IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Not so useless | Main | Misinformational cascade »

Comments

Ben's comment and mine posted simultaneously and made the same point, though he made it more briefly.

"...more briefly"

Hehe...and more bitingly.

Okay, now I suppose I'm going to have to trade in my Gary Schwartz books, The Afterlife Experiments, The G.O.D. Experiments, The Living Energy Universe at the used Bookstore for trade credit? As well as my Dean Radin's books and Rupert Sheldrake's books which I'll never read again because it took me months to wade through them the first time. Reading those through once was enough. Man, I'm going to have a LOT of trade credit next time I go into Nashville. We've got a huge used bookstore where I trade old books for trade credit. http://mckaybooks.com/

People in great pain my not do what they normally would when dealing with such a matter. The papers shown are real, and many people have seen them. That is why GS is not saying anything.

In Veronica Keen's latest Sunday communication there is an interesting paragraph on this subject.

The letters have said on several occasions that "GS" would be found out.And so it has come to pass.

Personally I feel very disappointed .


www.montaguekeen.com/articles/montague/oct7.htm

Arthur,

I think it is unfair to compare Gary to Rupert or Dean.

Dean and Rupert may be fringe scientists but they are still scientists. Their conducts are dignified.

Gary's conduct cannot be said to be appropriate even for a learned man, much less a doctor of philosophy (even for a soft science like Psychology).

I am responding to Michael's posting regarding "if" Dr. Schwartz actually pursued Michael Knopf for, $3.650,000.(actual amount) that was asked for in the documents on U of A stationary. Having personally seen a copy I read the full 8 page "proposal" for the money, I can tell you it exists, and is highly disturbing! Perhaps it will be posted in full soon. I can also attest that this is NOT an isolated case, that there were MANY very wealthy people and organizations approached by GS, often on the immediate heals of someone's dealth....and always they were either rich or famous.
There is so much to this story, so many characters, and I can tell you this is just the beginning.
One point I would like to make about why the district attorney could not prosecute him criminally is because of the language in the original gift letter from the Knopfs for 50K....the money was gifted to the U of A for 50K true, yet GS spent it on himself, flying back and forth to NYC to visit a girlfriend....he used none of it for research, claimed Knopf "bought out his semester...".....
The Truth will out itself in the end. It is most unfortunate that things are unfolding as they are, as the multitude of complainants all tried to go through the system, get help from the U of A, as they are mandated to do, but all they cared about was covering their own asses....they see the multitude of legal cases that can come down on them, not to mention the PR.....the U of A is as responsible for his conduct as he is personally, they have done nothing to make it right with the people he deeply injured and abused!

Frankly I feel kind of "had" here.

I always felt a bit uncomfortable with Schwartz's earlier methodologies and his breathless language. But when Bieschel came up with the triple-blind experiments I bit the worm on the hook and reported about this research positively on AMNAP.

But I've been feeling weird about Schwartz for some time, mostly due to his over-the-top "VERITAS" - we are so full of truth and honor routine. It also has bothered me that he seems not to be able to work on a long-term basis with anyone. However I didn't have anything concrete, so I didn't air any of my misgivings.

Now it appears that Schwartz might well be a complete sleaze-bag. These allegations, if remotely true, mean we cannot take any of the research coming out of his lab seriously, even if the research was completely legitimate. For someone practicing as a professional funeral-chaser and shaking down grieving family members for money to contact their loved ones is the worst kind of dirtball, and we can trust nothing they said.

Shame on me for not paying attention to my intuition. Anyone who harps so vociferously about their "honesty" and "integrity" is someone who needs to be watched like a hawk. I knew this and yet I didn't practice it. Congratulations to Michael for showing better sense than I did.

Of course, it is entirely possible that Gary Schwartz is innocent of all these charges. But I am finding that possibility increasingly unlikely. Gary, do you have anything to say in your defense?

Arthur, I think it is unfair to compare Gary to Rupert or Dean. - Scienceguy
********************************************

Oh, I wasn't really comparing them to each other. Other than they are big fat rather unintersting & difficult books to read. It's just that I found all their books equally difficult to read and enjoy. I've got a small two shelf bookcase next to my bed where I keep all my "life-after-death" books, and all the above authors are shelved in that bookcase. I've read through their books one time and I doubt I'll go through them again. For one thing they are NOT that interesting; and I found them rather tedious to read. I've digested what I could out of them. I am 54 years old and at this stage of the game in my life I'm trying not to accumulate a whole bunch of clutter in my life. I am not much of a collector. Being interested in life after death, and having read a lot of books about death and dying, I am all too aware of how fleeting this life is and how illogical it is to collect stuff. No one (meaning my relatives) will want it when I'm gone. When I try talking to them about life after death, NDE's, death bed visions, the holographic universe, etc. they just roll their eyes. They just don't get it. They have no interst in the topic and most likely think I'm nutty. One of my wife's aunts came right out and called me a "kook." Sigh! So, I might as well trade in those books which I know I will never read again. Radin's books, while very educational, were rather tedious to read, and are not really about life after death, which is where my real fascination lies.

Gary did not see Geraldo. He was away from home last week and over the weekend and returned to all this today.

He has responded to the allegations of confidentiality breeches on testing mediums.

Knopf was a client of Campbell's

Mr. Knopf, I have now learned, was a sitter of Laurie Campbell's, who introduced him to Gary He is more difficult to discuss because
there may be confidentiality issues involved and these are being checked.

I confirm once again that I did meet Mr.Knopf several years ago at a mediumship lecture.

But as I am also a HCW I feel some of my discussion with him may be construed as privileged. While there is no doubt Dr Schwartz solicited him for a donation (GS does this to everyone) the argument here seems to hinge on what he said to Mr. Knopf that made this particular solicitation objectionnable.

What is not covered by confidentiality in my discussion with Mr. Knopf concerns the fact that he told me, my sister and others at that time that he had owned a medical school. Yes there are things like private medical schools that are privately owned. A few examples are in the West Indies. This may be true and if so that should make him pretty astute on academic matters, donations tax deductions and so forth. On Geraldo, however, he was described as someone in the auto parts business. I suppose he could be both. Do I understand this? No, but there are now people who aim to find out.

Geraldo's producer has spoken with GHary and has agreed to provide a tape of the show for Gary to watch by mid-week. Since today is a holiday in NY, it couldn't go out until tomorrow or maybe Wednesday.

Therefore I suggest that people save their collective breaths in demanding comments or responses until after Dr Schwartz has at least had the chance to view the material.

Thanks

Michael wrote: "In a newsgroup, I once raised this concern with Julie Beischel, who worked at Schwartz's lab, and she claimed that putting the transcripts online would be very time-consuming and require all sorts of manpower. Nonsense. It takes almost no effort to upload a text document to a Web server and add a link to that document on a Web page."

Sure, putting a text document onto a website is easy, if you already have it in that format. However, I don't think the same is true for transcribing audio speech into that text document to begin with. Medical transcription is still done, I believe, by people listening and typing, and that is, indeed, time-consuming and labor-intensive. I don't think there is software available that can reliably and accurately do this transcription. Is there?

None of the dictation (speech) to typed text programs works well. First they have to be tuned to the speaker and in mediumship there are two and they can't be tuned to both.

The speech/audio has to be spoken into the PC via a mic. I dont think this would work too well in a mediumship session either.

Secondly even if tuned to a single speaker we found they made so many mistakes the editing took up even more time then typing from scratch. So our transcriptionists put on ear phones and yes,type medical dictations from the doctors all day long.

It is very expensive but the programs designed to solve this are just not that good.

>Sure, putting a text document onto a website is easy, if you already have it in that format.

I don't see how the sessions could be evaluated for hits and misses without a transcript.

However, I think sgrenar makes a good point. We should give Dr. Schwartz time to actually view the Geraldo story and prepare a response.

I'm uncomfortable with one or two of the comments which make allegations that so far have not been proven. It's one thing to voice doubts or suspicions, but another thing to say, as Truthteller did, "I can also attest that this is NOT an isolated case, that there were MANY very wealthy people and organizations approached by GS, often on the immediate heals of someone's dealth....and always they were either rich or famous."

Unless there is some evidence that can be produced to support these allegations, it would be better not to report them as if they were proven facts.

>Congratulations to Michael for showing better sense than I did.

Thanks, Matthew - but as I recall, I linked to your AMNAP piece on Schwartz, so I guess I didn't show any better sense, after all!

What bothered me also about Truthtellers post was the implication that Dr Schwartz approached families of deceased rich people and this was how he found Michael Knopf. This was not true as I have indicated above Mr. Knopf and his wife and daughter turn out to be clients/sitters of Laurie Campbell which in my mind could translate to friends of Laurie Campbell. Laurie Campbell, of course, is part of the breakaway group of mediums who have a dispute with Schwartz.

Their dispute according to Don Watson is that in the book Truth About Medium Dr. Schwartz allegedly reveals confidential information about Laurie's daughter. Laurie was on Geraldo in the anti-Schwartz cheering section.

The fact that Knopf is Laurie's client was not revealed on the show and immediately casts Mr. Knopf's allegations into the arena as part of the medium's revenge group, icing on their cake and not as a stand alone problem.

Dr. Schwartz has responded to allegations on testingmediums that he revealed information about Laurie's daughter in Truth About Mediums. He points out the information had been made public before the book was written and that the draft of the book was vetted by Alison herself before publication. Alison, Laurie's friend, therefore actually gave an okay on the text even though after it was published she decided to criticize it.

If I get any more relevant information I will pass it along.

If a child is underage do you not have to have the parents permission to talk about them?

sgrenar seems to know personal info on all of these people! Who is sharing this with him?

Michael:

I have been a subject sitter in research (not at UA) and have been required to read and rate readings to see if I could spot the one which was for me and those which were not. I was not present and proxies were used. The medium was shown a picture of the deceased and said they have him/her.The ratings are what is important. If the investigator knows a particular reading is for a particular sitter and is rated poorly then that is enough in my mind to invalidate the process, or at least that particular medium.

These rating sheets are not word for word transcripts but rather have "facts" given by the medium line by line. They would be meaningless to anyone but the person for whom they were intended unless the sitter's ratings were included. I agree that once such data was rated and tabulated it would not be difficult to put them onto a website
but what for? Morbid curiosity?

Explain to me what exactly would be the value or purpose of a verbatim transcript online that would be worth violating the sitter's rights to confidentiality if their identity would be included or could be surmised by the information. Thanks.

1. Re underage child being mentioned in a book, specifically The Truth about Medium. The medium being ALison DuBoid, the author being Gary Schwartz.

You do not need permission from parent or guardian if the information being mnentioned has previously been made public. There are folks who say that it has. A complaint against Gary was filed with the Federal government about this and they responded by
admonishing Gary to make sure he follows all Federal regs on this in the future. Much of the copy of that letter I saw was redacted.


2. Who is sharing this information with me?

Dr. Gary Schwartz, much of which he has already been posted on another list at yahoogroups calling testingmediums.

My other source of information given above is Don Watson, M.D., who is a member of testingmediums as well as a scientific advisor to a new research initiative being launched. Details are on Laurie Campbell's website, feel free to visit there and click on Research.

I also have two off-line sources of information who do not want to be publicly involved.

I am also my own source of information having met and talked with Michael Knopf several years ago at a mediumship lecture held at the Hilton in Staten Island, NY.

I hope that answers your question. It was a good one.

I would think you'd still ask the parents to write about their CHILD out of RESPECT for that person.

I don't disagree with your sentiment suzy.

The facts are a legal complaint was lodged against Dr Schwartz and the University and the Federal government felt it was legally a gray enough violation to warrant a warning rather than a huge fine.

In this instance Dr. Schwartz published information that was not only previously made public, however, but which came from a dear friend, colleague and co-worker. The last thing he would want to do would be to hurt her child in this case. In addition that text was approved by Alison DuBois who was also a friend and colleague of the mother.

As you will see in Dr. Schwartz' formal response to the Geraldo show there were other reasons that caused the child's mother in this case to become disaffected and unhappy with Dr. Schwartz.

sgrenar seems to know personal info on all of these people! Who is sharing this with him? Posted by: suzy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When I first became interested in the question of life after death, about 7 or 8 years ago, there was a site called "Survivalscience.org" that I absolutely loved. I think the moderator of that site was some guy named Steve Grenar. I'm wondering if sgrenar is that same person, and if so, whatever happened to the Survivalscience website? It was absolutely excellent. It was the first place I ever heard about the holographic universe and was what led me to reading Michael Talbot's book "The Holographic Universe." What a difference it's made in my life. If sgrenar is that person I'd just like to say "thank you".

I can't believe that he had a falling out with the mediums, then he goes and write's about the family of that person. What's next? He was slapped on the hands by OHRP! AG's office as well.

>Explain to me what exactly would be the value or purpose of a verbatim transcript online

To rule out cold reading, for one thing. I know that Schwartz's protocols (now) are designed to prevent cold reading, but this was not true of his earlier work.

Also, to indicate the specificity of the information, the number of variations on a particular detail ("I'm getting a J name, John, Joe, Jane, Jeff, Jake ..."), etc.

Some of this may be covered in the tabulated lists. But even this unedited material rarely shows up online.

I'm new to this site, but saw GERALDO and was impressed at the growing body of evidence that shows that this Gary Schwartz is a sloppy scientist at best. It's becoming clear because of former associates' testamonials that he's interested in self-promtion at anyone's expense. People who have suffered loss. Are they all wrong? Are they all ganging up on this man for no reason? I hear there's a blog on another medium's website that speaks about these issues, does anyone know which blog it is?

You're welcome Arthur ....

Suzy: The "falling out" as you call it occurred after the book in question was written and published. You have the time lines skewered. You make it sound he wrote this afterwards. Not true.

Again, when Dr. Schwartz agrees to release his formal response you will see the reason for the "falling out."

The best way to prevent cold reading is to not allow the medium any verbal or visual contact with the sitter and/or to use a proxy.

Since the recent readings I have had were done by a medium 600 miles away who didn't know me, never saw me (and I didn't know the medium either)and couldn't speak to me
cold reading would be moot.

I agree cold reading is used, consciously or unco9nsciously, in face to face sittings where the medium cannot only ask questions but size up the sitter through appearance and body language.

>sgrenar: As you will see in Dr. Schwartz' formal response to the Geraldo show there were other reasons that caused the child's mother in this case to become disaffected and unhappy with Dr. Schwartz.

I'm not sure Gary's response will explain anything. Here's an exchange between Gary and me on the testingmediums website:

> [Gary] You may not remember this, but Laurie Campbell and Allison DuBois were very proud of their personal exploration in this particular demonstration, and before they became famous, they enjoyed my sharing this intriguing evidence of their gifts.

[Don] Laurie's interest from the onset of our relationship was not to become famous, but to use her gifts to advance science. After we had many discussions about this, I decided to introduce her to you because of your emerging interest in mediumship research. Then, when she and I went to Tucson where we, you, and Linda discussed setting up the experimental program, her motive was unchanged. In short, Laurie's objective was not to become famous, but to contribute to a scientific research program.

> [Gary] In fact, Laurie's daughter was featured in a teen psychic magazine, and I was asked to confirm this.

[Don] You're raising more questions than answers. You were asked by whom? And what were you asked to confirm? And why were you asked?

> [Gary] Hence the key information was already public before I expanded up it in my book.

[Don] That doesn't matter. Confidentiality belonged to the parents, because their daughter was a minor at the time, and no one else can legally waive it. The daughter chose to reveal certain personal information to the writer for the magazine. Then, before the article was published, she was given the opportunity to review it and correct any errors. Do you claim you did this, too?

> [Gary] Only later has Laurie tried to make the claim that I did not have her permission to share material that she herself made public before I wrote the book.

[Don] This raises many more questions:

1. If Laurie is wrong on claiming this, can you produce her written permission?

2. What do you mean by her making the information public?

3. Did you receive information about Laurie's daughter in a "public"
conversation with Laurie or in a private phone conversation, as your book states?

4. So you consider Allison's reading "public" because it occurred in a Mexican restaurant?

5. Was Laurie naïve in trusting you with personal information about her daughter?

(I'll share Gary's responses if they become available.)

Matthew C. said:

"Now it appears that Schwartz might well be a complete sleaze-bag....For someone practicing as a professional funeral-chaser and shaking down grieving family members for money to contact their loved ones is the worst kind of dirtball, and we can trust nothing they said."

Matthew, while the allegations on the Geraldo show are certainly serious, I think it's worth stepping back and checking for tabloid hype before we throw too many accusations about. Sgrenar pointed out that Schwartz's first hookup with this client was through Laurie Campbell - this raises faint alarm bells for me considering the falling out between Schwartz and Campbell.

It's not a big jump between meeting someone enthusiastic about survival research, who is willing at the time to donate some money but later falls out with Schwartz, and a tabloid story about fleecing someone of money using their dead child.

The only thing we can be sure of is that it's all bad publicity for the (almost non-existent already) reputation of mediumship.

Don wrote above: "I'm not sure Gary's response will explain anything. Here's an exchange between Gary and me on the testingmediums website:..."

Gary's response will be Gary's response Don.
Everyone is calling for it and yet you have the temerity to say it will be useless before ever seeing it. I assume this means you are psychic.....and have set up a protocol to validate that?

Steve, the "cold reading" concept nowadays include "the Forer effect" also called Barnum statements.
This type of statements seem personal, yet apply to many people, like:
"I sense that you are sometimes insecure, especially with people you don't know very well."
"You have a box of old unsorted photographs in your house."
"You're having problems with a friend or relative."
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_reading
for more examples.

Transcripts with many details can refute such accusations from sceptics/pseudosceptics, if the data given in the readings is specific enough. Names of sitters and the people mentioned in the reading can be altered/witheld for anonymity.

I didn't get any of those generalizations. What I got were specific facts that were completely incorrect, hence the medium who was supposed to be reading me, er, failed.

Greg,

I said that Schwartz "might well be" a complete sleazebag. Not that he definitely is one.

In any event, I still feel foolish for my (previous) very positive statements about Schwartz's research, given the red flags I sensed at the time. Anytime someone goes on an extended spiel about how honest and trustworthy they are, check your wallet! I should have been much more qualified in my enthusiasm about his research.

However, Schwartz still has an opportunity to salvage his reputation if he can come up with a very convincing rebuttal.

FYI, at some point Typepad will probably split this comments thread into two pages because of its length. If this happens, click "Next page" or "page 2" (whatever it says) at the bottom of the thread in order to see newer comments.

OHRP and AG's office findings mean nothing to any of you wake UP!

OHRP and AG's office findings mean nothing to any of you wake UP!

Suzy,

Can you elaborate? Better yet, link?

" [Gary] ... Laurie Campbell and Allison DuBois were very proud of their personal exploration in this particular demonstration, and before they became famous, they enjoyed my sharing this intriguing evidence of their gifts.

[Don] Laurie's interest from the onset of our relationship was not to become famous, but to use her gifts to advance science. "

Not quite sure what you're getting at here. Schwartz never said that the Laurie's goal was to become famous, only that the two *did* become famous. He doesn't even imply that their fame had anything to do with the experiments.

I'll wait and see how the facts play out here, but on the topic of 'red flags', I personally find it interesting that whenever I read Schwartz's position on the dispute, he speaks quite reservedly and with (at least seeming) respect for the people involved. The opposite is not true. There seems to be a great deal of emotion involved on the other side of the issue, which gives me pause.


> sgrenar: Gary's response will be Gary's response Don. Everyone is calling for it and yet you have the temerity to say it will be useless before ever seeing it. I assume this means you are psychic.....and have set up a protocol to validate that?

Not psychic, just perceptive--and that's been validated by many years of psychiatric practice.

I illustrated by my post that Gary doesn't always answer questions. Those he doesn't like, he evades. I wish, for everyone's sake, that Gary would simply accept responsibility for his own behavior, and stop pointing fingers at others to explain his difficulties.

In the case of his disclosing personal information about Laurie's daughter without permission, for instance, he could simply say, "I'm sorry. I made a mistake. I could have shown a draft of the chapter to Laurie and her daughter for approval, but I didn't. Or I could have referred to the magazine article, but I didn't."

I'm eager to see Gary's response to Geraldo's program, too.

Maybe I can help him. I'm hoping that my confronting postings will help Gary face his many critics and answer honestly and candidly.

Indeed, to salvage his reputation, Gary needs to credibly explain why he has so many critics.

Terrific thread with lots of insightful comments. sgrenar's contribution is particularly interesting given his access to so many of the people involved.

I don't have anything to say of direct bearing, but I will share a couple of second hand stories.

One is that I talked to a well known parapsychologist with an excellent reputation who told me about watching the tape of John Edward's session in GS's original experiments. The conversation was about mediums in general and he said that he was impressed by the tape, that Edward gets on a streak where he fires off apparently correct fact after fact. I bring this up because it suggests GS at least at times has shared original research. (I have not named the parapsychologist because I don't want the remark to be construed as an endorsement of GS experiments. That was not the context of the conversation.)

The other is about Alison DuBois. A good friend of mine is a television producer who was involved in a television pilot featuring DuBois. His specific role was to secure a reading subject and to establish as much as possible that the subject was unknown to Dubois. My friend is a fairly cynical guy and by no means a 'believer' The pilot was shelved so there is no reason to make false claims about it (which he would have have done to me in private in any case). Well, he was "blown away" (his words) by the reading, saying she was very specific and detailed - and that she reduced the subject to tears. The point here? That the case for mediumistic abilities doesn't rely on GS alone.

Even if GS's personal integrity is impugned, it doesn't necessarily impugn his research (which can be audited, etc., by others). And if his research is impugned, there are other sources of confirmation. It would be a blow - but hardly a death blow.

Check out http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/detrm_letrs/YR07/jun07a.pdf please read this for new people on this site

Suzy,

Your post illustrates the point that mediumship is a very real phenomenon. What worries me is that people will see a scandal like this erupting, and dismiss the entire subject. What can be done?

As the millionaire (part) owner of a medical school there was no way he could be taken in. On the other hand a three million+ donation endows a Chair at the University and this is more likely what the proposal was for, not to set up a corporation in the afterlife which is utterly ridiculous on so many levels. Mr.Knopf was interested in doing this. The chair may've been named after his deceased son, e.g. The Paul Knopf Chair in Parapsychology or some such thing.

How was the money supposed to get to the other side?

Arthur if they are calling you a kook you are in some good company when it comes to paranormal research.

sgrenar your comments make sense. It is amazing how we humans can jump to conclusions before the facts come out. ie duke case.

give the guy a chance to respond. I heard Gary speak and he had some very good insights.

he appears to have learned a lot from his research but when money, fame, and power is involved morality can fly right out the window. Fly to New York to see his girl friend anyone here ever been in love. Maybe he saw a medium while there. Almost Everyone does those kinds of things.

the history of mediumship has taught us that money can encourage fraud. God works in mysterious ways look at all the interest this has created on this blog. The history of paranormal research is full of this type of publicity and will continue.

Religion, science, and the media folks will jump on this to support their cherished beliefs.

Funny to see people who do not know GS only from web sites they go on act as if they do! Ask the ones who realy were around the man such as Allison, and the others that's when you get to the truth. Strange that they all left the lab at about the same time.


The issue only emerged after we raised the ethics standards and requirements for the laboratory, and Laurie and some other mediums choose not to do the work necessary to remain being part of the laboratory (e.g. taking key portions of the ethics exam we scientists take before conducting research)....I respect their choice....however, I could not claim they were Integrative Research Mediums if they were uninterested in increasing their knowledge in areas such as ethics and research findings in mediumship research....Laurie's interest in the science seemed to decrease around the time that the requirements for doing the science increased....She was at a different stage in her career and development....I trust she is happy in her current role....blessings, Gary

NOT TRUE! THIS NEVER TOOK PLACE.

Please elaborate, Laurie?

Thank God I was away in New York celebrating my birthday and missed all this fun, I might have spent my big 4-0 blogging instead of whooping it up with friends at the Cowgirl Hall of Fame on Hudson Ave.

I lost my confidence in Dr. Schwartz's ability to select mediums when one particular medium (whose name will go unmentioned) was endorsed. I know that medium's work well, and their work ethic is highly questionable.

Like Michael, I also was waiting to read actual transcripts. Listening to Dr. Schwartz describe the level of hits from his remote viewing experiments, I was very curious to see the real time process vs. the retelling of the process. Unfortunately, no transcripts ever came to light.

More disturbing to me than the Dr. Schwartz controversy, is the show on LifetimeTV Lisa Williams - Life Among The Dead.

It seems that there is nothing Lisa Williams won't do or claim in order to make herself famous and loved. I'm not saying that she doesn't possess some skill, but her posturing for the camera, overtly forced dramatic gestures and borderline cold-reading techniques are just begging for debunkers and skeptics to attack.

Taking time out from the serious discussion for a second...

Happy birthday Marcel! :)

Surely you meant big 3-0?!

Laurie it would be helpful if you elaborate.

Specifically are you saying:

1. You and the other mediums were never asked to take the ethics rating exam?

or

2. You did not refuse to do so?

Thanks.

The comments to this entry are closed.