We are unique, you haven't answered a single challenge, or proffered a single proof. All you've done is subtly insult me, proffer a single, uncorroborated anecdote, and shift goalposts with some meaningless NewAge waffle.

1. What challenge are you referring to Clownfish?
2. Proof of what?
3. Insult? Where in my postings to you have I made insulting comments Clownfish?
4. A single, uncorroborated anecdote and shift goalposts with meaningless Newage waffle? Experiences and facts regarding a childhood encounter is not an uncorroborated anecdote nor is it shifting goalposts.

Experiences are experiences Clownfish. Do you not 'experience' life and situations?

Best stick with facts and [evidence] as you proclaim to others Clownfish, prior to making the above claims that I allegedly made to you. I cannot find any 'insults' in my postings to you.

That is your problem if you have not encountered any evidence or experiences involving Psychics being accurate or intuitive.

If you choose to write peoples opinions and experiences off as a result of an individual not presenting facts or evidence to you on subject matter, you indicate fear, complete distrust and cynicism within your mind and heart. I feel sorry for you. What will you interpret and twist those comments as Clownfish? Condescension?

Gullibility is irrelevant regarding experiences and evidence.

Challenges? Well, for a start there was the link to the Skeptic blog, regarding the 'close-minded' fallacy, which you apparently duly read (unless you decided to rubbish the Skeptic's site without actually reading it, which I'm sure you'd never do) but have yet to respond to; apart from repeating the fallacy several times.

Then there was the challenge to offer a full set of your 'experiential evidence', the misses as well as the hits, so that an objective judgement could be made regarding their validity. And related to that, the challenge to offer valid evidence, of any sort, of genuine 'psychic' ability.

That's the proof I'm asking for, as I'm sure any reasonable person would. It's a fool, after all, who accepts an extraordinary claim, unquestioned, without any valid evidence.

The 'subtle insults' I mentioned are a standard response from Woos: adopting an attitude of saintly condescension, with accusations of cynicism and hypocrisy, the implication of narrow-mindedness and meannness, and the general insinuation that a skeptic is a sad, nasty nay-sayer.

What it really boils down to, though, is that you have no evidence to offer, and no logical argument, so the best you can do is to try and paint me as a bad person in order to distract attention from your own untenable position.

Finally ... um, yes, 'experiences and facts (?) regarding a childhood encounter' are precisely an uncorroborated anecdote. I shouldn't really have to give lessons in basic English, I would have thought, but here goes: uncorroborated - 'not supported by evidence'; anecdote - 'a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical.'

Once again - a point you have also conspicuously failed to answer - if I 'have not encountered any evidence or experiences involving "Psychics" being accurate or intuitive,' that's not my problem, it's yours.

*You* are the one making the extraordinary claim, so it's up to *you* prove it. By all means, go ahead. Sadly, experience so far leads me to suspect that you won't even try.

"Oh dear, dotto, where do I start ...

The peptides claim is peddled by Candace Pert, aptly described as 'a talented scientist who went woo woo many years ago.' Pert also claims to have found a cure for AIDS, but - surprise, surprise - her work is 'being suppressed'."

You have forgoteen something Clownfish. Candace was the scientist who discovered the opiate receptor. She should have received the Nobel prize for it but her superiors got jealous and greedy and they claimed the prize instead. Very convenient that she's now considered to be a woo woo. Yes, Candace has been blocked by the world of science, and in this way she has been silenced. Wouldn't want to risk the fine upstanding reputations of her colleagues.

So, in answer to your question Clownfish, oh dear dotto ... where do I start - you could start by not putting words into people's mouths. You could read up on single case study research. You could ask yourself who the target audience of the Septics website is, and why.

Oh, dotto, you still won't answer, will you?

'read up on single case study research' - that's exactly what I'm asking for. I've read *plenty* of case studies, and in every one, the 'psychics' fail. If you could provide a valid case study that actually lends credence to a 'psychic', I'd be most interested.

You can cut-and-paste, but it doesn't appear that you can read: the quote I used 'aptly' acknowledged Pert as a 'talented scientist.' But one, unfortunately, who ended up tripping off with the fairies.

I'm also well aware of Pert's backstory - probably better than you are, since I know that it was not the Nobel she probably should have won, but the Lasker prize. Skeptico, that wicked skeptic site you so disparage, has the full story, and they're quite sympathetic to Pert's role in it: http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/05/candace_perts_m.html

As for the target audience of Skeptico? People who can think, because people should think, not accept any old fairy story uncritically.

Anyway, I await your revelations of rigourously tested, scientifically validated evidence for 'psychic' abilities with bated breath.

*I live and experience my life often more intuitively and with common sense which has not let me down to date approaching 50.*

So Unique, how did things work out, when it came to something
like selecting a husband?

Or do you simply have selective memory, like most?

In case you didn't know, the Lasker Award is known as the American Nobel prize, Clownfish. As I already said to you but you must have missed it, don't put words into my mouth. I have no problem with Skeptico, why, do you have a problem with people asking questions? Keep up the good work in knowing everything. Keep believing Clownfish. Might as well send it out to the universe while you're at it.