IMG_2361
Blog powered by Typepad

« Fan mail! | Main | Apocalypse soon »

Comments

I tried to be clever and it didn't work (same old story). I mean with the italics this time. :-)

Typepad seems quite limited in some ways. It would be nice if users could edit & delete their own comments.

Michael said: I think we've reached an impasse. Keith believes that a spirit world is so unlikely that any alternative hypothesis, no matter how far-fetched, is preferable. I'm not saying his opinions aren't interesting, and I appreciate his taking a considerable amount of time to participate in this thread (and others). But I don't see any point in debating him further, though others are certainly welcome to do so. It's not that it isn't fun and challenging, but after a while it starts to feel a bit pointless, because there's not going to be any meeting of the minds.

Well said, Michael, and this thread has been, for me, a source of good material. I'd like to thank all involved in this discussion. I will keep reading these pages for the next days, and I will ponder about them. I still value Keith's ideas, but I am mostly disappointed by his attitude and - as I see it - his lack of proper understanding of human nature and of human mind. I think this inability is devastating for someone who decides to study and to write about what he does, the purported evidence for the afterlife and all related issues.

I will just take this opportunity to highlight, again, further instances of his repeated...problems.

Keith said: "Cold reading isn't just shooting the breeze, it is conversation with an aim. Soliciting information by accident is a bit like soliciting money by accident. People solicit because they intend to do so."

Problem (IMHO): inability to understand the point, inability to learn, inability to grasp the dynamics of the human mind. According to Keith's view of human nature (as I see it), the only alternative would be cheating. According to my view, cheating would be at play most of the times, but not necessarily always. So I advise caution. Keith might advise debunking, I guess.

Keith said: "An honest reader could not sweep aside the mass of garbage so easily, as if the fact that (say) 99% of Mrs. Piper's material is "garbage" does not undermine the remaining (say) 1% of her 'gems.'"

Problem: again, feeble statistics. How does he know it was 99% garbage. And, topmost, how does he know that the gems aren't good enough to stand out as an interesting phenomenon per se? There seems to be no way to get Keith to learn this...

Keith said: If you want to pretend that nothing is ruled out by laws of nature, Julio, that's your prerogative.

Problem: naive dogmatic acceptance of scientific prevailing views. That might suit a feeble scientist, but definetely never even an average philosopher... I do not reject the laws of nature. What I am wary about is the laws of Keith's...

Keith said: "Why do you accept GPS data, given the possibility that no laws of nature mandate anything?"

Problem: same as above. I accept GPS data because it works. Not because it is correct. I do not think any scientist believes it is correct. I accept euclydian geometry and its application to Earthly matters, even though it IS wrong!

Now, some minor issues:

Keith: "Sure, Ed Walters may well have faked his photographs of extraterrestial spaceships in Gulf Breeze, Florida, over and over again, using a model spaceship found by new homebuyers in his former attic that looks remarkably like what is shown in his photographs, but he still may have come in contact with real extraterrestrial spacecraft once in awhile, too! (This is in reference to a real case, BTW.)"

Come back with this example when you find Ed Walters with a photo displaying a spaceship with enough details as to allow us to build a machine beyond present technology. Or, if you prefer, a spaceship with written words on it describing similar things to the best of Piper's "gems," as you put it...

Keith, pleased: "Well it's about time someone sympathetic to survival acknowledged this here. There have been many posts here about what the afterlife is like based on mediumistic communications. These posts implicitly accept that what mediums say about the afterlife reflects the actual nature of the afterlife (if there be one)."

My father is a believer in the afterlife and in communication with spirits. He goes to mediums' seances often. He has lived a lot, and being a tolerant man he has had relations with people virtuous and vicious. One thing that has strucken him as rather odd is that, most of the times, the good people that he knew are suffering a lot on the other side. The wicked ones are very well and full of light.

Go figure...

Best Regards,
Julio
P.S.: my conclusion from this last comment of mine is that we must be, above all, cautious.
_____

Just to clarify one point:

Keith said: "An honest reader could not sweep aside the mass of garbage so easily, as if the fact that (say) 99% of Mrs. Piper's material is "garbage" does not undermine the remaining (say) 1% of her 'gems.'"

Keith, true, you are NOT saying that Piper got 99% wrong. You are just presenting a logically possible hypothetical situation (if the fact that (say) 99%). But we all (mankind) definetely must demand more from someone like you in regards to such a robust phenomenon like Mrs. Piper's mediumship. I am a fervent believer in the afterlife. Yet, what I have to say about Piper is this: absolute silence! I do not know, so I do not comment on. So I strongly advise you to perform in depth (really really iiinnnn dddeeeeppppttthhhh) study of all the material pro and con regarding Piper before raising any "hypothetical" possibilities in discussions related to this issue. For someone as picky as you (regarding the respect that you demand from those talking about issues that have been covered by material you have presented), I think you should show at least ten percent as much respect for the work of others...

Best,
Julio
_____

why is all in italics?

It's not more (at least for me). It's all normal now.

The problem is that I hadn't closed the tag, and this affected all posts after mine.

I was the first person in this blog who realized that there is absolutely no point in arguing with Keith about the afterlife. (I even realized that before Yetis, ET and Chupacabras were ever mentioned in this blog, and were used as insults to the intelligence of the readers)

I'm glad to see my decision is not purely due to idiosyncratic reasons of mine, but a decision to which almost any reasonable person who has attempted to discuss with Keith these matters will eventually arrive at.

Despite of the continuous use of logical fallacies, smart distractions, abuses of the meaning of the words (like "infamous"), childish appealing to Chupacrabras and Yetis and ridiculous fantasies about moribund people attempting to fool AWARE researchers while fighting for their life in an hospital, I do think that, on balance, this thread has been positive to open mind readers.

If the best replies to the pro-afterlife arguments are full of Chupacabras analogies, tu quoques, straw men and other fallacies, open minded readers will certainly conclude that something interesting is happening on the psi/afterlife research world.

My modest suggestion to the readers of Michael's blog is to keep studying the afterlife evidence with a critical, careful, cautious and open mind.

At the end, you have to make your own mind about this matter.

end italics.

Italics end.....

Stanley Kripner reproduced Tart's experiment, I'm certain. He said he found someone who professed to be able to leave their body and tested him( I think it was a male).
The target was a sunset and sure enough, in his words, the picture was called SUNSET.

Vitor, quoting Proceedings of the SPR: Rejecting the fishery hypothesis, then, as insufficient to account for many of the facts...

I never said that Mrs. Piper's fishing could account for all of the material provided in her sittings. I simply pointed out that her controls fished quite a bit, indicating that they intended to deceive. Indeed, parapsychologists themselves have said this. I'm just the messenger. Don't kill the messenger!

I nevertheless appreciate these extended quotes, Vitor, because they confirm the point that fishing was involved. Even sympathetic investigators have taken the presence of fishing to indicate deception, which was the only reason that I mentioned it. Whether that deception was Piper's conscious deception or the deception of her controls doesn't really matter. The point is that it existed. Read Alan Gauld's chapter of Mediumship and Survival on "Controls" and you will not come away with a simple belief that mediums like Mrs. Piper simply communicated with spirits. You might still believe that they did communicate with spirits, but you'd have to qualify that belief with something like "Mediums' controls can communicate with spirits... when they are not fishing for information, or improvising on the spot, or claiming to be deceased persons that they almost certainly could not be..." and so on.

Of course, we're talking not about Mrs. Piper herself, but about her controls--controls which are obviously inventions of her own mind. Despite the fact that her direct controls are dramatic inventions, we are supposed to believe that these invented controls are in communication with real (not invented!) deceased persons dubbed "communicators." So in order to contact the living, the deceased cannot (usually) communicate directly with living persons like Mrs. Piper herself, but must first communicate with invented controls, and then those controls are supposed to relay the messages from the "real" communicators. The control-communicator distinction is an arbitrary one, though. Controls are supposed to be "middlemen" spirits that make communication with the sought dead possible, and communicators are supposed to be the spirits sought. But if the middlemen are invented by Piper's mind, what confidence could any reasonable person have that the communicators--supposedly communicating directly with the invented middlemen!--are not also invented by Piper's mind? It all stinks of having nothing to do with minds external from Mrs. Piper's own mind.

Vitor, quoting Proceedings of the SPR: Whenever his supply of information is abundant there is no sign of the fishing process.

Sure, one does not need to fish when one has the information needed directly, however that information is obtained (and I never speculated as to how it was obtained). Arthur Ford certainly didn't need to fish when he had his "poems" in front of him. Much of the time fishing was involved by Piper's controls, however, indicating that much of the time her controls were pretending to be in contact with the dead when they actually were not. However you slice it, this "pretending" amounts to deception; and if you are willing to allow that pretending occurred, why would cheating be such an outrageous, offensive hypothesis? Cheating is just a hypothetical extension of the mediumistic deception already known to have happened.

MP: Was Mrs. Piper a fraud? Keith seems to think so.

The issue was never about what I think, which I never spoke to in such black-and-white terms as "a fraud" or "not a fraud" in any case.

Nor is the issue whether we can show that Piper or her controls were deceptive all of the time. It is enough to know that they were often deceptive. This is according parapsychologists themselves who comment on this case (I quoted some of them).

It's one thing to say that in general we should trust others. It's another to say that we should trust a demonstrably deceptive source, especially on the very matters for which trust is required. If a medium's controls sometimes pretend to be in contact with deceased persons, or pretend to be deceased persons themselves when they are demonstrably unlike the once-living persons they claim to be, how can you trust any supposed communications with the dead coming from that source? Maybe that same used car salesman who sold you a lemon last year is being honest this time around, but... Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Mrs. Piper's controls were clearly interested in fooling people. In some cases their deception is known; in other cases they provided apparently inexplicable information. Given a known history of deception, it would be quite reasonable to suspect that the "inexplicable bits" of material might well be due to merely undetected deception. The point is that it would not be out of character for Piper's controls to deceive, even if Piper herself did not intend to do so, given that they had done so on numerous other occasions. Entire controls, after all, were clearly not the once-living persons that they claimed to be.

William James himself says in his analysis of Mrs. Piper's Richard Hodgson control transcripts:

"I have left out, by not citing the whole mass of records, so much mere mannerism, so much repetition, hesitation, irrelevance, unintelligibility, so much obvious groping and fishing and plausible covering up of false tracks, so much false pretension to power, and real obedience to suggestion, that the stream of veridicality that runs throughout the whole gets lost as it were in a marsh of feebleness, and the total dramatic effect on the mind may be little more than the word 'humbug.' The really significant items disappear in the total bulk. 'Passwords,' for example, and sealed messages are given in abundance, but can't be found.... Names asked for can't be given, etc., etc. All this mass of diluting material ... has its inevitable dramatic effect; and if one tends to hate the whole phenomenon anyhow (as I confess that I myself sometimes do) one's judicial verdict inclines accordingly."

James goes on to try to 'harmonize' these disturbing facts with Mrs. Piper's purportedly genuine abilities, but that fact that such harmonization is needed at all ought to give anyone pause about accepting Piper's pronouncements with much confidence. Less harmonization is needed to obviate errors in the Bible!

As for MP's stream of facts, such as that Piper was trailed by detectives, etc., I don't deny that one should take these into account. I just think that one ought to take them into account in the context of "so much obvious groping and fishing and plausible covering up of false tracks," as someone as sympathetic as William James put it.

MP: But Keith says she was doing advance research (on anonymous, unannounced visitors?) and using cold reading (while in a deep trance, talking to proxy sitters?).

I never said that. That Piper's controls 'knew what they were doing' when fishing for information is admitted by parapsychologists themselves. So if you have a problem with that, take it up with Alan Gauld, Stephen Braude, and so on. That is indeed one way of doing cold reading. Another, more popular today, is to point out that someone in the audience knows some deceased person beginning with the letter R, and then proceeding to spout off the most common American names beginning with R (Richard, Ryan, ...) until someone bites.

I never said that Piper researched her sitters in advance, though that is a possibility. But even if she may have done so in some cases, she could not have done so in all cases. I simply don't know what techniques she, or her controls, used to obtain the "gems" of veridical information; but I do know that those diamonds have to be dug out of the rough of "so much mere mannerism, so much repetition, hesitation, irrelevance, unintelligibility, so much obvious groping and fishing and plausible covering up of false tracks" that on the face of it it would be reasonable to presume some undetected form of deception was involved. It was not at all out of character for her controls to deceive, even if while out of trance Piper herself seemed honest. This is not according to me, but according to parapsychologists. Again, don't kill the messenger.

MP: Keith seems to simply make up the figure that only one percent of Piper's communications were evidential.

Indeed, as I made clear when I used the example. I would've been happy to use the actual percentages if they were made available to me. Do you know the actual percentages? All I know is that the veridical information is described by parapsychologists as like "rare gems" and the "bogus material" is described by them as "the mass" of the material. I'd be happy to see the percentages if any literature has actually divied up what percentage was impressive versus what percentage was twaddles versus what percentage was fishing, and so on.

MP: When the average Joe is wheeled into a hospital suffering from a life-threatening medical crisis, Keith would have us believe that he is already scheming of ways of undermine the AWARE study.

I never said that. Since I just reiterated that I was talking about what constituted scientific evidence, I can only assume that you mischaracterize my statements in this way to discredit me. Fortunately my actual words are here for all to see, if they care to check them for themselves, so I'll leave it at that.

MP: The fact is, this degree of near universal mistrust is an issue of personality.

That's a clear red herring. When doctors require double blinding their studies, is that because of their "near universal mistrust" of others, too, or because science requires that you rule out effects other than pharmacological ones?

If Sam Parnia himself has in fact controlled his experiment in a way that would alleviate the sorts of concerns I've raised here, is that because Parnia also has a "near universal mistrust" of others, or because he's doing good science?

If we find out that Parnia has controlled for what I said he should control for, out of fairness I want to hear your diatribes about how Sam Parnia has a "view of human nature ... so contrary to [your] own that [you two] simply have no common ground to stand on." Stand your ground!

I wonder if Ian Stevenson had such a terrible view of human nature, too, since he went out of his way not to communicate his combination lock keyword to ANY living person. (By your reasoning, he must have trusted no one other than himself, then!) Did he choose to conduct his experiment this way because of Stevenson's distrustful personality, or because he knew how to make any positive results stand up to scientific scrutiny?

Continue to change the subject, though. My reasoning is clear. Addressing a straw man, especially after your inaccurate characterization has been explicitly pointed out to you, might be indicative that you don't dispute my actual point. Bravo! You've found an effective way to be able to dispute me without disputing what I've actually said.

MP: We just don't see eye to eye on human nature. I think this psychological difference, rather than any dispute about philosophy or method, is at the heart of our disagreement, and it's not the kind of issue that can be resolved by more debate.

Debates like this one, involving people other than us, have been and continue to be debated on venues like the Skeptiko forums. They have been debated in other venues before I was born, and will continue to be debated in other venues after I am dead--at least so long as these issues remain scientifically open questions. The point of controlled experiments is to make them closed questions. Why wouldn't you want to know scientifically, rather than merely believe on faith?

ZC: Despite of the continuous use of logical fallacies, smart distractions, abuses of the meaning of the words (like "infamous"), childish appealing to Chupacrabras and Yetis and ridiculous fantasies about moribund people attempting to fool AWARE researchers while fighting for their life in an hospital, I do think that, on balance, this thread has been positive to open mind readers.

I have bolded all of the mischaracterizations that ZC has repeated. I have already explicitly addressed them all, most in this very thread on earlier pages. Yet ZC continues to repeat the same mischaracterization. I invite readers to check my responses to ZC's insinuations. ZC accused me of tu quoque in an earlier thread, and I explained how my statements were not instances of the tu quoque fallacy, and she never rebutted my explanation, possibly because she was unable to.

My appeals to Yetis and UFOs and so on were never foolish, but inductive arguments by analogy. It's easy to dismiss them as foolish, but more convincing to say why they are bad analogies, if they are bad analogies. One might not do the latter because one is not able to do it. And one might not be able to because in fact a given analogy is a good one. The AWARE comment is a clear mischaracterization, one that I even addressed on this very page of the thread (page 4). Finally, my use of "infamous" was overblown, since my context makes clear that I actually meant by that word what I claimed to mean. The prevalent meaning doesn't make sense in context in which I used the term, whereas the meaning I claimed does. That ZC continues to cite it, despite a clear demonstration of the context in which I used it, just indicates that she convicted me of the crime of being fallacious well before I said anything at all. "He's a skeptic, therefore he commits fallacies." It doesn't matter whether any actual fallacies can be found. It is enough to accuse. If real fallacies had been found, ZC could've said what, precisely, was fallacious about my statements. She could say why statement X really is tu quoque, instead of picking a fallacy from her grab bag. But she finds all of that unnecessary, because "He's a skeptic, therefore he commits fallacies," after all.

Long day at work and a bad attitude as a result.....so I can't resist.......

Keith, do you have any idea how often physicians "fish" when their education fails them? Do you understand why everyone is recommended to get a "second opinion".

Do we then throw out medical science because physicians, out of ignorance, arrogance, pride, desire to get paid, or whatever, fish and pretend when their abilities are insufficient?

Of course not.

So why do you hold mediums, etc to a higher standard?

Piper was more accurate than not. Did she fish sometimes? I don't know. Wouldn't surprise me if she did.

Do you fish sometimes?

Always so ready to throw the baby out with the bath water when convenient to your cause.

You still have to address Piper's documented accuracies.

Julio Siqueira: Come back with this example when you find Ed Walters with a photo displaying a spaceship with enough details as to allow us to build a machine beyond present technology. Or, if you prefer, a spaceship with written words on it describing similar things to the best of Piper's "gems," as you put it...

It's funny that you say that, because as it happens UFO enthusiasts can indeed to point to "similar things to the best of Piper's gems." For example, UFO investigators constructed a special 3-D camera for Walters to use, which he proceeded to do, to photograph his UFOs. According to them, it would be impossible to use a scale model to reproduce those photographs, as the duplicate "3-D" photographs (essentially photos of the same thing from different angles, on two different roles of film") would indicate the true size of what was photographed, and so a scale model would be easy to identify. (If I recall correctly, the camera was also recommended to make double exposures harder to create.)

Of course, the issue then becomes whether that proclamation is really true, that there is no way for Walters to have faked his 3-D photographs. If we have good reason to believe Walters faked some of his photographs, we have good reason to believe that he probably faked the "inexplicable" ones as well, even if we don't know how he did it.

Similarly, the issue is whether it really was impossible for Mrs. Piper to get information from normal sources. If we know that she or her controls did use normal sources for her material most of the time (see the characterization by psychical researchers reiterated below), then plausibly she used other normal sources for her 'veridical streams' that were simply unable to be identified.

Erich: Piper was more accurate than not. Did she fish sometimes? I don't know. Wouldn't surprise me if she did.

"Sometimes" is an understatement. More accurate than not?! By what measure?

Some of the characterizations by psychical researchers include "a good deal of bogus information"; "an immense matrix of twaddle, vagueness, irrelevance, ignorance, pretension, positive error, and occasional prevarication"; "we have to attribute to them [Piper's controls] not just confusion but downright tale-spinning"; and a statement by William James himself that had he included "the whole mass of records" instead of just picking out the veridical items, one could not fail to notice "so much mere mannerism, so much repetition, hesitation, irrelevance, unintelligibility, so much obvious groping and fishing and plausible covering up of false tracks, so much false pretension to power, and real obedience to suggestion, that the stream of veridicality that runs throughout the whole gets lost as it were in a marsh of feebleness.... The really significant items disappear in the total bulk."

These are from publications I already quoted above. I could certainly quote more, but I've already given you references where you can find additional disturbing aspects of Piper's mediumship.

Keith, do you have any thoughts on Piper's sitting with the Suttons (whose daughter "Kakie" had recently died)?

Frank Podmore the renowned skeptic wrote:

“Mrs. Piper’s trance statements are so precise, and the possibility of leakage to Mrs. Piper through normal channels in many cases so effectively excluded, that it is impossible to doubt that we have here proof of a supernormal agency of some kind – either telepathy by the trance intelligence from the sitter or some kind of communication from the dead” ~ Frank Podmore

Richard Hodgson:
Hodgson died in 1905, after investigating Piper for 18 years. Curiously, a week after his death, a new control appeared in the Piper seances.

The Hodgson personality appeared on numerous occasions to different sitters for the better part of a year.

Communicating through Piper, Richard Hodgson assured friends and family that he had indeed survived death.

During a session with Professor William Newbold on July 23, 1906, the Hodgson control said:

“And I am not wholly conscious of my own utterances because they come out automatically, impressed upon the machine (Piper’s body)…I impress my thoughts on the machine which registers them at random, and which are at times doubtless difficult to understand. I understand so much better the modus operandi than I did when I was in your world.”

ZC said: "I was the first person in this blog who realized that there is absolutely no point in arguing with Keith about the afterlife."

Well, I must confess that, for me to come with the very same conclusion, it took seven long years...

:-( :-( :-(

About statistics in Piper, I put a file here:

http://www.4shared.com/account/file/206997417/ae7dba92/Piper1901.html

See page 118-121 of the article or 121-124 of the digital file.

TRUE INCIDENTS: 152
FALSE INCIDENTS: 16
INDETERMINATE INCIDENTS:37

TRUE FACTORS: 717
FALSE FACTORS: 43
INDETERMINATE FACTORS: 167

Best wishes.

The end of the link above is: Piper1901.html

I haven't read all the comments about Piper yet but I figured I would supply my two cents.

When I was in Iraq we used radios a lot. A radio analogy might be helpful here.

Three things will tend to come through radio signals.

a.) true information
b.) false information
c.) white noise, gibberish, static

Now with radios you don't call the gibberish misinformation, you recognize it is no information at all.

So lets imagine Mrs Piper in a trance as a radio.

Her gibberish would be neither information or misinformation it is just gibberish. That is neutral.

The question comes down to true and false information then.

a.) false information could be received in the following means.

a.) deceit from the sender
b.) honest misinformation

however true info is the acid test. What one needs to find is information that meets the following criteria.

a.) true
b.) unknown to the Mrs Piper
c.) could not have been discovered through plausible normal means.

Does such information exist?

Of course Mrs Piper could be a fraud now, but I figured I would point out why I think the gibberish = misinformation argument is not valid.

Dr Hodgson meticulously investigated Mrs Piper for years. We can't re-write History here. He was just as much a skeptic as Keith is now. And yet he ultimately accepted her as genuine.
I believe her examination was a rigourous as possible and she passed it with flying colours.

I agree with Trev, though I'd like to hear/ read Keith's views on the best Piper cases (including the Suttons case).

I would like to add some further comments just for the record, in light of my forthcoming second part of the Kill the "Messenger" series... :-)

Unfortunately my presence in this blog has been motivated by a "negative" goal: to spot further instances of Keith's "problematic" attitudes and methods.

First, let me show a piece from him:

Keith said: Nor is the issue whether we can show that Piper or her controls were deceptive all of the time. It is enough to know that they were often deceptive. ... It's one thing to say that in general we should trust others. It's another to say that we should trust a demonstrably deceptive source, especially on the very matters for which trust is required. ...Maybe that same used car salesman who sold you a lemon last year is being honest this time around, but... Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The curious thing here is that Keith only seems to "doubt" those he considers to be on the "other front." As early back as 2003, I let him know in full about Susan Blackmore's trickery, as exposed by Rick Berger. I even supplied him with my full analysis of her cunning but unsuccessful attempt at defending herself. Nevertheless, nothing could stop him (i.e. Keith) from believing her and from using her as a source of "reliable citations." Bizarre...

Now, a longer quote:

Keith said: I never said that Piper researched her sitters in advance, though that is a possibility. But even if she may have done so in some cases, she could not have done so in all cases. I simply don't know what techniques she, or her controls, used to obtain the "gems" of veridical information; but I do know that those diamonds have to be dug out of the rough of "so much mere mannerism, so much repetition, hesitation, irrelevance, unintelligibility, so much obvious groping and fishing and plausible covering up of false tracks" that on the face of it it would be reasonable to presume some undetected form of deception was involved. It was not at all out of character for her controls to deceive, even if while out of trance Piper herself seemed honest. This is not according to me, but according to parapsychologists. Again, don't kill the messenger.

Actually we are not dealing with a messenger above. Instead, we are either dealing with a stupid fellow or with a dishonest guy. Or maybe with a weird combination of the latter two. In this piece above, Keith is disregarding completely the contribution furnished by Vitor here. Instead of adopting my own attitude towards Piper ("I do not know, I will not comment on"), he insists on being...(multiple choice: a- dishonest; b- stupid; c- wacko).

Finally: All I know is that the veridical information is described by parapsychologists as like "rare gems" and the "bogus material" is described by them as "the mass" of the material.

No, it is not described this way by parapsychologists. (or maybe I read wrong what Vitor posted here...). It is just one more instance of Keith engaging in an action that just cannot be differentiated from...lying.

For me, a bitter and sad disappointment.

Best Wishes for all,
Julio

The comments to this entry are closed.