I am a psychic and I have won the lottery.

But why would I want to admit this? I don't want people to know.
I don't want to spend my time picking lottery numbers for other people!

Do you have any idea how graspy and energetically sticky and generally yucky people become if they think you can pick lottery numbers for them? That is just about the most energy sucking negative interpersonal subspace crap dynamic imaginable.

I would rather spend eight hours a day dealing with skeptics telling me I am deluded for "believing" I am psychic than I would spend five minutes dealing with someone who wants me to pick their lottery numbers.

Gross.

spiritofpeace, your attitude towards non-psychics shows a lack of love. To remedy this, you must give me next week's lottery numbers. My email address is...

LOL.

Seriously though, if you go on a sceptic forum under an assumed ID and give them next week's numbers, don't you think they might be impressed? What's stopping you doing it anonymously?

Because they don't need the lottery numbers.

I won the four digit state "all four any" drawing twice in two weeks because I was given the numbers by a friend in spirit after I had an accident that disabled me physically. I was looking at 5 months out of work with no income, not enough savings to cover my expenses, and no other reasonable way to support myself and my animals. At the time I was working in science research administration, not as a psychic, but during that 5 months I started working as a psychic to supplement the lottery winnings.

Most people don't need to win the lottery, they need to become committed to being responsible for themselves.

That's why I don't give ANYONE lottery numbers. Besides, if they are not needed, no one in spirit will give them to me to give to any one else.

Also - I love non-psychics... there is nothing more fun than "could be" psychics, and could be really good psychics, who just don't know it yet!

Spiritofpeace,
A case can be made that sceptics do need to know the lottery numbers. Just think: you could shatter their materialistic worldview and set them on the path to a higher quality of consciousness. (They wouldn't win much money - even if they bet, others will share their winnings if you advertise the numbers in a public forum).

Another advantage: you wouldn't need to argue 8 hours a day with sceptics anymore. They'd have solid evidence that you weren't fibbing, fabricating or fantasising.

In the spirit of scientific enquiry, I think their could be value in this little experiment. Probably best to use the 6 number lottery, though, as they might try to dismiss 4 numbers as chance.

Yes explicit. My guides laughed at me too Lena, at least for Wed, I have been sick and haven't checked Fridays yet. I haven't read the posts directly above all the way, but I think putting the numbers first is the only believable way to show anything. I just checked Friday's, again with the laughing, is cool though, it was just a test. I am beginning to understand everything in life is a test, and it kind of irritates me. I have to work on that.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Ross,
I think if you read Tom's first response in this thread it will answer why it probably won't happen. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2624&p=3238&hilit#p3238 My understanding is some skeptics will never change anyway and psi uncertainty makes them right;-)

Peter

_________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know." - Tao Te Ching

Thanks Peter - I understand about the Psi Uncertainty principle. But the PUP needs to be better understood (wouldn't you say?), so I think it's always worth testing its limits and applicability if you can get the chance. I'm a great admirer of Rupert Sheldrake.

Also, consider someone like Uri Geller. He can do amazing things. The PUP seems to work on him by appreciating that he's also a showman as well as a psychic, so allowing people to believe he's always faking it (if they're so inclined). Otherwise, there is little doubt that he can do "impossible" things before very large audiences.

Unfortunately, it has been my experience that skeptics make a business out of debunking at the expense of both truth and honesty.

Giving them the numbers would not change their worldview, their ethics, nor their business of debunking.

While scientists may be skeptical and spend their time looking for evidence to prove, or disprove. a hypothesis and related theory, most modern day 'skeptics' are actually classical pseudo-skeptics. Most are not scientists, most have little to no scientific background worth mentioning (background as in - peer reviewed published articles, research grants, government and privately funded research teams, world-wide collaboration work, advanced degrees) and you will often not find their C.V.'s online listing these accomplishments and connections.

I was recently slandered in an online science magazine by a well-known skeptic who flat out lied about the results of a prediction I made in a local, and fun, arts and entertainment magazine. The predictions were edited for the reading audience and were not reported as completely as they might have been, nor did I accomplish these predictions with the help of a team in a lab with controls.

They seemed to be an easy target for a professional skeptic, in this case, a person who was also willing to lie in order to make a point. The mistake this skeptic made was that he did not even bother to verify anything that he was writing (and fibbing about) and he did not even bother to consider the prediction as having a chance of being correct, nor look for any evidence of it that was easily available in online sources. He simply added his own words to the prediction, thereby creating something I did not predict, and declared "See, this prediction is obviously WRONG."

The fact that this science magazine allows this skeptic to even publish what he terms "science-based" research is a kind of fraud.
When it happened, I was upset, - not just because it slandered me and my business - but because I have worked as an assistant to the editor in chief of a science and engineering journal, and I have edited numerous science papers and manuscripts, I have organized conferences and symposia for actual scientists, including extremely accomplished, highest prizewinning scientists ... and I personally previously had no experience with "skeptics" -- those people who when carefully looked at prove to be non-scientists who are actually dogmatic ideologists simply posing as voices for championing scientific thinking...

The work of scientists is time consuming, it is difficult, it takes careful attention to detail, it takes working well with other people, it takes time, and it takes oodles of money. Some rhetoric happy B.A. or English Ph.D's with a dogmatic non-scientific ideologies and no desire to do any peer-reviewed research, or even the legally expected journalistic research - certainly do no merit any standing as legitimate voices in ANY scientific community.

Most modern skeptics not only do not understand true science is not a dogmatic ideology - they also do not understand the true nature of skeptical thinking.

They do not need to be given any further data to lie about.

Spiritofpeace,
Yes, it's interesting how the pseudosceptics have organised themselves. As revealed by a lady called Zetetic Chick they seem more numerous than they are because they are well organised worldwide and have a missionary zeal in pursuing their declared aim of saving the world from what they regard as foolish and irrational ideas. They actually have meetings to plan their campaigns.

They target Youtube, create sites like "rational wiki", give low ratings to spiritual and paranormal books on Amazon and mob blogs they disagree with. A lot of them are logical positivists, even though that philosophy is seriously out of date.

We need to be aware, however, that they are actually small in number (about 5% of the general population are materialist atheists), and, understanding that they try to queer the pitch for everyone else, I submit that more enlightened folk should not cede ground to them. If we do, in a sense, they win -or at least they achieve their declared aim. Better, I suggest, to expose their strategy and their aims and, if possible, undermine it with the light of truth.

That's my view, spiritforpeace. But your mileage may vary.

Well this particular magazine, http://www.csicop.org/si/, of which I get eletters (or whatever) to keep an eye on, turns my stomach, although that is easy right now as I am ill. I tend to keep an eye of all factions, and this one does not even qualify as being skeptical since they come in to disprove, with minds made up.
I am sorry that you have experienced this type thinking from where ever it came from to your person. I am of mind that our scientific method is flawed and based on wrong data assumed to be correct over the years. We need to reinvent the wheel, see http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/rugg.html for one concept.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Hi All,

At one time Bob Monroe said and I am paraphrasing "I am getting out of the proving business." For me personally this has turned out to be a worthy choice, spending energy on my own growth rather than on dealing with the so called skeptics. Besides these people are not really skeptics but more like what Tom refers to as elevated butts i.e. head buried in the sand types. I say let them be. (-:

ubik

I know from personal experience that trying to convince something to someone who has a belief that it can't be true before you even start to explain is a waste of time.
Tom says that personal experience with repeated results is the only way that it can be proved to yourself. So to try and prove from the 'outside' seems futile don't you think ?
It would take more than a 'wow' to awaken most.

Peter

_________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Those who know do not talk.
Those who talk do not know." - Tao Te Ching

There will be a tipping point, as I believe Gladwell might say.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Last couple month I am watching on one Russian forum skeptics and psi believers endlessly trying to convince each other, explain their point of view to each other... Time after time they go in the circles, and so much energy goes to waste. So far nobody was able to change somebody's opinion. I think more often these kind of discussions bring an opposite result. Both sides gain more mistrust in each other. It is a futile attempt to reach those who do not listen to you, not interested in your words, thoughts, your understanding and experience.

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

And you're right Lena, if someone is emotionally invested in his opinion, the opposite opinion will only harden his resistance. But next week's lottery numbers are not a question of opinion, they're solid evidence and a question of fact. That's why I think it might be worth testing -we mustn't believe that nearly everyone on a public forum is a determined pseudosceptic.

I wouldn't like to think the RWW could be so suborned!