that my grandfather was ill, drove me to school which was unusual. I was teased by the other kids and cried and told them my grandfather had died. They said, how do you know I said my mum drove the wrong way, something I could not have known. I forgot all about the incident, I was given to being over emotional, that Friday my parents told me that they had come back from my grandfathers funeral.

Rationalisation.

I was being teased. I wanted them to stop. My mother had told me my grandfather was ill. I told them he had died to stop the teasing.

thing that plays on my mind.

I had never experienced anyones death and at 10 there were other things I could have said to get the people who were teasing me off my back. Why chose that?

I am reading Ms Dobouirs book which I find annoying as it mostly seams to be preaching. The difficulty I have is that I recognize so many of the experiences she has. I feel what will happen next. I am constantly confronted by coincidences. I have dreams that come true. I have spent so many years trying to rationalize this stuff.

I just don't know. I find the American publicity machine frightening, self serving but I can't dismiss her claims when I have experienced similar myself. I do think that she comforts people who have lost relatives. What is so wrong with that?



Alison Carlyle, 2007.06.23 (Sat) 18:27 [Link] »

I have been reading some of your comments which tend to be Allison is a bitch and she's made a lot of money out of peoples grief. She has changed her story about people and has made inappropriate comments at a funeral.

I wonder why you are so angry. Many people profit from a death. Many people make in appropriate comments at funerals, my favorites being "time will heal everything" and "he's in a better place".

I have no objection to bad language. I don't think it diminishes an argument but to be honest I haven't really found much of an argument in your rant.

If people choose to believe that Alison has a gift and want to spend their money on readings or her books or her TV shows then they are idiots and deluded.

In my experience two people can experience things in a different way. My friend died from Breast cancer. I did not see her very near the end but did visit her in hospital on one occasion when she was relatively well. To me she appeared calm and unafraid of death. Another friend felt that she was terrified of dying and that it was obvious. Maybe we each saw what we wanted to see. Maybe my friend who was dieing was closer to the other person and shared her fears with her but was brave in front of me. May be my positive outlook made me chose a positive understanding.

I don't know if Alison has a talent but I do trust people to make their own choices in life and take the consequences. I have spent money on tarot readers. I have also spent money on counseling. Each benefited me and made me feel better about life.

Is it a coincidence that people with a faith, any faith live longer and happier lives than people without a faith? If I live a happy productive life believing that at my death a giant earwig will decent from heaven to take me to another life and on my death discover that I am just plan food. I have still lead a happy productive life. Who are you to judge belief?
Who are you to tell me I am wrong? It is possible that by my belief in the giant earwig I may upset people. However equally not believing in something may well upset people.

I try to do the least harm I can and the most good I can in my life. A friend who is a Marxis said that the only organizations who were trying to do any good for people were religious based.

It surprises me that in a country that professes to be tolerant of a variety of beliefs can not be tolerant of this belief.



Bronze Dog, 2007.06.23 (Sat) 19:25 [Link] »

Quoth Alison:

Is it a coincidence that people with a faith, any faith live longer and happier lives than people without a faith?

Evidence?
If I live a happy productive life believing that at my death a giant earwig will decent from heaven to take me to another life and on my death discover that I am just plan food. I have still lead a happy productive life.

Knowing the truth is completely vital to being productive. We're in favor of making people productive and happy, but I see no evidence that woodom contributes to either, but I have seen lots and lots of personal experience to the contrary in my dealings, for what that's worth. Woos are almost uniformly negative, defeatist, and content in ignorance.

Who are you to judge belief? Who are you to tell me I am wrong?
Sentient beings with a desire to make the world a better place. Learning means discarding false beliefs.
It is possible that by my belief in the giant earwig I may upset people. However equally not believing in something may well upset people.

This isn't Fox News. Offense has nothing to do with anything. This is about true and false. Right and wrong.

I try to do the least harm I can and the most good I can in my life. A friend who is a Marxis said that the only organizations who were trying to do any good for people were religious based.
And the vile, nihilistic propaganda continues flowing. Wake up. There are non-religious organizations doing good in the world. Take a look at the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, for instance.
It surprises me that in a country that professes to be tolerant of a variety of beliefs can not be tolerant of this belief.
Convenient redefinition. Did you repeal the First Amendment when we weren't looking?

Of course, during your whole hollow, irrelevant post, you avoid the core issue: IT IS WRONG TO LIE TO PEOPLE TO MAKE MONEY!

The fact that makes it more irritating is that these frauds is that they prey on vulnerable PEOPLE. She values their grief as an opportunity to provide a false service they might not otherwise seek out to expand her fame and wealth. She doesn't care if she reopens psychological wounds, or sets a person up for a fall.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.06.24 (Sun) 13:58 [Link] »
I have no objection to bad language. I don't think it diminishes an argument but to be honest I haven't really found much of an argument in your rant.

If by "argument" you are referring to exploring, testing, and refuting Allison DuBois' specific claims regarding her abilities, then there is a reason that haven't found such arguments in this post: they aren't here. This post is mainly about comparing and contrasting two different reader comments that we received, and about showcasing one example of how Allison was both wrong and a fucking bitch.

But just because you don't see our arguments here, it doesn't mean that we don't have any. In fact, we covered what you seem to be looking for in our first series on Ms. DuBois. If you'd like to see our arguments, please start there since much of what you've said has already been covered many times over.

After you read those five posts, then feel free to address our specific arguments. Until then, please refrain from blindly telling us what our arguments consist of.

You also said:

In my experience two people can experience things in a different way.

Yes, that's very true. It also brings two points to mind. First, the fact that people can experience reality in very different ways in no way changes reality itself. Reality is objective, not subjective. Psychic powers are not real, and just because someone's experiences lead them to think differently, reality remains reality. Second, you seem to realize that human experience is highly subjective, yet you cannot see how your own recollections of your own supposedly psychic experiences may then be flawed. Think through this contradiction, and maybe you'll come to understand why your anecdotes aren't very convincing.



IYce, 2007.06.24 (Sun) 19:16 [Link] »

Not only is it wrong to people to make money, in some places it is illegal. The Criminal Code 1899 of my home state (Queensland, Australia) states that it is illegal for a person to accept or charge payment for 'fortune telling services' (and yes, it is established that psychics and mediums fall into this catagory). So what most of them do to get around this is discretely display a disclaimer to the effect that they are doing this as an entertainment service.
But for all the true believers out there, I'll cover some old ground.
Since it's obvious that ghosts and boogeyman exist (the subtle signs are all around us), surely someone from the next world is trying to tell you something when you notice Dubois and the word dubious are very similar.
Hmmm, I'm feeling a strong B influence. B, B, oh wait now I'm getting a strong S, wow it's powerful, does anyone here have a connection with B.S?



Wolfgang Kohl, 2007.06.26 (Tue) 22:09 [Link] »

I know nothing of the real Alison DuBois, I only watch the TV show. As for my beliefs, I am a Christian, but have never encountered psychic phenomena (although a tarot reader did say I was going to get in trouble with the police and about two weeks later I got a speeding ticket, but it will take a bit more than that to convert me). There are some points here I will make not in defence of Alison, but against the above criticism of her. First, the fact that smoking didn't contribute to the death doesn't mean she twisted facts; let's say for the moment she is for real, then it is possible she saw her friend dying of cancer and assumed that the smoking is a factor. The fact it wasn't doesn't negate Alison's versions of events. Secondly, Domini may have put a brave face on to Alison as lots of people do to their friends, and only her close family may have known of her deepest fears. Terminal cancer can take months to finish you off, so you can literally be 'dying' for months, so the fact that Alison didn't see her in her final days or even weeks doesn't undermine her version of events. Finally, the one witness to Alison's version of events, Stacey, who can authenticate that Domini did indeed mention that Alison had warned her of her death much earlier in her life is absent from the 'debunking' above. The statements from Domini's sisters don't actually contradict Alison's version. Mind you, the fact that she has said nothing that can be flat out contradicted could be indicative of a talent for cold reading, but then again can be easily claimed by her advocates as evidence of her psychic ability.



IYce, 2007.06.28 (Thu) 04:33 [Link] »

OK, so Allison said that her friend would die young and that smoking would contribute to it. Well even when Allison was 19, it was a reasonably established fact that smoking kills. Doesn't establish much. It's a bit like saying that a group of girls playing fortune telling games predict their 'future husbands' are all psychics, based on the statistical probablity that they will one day get married.



TimmyAnn, 2007.06.28 (Thu) 05:38 [Link] »

And yet she got it wrong! That's the point here. Smoking DID NOT contribute to the woman's death. Even when she made what seemed to be a fairly safe bet, she got it wrong!



The Two Percent Company, 2007.06.28 (Thu) 09:04 [Link] »

Wolfgang — your criticisms are perfectly valid if we assume that Allison is a normal person with no special powers. However, if we assume that Allison's claims are true — which is what Allison is asking us to do — then your arguments hold no water.

You see, if Allison truly did have the ability to communicate with the dead, than why the hell would she be fooled by the things that you mentioned? We can agree that perhaps Domini put on a brave face for her friends, while only letting her family in on her true concerns; we can also agree that, after seeing Domini alive for the last time, Allison might have justifiably — if incorrectly — believed that she was bravely soldiering on. But as soon as we grant Allison's claims that she is able to communicate with the dead, including Domini herself (after she died), then we have to assume that her blatantly incorrect assertions about her friend's feelings and health would be replaced by the actual facts of the situation. Since that didn't happen here, it seems safe to conclude that Allison was not communicating with her deceased friend. Of course, we could also assume that Allison did communicate with Domini, and that her friend's spirit "continued" to lie to her posthumously; but if the spirits can lie whenever they feel like it, and Allison is unable to tell when they are lying, then — in all honesty — what the hell is the point of her "power"? What good are her "psychic" avenues of information gathering, and what differentiates them from random guesses? As usual, this is one of the points where psychic claims fall down and go boom, very loudly.

Keep in mind that we don't believe Allison's claims. Therefore, in our worldview, your justifications for her "misses" are perfectly fair (though not necessarily accurate). However, it is Allison herself who claims to have super-special magical powers, and by that claim alone, she negates your helpful attempts to shore up her bullshit.

So when you say:

The fact [that smoking didn't contribute to Domini's death] doesn't negate Alison's versions of events.

...we couldn't possibly disagree with you more. Allison claims to have made a prediction that Domini's smoking would kill her. However, Domini's death had nothing to do with her smoking. That does indeed mean that Allison's prediction was wrong.

The one thing you said that we do agree with is that so-called psychics do tend to keep their predictions vague, so that they can more easily and more often find validation of their guesses, though only by pure chance. That's precisely the reason that you were able to turn these predictions into "hits," even though Allison was not correct. Seriously — Domini's death had nothing at all to do with smoking, which means that Allison was dead fucking wrong, but you — like the many, many woos and DuBois defenders (which we're not saying you are) — still managed to come up with a scenario in which this egregiously incorrect prediction actually validates Allison's claims. And this is the heart of the problem, and the reason why so many people believe in Allison's bogus powers and other utter nonsense.

Most sincerely, we're asking you a favor: read through our site. Learn what we've said about Allison, about "psychics" in general, about the whole sad phenomenon (of believers and enablers, that is, not the powers themselves, which don't exist). You presented yourself fairly and politely, and we appreciate that — but you've still fallen into the same trap that so many before you have stumbled into.

One last time for all the valiant defenders of Allison, the champions of woo, and those who don't align with them but try to offer potential "validations" for them: the fact that people are wrong has never, ever been our beef. We have explained this on a number of occasions. It is the fact that these people are claiming a phenomenon which, by its nature, should render them correct far more often than they have statistically demonstrated...this is the fucking problem. It just doesn't hold up, and these fucks are making money off of hurting victims with these false claims.

Allison can make guesses all day long, if she wants, and be wrong almost every time (which is pretty much the situation already). We're occasionally wrong, as well (we just don't throw a lot of shit into the public forum unless we're confident about it, so we appear wrong less frequently than Allison). Of course, when we're proven wrong, we fucking acknowledge it and alter or amend our statements, actions, or opinions as necessary. Allison and the other bullshit artists? They've yet to admit any chance of fallibility, despite clear evidence that refutes them. That — along with the utterly disgusting behavior they display towards their victims, towards those who doubt them, and towards each other — is the problem we have with these fucking repulsive, repugnant asshats.

The fact that specific predictions are wrong? All that does is reinforce the simple fact that these assholes have no special powers. Flipping a couple of these "misses" into "hits" with tortured logic and subjective weaseling doesn't shift the bullshit artists too far from the fifty-fifty success rate we expect of any human prognosticator. In the long run, all it does is punch up how hard it is to give these jerks any benefit of the doubt at all.



Monetgirl, 2007.07.01 (Sun) 21:07 [Link] »

I knew Karen and her sister for a while and I am sorry to hear of the pain that Allison has caused Karen and her family. I too knew Allison back when she was coming into her "powers". She is a total fake. I feel sorry for the people that are so desperate that they need to believe in what she does. By the way, when she was on the news about the girl missing here is AZ recently...here's a shocker...totally wrong about the prediction. I'm really glad that she helped her nardo husband's friend find his daughter at her friends house one time; that may be the only thing she has ever done. I feel sorry for her girls. Maybe if her Mom would have paid more attention to her instead of chasing and marrying every man in sight Allison would have turned out a little better and not be so attention seeking. Oh and Dubois is not her real name, its Gomez, she changed it because she did not want to sound Mexican.



Tiena DuBois, 2007.07.12 (Thu) 10:52 [Link] »

Concerning the letter from Domini's sister. Domini lived at my home quite often during and after high school. She called me Mom. Domini cried-and drank alot and told me intimate details of her family and her relationship with her Mother.

I would like to know how much time Domini's family spends with her 3 children and how often they see them.

Allison never talked about Domini's personal life!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am sure if you delve into her past you will find out much to substantiate what kind of childhood she had and how much time her family spent with her in life. She had to be terminal to get their attention.

Sometimes when faced with death people realize the true meaning of life and mend their family differences. Others just find someone else to argue with.

I think it is very sad her sister is complaining about Allison, when Domini loved Allison, even if she did not. Allison spent alot of time with Domini and shared many important times.

Allison took Domini's cat and still has it. I did not hear Domini ask her sister to keep her cat. I wonder why.

Allison also decorated her apartment to help cheer her up.

It was Domini's first husband that was with her in her hour of need.

Allison and I have bought her children clothes-food-and many other things thru the years why didn't her loving family see to these things when her daughter had needs?

In all the years I knew Domini I never saw her family around helping her. I even paid her rent so she would not be on the street several times.

I think her family feels quilty how they treated her ( based on Domini's words and feelings expressed to me).

It is sad when people criticise what they do not understand and the fact Allison can talk to Domini and she cannot says alot on how close her family was to her.

We have all made mistakes and said and done things we would do differently but when I find a truly pure hearted person filled with love-kindness and compassion I will hear what they have to say.
No one is perfect! There will never be world peace when we treat each other in this manner. It is not to be respected.

Only look down on someone if you are helping them up.

Allison's Mom

I do not like to repond to these things but who can say who would do what if you were in anothers shoes, and all this verbal cruelty and hatred is why 1 in 3 women is battered. Try a little understanding and kindness and research your information before you stick your foot in your mouth.



Tiena DuBois, 2007.07.12 (Thu) 11:05 [Link] »

For those interested Allison spent 4 1/2 years at the University of Tucson being tested and studied.
All papers and results of the studies were published by Gary Schwartz.

Maybe you could look at the good she has done as well as the hearsay.

What I said at the funeral was; (Since Domini has 3 children from 3 men) I hoped the family would all pull together to help the children remember her since 1 is separated from the other 2 and they were very young.

Her sister's twist is more interesting and better reading though. The children's relatives did not even stand near each other.

What is it her sister does for a living?



Bronze Dog, 2007.07.12 (Thu) 14:36 [Link] »

I'll leave others to comment on the bulk, but I just had to laugh when Gary Schwartz got name dropped. One of the archetypal woos out there.

He's the kind of guy who thinks three plies of wood between the medium and the readee constitutes "triple-blinding"

He's made statements to the effect that holes are okay in an experiment so long as you patch up one or two and promise to patch up more in later experiments, even if those holes allow for well-known cheating methods.

Who else is going to get name dropped? Deepak Chopra?



Tiena DuBois, 2007.07.12 (Thu) 22:29 [Link] »

I am sorry Domini's sister only concern on the day of Domini's funeral was for herself.

But Domini said they were never close.

As far as Allison DuBois is concerned I would venture to say she has helped more people find closure and helped more parents of murdered children than anyone who has posted on this site.

Let me know what humanitarian things the people posting on this site have done for others. Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house.

I guess the truth will be none of all of us in due time.



TimmyAnn, 2007.07.12 (Thu) 23:17 [Link] »
I am sorry Domini's sister only concern on the day of Domini's funeral was for herself.

Would you kindly copy and paste the part in which she said anything to justify this remark? I seem to have missed it. She is only relating the events of the funeral as they apply to THIS TOPIC. She is not telling us every emotion, thought or feeling she had. You are making comments about her with no evidence, that is not a legitimate tactic in a debate.



Bronze Dog, 2007.07.13 (Fri) 09:18 [Link] »

Is there going to be any citing going on, here?

Does Tiena expect us to just go by faith?

Anyone notice how easy it is to put words into the mouths of dead people? Suppose that comes with the profession.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.07.13 (Fri) 15:51 [Link] »

Of course, it's all too easy to claim to be someone you're not on the Internet. But then again, we see no particularly compelling reason not to believe that you are Allison's mom, Tiena. There are several possible scenarios based on what you've written:

1) You are Allison's mom, and you're an idiot.
2) You are Allison's mom, and you're lying.
3) Both "1" and "2" are true (a pretty good bet, for those playing along at home).
4) You're not really Allison's mom — you're just some ignorant idiot who wrongly thinks that this claim will somehow impress us.

The bottom line, though, is that we don't give a rat's ass whether you are Allison's mother or not — everything we are about to say applies regardless of whether or not you actually passed that vile bitch through your loins a little over thirty years ago.

Now, to business...

We noticed that you never once even attempted to refute the basic premise that we've put forth: namely, that Allison made specific, documented statements about Domini's death, and those statement seem to have been utterly and clearly incorrect. Let's look at the primary example. Allison claims that she told Domini that her smoking would kill her, and then claims that Domini's subsequent cancer-related death validated her prediction. Setting aside the fact that this anecdote was first seen well after Domini's death (rendering it dubious at best), Domini's sisters have told us that Domini died of melanoma (which is not caused by smoking). Instead of sidestepping the main issue and mounting an emotional defense of your supposed daughter, why not refute our arguments? Oh! Hold on! We're getting a psychic vision! You haven't tried refuting our arguments because...you can't. Even if you were capable of cogent correspondence, the facts are strongly on our side.

You also managed to relate a whole bunch of anecdotes about Domini, but you didn't tell us how you know that most of them are true. Your apparent claim to have heard these things second hand from Allison doesn't hold much water; Allison is far from a reliable source, given her history of extensive bullshitting. In addition, your own apparently feeble grasp of reality doesn't do anything to support your general credibility.

For example, you said:

Allison never talked about Domini's personal life!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bullshit. Allison included a story about Domini in her fucking book. Not only has Allison "talked" about Domini's personal life, she has decided to capitalize (financially and famously) on it. In case you haven't bothered to read anything we've written about Allison (just a shot in the dark here, based on your complete obliviousness to the facts we've already presented), her habit of capitalizing on the pain and suffering of others is one of our main problems with her; this instance, concerning Domini, is no different.

In addition, you seem to be just a little bit totally fucked in the head. For example:

There will never be world peace when we treat each other in this manner. It is not to be respected.

We have no idea what the fuck you're on about there. However, from what little we can find in your bizarre statements, we'd counter with our own hypothesis that the world would be a much better place without bloodsucking cunts like Allison DuBois, and a much worse place without people (like the many we are proud to have as readers and fellow skeptics) to show why and how her claims are nothing but harmful, self-serving bullshit.

I do not like to repond to these things but who can say who would do what if you were in anothers shoes...

We don't give a fuck whose shoes we're in, Tiena — the simple truth is that we would NEVER prey on the suffering of others in order to make a buck. Period. Maybe that's something that you would do, given the opportunity, but please refrain from projecting your lack of ethics or human compassion onto the rest of us. Whatever you might do or think, the fact that Allison makes a living by fucking over distraught, grieving victims is a very, very big reason why we don't like her. Got it?

...and all this verbal cruelty and hatred is why 1 in 3 women is battered.

Way to stay on point, dipshit. Please enlighten us as to how our outrage at a predatory twat like Allison, or the language we appropriately employ as a result, is responsible for the battery of women; please include citations, statistics, and — hell, go all the fucking way — give us a pie chart or something...

...or, better yet, get your head out of your ass and respond to our actual arguments.

You also said:

It is sad when people criticise what they do not understand and the fact Allison can talk to Domini and she cannot says alot on how close her family was to her.

For the last time, so you and the rest of the deluded idiots of the world might stand a chance of grasping this simple concept: we understand what Allison does for a living quite well, thanks very much. Among a host of other easy-to-learn tricks, it's a great example of a little thing called cold reading. Look it up sometime. And if you believe that Allison can really talk to the "spirit of Domini," then go ahead and explain for us why she still can't seem to get the story of Domini's illness straight. Come on, Tiena. We're waiting.

Your next statement makes us laugh so hard the milk we drank in second grade is coming out of our noses:

Try a little understanding and kindness and research your information before you stick your foot in your mouth.

Wow! You are telling us to research our information? Impressive hubris, considering that you then go on to say:

For those interested Allison spent 4 1/2 years at the University of Tucson being tested and studied. All papers and results of the studies were published by Gary Schwartz.

Oh, for fuck's sake! Instead of making asinine statements like this one, why not do your own fucking research before opening your delusional piehole? We've already researched Dr. Schwartz's studies, you imbecile, and we've explained in great detail why they are bullshit, with a capital B, which rhymes with D, which stands for "DuBois." Fuck, you didn't even have to go very far to find that out — our post on Schwartz is right here on our site. Go. Read. Try — oh, please do try — to learn. Then shut the fuck up about the Great Gary Schwartz and how he "validated" Allison's make-believe powers.

Maybe you could look at the good she has done as well as the hearsay.

Oh, yes — all that "good" that Allison has done? That is the fucking hearsay, you insipid moron! There isn't a single instance in which Allison has been shown to actually have any magical powers, so how exactly could she be doing any "good" with them that isn't hearsay? Unless she's organizing bake sales for the people she has taken money from, she hasn't done much good for anybody outside of her little happy medium gang. Allison is a reprehensible bitch, and no amount of tap dancing on your part can change that.

As far as Allison DuBois is concerned I would venture to say she has helped more people find closure and helped more parents of murdered children than anyone who has posted on this site.

Gee, by "helped more parents," did you mean "pretended to have psychic powers and gave made up messages to grieving parents in order to earn her own fame and fortune"? Oh, you didn't? Well, in that case, you're fucking wrong.

Guess what, you sanctimonious asshat: Allison DuBois's bullshit act is only helping one person, and that's Allison DuBois. You want to know our definition of helping grieving parents? Educating them beforehand to help them see through cheap carny acts like Allison, so they don't waste their time and/or money, and so the precious real memories of their loved ones aren't forever fucked up by the self-serving ramblings of half-assed media whores. Care to tally up who's been more "helpful" now, Tiena? We've got no reservations about which side we come down on.

Assuming that you really are Allison's mother, we'd like to thank you profusely (and sarcastically, in case you're even more of a moron than we've given you credit for) for raising such a repulsive, predatory cunt and unleashing her on the rest of us. Now, instead of wasting our time spewing your inane crap on our site, perhaps you should focus a bit more on your daughter. Personally, we'd recommend that you pull out of your complex, make a right onto Maryland Avenue, and go knock on Allison's door to remind her to pay the $8,640.99 that she owes in 2006 back taxes before someone (we hope our readers are ready for a Telethon!) buys her house out from under her. Otherwise, she may well be moving back in with you...or soon be wearing a cardboard sign that says "Will channel for food."



Jason Spicer, 2007.07.13 (Fri) 19:33 [Link] »

I'm just trying to figure out what "the truth will be none of all of us" means. I'm trying to draw a Venn diagram of "the set whose members do not include its members". Huh. That's a pretty good definition of the word psychic.



Bronze Dog, 2007.07.15 (Sun) 16:35 [Link] »

Missed the deliberately propagandistic, malicious "battered women" bit. We're here trying to save people from being psychologically battered by nihilistic, selfish leeches like Allison DuBois, and she tries to defend that batterer by claiming that a hunger for honesty and justice lead to the very thing she's defending.

Evil is good and good is evil. Helping people is bad and hurting people for selfish personal profit is good. That's the philosophy of someone who'll do any evil for their personal benefit.

So, after declaring morality relative in order to claim the high ground, the woos all band around the propagandist and ignore the fact that Tiena has cowardly run away from the heart of the subject.

Sorry for the foam buildup. Need the cool down to continue.



JC, 2007.07.15 (Sun) 17:57 [Link] »
As far as Allison DuBois is concerned I would venture to say she has helped more people find closure and helped more parents of murdered children than anyone who has posted on this site.

Are there any examples of DuBois giving an account of a child's death that was later proved to be accurate? Or anyones death even?

Seriously, if there are any examples, I would love to hear about them, and I'm sure we all would.



Betty, 2007.07.27 (Fri) 08:46 [Link] »

I must say that I do not believe in Allison's gfts especially after she used the events of her friend Domini's death without permission. That is just cold. My heart goes out to Domini's family.

I have enjoyed reading all of the comments and feel that the the writers are not afraid to call a Spade a Spade. The language does not matter, the facts that stand out. Someone who disagrees knows nothing more than to attack on the lowest level. Anyone with common sense should be able to tell when someone is full of it and she is.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.07.27 (Fri) 14:13 [Link] »

But Betty, Allison did get permission — from Domini's posthumous spirit! At least, we're sure that's what Allison would claim in a court of law. We'd almost pay to see how that would work out for her.

At any rate, we're glad you get the point that so many miss — it's not about anger or any other emotion, and it's not about the words we employ to state our positions. We're all human — we're allowed to feel whatever we want (or involuntarily do) about issues like these. But no matter what we feel or say or think or do, the facts remain the facts, and there are those of us who are willing to take a look at the facts without emotion, and then react to them emotionally afterwards. As you noted, those who disagree with our positions on Allison DuBois rarely, if ever, approach the issue from a factual standpoint — it's always simply about their emotional reaction to our arguments. Therefore, the only thing they can attack is our own passionate presentation, since the factual content is largely unassailable.

As has been historically noted by many others before us, "common sense" is unfortunately not quite so common.



jmars, 2007.07.27 (Fri) 14:37 [Link] »

I just saw the episode of "South Park" about psychic detectives. The brilliance of these guys never ceases to amaze me. Most of Hollywood does the opposite. Sadly the opinions of Tom Cruise and the like can tend to have influence over the public. I'm glad some people in Hollywood are addressing things like this and showing how truly ridiculous things like psychics, Scientology, and Mormonism really are.



wizzpizz, 2007.08.05 (Sun) 08:50 [Link] »

if Allison used false information in a book to validate psychic ability and make $ that is really a low act by her. Mary Summer Rain's teacher said there would be many people claiming such powers. "the sons of Belial will don spiritual robes"



The Two Percent Company, 2007.08.05 (Sun) 12:20 [Link] »
if Allison used false information in a book to validate psychic ability and make $ that is really a low act by her.

Allison is chock full of really low acts, including, it would seem, this one.

Mary Summer Rain's teacher said there would be many people claiming such powers. "the sons of Belial will don spiritual robes"

We'll just assume that your reference to New Age dipshit and egocentric fake-dream-interpreter Mary Summer Rain and her old blind shaman pal "No-Eyes" is a joke. Ha. Ha ha. Ha?



Kurani Marsters, 2007.08.25 (Sat) 08:19 [Link] »

You're all sad and pathetic, if its all bullshit as you say, why give it the time of day



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2007.08.25 (Sat) 10:13 [Link] »

Here's a thought, Kurani — instead of leaving asinine comments like the one you left, why not fucking try reading the thread you plan to comment on before you leave the comment to see if your stupid, stupid question has already been answered? In this case, the answer is "yes, its been answered about a dozen fucking times on this very thread."

You know, I understand that most of Allison's supporters don't have the brains to fill a thimble, but it still amazes me when they completely ignore all of the little words on the screen, but still decide that they have something "worthwhile" to contribute to a discussion that they haven't even bothered to read.

Fuck.



Bronze Dog, 2007.08.25 (Sat) 10:33 [Link] »

More militant apathism. Are you really so utterly incapable of caring for others, Kurani? Is there nothing in your life worth protecting?



Me, 2007.08.27 (Mon) 14:16 [Link] »

I'm sitting here bored on a bank holiday evening in The UK. This is a great website...I love TPC! In relation to the topic in hand...I don't really know whether I believe in Mediums or not, never really had the time or patience or money to waste on finding out BUT...by going on the comments and facts on here it would appear that visiting a Medium would, in fact, be a waste of time. Oh and for any Mediums on here, I lost someone very close to me last year, that's all I'm going to give you, now work your magic and tell me the rest (free of charge) and maybe I'll take the time to visit you and support you on here.

Thanks.



Anonymous, 2007.10.08 (Mon) 11:59 [Link] »

Please excuse me if I have made any spelling or grammar mistakes here.

This is to everyone in this post. It is to those who are insecure within themselves and use execuses for their own feeble weaknesses, to those who are jealous and hypocrites, to those who pretend to defend the gullible.

It is a pyschological fact, those who are always critisizing others do so because they lack something within themselves and use any execuse to attack others. They will believe that they are always right and never admit being wrong. They are afraid to loose an argument or loose at anything at all - that is their ego and pride talking. Inside they are nice people, but on the outside they act as tough people (defence mechanism) - if you stand in their way, they will put you down - right or wrong.


Of the people who have changed the world, it is not the skeptics, but those who have dared to believe in something that others cannot comprehend. Hence they become the laughing stock of all those who doubt.

The majority of the population have five developed senses- touch , smell, hearing, vision and taste. Therefore those people can only comprehend information received by these five senses.

There are however those who have an additional sixth sense and the information recieved by this cannot be interpreted by those with only the five basic senses as described above.
Therefore it is no wonder that there are skeptics out there, because they won't even develop their sixth sense to even understand.

So to the skeptics here: - don't be so narrow minded and please give the benefit of doubt - don't believe what anyone else says, but research for yourself using the right mindset you have.

To the believers here: - You need to be more articulate. You cannot reason with people who do not have the right mindset to communicate with - it is impossible. You can though communicate using other techniques. How can one listen to a radio station without tunning into the right frequency first? It is the same with humans. Our brains work on the same principle, you just need to know how tune in. There are many techniques in India for example where telepathy has been used for thousands of years, however this information is only divulged to the right people who will not use it for selfish reasons.



jmars, 2007.10.08 (Mon) 12:29 [Link] »

"So to the skeptics here: - don't be so narrow minded and please give the benefit of doubt - don't believe what anyone else says, but research for yourself using the right mindset you have."

I think you may have to look up the definition of a skeptic. It is the skeptic that does the research and uses blind and double-blind tests to prove or disprove a theory using real evidence. We are the ones that do not "just believe what anyone says". It is you that probably "heard" about these secret Indian telepaths and are now stating it as fact without doing any research of your own into the validity of such a claim. It is not required of us to "give the benefit of the doubt". That is your duty as the one making the claim.

But this, I am sure, falls on deaf ears. It is the "unsinkable, rubber duck" phenomenon that never ceases to amaze me.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.10.08 (Mon) 14:12 [Link] »

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis, Anonymous. It does us a world of good to receive such compassionate and insightful psychological help from someone whose credentials and abilities we have no earthly way of confirming. You know, since you're anonymous and all.

You see, Anonymous, that's why we (when we deal with someone with whom it might make a difference) provide citations, links, statistics, references, and — if you'd like to wrap all that up in a nice package with a bow — some actual fucking information about the topics we write about. We're well aware that we maintain our own semi-anonymity online, and we therefore do not expect anyone to believe us just because we say something — so we show you where we got it from, so you can confirm it for yourself, and then decide if it seems correct to you. That's why we don't just vaguely refer to, for instance, "many techniques in India for example where telepathy has been used for thousands of years." How convenient that such information is "only divulged to the right people" — so if we, as one example, aren't quite up on our telepathic training, it's because we're the...wrong people? What a great way to explain why we're completely unaware of your bullshit, and simultaneously bolster your own superiority complex! Now that's talent, Anonymous. But please, ramble on some more about our ego and pride. Since it's "a pyschological fact, those who are always critisizing others do so because they lack something within themselves and use any execuse to attack others."

Oh, wait — you didn't provide any evidence or citation to back up that bullshit, useless claim either. Our bad. You see, asshat, we can play that game, too. It's a proven scientific fact that people with your exact e-mail address have brains 40% smaller and 60% less functional than the average human being. Do you accept that as a valid statement? No? Well, then perhaps you're a little closer to understanding why we don't accept your bullshit as fact. Your ridiculous assertion, just like any that you make about telepathy in India, or any other brand of woo you feel like endorsing this particular minute, simply doesn't come with any evidence to back it up — or, as you seem to be indicating with your quaint little Brahma Brain telepathy story, you refuse to provide it.

On the other hand, the body of scientific knowledge, the data and information, the records of observation, experiment, and results...this is all freely available to those who take the time to educate themselves. Let's see: with science (which includes skepticism as a vital part of its method), we're open to any new ideas (which is why the body of knowledge keeps growing, asshole) and we offer up the benefits to anyone and everyone; with the usual bullshit woo and/or religion that you espouse, you refuse to open yourselves up to any testing or confirmation, thereby closing yourself off to the new idea that you might believe in utter bullshit (or even the new idea that you might have stumbled onto some grain of testable truth!), and you keep your "benefits" (and information) private, exclusive only to those who are happy to join in your beliefs and/or wear your silly hat.

So we're having a little difficulty understanding what the fuck you're trying to get at, here, moron. Since, you know, you've turned this entirely inside-out.

As a note, "those who have dared to believe in something that others cannot comprehend" sometimes provide results, and sometimes do not. If you investigate for yourself the times when they've reaped benefits — sure, play the Einstein card, or Galileo, Kepler, Goddard, Newton, Witten, Curie, Pasteur, Roentgen, Wright, or too many others to count — you'll notice that success (and useful benefits) always came when they took those "somethings that others cannot comprehend" and applied rigorous scientific techniques to figuring them out. Of course, the fact remains that (despite your sad assertion) others could comprehend it, once the basic premise was conceived — it's just that you aren't a member of the group that can comprehend such things. Sucks for you, imbecile; but don't project your own lack of comprehension onto those of us who bother to learn. If you truly want to continue to laugh at skeptics and the science they embrace, then please feel free to stop using every advance that has come about as a result of using the scientific method. You know: all of them, from fire and shelter right on up to the automobile and the iPod.

Here's a great example of bullshit you didn't bother to check up on, you microcephalic ignoramus: would it surprise you to know that we, ourselves, have at least nine senses? That's three more than you're claiming! Of course, we'll come clean and admit that you have at least nine senses, too, because all humans do. The quacks and fucking charlatans who go on and on about the "sixth sense" seem unable to actually do their homework. For the record, humans most certainly have gustation (what you'd call "taste"), olfaction ("smell"), vision, equilibrioception (for balance and orientation), nociception (awareness of pain), proprioception (awareness of your own physical body), audition ("hearing"), tactition (touch, but only in regard to pressure) and thermoception (the temperature aspect of touch). Add to that our indirect sense of electroception (animals like sharks, electric eels, and platypuses have the real thing, while we get stuff like the hairs on our arms standing up in reaction to static electricity), the possibility of magnetoception (which is present in a variety of birds, insects and bacteria, aiding them greatly in navigation), the three varieties of nocireceptors (cutaneous, somatic, and visceral), internal taction and thermoception, and a host of post-sensory cerebral processes that might perhaps qualify — in your loose sense of the word — as senses themselves...and that's a shitload of senses we've got.

And you're proud of just six? How sad. Perhaps if you'd done your homework, you'd have moved beyond this pathetic line of bullshit by now.

We've been down this road before, you fucking asshat. You'll jump in, pretending to be the good guy, the wise and patient pacifist, and really just throw a few barbs at us disguised (poorly) as "constructive" criticism. Don't think for a moment that we take "offense" at this — our plain anger and disgust are derived from the fact that we're fucking fed up with silly gits like you. It is your arrogant ignorance that irritates us, not your "insight." Your barbs are ineffective, simply because they are incorrect. But we know, we know — you'll "never admit being wrong." As for us, we've done so on many occasions (we'd provide the links, but we've done that before, and it doesn't seem to help people who don't bother to read what we write) — if you can challenge us, and support your assertions, and we believe you've made a strong enough case that we should reconsider our position, we'll gladly admit it. We somehow think that the second step in that plan is going to be the hard part for you.

One more time for the hard-of-thinking: if you espouse an opinion contrary to ours, and you do so in an insulting manner without constructing any actual arguments to support your position (all the while ignoring the arguments that we've provided to support what we are saying), then we will put you down, just as you deserve. If, however, you have an opinion that differs from ours, and you manage to provide some cogent arguments either for your position, or against ours, we will listen to you, analyze your arguments, and respond appropriately. Given your complete lack of arguments, Anonymous, and your total inability to address our points, it should be easy to tell which bucket you fall into. You fucking idiot.

So to the skeptics here: - don't be so narrow minded and please give the benefit of doubt - don't believe what anyone else says, but research for yourself using the right mindset you have.

The benefit of the doubt? Let's be clear about this, you atavistic asshole. Decades (in many cases, centuries or more) of scientific study have repeatedly failed to provide any supporting evidence for the paranormal, and almost invariably offer strong evidence for non-paranormal explanations for the phenomena in question. So by "give the benefit of the doubt," you mean to say that, upon hearing yet another fantastic claim, we should set aside millennia of accumulated knowledge and just say "Hey, that same old bullshit with a new coat of paint makes perfect sense"? Is that where you're going with this? Please do shut the fuck up.

Here's our advice to you: don't be so "open-minded" that you accept every claim that you hear. If you don't apply critical thinking — which is supported by the twin pillars of logic and skepticism — then you'll fall prey to every scam and con that comes down the pike, from Nigerian e-mail hoaxes to the stage magic of Lance Burton (we'll always remember him).

We'll agree with you on one thing, though: the believers should really try to be more articulate. As we've explained in previous exchanges, poorly written verbiage does not necessarily indicate poor cognitive abilities...but it's definitely a warning sign, and we more warily scrutinize the arguments in badly written copy, just in case. It's a source of constant fascination to us that the "believers" almost invariably turn in the most shoddily written responses to our writing.

While being articulate is certainly a plus, though, we value even more the ability to construct a rational, cogent argument — either against our assertions, or in support of your own. However, we've long since accepted the fact that no True Believers we've encountered have any rational reasoning behind their bullshit claims and assertions, so we'd suggest at least making it look good. Don't you folks remember your high school English classes? You get graded for presentation and content. Since your content is bunk, at least aim for a B+ on your presentation, would you?



Bronze Dog, 2007.10.08 (Mon) 15:53 [Link] »

I think anonny's self-pitying angst stems from skeptic envy. We've been constantly expanding and expanding our worldview for centuries, readily taking in what was originally deemed absurd until the critical evidence came in. He envies our flexibility, versatility, and boundless imagination. In spite, he passive-aggressively lashes out by projecting his bleak, claustrophobic worldview onto us.

To deal with the cognitive dissonance that results from denigrating what is, in reality, his own point of view, he buys into any weird fantasy in a new coat of paint, convinces himself it isn't old hat, and pretends it's a new innovation we can't understand.

When confronted with our efforts to understand, he bolsters his enormous, but fragile, ego by creating an elitist organization of similarly closed-minded ivory tower individuals, claiming that our lack of membership is a sign of our alleged, innate inferiority, providing a convenient excuse for him to wallow in his sloth, rather than engage in real science using real phenomena to change the world for the better.

Such individuals are often violently opposed to the idea that the verifiable, material world is capable of producing new, previously unknown wonders, and thus transparently try to claim anything unusual, whether genuinely unexplained, or occasional improbable events occurring within the expected bounds of the laws of probability.

This leads to a chronically unfulfilled state as he must reject everything new, even though he desires to find or create new things, but is unwilling to put forth any effort to verify the existence of the claimed phenomena.

Prognosis: Not good.

[/Not entirely serious]



Charlene Dewbre, 2007.10.08 (Mon) 21:48 [Link] »

TPC - it's not that I don't appreciate a good balls-to-the-wall telling it like it is, but really, you're preaching to the choir.

Kierkegaard could tell you - faith is its own animal and you can't logic people out of it. Dr. Andrew Newberg, neuroscientist and author of "Why We Believe What We Believe," (okay, he's creating his own science - neurotheology - and selling books - isn't everyone?) says that humans are basically hardwired to believe. These people may be unable to step out of their particular brain groove.

I think there's intrinsic value in our belief systems, though. I don't mind the questions. We don't understand much of anything. Science makes some wonderful assumptions and we've spent about a millenia trying to prove things. It's nice when we can. Science is another kind of faith. We just ask tidyier questions and start out with "Okay, this might be wrong. Let's check"

So if I have a little room in my philosophy for so-called psychic phenomena, I can't say I appreciate being called an idiot for it. Anymore than you might enjoy being called asshats for being determined naysayers.

Mind you, I do think Allison Dubois and her ilk are terrible bottom feeders. no better than your average Jerry Springer or Dr. Phil.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.10.09 (Tue) 11:38 [Link] »

Some of your points, Charlene, are well taken. We're aware that it's quite tricky to logic people out of their faith — but at the most basic level, what we're asking is that the "faithful," those who believe things without any supporting evidence (or contrary to the available evidence), just stop pretending that they arrived at their positions by logic. If they want to figure out what it is that annoys us, they need look no further than that.

If they can get beyond that level, and start actually questioning their faith, that's a welcome bonus that we'll gladly embrace.

But let's keep in mind that not everyone who subscribes to a faith-based belief system is beyond the influence of logic and reason. We've come across more than a few people who simply hadn't ever been exposed to the facts that sit on the opposite side of the woo debate; once they had some exposure to those facts, they began to question their previously held beliefs. Just because someone believes the claims of a predator like Allison DuBois, it doesn't follow that they can't ever change their position once they've been informed of a few simple, verifiable facts and some sound reasoning. Otherwise, we wouldn't even bother with what we do here.

There is certainly plenty of research into the hardwiring of blind faith into human beings. Our own take on it incorporates a fact that seems to explain a lot of inscrutable modern human behavior — we're descended from pack animals, who needed to cooperate and endure a strict social hierarchy and carefully constructed social compact in order to survive. Survival has gotten so easy at this point, with science and technology (not psychics or homeopathy, incidentally) extending and improving our lives, that a lot of those old habits are floundering to find a niche...and silly belief systems with illogical and inconsistent rules seem to be the answer for most people.

Sure, there may be value in such belief systems: comfort, social awareness, community, even charity. Of course, we'd like to think it's possible to acquire all of these things without jumping on the woo or religious bandwagon. Actually, we know it's possible — because we did it, and we're by no means unique or "special," as far as we can tell.

And we're not sure where, exactly, we called you an idiot for having "room in [your] philosophy for so-called psychic phenomena" — though if you think we did, that would explain your subsequent lash back in calling us "determined naysayers." Which we're not — we only "naysay" those things which we're damn confident are utter bullshit, and the crap that seems to get thrown at us on a weekly basis firmly qualifies. If we were determined naysayers, we'd be every bit as ignorant as the woos whom we routinely call idiots — locked into their tiny worldview which, only because it isn't "mainstream," convinces them that they're "open-minded." On the contrary, however, we absolutely adore incredible and unusual scientific findings, and think it's utterly fucking cool when something supported by evidence flies in the face of the data we've already learned, or appears expressly counterintuitive. It's really neat!

However, having "room" in your philosophy for things which haven't got any supporting evidence yet doesn't make you an idiot — grabbing onto such things with both hands and devouring them whole is the idiocy we can't stand. As we've pointed out in the past, we're "open" to the idea of psychic phenomena if and only if someone comes along with some solid, replicable evidence — but it's the same for any phenomenon. Until then, though, we're going to point back at the millennia of failed results and faulty (or lacking) evidence, and remain confident that if any such stuff is going on, it's not remotely related to what the terribly unimaginative woos have conceived of so far. Sorry, there's just a point at which we have to accept the overwhelming lack of evidence, accompanied by supporting evidence for much more mundane explanations, and close off that avenue pending further data. We've yet to see any new data...and it's, well, been a while.

One last thing, though: really, honestly, don't try the "science is another kind of faith" thing. We don't appreciate that, because it's just silly and wrong. The thing about faith is that it relies on belief without any supporting evidence. Not only does the scientific method demand evidence before belief (or, more accurately, validation) when it comes to new observations and hypotheses, but belief in the scientific method itself is based on evidence: the countless number of times it has come through for us, not only in yielding a more clear and concise picture of the universe in which we live, but in granting us incredible benefits like leaps in medical science, new forms of transportation and communication, new tools for work and play, and more. We don't have "faith" in science — we have confidence in science, based on a cornucopia of evidence and successful results that strongly suggest it works. So go ahead and refer to science as one approach to life and faith-based beliefs as another, but please don't make the mistake of calling science a "faith." There may be those who have faith in science — because they haven't done enough of their own legwork, and simply assume it works — but there are also plenty of folks, including us, who know damn well how and how well it works, and don't need to just blindly believe it will; in other words, you can have faith in science, but science is not faith.

We share with you that "little room" in our philosophy for interesting and outlandish ideas. We just demand some kind of evidence before we'll agree that it's a fruitful line of inquiry (we don't know you yet, and won't presume to declare whether you share this requirement or not). What's more, we've yet to see any useful results from the typical woo ideas for thousands of years. After a while, you just lose confidence that there ever will be, you know?

Thanks for the reference to Newberg, by the way — we'll look into his work when we get a chance.



Charlene Dewbre, 2007.10.11 (Thu) 10:53 [Link] »

TPC - Can't tell you how refreshing it is to have civilized debate! I love it!

Fair point on Science as faith. It's a semantics issue, but a good one. I'm not much of a believer in anything. (Religion et al.) So, given what you say above, I would agree that I share confidence in the scientific method.

For the record, I wasn't calling you guys asshats. *grin* I was just illustrating the point, which you got, so it drops.

When it comes to evidence for a fruitful line of inquiry: I think there have been enough documented anomalies to have the question mark.

I think of it anthropologically - I hate making unsubstantiated statements, but I can't find the reference at the moment - that there is some feeling in the field that some of these 'abilities' are related to heightened sensory awareness that humankind needed aeons ago. Very much like animals aren't psychic, but can, in some cases, sense subtle shifts in their environment and get out of the way of earthquakes.

Here's the thing. Once day, I'm talking to my aunt and out of the blue, I say "Tell Ed to watch out for his left foot tomorrow." (Ed's my uncle.) And, as per the cliche, my uncle, a computer programmer, had computer dropped on his left foot and broke some toes the next day. Do I think I'm psychic? Absolutely fucking no. It was an interesting coincidence - interesting only because I am not in the habit of telling my relatives to watch out for specific body parts. Now, my aunt drove me nuts for months because *she* thought I was.

Where it gets fun, is seeing examples in your own life of how easily this stuff can be debunked. My best friend and I are extremely well attuned. This is positively unintentional cold reading at its best. No one will let us play Trivial Pursuit, or Pictionary, any game like that as partners. We're scary good. We don't pretend it's anything but knowing each other extremely well, but to other people it looks like we read each other's mind.

So, undocumented and unrepeatable as it may be, I have reasons either way to ask the question. I classify myself as an informed skeptic. Right now, I think of 'phenomena' like pre- or post-cognition as something like a genius-level of the senses. Some people, for whatever reason, get extra data from their environment. It would be really cool to see some scientific study bear that out.



Bronze Dog, 2007.10.11 (Thu) 11:08 [Link] »
Right now, I think of 'phenomena' like pre- or post-cognition as something like a genius-level of the senses. Some people, for whatever reason, get extra data from their environment. It would be really cool to see some scientific study bear that out.

Yup. Abnormally acute mundane senses are just one possible explanation among many. Intuition (the real kind, not the woo euphemism for psychic powers) is another. Confirmation bias, cryptomnesia, and so on cover more.

One note: I'm not terribly sure about animals' reputation for spotting earthquakes. Mostly, I've only seen anecdotes of animals acting weird beforehand, but somewhere, there's always some animals acting weird.



Charlene Dewbre, 2007.10.11 (Thu) 12:46 [Link] »

Hey Bronze Dog,

Just as an FYI - there's a biologist studying the animal-sensing theory. Rupert Sheldrake wrote Dogs that Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home.

I learned about him through a National Geographic article on the subject ("Can Animals Sense Earthquakes?" Nov. 2003). They've had some repeatable results, and some false alarms. But you're right, the USGS studies were inconclusive and they state that previous evidence is largely anecdotal.

I don't know how in-depth the studies were for Charlotte King, but I do know she made some startling predictions about seismological events. The 'scientists and doctors' who tested her said something about her being able to hear in extremely low ranges and was extraordinarily sensitive to electromagnetic fluctuations. Again, I never looked into the studies, so I can't attest to their strength. You may remember Charlotte King as the woman who accurately predicted the eruption of Mount St. Helens (it's well documented.)

So, I think there's some support for the idea.



Aussie Girl, 2007.10.12 (Fri) 06:07 [Link] »

I love the show medium and I went out and got Allison's book-Don't kiss them goodbye.I thought it was a load of crap.It was a bit over the top.I think everybody has the ability to tune into certain things.I had my father come to me in a dream after he died to tell me a family member was going to rip me off from the money he left to me and other family members,in the dream I wouldn't believe my dad telling him no way it won't happen.Well it did.Occasionly I get a feeling something will happen and it does.Or a gut feeling something isn't right,everyone at some point in their life has some experience of this happening.I think these people who claim to know things and profit from it are scumbags especially profiting from someones death.I still watch medium but don't think much of the real Allison Dubois.



Bronze Dog, 2007.10.12 (Fri) 15:02 [Link] »

And here's a question that woos like to run away from: What about all those gut feelings that didn't come out right?

Additionally, how do you know you remembered the dream perfectly? Human memory is fallible. In one case, someone dreamed of his friend getting into a fatal car accident. He remembered that dream happening the night before.

What happened: He kept a log of his memorable dreams. It turns out he had the dream, not the night before the accident, but the night before the funeral, after he had known about the accident!

It's stuff like that that should bring one detail inherently arrogant woos never bother to think about: They're fallible human beings! Memory is not perfect and objective. It changes every time we use it, especially during times of emotional distress.

Instead, the typical woo is more convinced of his utter perfection than he is of the basic failings of biological beings.

Sorry if I'm in a foul mood. Lots of woo thuggery going on.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.10.13 (Sat) 15:59 [Link] »

Note that we didn't have any problem being called "asshats," Charlene — it was the "determined naysayers" bit that we objected to. We also didn't really think that you were actually calling us asshats anyway, so no worries.

And while we appreciate the "Semantics!" warning (we're always up for semantics), we feel we should point out why we delve into such issues. You see, the True Believers so often co-opt words to mean what they want them to mean ("resonance," "vibration," "dimension," "quantum," and so many others) when they really don't understand how the words are used in their original context at all. To us, it's important that we all understand how language is being used — otherwise, communication would be incredibly difficult.

Note that we're not indicating that we (the Two Percent Company) get to dictate what words mean; language grows and develops over time, through common usage. But therefore, when we hear a word like "faith," we think of it in terms of how that word is commonly used by the general population right now. These days, "faith-based belief" is any worldview that is derived solely from an emotional, personal standpoint, often inherited from or instilled by previous believers, without the benefit of study, research or evidence. (Most of those who hold such beliefs wouldn't define them as such, but the statements they make about their beliefs do define them as such.) So, as the word is generally understood, calling science "faith" just wouldn't be correct — that's why we clarify the context, and swap in the word "confidence," which is much more accurate (in the way that the word is commonly understood today).

As a great example, we cringe — albeit just slightly — at your use of the word "attuned." While you're perfectly correct to use it, and its official, literal definition applies quite appropriately to the context in which you use it, that kind of word is so often misappropriated by the woos that it makes us twitch momentarily and give it a second reading, to make sure of the context. (In other words, it's a warning flag, even if it turns out — as in your case — that nothing is amiss.)

Now, we agree — good friends, including our own group, really are so well attuned that it almost seems psychic in nature at times! (Nobody likes playing Pictionary or — even worse — Taboo with us. It's no fun playing a "keyword" game with a guy who can say taco to his teammate, and get the correct response of space station.) But a natural affinity for another person (which is why you remain friends in the first place) and years (in our case, decades!) of common experiences just tend do that — as we think you agree, there's nothing paranormal going on there at all.

And, of course, your story about Uncle Ed's left foot is anecdotal, and incredibly easy to call "subjective validation" on (or any of a number of other simpler explanations, as you rightly pointed out). The problem we see is that we really don't think there have been many "documented anomalies." There have been reported anomalies, but that's a very different beast. The funny bit is that, historically, when "reported" anomalies actually are thoroughly investigated and documented, the explanation invariably turns up as quite mundane, and such anomalies are quickly forgotten or absorbed into the standard body of scientific knowledge...never to be thought of as anomalies again. So, though certainly not "by definition," it seems that any "documented" anomaly ends up not being an anomaly at all.

Bronze Dog (as he so often does) hits the nail right on the head with his karate fist and drives it into Mister Miyagi's two-by-four: there are so many perfectly accurate mundane explanations for these things that it seems silly to reach for something supermagical about them. For instance, it's very true that some people — for whatever reason — get "extra" data from their environment. That reason, though, is that they're just more perceptive. They (as we constantly advise the children in our lives) pay attention to what's going on around them, and — since so many people in this world get by on "autopilot" — they then seem to magically know things that nobody else caught. (Jeff dated a girl who swore he was psychic — but she didn't take into account her incredibly expressive face and body language.) There's nothing "paranormal" about it, though it is, apparently, special, since not everyone bothers to do it (watch an episode or two of Psych for a good example of what we're talking about).

As for Charlotte King...well, we're not especially convinced. Don't misunderstand us here — we have no problem with the notion that someone can hear beyond the typical range of human hearing, and if that's the claim that was properly tested and soundly validated, then we see no need to argue the point. However, it's a long leap from hearing low frequency sounds to predicting the time, strength, and location of earthquakes and other geological events all over the globe. If that is Charlotte's claim, then our starting position would have to be "bullshit" until we've seen a lot more substantial evidence.

Quite frankly, there's a lot of "story" going on over at her website, but even if it weren't for phrases like "she found that sometimes the sound had a vibrational quality" (uh...sound is a vibration, Charlotte), nothing seems very well substantiated. Her list of Testing & References might be something to check into, or may be the usual silliness of the Dean Radin or Gary Schwartz variety. For us, though, the "discouraging" bit comes when Charlotte asks for money in exchange for providing her "warnings" about earthquakes and eruptions. Folks — if we had access to information that could save lives on a daily (or weekly, monthly, whatever) basis, and didn't have to do terribly much to obtain it (like, for instance, just listening), we'd fucking hand it out for free. There are plenty of free webspace deals and webmail accounts available that we could use to disseminate such valuable information. Seriously: if you were passing by a family of four in a car on fire, and you happened to be carrying a fire extinguisher, would you casually ask for a sawbuck first?

As we said, we have no difficulty believing that certain individuals can perceive sounds outside of the typical frequency range of human hearing (that's why it's "typical" instead of "exact"), and infrasonic indicators of imminent seismic activity seem pretty well supported by the research. But Charlotte's site reads like every other woo site we've encountered, from the humble beginnings, to the long history of anecdotes, to the list of people who have "tested" her and believe in her abilities, to the sales pitch, to the promise that maybe, just maybe, you might be special, too. Sorry, but when we read something like this:

If you walk into a room and bump into furniture or you go to pour some juice and miss the glass, or go to put sugar in your tea and end up with sugar on the table, you may be clumsy, or you may be a potential biological sensitive..

If you go to pick up your car keys or a book and drop it, and pick it up again and again it slips through your fingers, these are all symptoms of problems being caused by depth perception, which is affected by the EMF changes your body is responding to..

...all we can wonder is how desperate to feel special someone has to be, that they'll assume that such common incidents which practically define "being human" are an indication that they have some special and/or unique ability. (We also wonder if they might need some Arnica Montana.)

We know it's tricky, and some may even find it impossible, but if everyone could just feel special about themselves for what and who they are, maybe less folks would fall for this kind of crap. Ugh. End of feel-good, inspiring, pre-1988 Phil-Donahue moment.

Do dogs know when their humans are coming home? In our experience, yeah, they seem to get the hint earlier than the other humans in the house. Of course, dogs have far superior hearing to ours, and even their sense of smell (so much better than ours it's not even fair to compare) might be helping out there. The simple fact is that what humans consider normal sensory capacity is merely normal human sensory capacity. We're such chauvinists, really. Different species have wildly varying capabilities when it comes to sensory perception. To expand on the sensory information we provided to Anonymous, above, there are animals who can sense phenomena that we're not even naturally aware of to any degree (different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum come to mind — like infrared).

None of this means, though, that animals or humans are gaining insight in any "supernatural" way. Perhaps some animals are picking up on pre-seismic cues; perhaps not. In the end, we really fall back on Bronze Dog's assessment: there's always some animals acting weird. Just remember: humans are animals.

Aussie Girl: we're glad you can see through Allison DuBois' line of bullshit, and we have absolutely no problem with your love of the show Medium. Entertainment preferences are personal and fun, and don't have to be supported by evidence! We hope, though, that you understand how easily your dream — and, indeed, any similar incidents — can be explained with run-of-the-mill stuff like coincidence, or simply being aware of subtle signs without consciously noticing them; for example, perhaps you absently noticed some suspicious remarks or actions on the part of that one nefarious family member, but didn't actively think about them. Such observations were mulled over in your mind, and popped up in your dream, introduced by a dream character you would trust (i.e., your recently deceased father).

We're not declaring what actually happened — we're merely offering a single hypothesis that would probably explain the observation much more easily. Even if Bronze Dog seemed grumpy (we didn't think so), he's giving you some helpful points to mull over; most especially, the inevitable and ubiquitous fallibility of human memory and perception. Doesn't that seem like a far more likely explanation than something "magical" which has never shown any reliable, consistent sign of its existence?

Many people misunderstand the structure and intent of Occam's Razor, but it's really quite simple: if you can explain something without adding new and unsubstantiated information (such as "psychic abilities exist"), you're probably much closer to what's really going on. The computer programmer's mantra of KISS (which stands for "keep it simple, stupid") is good advice for all of us.



Charlene Dewbre, 2007.10.13 (Sat) 23:23 [Link] »

I tend to agree on the Charlotte King thing. I hadn't ever checked out her website - but if I could predict natural disasters with a headache, then I'd damn sure spread the word for free.

Actually, at the heart of things, that's where you guys started this entire discussion: opportunism. It sucks balls.

If you have no morals you don't mind grifting the last 30 bucks of an elderly person's allotment. You don't mind telling a passel of believers that you need 8 million dollars or God's gonna get you, and you don't mind telling a grief-stricken mom that for 20 bucks and the price of a long distance phone call you can tell them that their dead kid said hi. It's just evil, and has nothing much at all to do with scientific validation.

As I'm fond of telling my friends, i don't need fairy tales. Life is pretty damn cool and when it's done I expect to decompose quietly and not spend time hanging around in the closet banging the hangers together.



TimmyAnn, 2007.10.14 (Sun) 03:42 [Link] »

Oh, wow, as I was reading that part about some people just being more observant, I was thinking "Like on that show Psych!" Then you mentioned it! I must be psychic....oh, wait.......



Aussie Girl, 2007.10.14 (Sun) 19:25 [Link] »

Thanks for your reply to my comment guys.I just came across a Mad TV send up of the show Medium on You Tube,very funny indeed.



Amie, 2007.10.20 (Sat) 12:26 [Link] »

I'm still "on the fence" regarding mediums and all that they promise. I don't insist that every person who claims to be a medium necessarily is one; nor do I immediately assume that they are full of it. While I am a fan of the show "Medium", I have never really thought too much about the "real" Allison Dubois. That is, until recently. While at my local library, as I searched the shelves for books about angels, I came across two books written by Allison. Out of curiousity, I checked them both out. I love studying and exploring different aspects of spirituality (which is why I was in that particular section to begin with). In the last couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to read both of these books, and have come up with my own conclusions. Do I believe in Allison Dubois as the "Super Psychic" that us readers are being asked to believe in? Not necissarily. Do I think she is a quack who is using other's personal (and terrible) losses for her own gain? I'm not really sure. I honestly don't have an opinion that is true enough to me that I would sit and argue with anyone about it. I don't feel very strongly in either direction. Here's what I did notice in her books, though; no matter the situation surrounding a person's loss in her books, the thing that I did notice is that every one of the people who contributed to Allison's books did so because she was able to give these people some sort of peace and closure during her conversations or readings with them. Maybe Allison was "full of shit", I don't know, but as someone who has personally experienced a terrible loss in my life, as I'm sure you have too, I can understand people's need to feel like their loved ones really are still very much here, experiencing our joys and sorrows with us.
So, again, I'm not sure whether any of what Mrs. Dubois claims is true or not, but in the end, if she can make even one mother feel closer to her deceased child, or one husband feel closer to his deceased wife, then whats wrong with that? Sometimes our grief can be so heavy that we will take what we can to help us to feel better, even if it means "bending" what some psychic says to better fit what it is that you need to hear. I just feel like that is the most important thing, that someone can find some sort of closure and assurance that they are not alone; especially when they feel like they are the only one in the world to ever feel such deep sadness.



Amie, 2007.10.20 (Sat) 12:26 [Link] »

I'm still "on the fence" regarding mediums and all that they promise. I don't insist that every person who claims to be a medium necessarily is one; nor do I immediately assume that they are full of it. While I am a fan of the show "Medium", I have never really thought too much about the "real" Allison Dubois. That is, until recently. While at my local library, as I searched the shelves for books about angels, I came across two books written by Allison. Out of curiousity, I checked them both out. I love studying and exploring different aspects of spirituality (which is why I was in that particular section to begin with). In the last couple of weeks I have had the opportunity to read both of these books, and have come up with my own conclusions. Do I believe in Allison Dubois as the "Super Psychic" that us readers are being asked to believe in? Not necissarily. Do I think she is a quack who is using other's personal (and terrible) losses for her own gain? I'm not really sure. I honestly don't have an opinion that is true enough to me that I would sit and argue with anyone about it. I don't feel very strongly in either direction. Here's what I did notice in her books, though; no matter the situation surrounding a person's loss in her books, the thing that I did notice is that every one of the people who contributed to Allison's books did so because she was able to give these people some sort of peace and closure during her conversations or readings with them. Maybe Allison was "full of shit", I don't know, but as someone who has personally experienced a terrible loss in my life, as I'm sure you have too, I can understand people's need to feel like their loved ones really are still very much here, experiencing our joys and sorrows with us.
So, again, I'm not sure whether any of what Mrs. Dubois claims is true or not, but in the end, if she can make even one mother feel closer to her deceased child, or one husband feel closer to his deceased wife, then whats wrong with that? Sometimes our grief can be so heavy that we will take what we can to help us to feel better, even if it means "bending" what some psychic says to better fit what it is that you need to hear. I just feel like that is the most important thing, that someone can find some sort of closure and assurance that they are not alone; especially when they feel like they are the only one in the world to ever feel such deep sadness.



Bronze Dog, 2007.10.20 (Sat) 17:43 [Link] »
So, again, I'm not sure whether any of what Mrs. Dubois claims is true or not, but in the end, if she can make even one mother feel closer to her deceased child, or one husband feel closer to his deceased wife, then whats wrong with that?

The big problem is that when you rely on people who can't honestly prove their abilities under circumstances that prevent cheating, you're essentially handing your memories of that person over to be manipulated. Although some people get the illusion of closure, others are cruelly forced into giving up hope, or pursuing a false hope that maintains the stress of constant searching.

Sylvia Browne, for example, told Sean Hornbeck's parents that he was dead. He was found alive and well, later. If they had trusted Sylvia, they would have given up their hope.

In other cases, psychics would have people searching for the missing dead for years under the false hope that they were alive. Sylvia Browne, for another example, had parents believing their missing child was sold into white slavery in a nonexistent Japanese city.

That's why I don't trust people who tell comforting lies. They can cause far more harm than good. Why have false hope, when you can search the truth for potential real hope? If something's wrong in the world, knowing the truth behind the problem is the first step towards solving it.

[This comment was edited to correct the Stop Sylvia Browne site links, after fuckhole vulture Boris Kreiman stole the original domain from Robert Lancaster. — The Management.]



The Two Percent Company, 2007.10.20 (Sat) 22:03 [Link] »

Amie, your experiences, feelings, thoughts and opinions are perfectly valid. We wouldn't suggest otherwise. While we disagree with your conclusions based on the available evidence, it's up to you to decide what you believe (just as it is up to us to decide what we believe).

So there isn't much for us to address in the first portion of your comment. What we will address, however, is this part:

...in the end, if she can make even one mother feel closer to her deceased child, or one husband feel closer to his deceased wife, then whats wrong with that?

Since BD already pointed out what is often so harmful about the bullshit that these make-believe psychics spew, we'll skip that part of the answer. Instead, we'll focus only on what's wrong when people like Allison limit their predictions to "feel good" messages from those who we all know to be deceased. And trust us, there's still plenty wrong in that scenario.

In fact, to us, the answer to your question is obvious: she's charging people ridiculous amounts of money for it — that's what's wrong. She has no clinical training, she makes shit up (whether her victims "feel" it's true or not), and she provides information with no basis whatsoever in reality. If life after death was supported by evidence...and communication with those in the afterlife was supported by evidence...and Allison's own ability to engage in this were supported by evidence...then we'd be obligated to evaluate the evidence and, perhaps, reassess our position. But none of these things are supported by evidence: they are vague, unsubstantiated claims which have never been properly tested under controlled conditions, and certainly not where Allison is concerned.

But in the end, evidence or no, we actually find ourselves going right back to what we just said about Charlotte King (above, in response to Charlene). To quote ourselves:

For us, though, the "discouraging" bit comes when Charlotte asks for money in exchange for providing her "warnings" about earthquakes and eruptions. Folks — if we had access to information that could save lives on a daily (or weekly, monthly, whatever) basis, and didn't have to do terribly much to obtain it (like, for instance, just listening), we'd fucking hand it out for free. There are plenty of free webspace deals and webmail accounts available that we could use to disseminate such valuable information. Seriously: if you were passing by a family of four in a car on fire, and you happened to be carrying a fire extinguisher, would you casually ask for a sawbuck first?

The same principle holds true with Allison. By Allison's own admission, she needs no training, practice, or — in fact — much of anything in the way of resources in order to perform her "job." She also claims to help people. When we help people — especially when it's only in terms of emotional support or advice, and especially when it doesn't take much for us to do it — we don't fucking charge people money for it. It's really that simple.

In addition, we can't help but point out that, in our opinion, the type of closure that Allison provides — namely, the made-up pretend kind — is worse than no closure at all. To us, having someone who didn't know our deceased friend or relation make up messages from them after they are gone is insulting, hurtful, and infuriating. Instead of having a cunt like DuBois fuck with our actual memories of someone we loved, we'd rather keep those memories intact, and unvarnished.

Hey, if we could vote on whether we'd like there to be some kind of life after death, we'd vote "yes" in a heartbeat! Only the woos and religiosos seem to think that we "hard-hearted skeptics" don't want the fantastic to be true. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a belief, and all the pretend "messages from beyond" can't change that. Rather than being fooled, and/or fooling ourselves, we'll stick with reality — even if it is sometimes painful. Anything else would just seem hollow and empty.

There are a number of ways to get closure, comfort and support that do not involve paying a sack of shit like Allison DuBois a small fortune. We suggest...oh, perhaps...family and friends? The idea that one needs to turn to a total stranger for emotional succor — and pay her for it — is just as outlandish, to us, as the idea that you must lean on a magical superfairy in the sky when you fall on hard times. Family and friends know you; they understand you. They can actually identify (very accurately) the circumstance you're in (likely because they're also in it with you, or have been before) without any guesswork or information pumping. And — in contrast to magical sky-daddies — they're actually there to do something, rather than existing abstractly and metaphorically so that you can interpret (after the fact) how they helped you (or didn't). Best of all, the only payment you'll need to render is reciprocation. Help them out the same way you'd want to be helped out.

Doesn't that seem simple?

So, the short answer: if Allison could make even one mother feel closer to her deceased child, or one husband feel closer to his deceased wife, without charging them money, then we'd very likely be a lot easier on her. We'd still think she's full of shit, and her flavor of made-up closure still wouldn't be for us, but she wouldn't be the predator that she is. The fact remains, though, that this bullshit artist wants her fame and fortune — and, judging from the evidence, that's far, far more important to her than actually helping people.



tracey smith, 2007.10.25 (Thu) 06:59 [Link] »

WOW!! i was having a look around the web, an came across this site, i dont know much about allison, only what i have seen on the tv show medium, there seems to be alot of anger out there towards her an after reading alot of what is on here i can see why, i can't imagin why someone who is meant to be so gifted would use the death of someone she new to make money surely she can make more than enough doing readings for people or wrighting about what she does, my heart goes out to the family its a terrible time to lose a loved one, but then to deal with all the shite that has be writen!! i hope this has made them a stronger family....



Bronze Dog, 2007.10.25 (Thu) 22:47 [Link] »

More knowledge is always good, Tracey. If you'd like to read a lot of revealing information about another psychic, I suggest stopping by Stop Sylvia Browne.

Robert Lancaster started that website after essentially destroying the reputation of an alleged 9/11 survivor and self-styled prophet, 'Kaz'... who won't answer questions about contradictions in her story, and according to several witnesses, was in California at the time.

[This comment was edited to correct the Stop Sylvia Browne site links, after fuckhole vulture Boris Kreiman stole the original domain from Robert Lancaster. — The Management.]



Helen, 2007.10.30 (Tue) 13:17 [Link] »

I knew Allison DuBois was a 'real' person and enjoy the show Medium from a purely fantastical aspect; I had no idea the extent of her 'work' or that there were so many fans/anti-fans. I believe some so called mediums believe in what they do; I can't criticise them as I don't live inside their head however I do think mental illness may have a part to play as many of these folk appear to have had some kind of traumatic childhood or 'event' which 'woke up' their abilities. In these cases, I have understanding and sympathy but not belief. I don't know enough about Ms. DuBois but I suspect that, although originally believed/believes she had some kind of ability, has allowed herself to be manipulated by her publishers/agents especially when faced with such 'evidence' as inaccurate accounts of friend's deaths. From the little I've seen, I think she probably still believes she has some kind of ability but knows that she has cashed in and this in itself would lead to her appearing defensive and bitchy. I would hope...and I know you'll disagree with me....that she is a good person, doing what she thinks is right for her and her family without realising the far reaching consequences of her actions. I am not a believer but am open to proof; I don't hate Allison DuBois, I don't know her however from what I've read...and who am I to validate the accuracy of that...she is blinkered and ignorant rather than anything else.



The Two Percent Company, 2007.11.02 (Fri) 11:33 [Link] »
I would hope...and I know you'll disagree with me....that she is a good person, doing what she thinks is right for her and her family without realising the far reaching consequences of her actions.

We appreciate your comment, Helen — and we'd like to point out that, while you're correct that we disagree that Allison is a particularly good person, we do still share with you the hope that she might be...in fact, the hope that anyone might be a good person.

With so much bullshit and deceit in the world, our Two Percent personae seem to spend much (if not most) of our time calling it out, trying to expose it for what it is. That is, after all, the intended purpose of our website. But too many of the credulous and self-deceived, fingers in their ears, enjoy pretending that this means we are "negative" people, habitual naysayers who will attack anything and everything simply for the joy of doing so.

Jeff had a friend back in college whose argumentative style always confused Jeff — while carefully reasoned and well delivered in each individual argument, as a whole, this man's apparent belief system was filled with contradictions and holes. When Jeff confronted him about it, his friend admitted that he rarely believed in anything he argued for — he just enjoyed the debate so much that he would deliberately pick a contrary position to his opponent just so he could have fun participating.

Jeff isn't friends with that guy anymore.

You see, no matter what any unskeptical reader may believe, an examination of our website and our writing will confirm that we have very specific views of the world, and these views are extremely consistent across the board. We will never argue a position just for the sake of arguing it — which is why we feel so confident in our views, supported by a consistent and rational framework derived from evidence and critical thinking.

Like you, Helen, we are open to proof — and also like you (judging by your writing), we require certain standards for that proof. We also agree with you that, for many of these so-called psychics, your hypothesis alluding to mental illness may be right on the money. In Allison's case, though, we've just seen too much, too often, to come to any other conclusion than that she is a piece of human garbage, solely out for her own glory and satisfaction. The proof we were open to came in, in spades, over the last few years...and that's just the direction it leads.

Do we hate Allison? Sure do. In the same fashion (though not necessarily the same degree) that we hate rude and reckless motorists, abusive parents, serial killers, and lying politicians who divert our country's attention from real problems in order to accomplish their own agenda. (Those may be in a particular order...or not. We're not telling.) Despite the feel-good aphorisms of religion (out to control the masses) and quackery (out to deceive the masses) and woo (out to escape the masses), hate and anger and a plethora of other "negative" emotions are by no means a bad thing. Like any other psychological reaction in our little primate brains, they serve legitimate purposes, and help us form our world views, influencing what we do, what we think, and who we are.

We understand — and even sympathize with — Jesus' "turn the other cheek" sentiment, and we get where the "love your enemy" crowd is coming from. We just can't agree. Part of this may be the black-and-white thinking that is so blatantly on display even in just these two phrases ("other" cheek implies only two cheeks; "enemy" seems to split the entire world into enemies or friends). We see too many degrees between the polar opposites to subscribe to such simplistic and realistically impracticable methods. Some people deserve our disgust; some deserve our rancor; some deserve outspoken verbal attacks; and some (though we do have pretty high standards on this one) deserve actual physical violence. (No, we don't feel that Allison qualifies for that last one by the way.) These are emotional reactions that we feel, sure; but they are derived from a consistent and rational application of our world view to the circumstances at hand.

Does Allison believe in her abilities? Maybe. To us, that's a moot question at this point in the game. Whether she believes she can talk with dead people or not, she has been taking advantage of people for at least this entire millennium to date, and she makes no apologies for it. She squeezes everything she can out of the wounded victims she latches onto, and discards them when she can get nothing more. She is arrogant about her unproven abilities; she is obnoxious about the lies she has clearly been called out on; and she is haughty towards the detractors she has never adequately responded to (because she is unable to validate any of her claims, obviously).

Maybe she's mentally ill; maybe she does hear voices. We ourselves have had personal experience with the mentally ill (and schizophrenia specifically), however, and mental illness itself in no way determines how one reacts to it. An asshole who happens to have a mental illness isn't any less an asshole; just as a wonderfully pleasant altruist who happens to have a mental illness isn't any less wonderful. Mental illness is an explanation for certain behaviors a person exhibits, and can even be an excuse for specific actions. But the ongoing campaign of quite coherent meanness that Allison has waged can't be brushed off with a reference to mental illness. Whether or not she hears voices — and even if they really were the voices of dead people — she's still quite an opportunistic, avaricious asshole, and that is what rouses our ire.

Thanks for writing, Helen. And we think we're going to start taking the term "anti-fan" for our own future use. At least where Allison is concerned.



Helen, 2007.11.05 (Mon) 18:15 [Link] »

Good point(s). I'm less on the fence now and more in the middle of the field, shaking a fist.

I give you the term 'anti-fan' as a gift and, in the case of my sudden demise, I bequeath you the term after my death...just incase anyone begs to differ....not pointing any elbows...*pointing an elbow*



Helen, 2007.11.05 (Mon) 18:40 [Link] »

Sorry, just read your article on profanity, so let me rephrase: pointing a fucking elbow.



Sam, 2007.11.08 (Thu) 21:59 [Link] »

Since I am unable to express my feelings any other way, I will result to swearing (of which I am proud despite what you twats clearly think);


OH MY GOD
THIS ARTICLE IS FUCKING RIDICULOUS
BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARGUMENT ARE FUCKING TEDIOUS AND COMPLETELY DELUDED

I've never seen such a hypocritical debate in all my 7 years of juvenile public school debating.

This is just a childish kindergarten fight disguised with big words and smart ass remarks.
Are we fighting for our ego's or for our beliefs?



Bronze Dog, 2007.11.08 (Thu) 22:26 [Link] »

What, too immature to cut through to the content, like all the other woos we bash for not addressing the issues?

Sorry, Sam, but if you can't talk about the issues, join the long line of distracting people who have nothing worthwhile to contribute.

Why don't you try doing something constructive with your life, Sam? We're busy taking down defenders of criminally-minded people who use logical fallacies and magician's tricks to make money off of people's suffering.

But no, you'll just fling around insults without any basis. Very mature, Sam.



Helen, 2007.11.12 (Mon) 12:48 [Link] »

Sam,
I am always amazed at those people who find the time, energy and ability to read through an article of work...and this IS quite a long one...which they then express as "fucking ridiculous". What, all of it? ALL the arguments and content? Can I ask why you kept reading? I pick up a book and after a few pages, if I get bored, I put it down. I may try again, if I have nothing else to read but ultimately, if I don't like it, if it offends me greatly, if it bores me, then I stop reading. I think you actually love this article. You can't get enough of it and right now, you're reading this message with such passion; you want to come through the screen and grab me by the lapels, right? That's good! You see, you don't think it's tedious at all or you would have stopped reading hours ago. You just wanted a little banter. Awww.



tikay, 2007.11.20 (Tue) 04:06 [Link] »

Hey Sam

You might have gotten in over your head on this one, and all your "7 years of juvenile public school debating" isn't going to help you now. 7 years you say? That would make you approximately 12 years old, which explains why you may not know what "hypocritical" means. You did however spell it correctly so I'm going to give you partial credit. Since you are unable to express your feelings any other way and must resort to profanity, has that hindered your elementary school debating career at all? It is good to see that you are proud. Self pride and self confidence are important in the preteen years. Did you even read this rant, Sam? Do you even know who or what we're debating about? If you can reply to my post with the subject of this debate or the name of the person we are debating about I'll be impressed. Can you do that Sam? Can you tear yourself away from your Playstation long enough to read a few paragraphs? Can you switch off Spongebob, throw down some Riddlin and learn something? This twat clearly thinks you are a childish kindergarten fuck disguised with small words and dumb ass comments and if you even manage to find your way back to this rant I'd consider it a miracle.



cynthia richter, 2008.01.08 (Tue) 12:47 [Link] »

You people are all abunch of idiots!



cynthia richter, 2008.01.08 (Tue) 12:47 [Link] »

You people are all abunch of idiots!



cynthia richter, 2008.01.08 (Tue) 12:48 [Link] »

You people are all abunch of idiots!



TimmyAnn, 2008.01.08 (Tue) 16:50 [Link] »

We heard you twice the first time, cynthia, and what a brilliantly crafted, well thought out retort it was, too.



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.09 (Wed) 10:45 [Link] »

Ah, yes, cynthia was the model of maturity and rational, constructive criticism.

My apologies for the exploding sarcasmometers.



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.09 (Wed) 11:43 [Link] »

Aw, go easy on cynthia. Her panties are all abunched.



Daniel, 2008.01.09 (Wed) 18:32 [Link] »

I think alot of people are taking these messages to heart. Each person has their own veiw of Allison and should be respected. Mocking or attempting to belittle someone for their own veiw is shameful. Please stop swearing and have faith in yourself that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Get up, go outside, take a deep breath and do something you enjoy that you've been putting off. 'Cause we're all going to die one day and all we'll have left is the memories our freinds and loved ones have of us. So make them good ones. Good luck.



dikkii, 2008.01.09 (Wed) 21:28 [Link] »

"I" before "E" except after "C", Daniel. But that's just my veiw.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.09 (Wed) 22:02 [Link] »
Each person has their own veiw of Allison and should be respected.

Wrong, dickhead. It's true that each person has their own view of Allison in the same way that it's true to say that each person has their own view of whether the earth is flat. We should respect those who view Allison as a wonderful, gifted snowflake exactly the same as we respect those who think that we live on a flat earth. Which is to say not at all.

Yes, we respect the right of every person to hold their own beliefs, no matter how fucked up or dead wrong those beliefs may be, but that is not the same as respecting the beliefs themselves, or the people who hold them. So you go ahead and respect Allison believers. And flat-earthers, and holocaust deniers, and white supremacists while you're at it. For our part, we'll continue to view them as assholes, and their beliefs as delusional and incorrect (based on all those pesky facts that stack up against them).

Reality is reality, asshole, no matter what you or anyone else "believes." And we will not refrain from laughing at and insulting those who deny reality. Especially if, like Allison and her kind, they are also predatory motherfuckers.

Mocking or attempting to belittle someone for their own veiw is shameful.

No. Saying that we should respect those with flatly incorrect views like those above, and saying that we should turn a blind eye to those who exploit others in times of weakness is shameful. But you're just one more in a long line of abhorrent asshats who don't get that.

Please stop swearing...

Please grow a fucking spine. Or a stiff upper lip, if that would help. And a brain, while you're at it. How about this: please stop telling us to stop swearing. We'd explain why your rebuke is utterly asinine, but then we wouldn't have a reason to provide you with a link to our post on that very subject.

...and have faith in yourself that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

You know, that's usually not something that people feel the need to tell us. Of course, everyone else isn't wrong. You are. Allison DuBois is. Those who believe in her special powers are. But many of the people who've commented here are dead right, just like we are. We know that. But thanks for your concern.

Get up, go outside, take a deep breath and do something you enjoy that you've been putting off.

Well, it's a little rainy out today, but thanks for the advice, dipshit. As we've said more times than we can fucking count (okay, we could count them all, but we're pretty lazy lately), our lives are perfectly happy. Contrary to the popular belief of most woos and asshats who comment here, we don't spend our days and nights grumbling and cursing about Allison DuBois. Jumping to that conclusion simply from reading a few posts about her on our site is just stupid. It would be like us reading your comment, and deciding that you must spend all of your time hunting down and rebuking those who swear at psychic believers. See what we mean? Probably not.

'Cause we're all going to die one day and all we'll have left is the memories our freinds and loved ones have of us. So make them good ones. Good luck.

And here we come to the "does this fuckhead realize what he just said" portion of our reply. Indeed, Daniel, once we are dead, all that our friends and family have left is their cherished memories of us. People like Allison then walk into the picture, and charge our grieving loved ones lots and lots of money for providing the service of shitting all over those actual memories and inserting bullshit, made-up nonsense in their place. For you to realize the importance of these memories, but not the impact that fuckheads like Allison have on them suggests that you're either remarkably obtuse, or staggeringly uncaring.

People like you disgust us, Daniel. Now kindly fuck off.



Tina, 2008.01.09 (Wed) 22:09 [Link] »

I am glad that Allison only allows certain people on her forums. There is so much negativity here....One day you will see her true talents. She is a wonderful person 100%.

Maybe the family is sore at something else that happened....



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.09 (Wed) 22:18 [Link] »

Oh, for fuck's sake, Tina. Go lick Allison's cunt in person and stop pestering us non-idiots, okay? What you refer to as "negativity" we refer to as "reality."

Next time you feel like commenting in a forum that isn't limited to vacuous sheep (as you seem to be saying is the case with Allison's forum, whatever that might be), ask yourself these questions first:

1) Do I have anything constructive to add to the discussion? For example, do I have an argument to rebut a specific point made in the post or in the comments?

2) Have I read and understood the post and the comments, or am I just commenting blindly about how "nice" or "special" someone is without any inkling of backing up my idiotic assertions?

3) Am I adding a new thought to the thread, or am I simply rehashing the same tired crap that has been slapped down over, and over, and over again?

4) Am I too much of a blithering idiot to join in this discussion?

If you had simply asked yourself these questions before posting this comment, Tina, we wouldn't have had to waste seventy-six seconds of our lives responding to you utter crap.

Feel free to live in Allison's Land o' Make Believe, but please don't expect the rest of us to follow you. Twit.



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.10 (Thu) 10:26 [Link] »

Tina said:

I am glad that Allison only allows certain people on her forums. There is so much negativity here....One day you will see her true talents. She is a wonderful person 100%.

Gee, Tina, sounds like you don't believe in public scrutiny. Next step is to go the Society of Homeopaths thuggery / book burning path to silence criticism via frivolous lawsuits. No constructive arguments at all, just "You critics should be silent!" mixed in with praise for an environment where critics are silenced.

And, of course, there's a heaping dose of hypocrisy here: Woos are horrible, nihilistic, bigoted defeatists who don't give a crap about ethics.

Throw in a pathetic appeal to the future: Why don't you show us an existing instance of her talent working, rather than hinting at a future one? I think I know why: That would take effort, and woos want all their stuff to have free passes. No research, just dogma.

It's people like you, Tina, that contribute so much to the bad things in life.



JC, 2008.01.10 (Thu) 13:00 [Link] »

Daniel, you're an asshole.

And thanks to the marvels of time management today I was able to read a philosophy paper, write a few notes for a later critique of it, have lunch with a friend, write a letter to another friend, finish a desk I have been making (although it still needs varnishing) and still make room in the day to insult you for being a halfwit.

Standing up for common sense and logic doesn't preclude having a rich and satisfying life. In fact it helps.



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.10 (Thu) 13:15 [Link] »

As for stuff I enjoy: I play a lot of games (mostly fantasy and sci-fi), write occasional humorous entries on my blog, teach critical thinking where I can, and last night I spent time with my brother playing Portal.

Speaking of unethical human experimentation (which is what GLaDOS, the insane computer in Portal does all day), I try to productively rant against Big Altie on occasion. Alties are more villainous in terms of physical damage done, but psychics like Sylvia Browne and Allison DuBois make up for the difference by twisting emotional knives for their bread money.



Mark, 2008.01.10 (Thu) 15:19 [Link] »

I love Medium purely from a fanatical viewpoint. I did not realize that there is an actual Allison DuBois out there trying to be a "real medium." Hindsight is always 20-20. No true human can predict the future(or they wouldn't need to make money--- they would know where to find money) or talk to the dead(because there would never be any unsolved murders ever).
What I particularly like with the comments on here which I think no one has bothered to address is that the supposed mother of Allison DuBois who commented on here a few times has the same last name as her daughter who is married to Joe DuBois, who also has the same last name.
That means only a few things...
1) Allison's mother changed her name to her daughter's married name so she would have some name recognition.
2) Allison married her brother.
3) Joe changed his last name instead of Allison being the one who changed her last name.

Interesting huh?



TimmyAnn, 2008.01.10 (Thu) 15:51 [Link] »

I'm fairly sure I read before that it was #1.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.10 (Thu) 16:15 [Link] »

The story of Allison's last name is complex and confusing. Yes, Joe did change his name to DuBois. He was born (so it would seem) George Joseph Klupar II. Allison, as far as we can tell, was born Allison Kathryn Gomez (though we can't substantiate her original last name at this time). She legally changed her own name, prior to getting married, to Allison Kathryn DuBois, then changed her name to Klupar upon marrying Joe...er, George.

She traded under the name of Allison Klupar as a "psychic" for a little while before she took DuBois back as a stage name. How do we know that? From an October 7, 2000 RacingOne.com article in which Allison Klupar picks the winners of the then-upcoming Excite 500:

"I instantly saw the sequence of numbers -- two, one, three," said Klupar, "meaning that is the order of finish corresponding to their current position." After more consideration of the situation, here is what Klupar sees as the outcome of the Indy Racing championship.

1) Scott Goodyear -- yellow car wins -- Scott comes into a lot of money on this day.
2) Buddy Lazier -- see him in the background watching -- 2nd place.
3) Eddie Cheever -- I see something unexpected happening on this day.

Of course, these were the three overwhelming favorites to win the race, and the top three points leaders at the time (reference the same article), so this wasn't much of a stretch. In addition, Allison's predictions were only 33% accurate. Yes, Scott Goodyear won the race, but Eddie Cheever came in second, and Buddy Lazier was fourth (Billy Boat took third in that race, despite the fact that the stars and spirits were lined up against him). So it seems that, even then, Allison's track record at fairly straightforward guesswork was utter crap. Some things don't change.

Anyway, it wasn't until early 2006 that the entire family petitioned to have their names legally changed to DuBois. The change was granted on May 4, 2006 by the Maricopa County court. In addition to the DuBois change, George Joseph became Joseph George, and one of their children took the opportunity to rearrange her middle name as well.

As far as Allison's mother, either this wasn't really her (and the imposter was unaware of the history of Allison's last name), or Allison's mom uses her daughter's stage name for her own recognition.



TimmyAnn, 2008.01.10 (Thu) 17:25 [Link] »

Ah, well, then I'm glad I only said "fairly sure" and not "absolutely certain"!



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.10 (Thu) 17:54 [Link] »

Well, technically, #1 and #3 were both correct.



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.11 (Fri) 06:04 [Link] »

*Laughs out loud!!*

You guys are so totally awsome! I simply loved the phrases you folks here at 2% used to squish these intellectually challenged imbeciles (but maybe that is giving them *way* too much credit for having even rudimentary intellectual prowress) down to atomical singularity. Nay, into reducing them to their seperate sub-atomic component particlesmanually!

I've not laughed so hard in ages!!

(By the way, thank you for providing a link to James Randi's site. I've heard of him, and have always wanted to take a closer look. Again, thank you.)

I am myself a religious person, but I have always liked to listen to what others have had to say, and have a deep-seated respect for others who have the courage to say it. Like Voltaire, I say that while I may disagree with what someone has to say, I shall defend to the death their right to say it. (Not that I disagree with you folks. Quite the contrary, in fact.)

...Unless it is something so utterlysorry, but words fail me. Reading about these vultures has set my blood a-boil, a feeling with which I'm sure you entirely empathize with, having read your entire Rant (well, to be honest, just this particular one; never fear, I have bookmarked your site, and shall give it all a good read) about that sub-sentient species, these preyers on the grief and emotional suffering of others, that have the absolute affrontery to call themselves *shudders* psychics.

So my hat's off to you folks here at 2%. Well done!

And thanks to those of you who have contributed to this Rant, at least those who took the time to say it cohently. I enjoyed reading your posts.

Keep up the good work.




amanda, 2008.01.11 (Fri) 07:18 [Link] »

u guys are a bunch of wakos with no job so u critercise other people and put false info on here allison dubois never said any thing on here its not even the way she talks go on her offical web page and u will see she will not endorse or explian why she does what she does to people like u she wouldnt have time for a piece of crap website like urs go get real jobs and grow a heart all of u u should be asamed of some of the words u all use about people bad or not



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.11 (Fri) 09:14 [Link] »

Amanda says:

u guys are a bunch of wakos with no job so u critercise other people...

That's rich, coming from someone like you, who types in AOLspeak. Did you use psychic powers to determine that conclusion, or did you maliciously decide to lie about something irrelevant in a transparent attempt at mud-flinging?

...and put false info on here allison dubois...
That's quite an accusation. I don't see any reason to question the source.
allison dubois never said any thing on here its not even the way she talks go on her offical web page and u will see she will not endorse or explian why she does what she does to people like u
Ever consider that she doesn't explain herself because she knows what she's doing is immoral? Fraud's a crime, you know.
she wouldnt have time for a piece of crap website like urs go get real jobs and grow a heart all of u u should be asamed of some of the words u all use about people bad or not
Translation: "Caring about people is for losers! So is caring about truth and justice! You should all just selfishly shut up and never voice an opinion or do anything productive for society. Look at all you losers, wasting your time caring about things! Having spare time to care about things means you're weak for not having enough monetary greed to be a workaholic!"

You are a monster, amanda.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.11 (Fri) 10:40 [Link] »

That's your comment, amanda? Really? You couldn't have represented the stereotypical fuckheaded woo any more closely if you had consciously tried. No punctuation, no grammar, no attempts to spell correctly, no points to make, no attempt to refute any of our arguments, no facts to back you up, blind support for utter nonsense, arrogant dismissal of the facts we've presented as "false" with no evidence to support your claim, asinine and incorrect assumptions about us, heartlessly accusing those who actually care enough to call out Allison's crap as heartless, and utter, utter fucking ignorance.

Can you provide even one valid example to back up your stupid, stupid assertion that we have "put false info on here"? Anything? Nah, we didn't think so.

Moron.



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.11 (Fri) 10:46 [Link] »

amanda,

Have you ever, seriously, considered using punctuation, or is this revolutionary concept (along with good grammar, proper spelling and capitalization of proper nouns) simply beyond your grasp? Or are you dexterously challenged, and cannot use your little fingers to opperate the "shift" key? (Don't be ashamed to admit it; I use my ring finger to strike that key a lot. It makes typing less stressful on my weakest digit.)

The majority of these "wakos" whom you object to seem to me to be highly educated, job holding people. The way some of them write, I might even suspect a few of 'em to hold a college degree or two. (Pst! Folks, your education is showing! "Decent" people can't stand that...).

If someone like DuBois commits fraud, then that person should be exposed, not praised. Nor defended. It is reprehensible in the extreme!

If careing about the truth is a weakness, then call me weak.

Thank you, BD, for your translation.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.11 (Fri) 10:51 [Link] »

Robear,

We're glad you're enjoying the asshandings. Sometimes they can be quite therapeutic.

I say that while I may disagree with what someone has to say, I shall defend to the death their right to say it.

Exactly! In fact, we'll defend to the death everyone's right to do whatever the heck they want to do, as long as they aren't infringing on the equal rights of everyone else to do the same.

We're always happy when we come across people like you who seem to "get it." Even if we have different views on religion, that's no reason to assume that we can't happily share the same planet. As humans, we can intelligently discuss our differences, and agree to disagree sometimes, or we can be asshats like amanda who refuse to engage in rational discourse at all costs. We're glad to see you've chosen the former.



Jason Spicer, 2008.01.12 (Sat) 02:51 [Link] »

I'm suspicious that Amanda may be some kind of woobot. Her post was just too pitch-perfect. No human could be that devoid of sense, compassion, and grammar. And notice the way the string of drivel seems to be cut randomly from an infinitely longer string, as if we tuned past her station on the radio dial. I think we need to run this one thru the Bat Alphabet Soup Analyzer.



Erica, 2008.01.12 (Sat) 15:01 [Link] »

I just have to throw this out there. Today is the first day I have heard of Allison DuBois and, like the people you say, have done a search on her just to see what I could find. i am not sure if she is real or fake, but I don't believe anyone can say for sure unless they know first hand. I just want to point something out though. How do you really know if this "Karen" person is telling the truth or just lying because she is like you and dislikes Allison? You don't know that "Karen" is really who this person is, or if she is really the sister of someone Allison wrote about in her book and talked about in interviews. I could read one of her books and claim to be someone related to someone she knew as well. So, maybe YOU should take what you say and not believe everything YOU are told.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.12 (Sat) 22:22 [Link] »

And perhaps, Erica, you (or is that YOU?) should pay more attention to what you are reading before tossing around accusations. If you read our post, you'll see that we've addressed your point already:

Yes, both sides of this particular story are anecdotes, but given Allison's track record when it comes to telling the truth, as well as her vested interest in "creative embellishment," we are inclined to believe Karen, especially since she has no discernable motive for making this up. At the very least, it gives those who would worship Allison something to chew on that isn't coming from our mouths (the morons hate us so).

So basically, we've acknowledged that Karen's story is an anecdote. We aren't leaning on it to "prove" anything. Based on our offline (and private) communications with Karen (and others), we tend to believe that her story is accurate. We are not asking anyone else to blindly accept it, though — it's just "something to chew on," as we clearly said.

You also say:

i am not sure if she is real or fake, but I don't believe anyone can say for sure unless they know first hand.

Wrong, Erica. The "first hand" knowledge you are referring to would amount to nothing more than another anecdote which, as we've said, wouldn't prove anything. The reason we know that Allison is a fake is because, thanks to the scientific method, we know that psychic powers do not exist. As such, it is abundantly clear to us that Allison is faking.

Think of it this way: if we claim to have small gnomes living in our asses, would you hold off judging our claim as false until you could personally peer into our assholes to check? Or would you build upon your knowledge that Ass Gnomes do not exist to pronounce our claim false? If you answered the latter, then you should understand why we deem Allison's claims to be a psychic as false. If you answered the former, then we're sorry to say that you're destined to spend your life looking far too closely at assholes.

Thanks for playing!



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.13 (Sun) 18:15 [Link] »

The Randi Challenge has been up for a long time, and not one psychic has passed it. Few even have the courage to apply. There are also plenty of other challenges out there, and the psychics, if they were honest, would be able to perform proper experiments.

The sheer lack of enthusiasm on that front doesn't definitively prove the non-existence of those powers, but it should give anyone severe skepticism on the issue. It's impossible to disprove, but so is just about everything else anyone can dream up. The key issue is failure after failure to prove it. if psychic powers did exist, it'd be much, much easier to come up with a handful of successes than traveling through all of time and space to search for a lack of them, like so many ask of us.



Lauren, 2008.01.14 (Mon) 12:18 [Link] »

I just want to say that every time I come back to this post I get so angry at myself. Not angry for coming back, but angry because I actually bought into this bullshit after my father died about 4 years ago. It wasn't Allison that hooked me in like a sucker, it was Sylvia Browne, but it's all the same. No one can bring you back to, or "find" your loved ones after they are dead other than god... and I'm not entirely sold on him either.
So for everyone who still believes in psychics, please open your eyes, it hurts alot less.



Moon, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 15:55 [Link] »

umm..get a life people? What does all this matter to you? There is always two sides to everything and unless she gave you a fake reading you have nothing to bitch about. BE more upset about Obama being a movie start candidate with no substance and using race to his own advantage Something that really matters. LOL



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 16:15 [Link] »

Dear Mr(?) Moon,

Sir, if someone were to defraud you, misrepresent or otherwise damage your reputation, you would be similarly upset.

This individual under discussion, this DuBois character, went further than that, however. She shamelessly took advantage of this family, and presented erronious facts, which accomplished the above with the sole object being her own agrandizement and enrichment at the expense of these people.

Why should we not be outraged?

ANYONE who uses their belifs to line their own pockets exibits an appalling lack of character, which is, in short, absolutely shocking.

I would imagine, sir, that DuBois would have had the decentcy to at least ask that family if she could relate that story, and then abide by that family's decision, regardless. That would have been the morally correct thing to do, instead of what she did do, which was to go ahead and print what she wrote, which also had the added onus of being absolutely incorrect.



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 16:21 [Link] »

Dear 2% Comany,

No, it is I who should thank you, for providing such an entertaining forum to address the various issues that you do.

And to provide me with the occasional opportunity to state my opinion, knowing it will be heard and apprechiated.

Sincerely,

Robear



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 16:31 [Link] »

Some clarification is in order:

When I said that "anyone who uses their beliefs to line their own pockets exhibits an appalling lack of character" I meant those who would use their faith or religion to prey on the sentiments of others in order to "get gain" for purely selfish reasons.

I certainly did not mean to imply that those who do so for philanthopic causes, nor from the goodness of their hearts, are lacking in character, and I apologize if that seemed to be the case.

...Although those who claim to have "psychic powers" who think they're performing a service for society out of the goodness of their hearts seem to be sadly delusional.



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 18:54 [Link] »
umm..get a life people? What does all this matter to you?

There's this little thing called "caring" that is the basis of civilization. Without "altruism," the group behavior that emerges as a result of multiple "caring" agents, civilization would fall apart.

There is always two sides to everything...

WRONG! There's one objective truth. That motto you just parroted is what the media goes by since they can use it as an excuse to manufacture and intensify false controversy for the sake of ratings and propaganda. Does Allison DuBois have psychic powers? If she wants to prove it, she, like all the other psychics out there, shouldn't wuss out when proper testing protocols come up.

...and unless she gave you a fake reading you have nothing to bitch about.

Were you clinically diagnosed with psychopathy or whatever? Involves a complete lack of sympathy, regard for others, and generosity. We're normal human beings here: We have those things, and thus we can actually care about people who are not us. I suppose that's one thing you'll never understand.

BE more upset about Obama being a movie start candidate with no substance and using race to his own advantage Something that really matters. LOL

Ah, yes, let's never sweat smaller crimes that don't involve celebrities and potential leaders. How about you start berating Allison DuBois for doing things for lowly peasants who were related to murdered/missing peasants.



TimmyAnn, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 20:19 [Link] »

The thing that really amazes me here (well, there are several, actually) is that (s)he is telling us that what Allison does to others is none of our business and we shouldn't care. Yet (s)he cares about us caring about it. Weird, no? Why is it his/her business if we care about things that are none of our business? How does that affect him/her?



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 21:28 [Link] »

Yah, wierd...

It sounded like this person was just surfing the Web by drift, found this site, and decided to comment innanely about us taking time to voice our opinion about an issue we care about.



Brad, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 21:29 [Link] »

Id just like to say and probally my first and last comment that the 2 percent company &bronze dog make me really thankful that im nothing like yourselves. sure im positive you'll disect this comment in the ridiculous way you do cause your a looser (yeah like that makes you any more intelligent) you moron. you make me laugh and a feel sad at the same time i feel sorry for you! were you not hugged enough as a child? and yeah great proof that kris and karen were actually who they said they were im glad the only person to realise that was the (medium) great evidence that they had nothing to gain from it? thats what you loosers do on these sites spend all day pretneding to be people your not cause you have no friends quite sad, where is your proof in all this? im open minded can she be psycic sure may she be wrong with a few things sure! the fact you guys spend so much time on here trying to be sumone of importance is really sad and you can put your little spin on your comeback however you want the question is why critisize alison when you do not know her and do not spend any time of day with her, how on earth do you know who she is? so you think you know her after reading her book? do you know how stupid that sounds? which is why you and your blogs are not worth reading they are a joke, do i belive some psycics are fruads sure like in every walk of life their will be good with the bad but honeslty i do not know her and you do not her so bronze dog and who ever else knocks her , really get a life your a tool! and yes i feel for karen and Kris if they indeed who they say they are! but again you are a sad looser who probally sits infront of his computer all day trying to impress people with his big words he got out of the dictionary! really get out and meet sum girls and live life you sad poor pethatic looser!



Nunya, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 22:01 [Link] »

1. Somebody 's got issues.
2. Everyone makes mistakes.
3. I'm wastin' my time.
4. You sound like hatin' politicians slingin' mud.
5. Judge not lest ye be judged.
6. *Peace*



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 22:20 [Link] »

Dear Brad,

I would like to point out that I am entirely appalled at your profound butchery of the English language. Your bad grammar is only surpassed, exceeded and completely overwhelmed by your bad grammar, and you can only claim relative ignorance as an excuse. At least you do know your way around a keyboard (that much is readily apparent). I do not blame you personally, although your lack is glaringly obvious, and you have only yourself to fault for continuing in your woeful state. I blame the faulty and dysfunctional school system that produced you, which has declined somewhat since I went through it.

...Or could it be that they failed to instill in you a capability for higher reasoning because you fought them tooth and nail every step of the way, and they finally graduated you to get rid of you? (That is, if you graduated at all...)

For your information, I am happily married, well-educated, and quite successful in my interests, which are legion:

I am a student of religion, philosophy, history and various of the physical and organic sciences.

I am a competent armourer, meaning that I make and use fully functional Medieval combat gear on a regular basis.

I am a student of the martial arts of kenjutsu, wing chun, Yang style tai chi chuan and of those arts' associated weapons.

I am also fluent and literate in both the languages I use: English and Spanish, and am busily engaged in learning a third, Samoan.

Does this, sir, qualify as having "a life"?

And yet it seems surprisingly lacking to one whose only major demonstrable achievement is the butchering of the language that he chooses to use.

Obviously, Brad, you didn't read the messages the 2% Company has posted previously, or you might have a much better grasp of the issues being discussed here.

...Well *any* grasp, since you don't have a modicum of comprehension in the microscopic space between your oracular orafices.

(That's ears, by the way. Just translating in case you dodn't have a dictionary handy, or know how to use it in the first place.)

So, who's the "pethatic" looser?

(By the way, that's P A T H E T I C, you imbecile. I'd call you a moron, but that's giving you *way* too much credit, and calling you an idiot is an insult to self-respecting idiots everywhere. You clearly have the correct notion of the difference between the sexes, although any testosterone-laden male should know at least that much, so I am only giving you your due...)

Ad infinitum, etc., and so on...



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 22:31 [Link] »

*shudders*

Folks, I'm sorry, I made an error when writing my previous post blasting Brad for his spelling.

I wrote "dodn't" instead of don't, which I meant to use.

My most profuse apologies.



Rober the Ogre, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 22:36 [Link] »

Dear Nunya,

Thank you for so cohently and succinctly stating what Brad was sputtering on about.

Your post was a breath of fresh air to me.

Thank you!



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.15 (Tue) 23:09 [Link] »
Id just like to say and probally my first and last comment that the 2 percent company &bronze dog make me really thankful that im nothing like yourselves. sure im positive you'll disect this comment in the ridiculous way you do cause your a looser (yeah like that makes you any more intelligent) you moron.

Yeah, I'm a "looser" because, unlike some people, I actually care about my fellow sentient beings and believe in a little something called "morality." Allison DuBois and all the various psychics out there are engaging in open fraud. Fraud is a crime.

you make me laugh and a feel sad at the same time i feel sorry for you! were you not hugged enough as a child?

I've got a loving family and my share of friends. You sir, are, judging from your comment, an amoral, nihilistic, psychopathic shit who thinks hurting people for fun and profit is no big deal. So stop projecting your misery onto us.

and yeah great proof that kris and karen were actually who they said they were im glad the only person to realise that was the (medium) great evidence that they had nothing to gain from it?

Let's put it this way: I don't see the quotes as evidence, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they are true. No psychic has ever gone through a proper test and passed. They thrive in tests that allow loopholes for cheating, but no honest tests. Their entire profession is fraud until they pass.

thats what you loosers do on these sites spend all day pretneding to be people your not cause you have no friends quite sad, where is your proof in all this?

1. We aren't doing that. Hit-and-run trolls like you are the sort to engage in that sort of behavior.
2. It's DuBois who has the burden of proof on the core topic: Is she psychic?

im open minded can she be psycic sure may she be wrong with a few things sure!

Straw man. She only has to be better than chance. We aren't demanding 100%.

I also see no evidence of open-mindedness from you. Woos are the most pigeon-holed people I've ever encountered, and you're adding a tally mark.

the fact you guys spend so much time on here trying to be sumone of importance is really sad...

Stop projecting your massive ego onto us. We aren't here for popularity or importance. So kindly stop lying.

and you can put your little spin on your comeback however you want

I would think that your closed-mindedness would generate a crushing presence on anyone, but apparently I have to expose you to a mirror so that you can see your hypocrisy.

the question is why critisize alison when you do not know her and do not spend any time of day with her, how on earth do you know who she is?

Do you know anything about how science works? We don't need personal experience. We only need recorded data. DuBois doesn't have any quality data in her favor. Neither does any psychic. I suppose I should never criticize a murderer I've never met when I'm only looking at the court's evidence.

Once in a while, try paying attention to what you type.

so you think you know her after reading her book? do you know how stupid that sounds?

Hey, if someone's making a claim and running away from any attempt to test that claim, that's rather shady behavior. I'm judging her from her shady actions. Would you trust a doctor who won't let you research his educational background?

which is why you and your blogs are not worth reading they are a joke,

Why don't you just throw away your computer, then? If you think indirectness invalidates stuff, that must mean that anything built on long-tested science is invalid if they don't rebuild that knowledge every time? Just what point are you trying to make?

do i belive some psycics are fruads sure like in every walk of life their will be good with the bad but honeslty i do not know her and you do not her so bronze dog and who ever else knocks her , really get a life your a tool!

Ah, yes, let's all just ignore empiricism and evidence in favor of personal experience and just let in all sorts of bias.

and yes i feel for karen and Kris if they indeed who they say they are! but again you are a sad looser who probally sits infront of his computer all day trying to impress people with his big words he got out of the dictionary! really get out and meet sum girls and live life you sad poor pethatic looser!

And again with the projection. You haven't addressed any points whatsoever. All you've done is satisfy your lust for verbal violence against someone who disagrees with you. You don't argue, you sling mud like a filthy propagandist. When the Thought Police are established, you can silence all criticism you like with irrelevant subject changes.

Here's something that should shatter your brain: I'm irrelevant to this subject. You are irrelevant to the subject. What matters are the arguments, and you haven't addressed a single one. All you do is fling hate.

Stop dwelling on something as irrelevant as me and start addressing actual arguments. Start addressing the ideas expressed. It doesn't matter who those ideas come from. You can't destroy an idea in the information age, no matter how much you try. Anyone who actually reads this will see how you try to stifle conversation with your irrelevant subject changes.

Oh, and about my vocabulary: What, you don't talk like I type? I'm typing like I talk. I speak much the same way as the people around me. If anything, I think it may be your vocabulary that's deficient. I'm hardly showing off.



Brad, 2008.01.17 (Thu) 05:02 [Link] »

[Alas, poor Brad has been moved to the Urinal. If you're interested in learning about his prodigious skills in the varied fields of martial arts and the medical sciences, feel free to stop by the pisser and read all about it. For our part, we'll pass — Ed.]



Lauren, 2008.01.17 (Thu) 17:24 [Link] »

What is Brads obsession with "us yanks" dissecting things? I think you guys bruised his ego. But it was funny to read, well the parts that made sence.



Akusai, 2008.01.17 (Thu) 19:42 [Link] »

I'm just frightened of the prospect that he's a medical science and physiotherapy student.

"hay looser why are you here wining about youre hurt knee when youre such a looser that you should just get a life and stop coming in hear to tell me you need help"

or if he *shudder* obtains an MD:

"stop calling me cuz you cant reed my spelling on my perscripshuns looser just do what i said and get a life i dont care if you went to scool for six years to be a pharmasist your just a looser"

I also fear the woo-woo to which his patients would be subjected. He should be drummed out of school, if he isn't lying through his teeth.



Robear the Ogre, 2008.01.18 (Fri) 01:38 [Link] »

Croikie! He musta had a bad day. His pet wallaby get et by a croc, or somthin'?



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.18 (Fri) 09:04 [Link] »

I think a couple of people on my blogroll are Australian. I know Peter Bowditch is from the region, and he plugs the Australian Skeptics a fair bit.

Just in case Brad thinks truth is relative to nationality.



Jason, 2008.01.19 (Sat) 18:13 [Link] »

I was very good friends with Allison and Domini back in the early 90's, and even shared an apartment with them at one point. It was a crazy time back then, but I loved them both, Domini was a true breath of fresh air, she was full of life, and always fun to be around. Allison was always good to me, she could be bitchy, but I loved her anyways. It is difficult to read all these horrible things people are saying about her. Allison is not mean spirited, she was however, very obsessed with becoming rich and famous. Well, she acheived that goal, and I am very proud of her for that. I have yet to hear of a victim of Allison, the people who pay her for readings are provided exactly what they pay for, comfort.

Knowing Allison before she became famous, I would say she has a gift. Not the gift to speak to the dead, but at least the gift to convinnce people that she does. I don't see the harm in that, and she has most definatley provided comfort to many people.

I lost contact with Allison and Domini as I was incarcerated through the mid 90's, and did not learn of Domini's death untill about 6 months after she had passed, so anything I could say about that would be hearsay. The last time I saw Allison was at a halloween party in 2002.

Whether she speaks with the dead or not can never really be proven. I personally do not believe, but still don't see what it matters.

As far as comments made at Dom's funeral, these were made by Allison's mother, not Allison. So don't hold that against her, why not start a new rant about Ally's mom, and hate on her for a while. Allison is just trying to make a living, just like the rest of us, she is just better at it than most.



TimmyAnn, 2008.01.19 (Sat) 19:19 [Link] »

I really wish people would read a little more before posting! You say you don't see the harm in what Allison does, but it has been explained many times over on this site, but even without reading the rest of the explanation, I would think you could understand that she is getting money from grieving people by means of fraud! How can you justify that?



Jeff from the Two Percent Company, 2008.01.19 (Sat) 19:46 [Link] »

Your comment seems cogent and coherent, Jason, but not particularly well thought out.

I have yet to hear of a victim of Allison, the people who pay her for readings are provided exactly what they pay for, comfort.

Every person who has ever utilized Allison's "services" is, by definition, a victim. You have made an incorrect assertion: they are not paying for "comfort," they are paying for someone to communicate with their dead relatives. Since Allison has not proven that she can do that, and she has certainly been demonstrably and simply wrong on many occasions, we have no reason to believe she is giving them that — therefore, they are not getting what they pay for.

This holds true even if they were getting "comfort," though the fact remains that what they are getting is misinformation that may (if they're of a mind for it) comfort them, but will almost certainly also distort their view of the people they have lost in the long run. Allison didn't know those people — her making up what they are now saying is utter bullshit, and provides no actual comfort at all. It provides false comfort, and both precludes closure and destroys the sanctity of the memory of our loved ones.

I would say she has a gift. Not the gift to speak to the dead, but at least the gift to convinnce people that she does. I don't see the harm in that, and she has most definatley provided comfort to many people.

You don't see the harm in lying? In taking money from others, claiming to do something, and by no means demonstrating that you have, in fact, done it? Fine, then your opinion is duly noted. I (and many others here, I'm sure) firmly disagree with you on that. But feel free to forward a check to me for four thousand dollars, and I'll do my famous and one hundred percent effective "Make Jason's Fondest Dreams Come True" dance. If you don't think it works, I'll assure you that it did...you just didn't know what your fondest dreams were. Come on, why would you know your own fondest dreams better than I do — that's my gift!

Why would Allison's victims know their dead relatives better than Allison? That's her gift, right? No, according to you, her gift is lying to people. I partly agree with you there.

Whether she speaks with the dead or not can never really be proven.

Wrong. If she does speak with the dead, it can be proven by submitting to a carefully structured and controlled scientific test of her abilities...if she proves to be successful. What we can't do is prove that she doesn't speak with the dead — because, whatever the failed results are (and they always will be "failed," judging by thousands of years of bullshit and hundred of years of testing that bullshit), Allison can always fall back on the usual crap: "It doesn't work that way," "The spirits aren't with me today," "The dead lied to me on that one." All Allison has to do to prove that she has her supermagical powers is provide one documented unassailable instance of them working. As with all psychics and bullshit artists, she hasn't even managed that.

I personally do not believe, but still don't see what it matters.

So you think she doesn't have magical powers, but you don't think it matters that she says she does and receives money for utilizing those non-existent powers. Again, I struggle to see the humanity, compassion, and simple ethical fortitude inherent to your statements.

As far as comments made at Dom's funeral, these were made by Allison's mother, not Allison. So don't hold that against her, why not start a new rant about Ally's mom, and hate on her for a while.

We did, in fact, make remarks about Allison's mother; and further, when someone who claimed to be her commented on our site, we explained exactly what we thought of her.

However, we don't "hate on" anyone. We call out the bullshit, and passionately declare our opinions on its purveyors...do you picture us as baggy-pants-wearing, sideways-baseball-hat-donning, slang-slinging street thugs? (No offense to the skeptical gangstas out there. Represent.) Allison is a human predator; she is demonstrably a liar; and she has taken money for "providing" services that she has not ever proven she actually provides. These things, to us, are far more hurtful and repugnant activities than insulting someone at a funeral. End of story.

Allison is just trying to make a living, just like the rest of us, she is just better at it than most.

And wrong again, for the sesquicenfecta (or however many things you've gotten wrong here, Jason). Allison is trying to become "rich and famous," just like you said, and she's doing it by any unethical means necessary — which is not "just like the rest of us," and certainly not like most of the people I know (both online and off). She doesn't care about anyone else, particularly her victims (who are, most certainly, victims). And, when you come down to it, she isn't better at it than most — we ourselves at the Two Percent Company, in various Rants, have called her out on terribly transparent lies and inaccuracies on numerous occasions. She's not "good" at this stuff — it's just that a large number of people are gullible, stupid, or (most often) desperate enough to believe in the bullshit she peddles.

As we've said too many times to count: we could easily do the kind of thing Allison does and get "rich and famous" (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) ourselves, if we had no qualms about being assholes who take advantage of others' pain and suffering for money. I faked "psychic" for a school project in junior high school, for fuck's sake, and had a frightening number of classmates (and the teacher, who was an admittedly dim bulb) convinced before I revealed my methods (which mostly involved some cold reading and judicious use of the local phone book). An eleven-year-old can do this better than Allison, man — it's really not difficult. To make money at it, you just have to be burdened with zero compassion or sympathy for any fellow members of your species.

Simply and clearly, Allison is not even remotely trying to make a living "just like the rest of us." If you'd like to lump yourself in there, feel free; but I do my work honestly and expertly (unlike Allison, as discussed above), and that's how I make my living. If I did anything less, I wouldn't be interested in being me.



Jason, 2008.01.20 (Sun) 02:36 [Link] »

Jeff,
Thank you for not blasting me too bad. I admit that I have not read this entire blog, so I may have missed a point or two. The main question I have for you, since you feel so passionatly about this topic is: Has anyone that has paid their money, and had a reading come forward to complain about the experience?

I'm sure you would never give your hard earned money for such a thing, and neither would I, but you asked me to give you $4000 to make my fondest dreams come true. If I wanted to go thru with that, I'm sure you would gladly accept my money. Unfortunatly I am not stupid and gullible, so you would not be able to deliver on your promise. If I was however, and I left feeling that you had fulfilled my fondest dreams like you promised, I would be happy to pay $4000 for that, and you would be a fool not to accept my money, and I am sure you would take it. Appearently there are many people who want desperatly for Allison to be real, and although you, and I for that matter, believe these people to be fools, they are not the ones complaining.

I have not read any of her books, or watched "Medium", I have read news clippings, and have seen her interviewed, and watched her on Oprah. The one thing I know is that there are people out there that she has made feel better about losing a loved one, there are people that claim Allison has made a profound, and possitive impact on their lives, either through her books, or personal meetings. This is far more than most of us can claim. In this case I do believe the end justifies the means.



The Two Percent Company, 2008.01.20 (Sun) 22:27 [Link] »

Jason,

You ask:

Has anyone that has paid their money, and had a reading come forward to complain about the experience?

Your question ignores the fact that Allison isn't making her money by performing paid readings right now, and she hasn't done so in years. A quick visit to the Wayback Machine will confirm that she's been out of that business since at least December 2004. We'd check her site now to make sure the "no readings" policy is still in place, but it seems that she lost her domain to a squatter.

Your question also ignores the fact that if someone feels cheated after a reading with Allison but fails to come forward to report it (out of shame, or for whatever reason), that doesn't make Allison's act any less reprehensible. Many rapes go unreported — does that mean that the victims were happy with the experience?

Finally, your question ignores the fact that giving false solace to grieving individuals is both very easy and utterly disgusting.

The way that Allison makes her money these days seems to be with her books (and probably with paid appearances as well). In fact, the only "readings" that she seems to be giving these days are for interviews. That said, let's look at some of her recent predictions, such as the interview she took part in about Arizona's Baseline Killer. Do you think all of the families and friends of the victims of this guy were thrilled to hear Allison's bullshit "predictions" about how to catch him? After all, she's cashing in on these murders — she's using these horrible losses to try to make a dishonest buck.

We imagine that at least some of those who knew the victims of the Baseline Killer (and other similar cases) weren't too thrilled at the way Allison used these violent crimes to increase her fame and her bankroll. Of course the fact that Allison was demonstrably wrong on just about every specific point she made makes her sideshow act even more disgusting.

"Hey, your wife was shot dead?" says Allison. "Great! I'm going to go on television and make up some shit about the person who murdered her so that I can sell more books! Then by the time I'm proven to be wrong, I'll have made some other public predictions, and everyone will have forgetten about these." Yes, we can see your point now, Jason. How fucking comforting.

You say:

I'm sure you would never give your hard earned money for such a thing, and neither would I, but you asked me to give you $4000 to make my fondest dreams come true. If I wanted to go thru with that, I'm sure you would gladly accept my money.

No, Jason, you've missed the point entirely, and once again lumped us in with the repulsive likes of Allison DuBois. If you feel you would take the money, rock on — as we said before, we'd appreciate it if you wouldn't project your distasteful ethics on us. To reiterate the actual point Jeff was making, before his ironic offer (you do understand it wasn't a genuine offer, yes?): we wouldn't accept your money, gladly or otherwise. The reason we wouldn't take your money is because we aren't pieces of human garbage who are willing to cheat, lie, and steal in order to make a living. We aren't parasites who prey on the suffering or gullibility of others. How many times do we have to make that point? This distinction is precisely why we have so much of a problem with Allison — all her "defenders" prattle on and on about her powers (which she has never proven), or her claims (which we have one hundred percent disproven in many instances), or any other frilly non-issues, and completely ignore Allison's outright avarice and callousness. You, on the other hand, seem to admit that her claims are nonsense and her powers and non-existent — but amazingly you still somehow praise her. If you can't grasp our point here, Jason, then you have no chance of understanding our overall position.

You also say:

...there are people that claim Allison has made a profound, and possitive impact on their lives, either through her books, or personal meetings. This is far more than most of us can claim.

Really? You can't claim that you have made a profound and positive impact on other people? Really? Okay, Jason, if you insist. But please don't extend that "observation" to include us. Your constant projection is both deluded and insulting. We most certainly have made substantial positive impacts on the lives of other people. And, unlike Allison, what we do or give isn't mired in bullshit. When it comes to helping those we care about to deal with death, believe it or not, we've found that it's both possible and, in the long run, preferable to comfort the suffering of others without lying to them. Call us silly, but we tend to think that lying in this instance is less like a hug and more like a slap in the face. In addition, we seldom charge the people we are helping for the privilege.

Sure, some of the people who have had readings from Allison are given comfort (at least for a time) by her words, but the comfort is empty — it's hollow — because it's based on a lie. These people are going to Allison to contact someone they love and miss very much. All they want is to have a chance to communicate with them one more time. And instead of actually providing that service — the service she claims to provide — Allison lies to them. She makes up bogus messages and shits all over the actual memories that these people have of their loved ones. And she gets away with this because she knows that her victims are suffering — she knows that she can take advantage of their fragile mental states in order to get one over on them. She knows that, even if her make-believe message doesn't ring 100% true — even if her "reading" is off the mark — her clients are in a state of mind in which they will help her to validate her own predictions. They want so badly to believe that their loved ones are still around and that they can talk to them that they will do the legwork to make Allison's predictions seem accurate. And that's what we mean when we refer to Allison as a parasite trading on the suffering of others.

And when these deceived, grieving people walk away from Allison's "reading" feeling temporarily comforted by her bullshit, that's the measure of success that you'd like us to use for Allison? This behavior doesn't make her a good person — it makes her a reprehensible bitch. It's too bad that you can't see that.



Jason, 2008.01.21 (Mon) 03:33 [Link] »

You certainly make a very persuasive argument. I want you to understand that I don' t, as you say, "praise" Ally for what she does. I know her, and I just find it difficult to believe that there is any maliciousness involved in her practices.

Have you considered that maybe she really believes that she is a medium? That she thinks she is doing good things? I know I am grasping at straws here, but the Allison I know, is not the cold, calculating, reprehensible bitch that you are making her out to be. Allison loves her husband, and kids, and was always a good friend. Even after all the bullshit I went thru, being locked up, and not seeing her for so long, she was willing to forgive and welcome me. So I couldn't possibly damn her, I could very well be mistaken, but I must allow her the benefit of the doubt.

sometimes, logic and reason are overwhelmed by matters of the heart. I certainly see your point. If she is truly, deliberatly, and with malicious intent, defrauding the world, then I agree that would be a horrible thing to do. I just have to believe there is more to it than we can see, and prove.While I do not believe in her powers, I do think she believes. I do think she believes she is helping people,and that is really the main point I am trying to make. I know the sayings, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", I guess for me, it really boils down to intent, and only Allison can know that with any certainty.

I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to me. I really don' hold much hope of convincing many here that Allison is not this awful human being that many seem to think she is. I just want people to believe that maybe, although probably misguided, Allison belives she is truly helping people, and perception, and reality are really one in the same. I know I have no proof of her perceptions, nor does anyone else, all we can do is speculate. I do know her, so I believe I have the upperhand as far as speculating about her good or bad intentions.

Kris, and Karen, just for the record, are indeed Domini's sisters, and their story is true. While I don't believe I have ever met them, I do know their names, and I have spoken with another friend who was at Dom's funeral, who confirmed their story about what Ally's mother said, this event severly fractured many lifelong friendships.

I know I am going a little off topic here, but this has brought back a lot of dormant memories, and made me a little sad, I really miss Domini, and I wish people could know the Allison Dubois that I know.



Bronze Dog, 2008.01.21 (Mon) 17:37 [Link] »
I'm sure you would never give your hard earned money for such a thing, and neither would I, but you asked me to give you $4000 to make my fondest dreams come true. If I wanted to go thru with that, I'm sure you would gladly accept my money.

I sure as hell wouldn't. I'd call you an idiot and burn the check. People like us have moral standards.



The Two Percent Company, 2008.01.21 (Mon) 22:32 [Link] »

Fair enough, Jason. No one can definitively know Allison's intentions other than Allison herself. Like you, we are judging her on her words and deeds. From where we're sitting, her actions clearly show us that she is ready, willing, and able to piss all over other people in order to win fame and fortune for herself. From where you're sitting, you see a very different person. However, it wouldn't surprise us at all if Allison's willingness to piss on others stopped short of those she cared about. So if your perspective tells you that she is kind and compassionate to her friends and family, and our perspective tells us that she is cold-hearted and callous to her clients and to the general public, we don't see these as particularly incongruous or contradictory accounts at all.

Have you considered that maybe she really believes that she is a medium? That she thinks she is doing good things?

Really, these are two very different questions. We've considered both of them, and our opinion is that she does not really believe she is a medium, and we tend to doubt that she really thinks she is doing good things (while she may tell herself that in an attempt to feel better about her life, we doubt she really believes it). As we said, these are our opinions, and not statements of fact. That said, these opinions are based on considerable amounts of research and observation.

One thing to consider, which we've pointed out on previous occasions, is that even if her powers were genuine, her greed and obnoxious attitude still make her a raving bitch who is taking other people's money. If we could contact spirits and read minds and so forth as easily as Allison has claimed at every opportunity (she has never stated that she has any difficulty, pays any real "price," or utilizes any irreplaceable resources to use her "powers," and she has quite clearly asserted the opposite on numerous occasions), then you'd bet your ass we wouldn't be charging money for it. As we've suggested before, it's akin to walking by a family trapped in a burning car, but demanding they cut you a check before you whip out the magical fire extinguisher you happen to be carrying with you.

All of that is pretty moot, though, since we don't believe, by any stretch of the imagination, that Allison either has powers or believes that she has them herself.

Why do we think that she doesn't really believe in her own powers? Quite simply, we've watched her perform textbook cold reading sessions on television. Cold reading is a skill, and whatever else we think of Allison, it's clear to us that she has studied and learned the skill of cold reading. We've seen others do it far better, but the assumption that she learned this skill by accident and that she performs this act innocently is just too much of a stretch to be reasonably believed. So if we assume that she intentionally learned and knowingly practices cold reading, then it must follow that she knows she is not a real medium. (Why bother with all the tricks if you believe you can provide the genuine article?)

To be sure, there are many people in the world who ardently believe in their own psychic powers. We've seen and heard many of those people as well. In general, their "act" differs significantly from cold reading. They haven't taken the time to learn this skill because they don't think they need to — they really think they have powers, and their act generally showcases their belief via more precise (and often less malleable and hence very demonstrably and almost invariably incorrect) predictions. When we watch Allison perform, we have pretty much no doubt that we're watching a cold reader in action, and not a self-delusional woo. But don't take our word for this — look into the technique of cold reading, watch some examples of cold reading in action, then watch some clips of Allison doing her act. If you watch the videos above of Derren Brown and Criss Angel (who are, by self-admission, not at all psychic), and compare both their tactics and the reactions of their subjects to the video of Allison in action (in spite of the typical John Edwardian editing tricks used by "ABC 15"), we think you'll see a remarkable similarity. The conclusion is pretty inescapable — Allison is cold reading.

Of course, even if we assume that Allison is aware that she is lying to her clients, that doesn't mean that she cannot believe that she is doing so with good intentions. If her main intent in lying to these people was to comfort them, then we would have to agree that her intentions were good (even if we disagreed with her methods and her belief that she accomplished her goal). And to be sure, we've come across our share of "psychics" whose intentions we believe to be pure. In our opinion, though, Allison is not one of them. Quite simply, every action she takes (publicly, at least) seems to be aimed at making money and garnering fame. Just check our site for numerous such examples. Yes, we know she claims to help the police in murder and missing persons cases at no charge, but since no law enforcement agency will back up these claims, we have to dismiss them as anecdotal until at least some corroborating evidence emerges (none has, thus far).

The only thing that Allison does these days is hop from appearance to appearance putting on shows in an attempt to sell more books. Lying to comfort the grieving is one thing — we don't like it, but we could understand an argument that such a person's intentions were good. Allison, though, is lying to sell more books. She's lying to make money. This behavior is why we do not believe that Allison's intentions are good or pure.

Perception and reality are not the same thing, Jason (there's a canard we're getting awfully tired of correcting). Yes, if Allison believed in her own "powers," that would likely make her a bit less of a reprehensible bitch, but it wouldn't change the fact that she deceives others to make a buck.



dikkii, 2008.01.23 (Wed) 10:10 [Link] »

Just read Brad's rant over at the urinal.

I'd like to put it on the record right now, that if Brad really is a medical science and physiotherapy student, I will run a naked lap of his university.

What a cockhead.

Incidentally, this post is copping a lot of trolls lately. Have you guys been referenced somewhere or something?



tikay, 2008.01.23 (Wed) 22:29 [Link] »

She's taking her "act" on the road with a seminar tour. For only $75 or $125 you can see her bullshit live at "The Life After Death Tour" coming to a city near you. Looks to me like she's not even trying to sell more books at this point. Instead she's just blatantly sticking it directly up the ass of her ignorant and fuck-headed flock by gouging them at the ticket window.



Eddie, 2008.02.14 (Thu) 08:30 [Link] »

Fix your site please kiddies. Broken images are an obvious sign that you're not as "clued-on" as you perceive yourselves to be. If an idiot can't link an image on a website, how do you expect me (or others) to believe your arguments and/or take you seriously?

Great content by the way, most of your arguments/rants are quite amusing and do make a great deal of sense. Great to see that some of you Yank Wanks aren't just hell bent on starting world war III in order to gain cheaper oil.

It just pisses me up the fucking wall that you can't develop a functional website.

Hardy fucken har har harrrrr... I get this error on submission of your contact form through "http://www.twopercentco.com/page_contact.php"

"You are not authorized to view the page or file you have requested. If you have any questions concerning the website, feel free to contact the webmaster."

I rest my case.....



dikkii, 2008.02.14 (Thu) 21:15 [Link] »

Eddie, you're a wanker. Blow it out your arse.

Do you have any idea how big this blog actually is?



The Two Percent Company, 2008.02.14 (Thu) 21:21 [Link] »

Here's a thought, Eddie — how about handling error reporting in a useful, non-misanthropic way? You know, the way intelligent human beings looking for a solution might use?

Fix your site please kiddies. Broken images are an obvious sign that you're not as "clued-on" as you perceive yourselves to be.

What broken images, Eddie? We have just shy of 450 Rants, about 50 Score entries, and a host of other pages on our site, and each of those pages contain more than a few images. "Fix the broken images" isn't just a vague demand, it's an exceedingly futile one if you offer no specifics. A quick glance at our six main pages, as well as the Rant you commented on, shows precisely zero broken images. We counted them. Twice. Care to be more descriptive so that we might actually be able to find and identify the problem? What's more, has it even occurred to you that the problem could be on your end? Again, if you gave us some useful information about the problem you are seeing, we could do a whole lot more to investigate it.

If an idiot can't link an image on a website, how do you expect me (or others) to believe your arguments and/or take you seriously?

Well, that's simple — one thing has nothing to do with the other, and only someone looking to lash out for no adequately explained reason would think it does. Someone whose website consists of several pages of unformatted text files can still make coherent, logical arguments, so even if we do have broken images on our site, it certainly doesn't mean that our arguments are therefore suspect. We ourselves are often irked by poor coding and lousy interface design on the websites of major commercial corporations — yet we still use their products or services, if we think the products or services are up to snuff. Your assertion that a broken link can devalue our arguments amounts to no more than a silly little ad hominem attack.

There are lots of reasons for broken images on a website, Eddie. As we mentioned, it could be a user issue (that's your thing, not ours). Or it could be that something we've accurately linked to externally for months or years has quite suddenly changed its location (which is certainly possible, though unlikely, if only because we tend to keep local copies of most images). Or our server could be (or could have been) experiencing temporary issues. In short, there are lots of explanations that don't render us "idiots," Eddie. Only an idiot — hmm — would jump to that conclusion so quickly.

Great content by the way, most of your arguments/rants are quite amusing and do make a great deal of sense. Great to see that some of you Yank Wanks aren't just hell bent on starting world war III in order to gain cheaper oil.

Indeed. We're as flattered as we should be.

It just pisses me up the fucking wall that you can't develop a functional website.

Either report the specific errors that you have seen in a way that allows us to find and test them, or stop wasting our time, Eddie. We are aware of several issues concerning the functionality of the site that cropped up a few months back — a broken comment preview function is (or was, as the case may be) at the top of that short list. We acknowledged the preview issue publicly late last year since we hadn't yet had time to remedy it. (As you might have noticed, we haven't even been writing much, let alone coding much — this website isn't the only endeavor in our lives, and certainly not the highest priority at the moment.) As of the time of this writing, we have patched in a hack solution to the preview issue that eschews the problem by removing the button and rendering real time previews — a fix we've been toying with for a few days now. So with that problem now set aside, if you've found a new problem, we'd love to hear about it in non-vague terms. You know: terms that might actually help address the problem.

Hardy fucken har har harrrrr... I get this error on submission of your contact form through "http://www.twopercentco.com/page_contact.php"

"You are not authorized to view the page or file you have requested. If you have any questions concerning the website, feel free to contact the webmaster."

At last, some specific and useful information on an error! Here's our reply:

As recently as last week, our contact form was working fine as we received several submissions via that page. Some testing conducted today from various non-local hosts has also yielded no errors. As such, it seems we cannot replicate your error. You may want to check to see if there's a problem on your end. Barring that, it seems this may have been a temporary server hiccup. And if anyone else experiences this problem, please let us know.

I rest my case.....

You rest your case on the fact that you are having an issue that, thus far, seems limited to your use of the site, and you've therefore asserted that we have a nonfunctional website? Okay, Eddie. Good on ya. Thanks for stopping by.



Jai, 2008.02.19 (Tue) 21:50 [Link] »

Steady Eddie...

I see your problem, it seems I am experiencing it too.

This site is obviously using an image anti-leech utility. If you try to view directly, for example, the two percent logo, you do receive an error stating "You are not authorized to view the page or file you have requested. If you have any questions concerning the website, feel free to contact the webmaster."

So I assume that you (Edster) have a browser or firewall that blocks the referrer header (HTTP header is actually spelt Referer). I certainly do have this header information blocked and when switching it off, I can then see all of the images on this site.

Anyways... Back ON the topic here...

I'm not an Allison fan (will never buy any of her books), and do question the motive of her actions (what some will do for $$$$$ eh). But... And this is quite a considerable BUT...

How do we know for sure?

Are any of you God, or have intuition with the "powers that be" that us normal folk do not?

The only way to find out for sure, is to die. And as far as I know, when you're dead, you're dead. Gone, finnito, never coming back to tell the tale.

So IMHO, nobody REALLY knows for sure.

If you tell me you do, you're no better than a religious paedophile who uses their supposed "trusted status" to violate the young.


"In the end you may find there's no guiding subtle light,
no ancestors or friends, no judge of wrong or right
just eternal silence and dormancy
and a final everlasting peace" - Bad Religion, from the song Pity the Dead.



Bronze Dog, 2008.02.20 (Wed) 11:14 [Link] »
I'm not an Allison fan (will never buy any of her books), and do question the motive of her actions (what some will do for $$$$$ eh). But... And this is quite a considerable BUT...

How do we know for sure?

Are any of you God, or have intuition with the "powers that be" that us normal folk do not?

We don't know with absolute certainty. We just have Allison's actions on record and our pattern recognition skills. She acts like a huckster, therefore it's reasonable to think she's a huckster.

If she weren't a huckster, she would have signed on for something akin to the Randi Challenge and won.



The Two Percent Company, 2008.02.20 (Wed) 14:22 [Link] »

Of course we don't claim to know with absolute certainty that there is no afterlife. Unlike the religiosos and the woos (who have no qualms about claiming absolute certainty, though they're happy to leave the details quite vague), we aren't arrogant enough to make a claim like that. But (and here is our considerable "but"), the amount of uncertainty we have about the answer to this question is so close to zero that it really makes no difference.

We'll fall back on an analogy that we've used many, many times in response to similar comments (as well as in two posts that address this very issue). To say that this has been asked and answered is a massive understatement. But we're feeling charitable, so yet another rehashing follows below. No hard feelings, truly, but understand that we're pretty fed up with having to revisit this same subject time and time again. Here we go...

We don't believe in the Tooth Fairy. Why? Because, in all the centuries of human experience, there has never been a single shred of valid evidence supporting the existence of such a being. Sure, there have been lots of anecdotes, but most of them can be explained without resorting to paranormal occurrences (in this case, the most prominent explanations involve false stories with good intentions told by parents to their children). But can we be completely sure that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? No, we can't. After all, we haven't checked out every single claim of Tooth Fairy sightings to see if they are valid, and we haven't checked every nook and cranny of the universe to see if the old bat is hiding out somewhere. However, given the complete lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that she exists, we are forced to conclude that the odds of her existence are so close to zero that it makes no difference.

In such a case, we choose to apply simple, reasonable thinking (what you might call "common sense," though we're a bit wary of that term by this point) — we ignore the terribly miniscule chance that the Tooth Fairy exists, and we live our lives as if the answer to the question of Tooth Fairy existence is an absolute negative. To us, doing anything else would be (at least) borderline psychotic. We're guessing, Jai, that you also live your life in a similar fashion, and that you don't habitually place your teeth (or your children's teeth, depending on your age) beneath a pillow and actually think that there's a possibility the Tooth Fairy might pay you a visit.

The exact same case can be stated for the afterlife, and for psychics communicating with "the other side" (as well as a thousand other extraordinary claims). Just go through the two paragraphs above with the appropriate search-and-replace, and the reasoning holds up precisely the same way. In short, we find the same complete lack of evidence when it comes to the question of psychics and the afterlife that we do when it comes to the Tooth Fairy (and there's been a lot more inquiry into the existence of psychics and the afterlife than into the existence of the Tooth Fairy!), so — as we maintain consistent critical thinking on subjects across the board — how can our conclusion on one differ from our conclusion on the other? After your search-and-replace, you'll notice that we conclude the first paragraph with the statement that, given the complete lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that the afterlife exists, we are forced to conclude that the odds of its existence are so close to zero that it makes no difference — that is, we might as well live our lives as if there is no difference, because the odds of our theory, even if it's inaccurate, interfering with our lives and choices (or anyone else's) are practically nil.

As we said, we're guessing that you agree with our position as it relates to the Tooth Fairy. As such, we are guessing that if someone asks you if the Tooth Fairy is real, your answer wouldn't be "Probably not" or "How can we know for sure?" but rather a simple, unqualified "No." In that case, you have chosen to apply critical thinking the same way we have, and you live your life as if there is no chance at all of the Tooth Fairy existing. However, you don't seem to agree with the exact same line of reasoning when it's applied to the afterlife or to psychics since, as you've shown us above, your answer when asked if those phenomena are real is: "How can we know for sure?" If that's your stance on the afterlife and on psychics, then why not the Tooth Fairy? And Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? Unicorns, dragons, the Norse pantheon, magic crystals, fairy lines in Sedona, ass gnomes? Do you cry out to Osiris or Jude Thaddeus or, hell, Superman for help when you're in trouble? If not, why not? Why choose to believe in any of these things (or to qualify your disbelief in them with the statement that we can't know for sure) but not the countless others, when there is exactly the same lack of evidence for each of them?

So no, Jai, we can't know for sure — for "absolute" certain — that any of these things don't exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But, from our perspective, in order to be consistent, each of us must either embrace the extremely tiny, unproven chance that all of these things (and many, many more) exist...or we must set aside that near-zero chance in every single case and just believe in none of them, unless and until some actual, reasonable evidence comes to light. If you disagree, please explain how and why.

— • —

[As a note, we were hammered by a deep link to an image in a post from early 2005, and ever since, we've employed deep link protection on many file types, including images. So your guess concerning the nature of Eddie's problem is probably accurate, Jai — Ed.]



Jai, 2008.02.20 (Wed) 20:54 [Link] »

Firstly, let me say that there are always at least three sides to a story.

In simple terms, that is your side, their side and the COLD HARD TRUTH.

Yes, either side may have elements of, or be the whole truth. Each side may also have nothing to do with the truth at all. That is why we have, for example, a judicial system that hears the two sides of a particular story and attempts to ascertain the absolute truth from the minimum of two cases that are presented to them.

All I hear in this thread is ONE mere side of a story. Yes Allison may have manipulated an event to "fluff out" her book. I don't deny or acquiesce in anything that was stated above.

I do know for sure that opinions are like assholes, every person has and is entitled to one.

Secondly, I don't think your "Tooth Fairy" example provides any valid argument in this instance. What does the Tooth Fairy have to do with a certainty, that we all die one day and the further possibility of an "afterlife"?

Almost every human-being, at some point in their life, realises that the Tooth Fairy simply does not exist. As with Santa, the Easter Bunny and any other fatuous myth that this puerile human-race has conceived.

Perhaps Religion would have been a more intelligent example to dissect. But due to its complicated and highly assumptive nature, I see you had to use a more feeble and mythological issue such as the Tooth Fairy.

I do have children, and have always given it to them as it is, not what I think it is or want it to be. If I don't know for sure, I'll tell them so. Not fill their head full of utter crap that I think is correct.

No person in this thread, or on this entire planet for that matter has answered my question thoroughly.

So I'll say it again, How do we or any of you know with absolute certainty?

Yes you've briefly touched on the easy layman answer, we can't. All I see otherwise is that you have stated your viewpoint on what "you think". Give it to me that way it IS, not what you think it is.

Assume anything and you're only going to make an ASS out of U and ME.

So let's get things straight. I don't know or care if Allison can speak to the dead. I don't know or care if there is a God or superior form. I certainly am not going to speculate on whether each is right or wrong. I certainly do not care that Allison profits from her beliefs, as I do not care if a church profits from their beliefs and attempts to lead people into thinking or believing a certain way.

That's why I will not buy Allison's book and why I do not go to church.

Finally, let me touch on your scientific analogy.

If she does speak with the dead, it can be proven by submitting to a carefully structured and controlled scientific test of her abilities..

Oh boy. How so? What test(s) can be used to prove Allison right or wrong? If she can see or speak to dead people, what scientific tool can be used to prove her right or wrong? There isn't one!!

Let me enlighten you on some brief history of our "Scientific Understanding".

It was around 150 years ago that "science" believed that living organisms "spontaneously" occurred. Thanks to Louis Pasteur, the whole revelation of science and chemistry changed its whole way of thinking and this "spontaneous" logic was quickly thrown out the door. Science also believed that that the smallest particles on this planet were atoms. Einstein soon proved that these so called smallest particles could be split into two.

When will the next "scientific" revelation occur? We as human-beings really have no idea of what's really going on in the bigger picture. In another 150 years time, I'm sure we'll see more scientific revelations that change the way we think today.



Lyn Gray, 2008.02.20 (Wed) 23:43 [Link] »

I have just stumbled upon your site and found it interesting. I live in Australia and the show Medium is very popular here. It bemuses me that your readers could get so upset over something like a woman professing to talk to the dead. There are people like that everywhere the only difference with Alison DuBois is she is better at public relations. Intelligence has nothing to do with whether you believe in the supernatural or not, that's personal. Just look at the ridiculous rantings of Tom Cruise over Scientology - now there is an idiot. Anyway keep up the good work and comments - whether she is genuine or not doesn't worry me. I like a visit to fantasyland every now and again, that doesn't mean I believe. Oh look at that I can spell and put a letter together like an adult - that should please you.



sheepish, 2008.02.21 (Thu) 08:06 [Link] »

Lyn, with respect, what's being described here is far from innocuous. This is profiteering through the desperation of grieving people, and abusing people's trust. I admit sheepishly to being sucked briefly into the John Edwards phenomenon (caught in a cable TV vortex for a while), but after seeing him live (oh the shame) I felt really disturbed by the cavalier way he told women they were pregnant (turned out not to be true), told people their loved ones were there with them, and used his 'charisma' as a perfomer to manipulate people into elevating his half-baked and vague guesses into deeply individual details about their lives. It was painful and, by the end, offensive to watch. This is only an anecdote, I know, but also, looked at another way, an eye-witness account of the cold-hearted wonder that is cold-reading. It's a skill, that's for sure, but then so is wheedling vulnerable pensioners out of their life savings. To the people who run this site, good for you - the vitriol gets a little exhausting to read at times, but if anger is the energy you use to expose these snale-oil mercahnts of the soul, then I say bring it on.



sheepish, 2008.02.21 (Thu) 08:48 [Link] »

oh I forgot to mention a personal story that offers a pretty good demonstration of the callousness and narcissism that drives some people who have deluded fantasies about their so-called gift. My mother-in-law is convinced that she gets special knowledge from God which she feels compelled to foist upon me unasked. A couple of years ago, I found out that, tragically, I was pregant with a very sick baby who died about 14 weeks into the pregnancy. When I first received the bad news, naturally I had to break it tol my mother-in-law (the child's future grandmother, after all). Her response? Her first question wasn't how was I, what could she do to help, etc etc, but was, wait for it, about whether the ultraound had confirmed her "god-inspired" prediction that the baby was a boy. When my husband heard about this conversation, all hell broke loose. Amazingly, though, when the biopsy came back on the cells of our poor little baby some weeks later, she couldn't wait to ask whether the tests proved she had been right. This was, I'm not lying, her only concern with the whole thing. She was, by the way, wrong. My poor little one was a girl. This self-described medium of God didn't spare even a single thought for what this whole event meant or how it made us feel. All she wanted was narcissistic confirmation of her 'gift'. I can't belive I still talk to her, but she's family. I'm stuck with her.



dikkii, 2008.02.21 (Thu) 08:59 [Link] »

You know, strangely enough, Jai, in the weird logic you employed in your comment, this stood out at me most:

Assume anything and you're only going to make an ASS out of U and ME.

Could you explain for the benefit of those of us reading this thread the thought process you use prior to getting out of bed every morning?



sheepish, 2008.02.21 (Thu) 09:11 [Link] »

I hope that last post wasn't too personal. I offered it mostly as a riposte to those who take the "if they truly believe they have a gift, they can't be accused of causing harm" type of line. I agree that it's worse when someone KNOWS they don't have a gift, but I'm not sure self-delusion is a very strong defense either.

OK I confess I offered the story to vent as well. The pain and anger of her insensitivity are still quite raw. Plus she's still plying me with her stupid and wildly innacurate 'visions'!

Hmm, I'm beginning to understand the pleasure of vitriol.

OK I'll stop bombarding you guys now! Thanks for the site.



Tom from the Two Percent Company, 2008.02.21 (Thu) 09:54 [Link] »

Don't be so sheepish, sheepish. No need to apologize for your comment — it was on topic, and informative.

I'm sorry for your loss. And I'm sorry that, on top of your loss, you had to deal with what you dealt with. And to think, this is the kind of "help" and "comfort" that Allison's fans keep pointing to as her saving grace. Pathetic.

And don't feel bad about venting, either. In our opinion, anger is a very appropriate response when confronted with people like Allison DuBois (or, sadly, like your mother-in-law). We are often surprised by the lack of anger that we see in so many people when they are confronted with clearly predatory and/or hurtful people.

Thanks for your comments. We hope to hear more from you.



The Two Percent Company, 2008.02.21 (Thu) 15:57 [Link] »

Frankly, Jai, we're disappointed with every aspect of your response. You failed to grasp the meaning of our response to your question, you failed to answer our question, you showcased your lack of understanding of the scientific method, you showed us that you seem to lack basic human compassion, and you trotted out the old "science has been wrong before" canard. All in all, a dismal performance for your sophomore effort.

Firstly, let me say that there are always at least three sides to a story.

In simple terms, that is your side, their side and the COLD HARD TRUTH.

I do know for sure that opinions are like assholes, every person has and is entitled to one.

Yep. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. It's just that not everyone's opinion merits a judgment of being correct or particularly worthwhile. And frankly, we aren't interested in the opinions of most people, who have demonstrated no interesting opinions — we're interested in reality. For the record, we didn't give you our "opinion" on the existence of the afterlife (or psychics, or the Tooth Fairy). We gave you the facts — the "math," if you will — and we explained how we choose to live our lives based on a simple understanding of those facts. In brief, and in the hope that you might be able to grasp it this time around, those facts (as they pertain to the Tooth Fairy, for now) are:

  1. In all the centuries of human experience, there has never been a single shred of valid evidence supporting the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
  2. Most of the anecdotes about the Tooth Fairy can be explained without resorting to paranormal occurrences (in this case, the most prominent explanations involve false stories with good intentions told by parents to their children).
  3. We can't be completely sure that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist since we haven't checked out every single claim of Tooth Fairy sightings to see if they are valid, and we haven't checked every nook and cranny of the universe to see if the old bat is hiding out somewhere.

Those are our facts. Here are our conclusions based on those facts:

  1. Given the complete lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that she exists, we are forced to conclude that the odds of her existence are so close to zero that it makes no difference.
  2. In such a case, we choose to apply simple, reasonable thinking — we ignore the terribly miniscule chance that the Tooth Fairy exists, and we live our lives as if the answer to the question of Tooth Fairy existence is an absolute negative.

So you have already seen the facts we have presented, the conclusion we have drawn, and the rationale for our conclusion. We then asked you how you choose to deal with those same facts, but you haven't answered us. If you disagree with the facts we've presented, please explain which ones, and why. If you agree with our facts, but you have reached a different conclusion, then please explain that decision.

Secondly, I don't think your "Tooth Fairy" example provides any valid argument in this instance. What does the Tooth Fairy have to do with a certainty, that we all die one day and the further possibility of an "afterlife"?

You don't think the Tooth Fairy example provides any valid argument in this instance? How could you possibly not see the parallel here, Jai? We laid it out so simplistically that we can't conceive of the fact that you missed our point.

As we said very, very clearly, you should take our paragraphs about the Tooth Fairy and substitute in either the afterlife or psychics since the facts of the case are exactly the same. What was unclear about that? Did you actually try it? Do you need us to do it for you? Well, gee, here we are, doing all the legwork for people who can't be bothered (again); and here you go, complete with bold text every time we changed a reference from the Tooth Fairy to the afterlife:

We don't believe in the afterlife. Why? Because, in all the centuries of human experience, there has never been a single shred of valid evidence supporting the existence of such a place. Sure, there have been lots of anecdotes, but most of them can be explained without resorting to paranormal occurrences (in this case, the most prominent explanations involve false stories with good intentions told by parents to their children). But can we be completely sure that the afterlife doesn't exist? No, we can't. After all, we haven't checked out every single claim concerning the afterlife to see if they are valid, and we haven't checked every nook and cranny of the universe to see if the afterlife is hiding out somewhere. However, given the complete lack of evidence to support the hypothesis that it exists, we are forced to conclude that the odds of its existence are so close to zero that it makes no difference.

In such a case, we choose to apply simple, reasonable thinking (what you might call "common sense," though we're a bit wary of that term by this point) — we ignore the terribly miniscule chance that the afterlife exists, and we live our lives as if the answer to the question of afterlife existence is an absolute negative. To us, doing anything else would be (at least) borderline psychotic.

That's about as clear as we can make it, Jai. The two paragraphs above explain why we state that the afterlife does not exist, rather than it probably doesn't, but we don't know for sure. If you don't see how that applies to your question, and if you don't think that we've answered your question, then all we can say is that we're a little surprised, and we disagree with you completely.

Almost every human-being, at some point in their life, realises that the Tooth Fairy simply does not exist. As with Santa, the Easter Bunny and any other fatuous myth that this puerile human-race has conceived.

Yes, Jai — that's precisely why we used this example! Because we were reasonably sure that this was something that you didn't believe in, and more importantly that you also would never hedge on this subject like you hedged on the afterlife and on psychics. Did that really escape your notice?

Perhaps Religion would have been a more intelligent example to dissect. But due to its complicated and highly assumptive nature, I see you had to use a more feeble and mythological issue such as the Tooth Fairy.

No, religion would have been a terrible example because that's just one more thing that so many people hedge on, just like you hedge on psychics and the afterlife.

I do have children, and have always given it to them as it is, not what I think it is or want it to be. If I don't know for sure, I'll tell them so. Not fill their head full of utter crap that I think is correct.

Now we're getting somewhere, though it may be by pure chance. Based on your statements above, maybe you can answer our question after all. We'll rephrase to address your comment above — what do you tell your kids (assuming they are old enough) about the existence of the Tooth Fairy? About unicorns? About any of those silly examples we used? And what do you tell them about the afterlife, and about psychics? If your answers are different, then can you please tell us WHY? Please: just tell us why. This is the same question we asked you in our last comment, and the same one we repeated above. This time, we just applied it to what you tell your kids, and asked you to explain any differences in how you treat the afterlife and psychics versus how you treat the Tooth Fairy and Santa. Feel free to answer either. Or both. Just please don't reply to us again without answering either.

No person in this thread, or on this entire planet for that matter has answered my question thoroughly.

No, Jai, we've answered your question. You asked how we can know for sure that the afterlife and psychic mediums are not real. We stated, point blank, that we do not know for sure — so your question of "how we can" is now moot. We then went on to explain, in much detail, why we still make statements that are definitive without the caveats you feel the need to make. We have answered your question completely, far beyond the scope of your mere words, and into the meat and spirit of where you were headed with them. In fact, taking this very reply into account, we'd now say that we've gone into quite excruciating detail in order to answer your question. Now we're waiting for you to answer our question. To wit: in detail, and with some kind of consistent logic, why do you treat the Tooth Fairy any differently than you treat psychics and the afterlife?

So I'll say it again, How do we or any of you know with absolute certainty?

We've been through this. We don't know anything for sure. Tell us something that you know "for sure," and we'll explain to you why you are wrong. We can play that game, too. However, science doesn't tell us what is absolutely true — it tells us what is most likely given our observations, and all conclusions remain provisional, which means they are open to addition, modification, expansion, excision, or deletion when new data are presented. In this case, science tells us, through a complete lack of valid evidence, that the afterlife is just as likely to be real as the Tooth Fairy. From here, it is up to each of us to decide whether we trust the scientific method or not.

Given that the vast majority of all human advances have come about as a direct result of the scientific method (you likely wouldn't even be here, let alone communicating with us through the Internet, without it), given that these positive results indicate that science is the single best way to measure and predict what happens in our universe (nothing else has provided the results that the scientific method has, period), and given that there is no alternative to the scientific method that anyone has ever offered that even comes close to the success of the scientific method, we choose to trust the outcome science has presented us with (not trusting the scientific method would be pure lunacy, by the way, so this isn't a leap of faith we're talking about). And we choose to do this consistently across the board. Since the case for the existence of the afterlife is exactly the same as the case for the existence of the Tooth Fairy, our approach of consistently applying rational thought leads us inescapably to the conclusion that neither of them exist.

If someone chooses to caveat both of these phenomena by stating that "we can't know for sure," then that person is being consistent, but is not following the conclusion that the scientific method leads them to (a choice we find foolish in the extreme). If, on the other hand, someone firmly states the nonexistence of one of those things, but feels the need to caveat the other, then that person is being logically inconsistent. In that case, we want to know why this person is being logically inconsistent. And that's where we left off with you, Jai.

Yes you've briefly touched on the easy layman answer, we can't. All I see otherwise is that you have stated your viewpoint on what "you think". Give it to me that way it IS, not what you think it is.

No, Jai. We didn't "briefly" state anything, and what we gave was not an "easy layman answer." That much is clear by the simple fact that you didn't grasp it. And we have given it to you the way it is, you just aren't getting it.

Assume anything and you're only going to make an ASS out of U and ME.

How trite. And what did we assume, Jai? Are you referring to the fact that, because the probability of the existence of the afterlife is close to zero, we have therefore assumed it to be zero? That's not an assumption. We haven't actually assumed it to be zero — we've just come to the reasonable conclusion that if it's that close to zero, we should feel free to treat it like it is zero. And that's an application of critical thinking in the process of using the scientific method, rather than any "assumption" you are assigning to us. There's a big, whopping difference there, Jai. If you don't understand that difference, then you don't understand the scientific method or critical thought. There's really no other way we can explain that.

So let's get things straight. I don't know or care if Allison can speak to the dead. I don't know or care if there is a God or superior form. I certainly am not going to speculate on whether each is right or wrong. I certainly do not care that Allison profits from her beliefs, as I do not care if a church profits from their beliefs and attempts to lead people into thinking or believing a certain way.

Wow. Okay. We find it pretty callous of you that you don't care that Allison is taking advantage of people who have suffered the loss of a loved one in order to gain fame and fortune for herself. That would seem to point to a basic lack of human compassion on your part. We also find it disheartening that you don't care if a religious group tries to make people agree that homosexuals are evil and that they should be granted less liberty than other people. Again, this seems like a lack of compassion. But we've come across many people who, like you, seem to be apathetic about most of the problems in the world, so it doesn't shock us at all. It just saddens us.

Finally, let me touch on your scientific analogy.
If she does speak with the dead, it can be proven by submitting to a carefully structured and controlled scientific test of her abilities..

Oh boy. How so? What test(s) can be used to prove Allison right or wrong? If she can see or speak to dead people, what scientific tool can be used to prove her right or wrong? There isn't one!!

First off, that wasn't our reply, it was from BD. But we'll field it anyway. If you think this is a huge "Gotcha!" — well, we're sorry to burst your bubble. As with your first question, this is one that we have already answered many, many times. In fact, we answered it in one of the posts we linked to in our last reply to you, which leads us to believe that you didn't bother to actually read our reply in full before commenting again.

The answer to your question is very simple: the way to test claims like Allison's is to test the claims themselves, rather than the overall existence of the phenomenon they represent. Now, Allison's specific claims about her powers are...well, not too specific. We're sure that's intentional since, the more specific she is, the more she can be shown to be wrong. She would have to elucidate a bit in order to generate a proper test. But, as an example, look at the test that James Randi conducted to measure the claims of Natasha Demkina. We just revisited this subject about this a day ago:

For a perfect example of what we're referring to, check out the case of Natasha Demkina, the girl with X-ray eyes. In case you aren't familiar with Natasha, she claimed to be able to use some form of X-ray vision to diagnose medical conditions just by looking at people. Since we cannot see through Natasha's eyes, a test was designed based on her own claims. As James Randi relates:
In the test, Ms. Demkina correctly identified the medical conditions of four out of seven patients, and misdiagnosed three. She was informed in advance of the seven possible conditions, and was required to assign them correctly — a "forced-choice" test. She had claimed in advance that she would be 100% correct, but agreed with the researchers that she would have to get at least five successes to pass the test. Professor Josephson seems unaware that proper scientific tests require that the protocol be agreed upon in advance and then adhered to — as this one was; he prefers to re-structure the rules when the test fails to prove the point he prefers.

One of the test subjects had as her "secret" the fact that she had a hip replacement, and her somewhat awkward gait might have hinted at that. Also, Demkina's people were in conversation with some of the subjects before the test. These were both factors that should have been eliminated, I would say. One cannot make excuses after the test is agreed to and carried out, however. Those factors have to be eliminated in advance by the experimenters. To offer such facts as excuses would be to follow Josephson's methods, and I find that not acceptable.

This is a great example of a test that can be carried out without the need for tools or processes for detecting the paranormal event behind the claimed ability. In point of fact, we tend to think that this test was way too easy — it was multiple choice, the level for success was set below the level in Natasha's own claims, and some medical conditions were, as Randi notes, somewhat easier to ascertain visually than others. In addition, the data was tainted when Natasha's own people were allowed to talk to the participants. All this said, though, Natasha still failed when it came to her own claims. Not only did she not get 100% of the diagnoses correct as she said she would, she didn't even get five out of seven right, which was the agreed upon success rate in order to declare Natasha's claims valid. The point being: it really isn't all that difficult to test paranormal claims, as long as you aim to test the specific claims themselves.

In brief, Randi listened to the claims made by Ms. Demkina, and he designed a test that she claimed she could pass via extraordinary means. The test was tailored to her specific claims. Given specific claims like this, it's pretty easy to see how similar tests could be constructed for Allison (who claims to contact the dead), or for any other person making similar paranormal claims. See, that wasn't so hard. Science is well-equipped to test claims of the paranormal.

Let me enlighten you on some brief history of our "Scientific Understanding".

It was around 150 years ago that "science" believed that living organisms "spontaneously" occurred. Thanks to Louis Pasteur, the whole revelation of science and chemistry changed its whole way of thinking and this "spontaneous" logic was quickly thrown out the door. Science also believed that that the smallest particles on this planet were atoms. Einstein soon proved that these so called smallest particles could be split into two.

When will the next "scientific" revelation occur? We as human-beings really have no idea of what's really going on in the bigger picture. In another 150 years time, I'm sure we'll see more scientific revelations that change the way we think today.

When will the next scientific revelation occur? Hell, man, they occur all the time. That's the beauty of science — it is self correcting. And it also doesn't stop and declare every answer it produces "the final answer." That's also the beauty of science. No answer is absolute — all knowledge is provisional. Every answer can be modified if compelling evidence emerges that causes us to modify it. The fact that you don't understand that only lends credence to our suspicion that you really don't understand what science and the scientific method are or how they function.

Your off-base and oft-heard attempt to say that "science was wrong once, so therefore it's just silly" is asinine. Just because a scientist can be wrong, it doesn't follow that science is wrong. Science — that is, the scientific method — has not been wrong...ever. That's an incredible fucking claim, of an incredible fucking track record, and we're one hundred percent confident in making it. The "errors" in scientific thinking come about through the fact that, over time, both the amount of data we're able to cull out of the universe, and our ability to manipulate that data, grow and expand. Science doesn't tell us to ignore that new data, it tells us to embrace it — to include it in our previous set of data, and to alter our previous conclusions if the new data doesn't fit the old conclusions. But — and here's the rub — it has to be good data. It has to be data obtained with proper controls in place. It has to be able to be replicated by others. It has to be solid.

And if new data comes in on psychics — new valid data — we'll incorporate that data into what we have today, and we'll modify our conclusions accordingly. Of course, given the many, many decades of scientific testing on psychics, and the complete lack of valid evidence supporting their existence that has appeared to date, we tend to doubt that such a breakthrough is just around the corner. And that huge body of research is why we can say that psychics (and the afterlife and the Tooth Fairy) do not exist, without any caveats.

Due to its very nature, the scientific method cannot be wrong, and it's frustrating dealing with people who don't understand why — usually, because they think it is a textbook or manual that tells people what to do. They can't conceive that it is simply a process of approaching information and reaching conclusions, a process that is so utterly flawless that even the flawed humans who use it can arrive at very accurate conclusions. Scientists (the humans who look at these questions) can be wrong, and the prevailing consensus (according to humans who need answers) at a given time on a given subject can be wrong, but not the actual science (the approach to the information, not the information itself). Our advice to you, Jai, is to go read up on the scientific method. If you educate yourself a little more, perhaps you'll understand why your statements here are so off base.



Jai, 2008.02.21 (Thu) 21:34 [Link] »

dikkii, I guess the name says it all...

I am not even going to dignify that with a response. You may as well have said "U Suck U LOSER".

Two percento, I don't know what drugs you're on, but they seem to be quite "out there" man. I just hope you're not selling them to little children.

I failed to grasp the meaning of your response because it simply makes no sense. It's all opinionated and I don't care or want to know what you think.

My response is easy to understand. It seems you have difficulties in admitting that you don't know something for sure. You'd rather give a half-baked assumption where you cannot provide any evidence to back your claims.

I simply have responded based on the facts.

Fact A: Allison Dubois believes that she can speak to and/or see the dead.
Fact B: You assume she is blowing wind up our rectum.

THE COLD HARD TRUTH: No-one knows for sure, not me, not you, not any person that reads this thread, not any person on this planet for that matter. Allison may be lying or she could be telling the truth. I am not going to assume anything, because there is no scientific method to prove her right or wrong.

If you want my OPINION, I think Allison is blowing wind up our rectum. But that's MY opinion and whether it is FACTUAL, I have no idea. Neither do you, that's my point...

You failed to answer my question, HOW can they prove her right or wrong? What scientific method is available today that detects the presence of a dead person?

"test the claims themselves". HOW?? With what?? Maybe they should contact "Ghostbusters" eh?

Okay, predicting the future can be tested, simply by waiting to see if the event actually occurs. But a scientific test to detect the afterlife?? If there was such a test that could prove it right or wrong, we would not be here having this lame argument.

Of course X-Ray girl can be proven right or wrong with the diagnostic technology available to us today. X-ray machines, CT scanners, MRI, ultra-sound, Nuclear Medicine Technology all could be used in this instance.

"We find it pretty callous of you that you don't care that Allison is taking advantage of people who have suffered the loss of a loved one in order to gain fame and fortune for herself. That would seem to point to a basic lack of human compassion on your part. We also find it disheartening that you don't care if a religious group tries to make people agree that homosexuals are evil and that they should be granted less liberty than other people. Again, this seems like a lack of compassion. But we've come across many people who, like you, seem to be apathetic about most of the problems in the world, so it doesn't shock us at all."

Of course I care, It seems you also like to put words into my mouth. My point is, if people want that false sense of security, that choice is THEIRS. Not mine, yours or anyone else's.

I never stated that "science was wrong once, so therefore it's just silly". Here we go again with you placing words into my mouth. My point is, what they don't know today, they may know by tomorrow or in XXX years to come.

Why don't you put your semi-intelligence to good use? Like tobacco corporations that legally kill people. Pharmaceutical drug industries that place the value of money before the health of their customers. Eradicate poverty. I can think of hundreds of issues that far outweigh the importance of the argument in this thread.



TimmyAnn, 2008.02.21 (Thu) 23:20 [Link] »

You're the one who makes no sense, Jai. The 2% Co. explained their point very clearly (both times), if you can't make sense of it, the problem is with your ability to read and/or comprehend it, not their ability to explain it. You remind me of a high school student who claims that the subject being taught "makes no sense" rather than admitting that he/she can't understand it.



The Two Percent Company, 2008.02.22 (Fri) 12:58 [Link] »

Wow. Are you really this fucking dense, Jai? Apparently so. You still don't seem to be able to grasp our answer to your question. However, that is your failing, not ours. What amazed us last time, though we felt that addressing it wouldn't further our goal of conversing with you, was your remarkable claim:

No person in this thread, or on this entire planet for that matter has answered my question thoroughly.

Yes, Jai, you are the Glorious One, the Amazing Thinker, the One and Only who has come up with the Unanswerable Question of the Universe. Oh, had the Sphinx only posed your question to Oedipus, perhaps we would never have had to deal with Freud's asinine bullshit! But alas, it was not to be. Because you weren't there. And, delusions of grandeur aside, your question is not unanswerable. And, in point of fact, it has been very easily and succinctly answered many times, not the least of which is in this very thread. In short: get over yourself, jackass.

I failed to grasp the meaning of your response because it simply makes no sense. It's all opinionated and I don't care or want to know what you think.

No, Jai, it makes perfect sense. Fuck, we broke it down for you in such excruciating detail that a simpleton could grasp it by now. And yet you still don't get it. If you are too fucking stupid to understand what we're saying, then you are too fucking stupid for us to force ourselves to put up with you, and you will not be welcome here. Period.

My response is easy to understand. It seems you have difficulties in admitting that you don't know something for sure. You'd rather give a half-baked assumption where you cannot provide any evidence to back your claims.

For fuck's sake, you asshole. We have trouble admitting that we don't know something for sure? How many fucking times do we have to openly state that we don't know these answers for sure for you to read and fucking understand what we're saying? We typed it out. Verbatim. More than once. And then we explained in incredible detail why it is that, despite our lack of absolute certainty (which was admitted, acknowledged, and included in our reply), we still make the assertions we make. The fact that you could even make a statement like yours speaks to your incredible ignorance, and to the fact that you clearly haven't bothered to really read any of what we've written.

I simply have responded based on the facts.

Fact A: Allison Dubois believes that she can speak to and/or see the dead.
Fact B: You assume she is blowing wind up our rectum.

No, you drooling pile of ignorant shit, those are not the facts. We laid out the facts. You know, in that same old question we asked you about half a dozen times which you've never even fucking acknowledged except to insipidly ridicule an incredibly appropriate analogy. Based on your classification of "Fact B" as a "fact" when it is, in point of fact, your opinion, we're guessing that you can't tell the fucking difference between a fact and an opinion. Truly, your intellect is lacking, fuckhead. And, until you provide evidence to the contrary, that's a fucking fact...not an assumption.

THE COLD HARD TRUTH: No-one knows for sure, not me, not you, not any person that reads this thread, not any person on this planet for that matter. Allison may be lying or she could be telling the truth. I am not going to assume anything, because there is no scientific method to prove her right or wrong.

One last time for the cheap and stupid seats, you moron: this is our point entirely. You say that you are "not going to assume anything," and yet, we're willing to bet that you don't leave your teeth under your pillow for the Tooth Fairy. That "assumption" (to use your incorrect term for it) is exactly the same as our assertion that the afterlife doesn't exist. If you really, truly cannot see that parallel, then please leave our site and never come back. We'd normally also recommend that you refrain from reproducing, but since you purportedly already have offspring, we'll just shake our heads sadly at the damage you will likely do to them.

You failed to answer my question, HOW can they prove her right or wrong? What scientific method is available today that detects the presence of a dead person?

"test the claims themselves". HOW?? With what?? Maybe they should contact "Ghostbusters" eh?

Did you fucking bother to read the description of the experiment that James Randi performed on Natasha Demkina? Apparently not, or you wouldn't still be making this asinine statement. The fact that you continue to pretend that science cannot test claims of the paranormal is a testament both to your complete lack of understanding of science and to your stubborn ignorance. We've explained this all to you already, and we have no reason to think that further explanation will penetrate your thick skull.

Okay, predicting the future can be tested, simply by waiting to see if the event actually occurs. But a scientific test to detect the afterlife?? If there was such a test that could prove it right or wrong, we would not be here having this lame argument.

No, you stupid fuck. What we said was that specific claims of the paranormal could be tested, not broad, vague "definitions" of some kind of "psychic power." If a psychic claims that she can predict lottery numbers by communicating with spirits "on the other side," that claim can be tested by implementing controls and having that psychic try to predict lottery numbers. Rinse and repeat for all sorts of paranormal claims. If this shit isn't sinking in, try whacking yourself in the head with a tack hammer.

As a thought experiment only — because, in practical application, Allison could and no doubt would (because she, and those like her, have done this on countless occasions) move the goalposts — we will explain this very carefully for you:

If Allison claims to be able to use her broadly defined "powers" to contact the dead relatives of a specific person and get a specific type of information; if that person has enough specific, detailed data points of that defined type, once shared with these dead individuals during their lives; if we can collect those data points in an objective, verifiable, incontrovertible manner; if Allison is willing to specifically seek out those data points in her "contact" with the dead; and if we can compare her data points with the ones we already know are fact...then we are able to test one of Allison's specific claims.

Our reluctance to delineate this directly has nothing to do with any inability or unwillingness to "answer" your question. It is related to the point that you, if you are so inclined, can do exactly what Allison does, and move the goalposts — stating that we don't understand how her powers work, or the spirits were unkind that day, or that a particular spirit lied, or WHATEVER. And we're not interested in playing goalpost-chase. Those "ifs" above are concrete, and if you change them, then no, this particular test won't work for this particular claim.

But the fact remains, that like this hypothetical test, and like the Demkina test, it is very easy to design an experiment to test the SPECIFIC CLAIMS of any proponent of the paranormal. Only you are not getting this, Jai. After our exhaustive and exhausting exhortations to you in this thread, it's pretty obvious to anyone with the ability to think critically and objectively about these issues how such a test would work. It simply requires logical application of the knowledge of the scientific method to a new context; and applying previous hard-won knowledge to a new situation is the hallmark of intelligence — it is what competent scientists, and those who think things through, do all the fucking time. A well-functioning brain is required, though, so you might be stopped at the door.

Of course I care, It seems you also like to put words into my mouth. My point is, if people want that false sense of security, that choice is THEIRS. Not mine, yours or anyone else's.

No, Jai, we didn't put any words into your mouth. In fact, we fucking quoted you and responded to that quote. Amazingly, you are trying to backtrack on your own words which are freely available just above for all the world to see. You said, quite clearly:

I certainly do not care that Allison profits from her beliefs, as I do not care if a church profits from their beliefs and attempts to lead people into thinking or believing a certain way.

So, let's see: you don't care if Allison profits from her claims that she can speak to the dead, (even if she is lying?). And you don't care if churches attempt to lead people into thinking a certain way (even if that "way" includes homophobia and intolerance?). Those are your words, asshat, not our interpretation of them. We used our rebuke to challenge your words because we thought they were careless. Now either acknowledge and embrace what you said, or acknowledge it and admit that you misstated your position. Don't try to fucking blame us for your ridiculous and apathetic statements.

I never stated that "science was wrong once, so therefore it's just silly". Here we go again with you placing words into my mouth. My point is, what they don't know today, they may know by tomorrow or in XXX years to come.

Are you seriously going to pretend that your little "lesson" in the past "problems" with science wasn't meant to "show us" how science isn't always right and that one day psychics could be found to be real? Pull the other one, jackass. That is the "science has been wrong before, so therefore it's just silly" argument.

Why don't you put your semi-intelligence to good use? Like tobacco corporations that legally kill people. Pharmaceutical drug industries that place the value of money before the health of their customers. Eradicate poverty. I can think of hundreds of issues that far outweigh the importance of the argument in this thread.

You're right about one thing: this argument is utterly useless, because you're too fucking stupid to take part in it. Now please go away. We are sick of people like you, who ask a question, get an answer, and then fail to acknowledge that answer or respond to the questions we have raised in return. If you comment here again without answering our question, without acknowledging your misstatements, and without curbing your repulsively arrogant ignorance (O Great Purveyor of the Unaswered Question of the Universe), then your comment will be moved to the urinal where idiots who try to plague us go to languish. We'll leave it to our readers to decide whether we answered your question and whether you answered ours. We have every confidence in our position. Judging by the thread above, if you have the same confidence in yours, you're even more of a pathetic, moronic pissant than we thought.

Good-bye, Jai.



Bronze Dog, 2008.02.22 (Fri) 20:48 [Link] »

Well, Jai made his assumptions and managed only to make an ass of himself in the process. He assumed he had absolute knowledge of our opinions, and thus all our protestations that he got it wrong fell on deaf ears.

He also blindly assumed that there's some magical barrier between the "paranormal" and everything else. Science measures things that can do stuff. Apparently, the "paranormal" can't be measured by science despite having the characteristic science measures: The ability to do stuff.

I found his utter lack of imagination and utter lack of research in that regard painful. He's obviously never listened to a skeptic in his entire life. I bet he's one of those imagination-deprived people who think you can't prove photography to a blind man. These sorts of people just have no ability to appreciate science's ability to grasp the invisible. I'm on a laptop with a wireless connection. There's a lot of invisible stuff between me and him.



Gabby, 2008.02.25 (Mon) 01:09 [Link] »

I find it ridiculous that you assume intelligence has anything to do with what you believe in. Some of the smartest people in the world have believed in god and religion which to me is not a far cry from believing the dead are still with us and some people can see them. I'm not for or against Allison I just find it insulting that you call people morons and then comment on their syntax and other bullshit because they don't agree with you. How would you know it's all a "carny trick", you wouldn't coz you haven't died yet! I can't believe what she says and I can't believe what you say, this is after all a website and you could be a bunch of religious freaks who wish to discredit her because it's against your beliefs. All this site does is go back and forth, up and down, round and round with neither side having any form of proof to ratify their claims. So in all, stop talking about shit you can't prove because you sound just as bad as her. I'm only writing this coz I stumbled upon your site and your ideas on peoples intelligence are sooo wrong. Some of the dumbest people in the world would have thought she was loony and it was all a trick. So get over yourselves, you're not that smart just because you THINK all psychics are cons. Btw (or should I spell it out for you?...by the way) ignore my syntax and spelling, it doesn't reflect my intelligence level, nor do my beliefs. YOU ARE ALL MORONS!!!! and should really get a life...later...



TimmyAnn, 2008.02.25 (Mon) 01:31 [Link] »

Did you even read this thread before posting your comment, Gabby? It is explained in great detail how they "know" it's a parlor trick (or if they claim to "know" anything with 100% certainty). Therefore, I can only assume that you either did not read it or did not comprehend it.



The Two Percent Company, 2008.02.25 (Mon) 10:05 [Link] »

From...

I find it ridiculous that you assume intelligence has anything to do with what you believe in.

...to...

YOU ARE ALL MORONS!!!!

...in less than sixty seconds. Wow. You got a hemi in that thing?

Thank you, Gabby, for so handily demonstrating the blatant hypocrisy and stupidity that typically go hand in hand with the apathy and lack of critical thought you've displayed for us.

Your assertion that we are "ALL MORONS" seems to be largely based on your opinion of what we believe — in case that missed your attention. In contrast, our current conclusions about your intelligence are largely based on your apparent inability to parse what has been written in this thread, analyze it, apply any sensible thought to it, and respond to it in a cogent and effective manner. Your syntax and spelling, while remaining a delicious vanilla bonus, didn't enter into it — as we've already addressed that very topic on many occasions, we'll refrain from pointing out your completely inaccurate assessment of our take on that. You are a complete Ah.

Or should we spell it out for you?

...asshat.



Mel Glid, 2008.03.02 (Sun) 23:17 [Link] »

I am not a believer or non believer. I just notice that the two sisters statements would be considered hearsay. Also, smoking does affect other organs in the body. Our skin is our largest organ.
Smoking. Below is a quotation from a UK cancer research study.
"One study linked cigarette or pipe smoking to increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma. The risk among smokers is about twice that of non smokers, and increases with the number of cigarettes smoked a day. The increased risk may be because of the direct effects of tobacco smoke. Or it may be because smokers are more likely to get HPV infection of the skin "

I believe she is entertaining and whether she has a gift or not, one may never know. We can always wonder.



Bronze Dog, 2008.03.03 (Mon) 10:18 [Link] »

Mel says:

I believe she is entertaining and whether she has a gift or not, one may never know. We can always wonder.
I prefer finding out over wondering. We can know if she applies to the JREF challenge or something similar and beats it. But woos aren't interested in research or learning.

There's a difference between genuine wonder and slothful navel-gazing.



The Two Percent Company, 2008.03.03 (Mon) 21:56 [Link] »

For fuck's sake, Mel. Is this the best you can do? Seriously? Do you really need us to answer these exact same questions, all of which we've already answered above? Did you not bother to fucking read anything we've already written?

Listen, some "niceties" out of the way, to start: you may be a perfectly pleasant person, Mel. You may be a hit at parties, and a good friend to those who get to know you. And you certainly didn't approach us in any particularly rude fashion, at least not on the surface. But understand — everybody please understand — that first and foremost, we are just fucking fed up with people, polite as they may present their comments, squandering precious seconds or minutes typing pure drivel rather than spending the same time reading through this very thread and finding out that their questions have already been answered. Believe it or not, that is fucking rude. It's dismissive, it's presumptuous, and it's outright willfully ignorant — willful, for certain, because it would be so easy to not have to ask these questions if you'd just read the fucking thread — who knows, perhaps you might have had some intelligent follow up questions after reading the answers we've already given to the same tiresome questions you did present. We kind of doubt it, but hell, we're still waiting for somebody to thrill us.

So no, we don't know you personally. But our limited personal experience with you has forced us, in exasperation, to conclude that you, like so many before you, are a thick-headed dipshit. And fuck, but we're tired of thick-headed dipshits like you. So we'll be swearing, and venting, and just generally pissed off throughout our response, and we offer no apology for our justified annoyance at having to rehash the same fucking shit for the thousandth time for people who can't be bothered to read it for themselves, especially so fucking soon after we just complained about this fucking ridiculous behavior on the part of other thick-headed dipshits. See a few comments previous...and a few comments before that...and so on, back up to the first idiot in this thread who didn't bother to actually read our material, made a stupid, unfounded assertion, and didn't make any effort to back it up.

Now: the meat. Hopefully — but certainly far from likely — for the last motherfucking time.

First, regarding your statement that the account above would be considered hearsay: no shit. A three-year-old with a scratched "Hooked on Phonics" tape could tell you that, since we said as much in the post, and we've addressed that over and fucking over in the comments. Here's what we said in the post:

Yes, both sides of this particular story are anecdotes, but given Allison's track record when it comes to telling the truth, as well as her vested interest in "creative embellishment," we are inclined to believe Karen, especially since she has no discernable motive for making this up. At the very least, it gives those who would worship Allison something to chew on that isn't coming from our mouths (the morons hate us so).

And as we said in many comments above:

So basically, we've acknowledged that Karen's story is an anecdote. We aren't leaning on it to "prove" anything. Based on our offline (and private) communications with Karen (and others), we tend to believe that her story is accurate. We are not asking anyone else to blindly accept it, though — it's just "something to chew on," as we clearly said.

Clear? Probably not. Thick-headed dipshits of the world rejoice, you've got a new member.

Second, regarding the study you mentioned (sans link, for a change — thanks, thick-headed dipshits!): we already know about it. Why? Because we fucking linked to it above. And if you had bothered to read and comprehend what we already wrote, as well as reading the study you mentioned itself, you would see quite clearly that the study refers to squamous cell carcinoma, while Domini died of melanoma. Or is that distinction lost on uneducated asshats like yourself? Here's what we said on the subject:

We haven't seen anything that ties smoking to melanoma. You might be confusing different types of skin cancer. There have been studies linking smoking to increased incidents of squamous cell carcinoma...maybe that's the type of skin cancer you're thinking of?
[Jan Nico Bouwes Bavinck, MD, of the Leiden University Medical Center and his] team of researchers compared the risk of smoking in 580 patients with different types of skin cancer, and in 386 people without skin cancer. The researchers found that smoking was only associated with development of squamous cell carcinoma, not basal cell carcinoma or melanoma.

[Our emphasis]

Next time, before you slap a study on the table to "prove" your point, try actually fucking reading it, then parsing and even comprehending it first. You know, instead of just mindlessly regurgitating the words. We promise it makes a world of difference. At the very least, feel free to take advantage of the fact that we already linked to and discussed the study. Instead of just ignoring it. Like a thick-headed dipshit.

Third, if one more dumbass fucker says about Allison's claims "one may never know, we can always wonder," we will fucking rip off their head, turn it upside-down, shit in it, sew it back on, and kick them in the face. You moronic fucking dipshit. You may wonder all you like — we do know. And anyone with an ounce of grey matter who bothers to educate themselves on the fucking facts knows as well, for precisely the reasons we've outlined again and again in this very fucking thread, including mere inches above this in our lengthy reply to Jai. So you wonder all you want, but don't lump us in with your intrepid league of asshats.

Now kindly fuck off. It's too early in the week to deal with this same level of abject idiocy yet again.



The Two Percent Company, 2008.03.04 (Tue) 14:26 [Link] »

Okay, folks, we "hate" to do this — "hate," of course, in the sense of "holy fuck, why do we have to deal with this shit" — but once again, it seems that it's time for an Allison Dubois post to be closed to further comments. Why? The answer should be pretty plain to anyone with a functioning brain (in other words, not so evident to many of you who have commented here, we're sad to say).

In 249 comments (this is number 250 — what's that, the Titanium Anniversary?), aside from our own and a handful of helpful comments from folks who bothered to read and understand what's going on here (whether they agree with us or not), the majority of the comments have been utter crap. Check it out for yourself, if you have the stomach for it. They start strong, with the first really moronic comment coming in at #18 (thanks, Allison SUPPORTER), and they slowly but surely descend (on the average) after that. As you can see, many of the non-drive-by stupid comments have presented at least one of the following three characteristics:

  • Remarking that we "can't really know" what we say about Allison...completely disregarding what we actually have said about Allison, and therefore not paying attention to the fact that we have backed up everything we've said about her.
  • "Catching" the "mistake" that smoking can affect the development of squamous cell carcinoma, and Domini died of melanoma, so therefore her smoking caused it, just like Allison said...completely disregarding the fact that we not only addressed this topic, but linked to the study in question, demonstrating that (hold on to your hats) squamous cell carcinoma is not melanoma, and therefore Domini's smoking was not medically linked to her cause of death. (As an important note, we are not harshing on N here since that was the first mention of a possible link — we actually appreciate that comment as it urged us to do more research, which is always a good thing.)
  • Failing to read what we have written, failing to follow a simple logical throughline, failing to recognize our very clear (and detailed) responses to questions, and/or failing to respond (or, in many cases, even acknowledge) our own questions in return.

Come on, stupid people — even you can do better than this.

For the non-idiots, and to those who have helped with some of the heavy lifting and shelving (not to mention taking turns at the checkout counter — thanks dikkii, BD, TA, and others!), we're sorry if closing this thread eliminates a good source of comedy for you, but we've frankly grown tired of it, and a quick look at our referrer stats suggests that it's popularity isn't going to wane any time soon. So it seems that another Allison Dubois thread will be shut down.

You know, if Allison were willing to put up or shut up, maybe she'd start a blog and deal with rational folks swamping her threads. But we understand — that would take a lot of time away from touring and counting the money she's fleeced from the credulous and grieving.

On a personal note, we have to say that we have received some of the most vile and repugnant comments that we've ever received on this very thread, and that's saying something. We're used to people blindly supporting Allison, and we're used to people blindly and baselessly insulting us because we easily hacked through their special little fantasy worlds — that's all par for the course. But to those of you who expressed hatred for Karen and/or Kris, who lost their sister to cancer, all we can do is shake our heads. It amazes us that people can be so fucking cruel and inhuman. And you know who we're talking about here, medium and Tiena.

As we said to medium:

And here's what it all comes down to — you are a worthless, spiteful human being. Hey, we're used to shit-stains attacking us (and failing to counter any of our points), but really: Why? Why Karen and Kris? What did they do to make you hate them so much? Their sister died of cancer — isn't that enough to make you feel some sorrow or compassion for them? Hell, we don't like Allison DuBois very much, if at all, but if her daughter died, we'd feel sorry for her, you disgusting asshole. What kind of sick fuck makes a statement like the one you just made, medium? You are clearly a vile, disturbed person, so don't even reply to this post, please.

And now...comments on this Rant are officially closed. If you are an aspiring asshat who came here to say something stupid, please go shout it into the grill of an oncoming tractor trailer.



|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Amazon.com


Recommended by us:


Recommended to us:

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]