Telephone Mediums

[Firebird]

I recently mentioned this forum to a guy at work while we were discussing ghost-hunting and whatnot. As it turns out, he already had experience with this stuff, and had talked to at least three or four mediums over the past year trying to reach the spirit of his mother for help in some family dispute. I won't bother you with the details (because they would bore you, trust me), but in the end all but one of the mediums he talked to were either unsuccessful or obvious charlatans. According to him, the only one that did actually seem to reach his mother (or fake it well enough to be believable) was the one he only interacted with via telephone.

So what made that one medium succeed where the others had failed? Random chance? Do spirits feel more comfortable making contact when only strangers are present?

[RudeAwakening]

Hi Firebird

Your question is literally impossible to answer. The variables might as well be infinite. We can probably rule out random chance or shy spirits though, unless perhaps random describes the way in which your friend picked the mediums.

The very first medium I sat with in my life was six months ago. She hit the ball out of the park, over the bleachers and into the next county. Preparation and research, as is true with most things in life, appear to have some impact on success in this area as well.

I also find that what the spirit wants to talk about and what you want to talk about are often not the same thing. Asking mediums questions like “What does Uncle George think about the new house?” is not the way to get results and validation in these sessions.

Prepare prior as best as an individual is capable of. Let the medium interpret as best they can what’s coming in and validate for them at obvious validation points or when asked to by the medium, such as: “I have a man coming through wearing a purple suit with bushy eyebrows with a chipped front tooth who says he’s your grandpa – do you recognize this man?” That’s how it should go.

Does that help? Research, learn, seek and ye shall find as they say. I was led to that medium like I had a bit in my mouth and blinders on, but I did do a bit of research, I trusted my instincts and I prepared for the session like I was preparing for something really important.

[Andrew]

Hi Firebird! Rude Awakening is right, there is an infinite number of variables that could interfere with a deceased loved one coming through and how clear the messages that they send are. It is my personal opinion, however, that over-the-phone readings are more accurate in general. I say this because, when a medium is right next to you, it is possible that they are reading (either on purpose or accidentally) your energy and getting their information based on that, rather than being contacted by the actual people you want to see. It may still be possible, but the risk of this happening is much less over the phone.

It is also important to remember that the field of mediumship is filled with fakes. You don't want to be too quick to assume someone is legitimate, but you also don't want to start off assuming they're a charlatan. Awakening is right - do the research first, it will pay off.

[Carol and Mikey]

Firebird,
One of the best readings I had after Mikey's accident was a phone reading by CJ Sellers. It was almost a year after Mikey's accident. Her accuracy was amazing! I let her do the talking. I asked minimal questions and gave minimal leads. If your co-worker goes in with a specific question or concern, his mom may not be interested in that issue which could affect the reading. I found it better to just have the medium do the talking. In Heaven, I don't think our loved ones are interested in certain "earthly issues" if you know what I mean. If they want to give advice, it will come through. :)
Carol

[Roberta Grimes]

I recently mentioned this forum to a guy at work while we were discussing ghost-hunting and whatnot. As it turns out, he already had experience with this stuff, and had talked to at least three or four mediums over the past year trying to reach the spirit of his mother for help in some family dispute. I won't bother you with the details (because they would bore you, trust me), but in the end all but one of the mediums he talked to were either unsuccessful or obvious charlatans. According to him, the only one that did actually seem to reach his mother (or fake it well enough to be believable) was the one he only interacted with via telephone.

So what made that one medium succeed where the others had failed? Random chance? Do spirits feel more comfortable making contact when only strangers are present?

It is a curious fact that telephone readings with mediums who might be halfway around the world can work out wonderfully. Indeed, some mediums have said that for them phone readings tend to work out better than do in-person readings, and they speculate that this might be because they are not distracted by the appearance of the sitter and not able to pick up nonverbal cues. We know that in reality there is no distance, and we also know that all of our minds are together in the same place, so the minds of the medium, the sitter, and the dead subject are all together. Doesn't matter where their bodies are!

Our wonderful friends Awakening, Vita and Carol & Mikey have answered your question well, dear Firebird, but I will also offer some thoughts as to why some readings succeed while others fail:

1) Some mediums are more skilled than others. Even very talented mediums need time in which to polish their skills. I have attended four appearances by John Edward over the past eight years, and I have enjoyed watching him develop his abilities from "Someone here lost a lady to the side - no, above - who is associated with the number five" through "This side of the room - somebody lost a lady above, feels like a mother vibration which could also be mother-in-law - the number five, which could mean born in May or died in May" to "I'm coming to the back row on this side, end of the row - I think it's that third person in - stand up, please - yes, you - did you recently lose your mother? She is telling me you didn't want to come today but your buddy insisted!" It has been wonderful to watch a gifted medium grow!

2) Some mediums are effectively fakes. I think nearly everyone who works as a medium has developed some level of latent skill, but for too many of them it becomes easy to cold-read and guess. Gullible clients are eager to fill in the blanks. Phone mediums can't do this as well, which is another reason to prefer phone readings.

3) Sometimes either we or our loved ones simply are not ready. Although occasionally a loved one is reachable soon after death, it is my understanding that it generally takes months before they are able to communicate. And while we are still in shock and deep grief it is usually impossible for our loved ones to come through to us.

4) Our loved ones may not want to talk, for reasons of their own. My father was an alcoholic, and he drank heavily until I was 12. Although many of the mediums that I consulted as part of my research would describe him as lurking in the background (and they nailed his description - no question who it was), he never would speak. It was only 20 years after his death, almost to the day, that he spoke to my daughter through a medium and asked her to convey his apology to my sister and me for the way that he had damaged our shared childhood.

5) Some mediums simply may not "click" with a given sitter or a given dead subject. Since reality is based in highly emotional Mind-energy, and since sometimes people's energies will clash, it is possible for even a very good medium to do poorly in one particular case.

- The lesson of all this is to wait until six months after the death, to prefer phone readings, to get recommendations from friends, and then to keep trying. Thank you, dear Firebird - great question!

[TheGodSplinter]

I'd begin to have faith in telephone mediums only if they secure-lodged (with somebody impartial in the situation) their answers to my questions ONE HOUR before I phoned or before they'd even heard of me and could refer to me by my first name as soon as they pick up the phone.

Until then, my jury will remain out.

[mac]

Speaking as a Brit (I see some of you guys are on the other side of the big pond) there is a constant problem with what 'medium' is supposed to mean here. From what I've heard elsewhere, it's plain that the term 'medium' can be widely interpreted. I've been battling for over two years to try to find out what folk expect a medium to do, mostly an unsuccessful battle...

Again from what I hear it seems that psychics and mediums are often seen as the same thing. A 'reading' may be evidential mediumship or equally it may be a psychic reading. Some seem to have been 'read' and fed back that information as if it came from a third party through the practitioner.

Perhaps that's what the enquirer expected?

Perhaps that's what the practitioner thinks a medium does or simply doesn't know the difference between one and the other? Or drifts from one to the other inadvertently?

[Andrew]

Here is this website's definition of the word "medium": A person with psychic abilities who is able to assist in our communications with the dead. Most mediums are either psychic mediums who are able to read the thoughts of their (dead) controls who are in direct communication with our dead loved ones, or they are trance-mediums, able to withdraw from their bodies while in trance and allow a psychic dead person (also called a “control”) to speak using the medium’s body.

I'm not sure, but I think Roberta wrote this definition. As for psychic, I would say that psychics are people who can intuitively access information and/or inner peace through means/channels of which most people are not aware. A psychic medium is a type of psychic who uses his/her abilities to connect and communicate with the deceased in the ways mentioned above in the definition of medium.

Does that help?

[mokandi]

I often wonder if a medium isn't just able to connect with a human's mind. Reading the information we are able to store.

[mac]

Here is this website's definition of the word "medium": A person with psychic abilities who is able to assist in our communications with the dead. Most mediums are either psychic mediums who are able to read the thoughts of their (dead) controls who are in direct communication with our dead loved ones, or they are trance-mediums, able to withdraw from their bodies while in trance and allow a psychic dead person (also called a “control”) to speak using the medium’s body.

I'm not sure, but I think Roberta wrote this definition. As for psychic, I would say that psychics are people who can intuitively access information and/or inner peace through means/channels of which most people are not aware. A psychic medium is a type of psychic who uses his/her abilities to connect and communicate with the deceased in the ways mentioned above in the definition of medium.

Does that help?

Doesn't help me but it wasn't for me that I had asked the questions....;)

I'm certain what a medium is for myself but I meet many who aren't, or who have different expectations. Definitions in dictionaries only reflect usage so they don't necessarily help. And mediums don't speak to 'the dead' - that's just the media love to say it.

As for "psychic medium" I'd have to use the old chestnut that all mediums are psychic so what would one expect a non-psychic medium would do? :D

It's not for me but for the folk who are confused by what kind of communication they've experienced and what its significance is.

[mac]

I often wonder if a medium isn't just able to connect with a human's mind. Reading the information we are able to store.

Such a practitioner shouldn't then be termed a medium if that's all (s)he does.....

[RudeAwakening]

I'd begin to have faith in telephone mediums only if they secure-lodged (with somebody impartial in the situation) their answers to my questions ONE HOUR before I phoned or before they'd even heard of me and could refer to me by my first name as soon as they pick up the phone.

Until then, my jury will remain out.

Ian, basically you’re saying that the accounts of others is meaningless to you and until the experience personally rises to your own personal expectations of what it is supposed to be, then essentially your jury is out. Would that be accurate?

[TheGodSplinter]

I don't trust telephone mediumship...that would be accurate! Also, I'd love to see enough evidence for myself, in telephone mediumship, to change my mind.

Are we going to fall out over this?

[Andrew]

Hi Ian! Your welcome to your own opinions, of course, but I am curious: how do you feel about regular mediums (not over the phone)? I ask because, if we assume that the afterlife transcends both space and time (and there is ample evidence that it does), then does it really make a difference whether the person being read is calling over the phone or if he is next to the medium? The medium should not be be psychically reading the person, but rather trying to connect him with deceased loved ones, so distance shouldn't really matter.

I suppose personal experience will be the only thing that could truly convince you. A lot of people feel that way and there's nothing wrong with it. The fact is that most people don't believe in the afterlife until they either die or have some type of spiritual experience. I know that Rude Awakening mentioned somewhere on here that she has had a telephone medium reading that she was very satisfied with.

[RudeAwakening]

I don't trust telephone mediumship...that would be accurate! Also, I'd love to see enough evidence for myself, in telephone mediumship, to change my mind.

Are we going to fall out over this?

Oh no Ian, lots of people don’t trust what mediums do until they experience a good one for themselves. Many folks on this board have had amazing phone readings. My comment was meant to verify and illuminate the apparent fact that the good results others claim to have doesn’t hold much weight with you? Again, that's not unusual. I wasn’t sure how familiar you were with telephone mediumship to have formed your opinion?

(Edit - we were writing at the same time Andrew - good post BTW)

[TheGodSplinter]

Hi...

My problem, here, is that I've met far too many fakes, but it's not just fakes that cause disappointment: fails are just as common, but are not, in themselves, conclusive...or grounds for criticism - just observation and noting.

I already believe in the Afterlife, without having even seen enough proof to give me that stance!

The telephone line might act as a "focus" in a way (a medium of the medium), telling the medium that I exist and that I am wondering about a passed over loved one, etc.. But, when I see mediumship held off at a distance and only approached through technology, I have my doubts...it's that simple. If I chose to phone a medium, tomorrow, at midday, and, when I did, she greeted me by name and told me the answers to my questions, I'd be impressed, provided she'd never heard of me and had not yet heard my questions. I'd be even more impressed should she tell me all that without knowing my name, first, and without me asking a single question. Then, I'd be happy to say, "MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS FINALLY ARRIVED IN THE WORLD OF THE MEDIUM, TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE JOY OF ALL!" How I yearn to be able to do that.

Back in my 20s, I used to interview mediums and psychics, as a hobby, believe it or not. Out of the many I interviewed, not one of them had a single "hit", and that was out of 44 pieces of information spread out, from them all, prompted only by question.

One actually volunteered to me that my middle name was "Roger", as soon as I sat down. I looked at her with an expression of amazement and she laughed and extended a hand to be shaken, right away. I said, "That's pretty amazing. I'll get that put on my birth certificate, immediately, because I don't have a middle name."

I consider technology/tech-comms to be barriers (in my own mind), not a series of instruments that break down barriers.

One of my other interests is in seeing hardened, near-blind skeptics backed off and backing down. But, I will not walk around with my head in the clouds and assume everything in the mediumship garden is not just rosy, but is also absolutely spiffingly true, either. If you cannot carry around with you your own inner skeptic, as an insurance against fakes and exploiters, then you are a carpet of desperate belief just waiting to be walked on and milked for all your bank account is worth.

I challenge just about everything that I've seen insufficient proof of, but there will always be things that I heartily believe in - tweenylife ("afterlife" is only one of them) and I would be unable to explain why I believe that - I'm happy to admit that. When I look at human life, I just know that there must, somewhere, surely...be something better than this! Whatever built us could not - SURELY - leave us to just this one physical life, after all that creative genius went into making us and all things around us!?

Genuine mediumship is overshadowed by fails, but those fails cannot be condemned - they should simply be more closely examined and followed by patience. Readiness to believe, without desperation, should be brought to bear in the same instance/s.

Genuine mediums are positively MOCKED by fakes, and that's where my back rises and I start to breathe critical fire. Others have had their experiences with mediums and have, from what I've read, here, received their eye-opening surgical procedures. If they heard what the medium said and applied their own inner ability to be skeptical, and still came out of that a believer...then, BINGO...I'm happy, for them.

When it comes to the use of the modern telephone system to communicate with mediums, I've never, even once, seen a single instance of accuracy...not even anything close (I ongoingly envy those who can say the opposite, also). The bills they send out are always accurate though, I recall!

Yes...I believe that the closer the medium's aura gets to the questioner's aura, the stronger are the chances of success, but it's pointless to ask me why I feel that way, because I've no idea. I just do.

Until a medium stuns me, by phone, in a hot call action, I remain in a watchful phase, waiting for a reason to add their "skills" to my belief structure - and add it I gladly will, should that day come along! If I see enough evidence to convince me that telephone mediumship is a rarely failed at and frequently very accurate system, then I'll dance a jig on my computer desk. Only believing makes fools of us all. Believing, while being ready to question results, makes each of us a worthy seeker.

Would anybody care to link me to posts or blogs in which the telephone medium customers have laid out their accounts of what happened?

Splinter.

[Andrew]

Hi Splinter! I don't know of any phone medium readings that have been recorded online, but I'll look later to see if I can find any good reviews and summaries for you.

I do completely understand why you are skeptical of telephone mediums, especially in light of your experiences with charlatans. It's sad, but the field of mediumship is littered with charlatans and fakes. And you're right - it is important that we be skeptical ourselves. My current thinking is that, if the medium is well skilled and legitimate, then the phone reading has a fair chance of success, but, if the medium is a fake or lacks skill, it won't work.

[Roberta Grimes]

I don't trust telephone mediumship...that would be accurate! Also, I'd love to see enough evidence for myself, in telephone mediumship, to change my mind.

Are we going to fall out over this?

Dear wonderful Splinter, in my experience, telephone mediumship works even better than does in-person mediumship. Talented mediums with whom I have spoken say that with an in-person reading, the look and vibes of the sitter can sometimes get in the way, while with a phone reading they are able to concentrate entirely upon what is coming from the dead person. In reading your posts above, it seems that you are a tad skeptical about mediums in general? If that's true, then you have a right to be skeptical! Mediumship is easy to fake, and there are many fakes. No question. That these fakes provide fodder for professional skeptics is also not remotely to be doubted. But if the question is just whether or not a telephone reading from a genuine medium can be accurate, I can witness to you that such readings can be at least as accurate as a good in-person reading. Here are some facts, dear friend:

1) There are some genuine mediums. Read Gary Schwartz's wonderful The Afterlife Experiments! He tested some famous mediums, and some not-so-famous - George Anderson and John Edward were among his early subjects. He found that the best of them could do highly accurate and detailed mediumship readings for sitters at a distance, even in double- and triple-blind experiments in which the he didn't know who he was reading and the sitter didn't know which medium would be doing the reading. Dr. Schwartz's work is flat-out wonderful - I enthusiastically recommend his books.

2) There is no such thing as objective space or distance. I know how hard that is to grasp! It can help if you think of the universe as a thought, rather than as anything material - how big is a thought? But because there is no objective distance, it is easily possible for a medium halfway around the world from you to be in the same degree of contact with your loved ones that he or she would be in if you were in the same room. In point of fact, our loved ones know when a medium is going to be contacted, and they generally prepare ahead of time (although remember that objective time does not exist, either ;-)).

3) Working as a medium is hard! In nearly all cases, the medium's spirit guide is consulting with your loved ones in spirit and is then translating into symbols which are familiar to the medium whatever it is that the loved one wants to say. It doesn't work like a telephone, and for some mediums whole words cannot be used - it's just letters and symbols. They can get better at communication over time, but even the best of them are doing something which is extraordinarily difficult. If you set up impossible tests for them, then you won't have the opportunity to witness what they actually can do for you.

4) Your active skepticism can act as a bar to communication through a medium. How ironic is that? Negative energy gets in the way, so if you really want to test a medium it is important that you clear your mind, have a positive attitude, and call to your dead loved ones in your mind. Make them feel welcome!

I'm sorry that you have encountered some charlatans, dear Splinter. I urge you to consult just tested and well-recommended mediums from now on. No falling-out at all, dear friend! If you really prefer not to entertain the notion that telephone readings are possible - or even the whole idea of mediumship - then that is up to you and I wouldn't want to change your mind. But in my experience, telephone mediumship works!

[TheGodSplinter]

Roberta...

(Y'know, Lady...you're so full of love, you could get a job helping the world go around! They'd fire "money" before the end of day 1!)

I look forward to, one day, feeling precisely the same faith and trust, in them. By the way, I entered into those sessions with mediums, and the interviews with them, YEARNING, desperately for them to be genuine.

But, my faith in mediums who are genuine still exists, because the real thing, in human life, ordinarily comes along first - the fakes usually follow on, far further down the time scale! So, if the world can throw fakes at me, then, somewhere not too far away from those, I'll often find the real thing.

I have a saying about the Occult: "Ninety-nine percent of the Occult is utter, complete garbage, but that one percent that is real is far, far larger than the ninety-nine!" I live by it, in fact! No fakes will ever put me off being ready to believe a genuine article when I witness one.

However, I stopped looking only because of the disgust and disappointment. My hunt for those genuines is a casually ongoing thing, for me. I'm a lot more wise, critical and certainly more laid back than I was, back then.

One day, I will encounter a genuine medium - even if I discover, to my shock, that it might even be me. (Yeah, right!) Personally, I consider myself to be about as psychic as a traditionally red house brick, but I've never let that put me off.

Whether the future medium I trust is me, or turns out to be somewhere else (my own personal favourite option), I'll be overjoyed when I encounter them. I tend towards backing off skeptics - it's like a hobby, but I also like to keep alert my own built-in skeptic...it self-defends me from wandering around starry-eyed and believing everything put before me.

Make no mistake about me, Roberta...I AM ALREADY A BELIEVER!

(Thanks for the idea of the Schwartz book, also!)

Splinter.

[Carol and Mikey]

A friend of mine recently went to see a medium that I had seen in the past (face to face) and had a horrible experience. The info she recieved she felt did more harm than good. ( And she is a believer.) I had a much better experience though the accuracy at the time was maybe 60%. More general stuff too. Do mediums have "bad days or bad connections" with their guides at times, or is it more related to the 2 souls and they are trying to relay messages for?
(Mikey says it is usually the 2 souls IF the medium is a true medium.)

[Andrew]

Hi Carol! I think that mediums do have bad days sometimes - they're only human after all. Perhaps they sometimes get preoccupied with crises and issues in their lives, just as the average person does? I think that would impede their connection with their guides. Most mediums seem to have to clear their minds and concentrate on spirit to succeed, so it seems logical that anything tying their thoughts to the earth realm would have a negative effect on the clarity of their connection to Spirit.

Most of the problems though, seem to be with the people who come to see the medium. Sometimes, even though they come, they are so full of negative energy and emotions, or just raw grief, that a truly spectacular connection is impossible, even with the best of mediums. When I interviewed Suzanne Giesemann, who is a medium, she said that 95% percent of the time she can get a great reading for her clients, but 5% of the time, for whatever reason, she knows she's just not getting through strongly enough.

So, if the medium is both genuine and truly focused and skilled in mediumship, then the problem is likely with the client. So, if your meeting went okay, perhaps either your friend was very negative/full of grief, or the medium was just off that day.

[TheGodSplinter]

Hi...

I think that if we were to fail in giving "off-day" mediums the same consideration that we would afford "off-day" bus drivers, "off-day" cab drivers, "off-day" bosses and "off-day" spouses, we would be doing them a great disservice.

I can recall sitting with those who, to my own view, were genuine mediums having "off-days" and there is a significant distinction to be drawn between those and the fakes, although I could never put into words what the feeling was, of that difference. (I've always drawn comfort from that very inability to verbalise why I knew some were off-day genuines and some were outright fakes!)

Another thing I noticed, with mediums (counterfeits or those considered to be genuine articles) was that they are severely allergic to the removal of a notebook and pen from a shirt pocket! It's almost as bad as chucking a grenade into the middle of the living room floor and saying, "Relax! Sit down! There're plenty of seconds to go, just yet!"

Splinter.

[RudeAwakening]

I was thinking about this thread last night and decided to be a bit more direct on how I see the issue. I hope no one will take offense, this is not meant to be offensive, only informative. This post is not directed toward anyone, it’s just what I consider to be more direct input.

As has been said fakes in this industry give it such a bad name, but what the genuine ones can do is nothing short of miraculous. Being able to communicate messages from DEAD PEOPLE is (insert expletive here) amazing.

In my opinion some very specific variables contribute to the quality of a mediumship reading and if we take outright fakes completely out of the equation the problem undeniably lies somewhere other than the medium.

I see locating a medium with a good reputation as the single most important issue and with the growth of the internet in recent years the inability to locate a reputable medium is irrefutably due to the limitations of the person doing the search. If you are still sitting with fakes in 2011 you are the problem.

People have unreasonable expectations of what a medium is supposed to do. Again this irrefutably makes the sitter the problem, not the medium. Stop blaming the mediums folks.

I could go on and on about everything from the intelligence of the sitter to the negative energy they bring to the reading that may block out everything except atomic fallout from a nuclear blast. I’ve watched people sit with mediums and I can tell the medium is excellent and the sitter is just uninformed about the process and what to expect. Stop blaming the mediums folks, there could be a thousand things hampering the process and 900 of them having to do with the sitter.

Also, the medium I go to records the session for you on a CD, so I seriously doubt she has a problem with pen and paper other than the obvious distraction. Use a tape recorder. If a medium has a problem with you taping the session, then why would you sit with them.

Do your research and learn how to prepare for the sitting and if you still can’t get a decent reading after a few attempts with reputable mediums it’s your pipes that are clogged somewhere in that long journey from their world to ours, it’s not the xxx xxxx medium.


(I hope no one takes offense to this. I deal with a lot of people that simply never take responsibility or look within for certain failures in their lives and until they do they will continue to fail.)

[TheGodSplinter]

Do you feel better, now? :)

Colour-me-curious - how can I read the words...

(1) "...the growth of the internet in recent years the inability to locate a reputable medium is irrefutably due to the limitations of the person doing the search."

(2) "...the intelligence of the sitter..." Mine's 182, if that's any help, at all?

(3) "...the medium I go to records the session for you on a CD, so I seriously doubt she has a problem with pen and paper...", which paper and pen was hinted at by only me.

(4) "...people that simply never take responsibility or look within for certain failures in their lives and(,) until they do, they will continue to fail."

...and not know that I am one of those at whom the words were directed?

Your post's needle went past the neutral and into the red.

Those sittings that I did were in the 70s and earliest 80s. In the dockside ghetto/slum area in which I lived, you'd be considered rich if you owned even a 5 function calculator, let alone a PC with the Internet, and review or psychic affairs sites.

Rudey...I, too, am on your side, but I will always want adequate evidence before I permit myself to believe certain aspects of the paranormal or "extra-natural" world. That will never change. I'm delighted that you've had your successes with a medium, or with mediums (and, I envy you that), but this is what I am...and, so far, it has not included successes with mediums.

For me, one day, the hunt will recommence: until then, I am unwaveringly inclined to believe that sincere, genuine mediums exist - in fact, I would refuse to believe anybody who said otherwise.

But, it's not right to blame me for something that they were unable to do on those nights!

Splinter!

[RudeAwakening]

Actually Ian, no I don’t feel better now.

What I do feel is a genuine and deeply sincere interest in helping to connect bereaved people, many in nearly unbearable emotional pain, with those they have lost. If you wish to assume the comments in my post were made merely to needle you there’s nothing I can do about that except illuminate my purpose for writing the post, which again is to help as many people know the miracle of being able to reconnect with their lost loved ones. If that means I have to be a little blunt in this particular case, I’ll just have to live with the possibility that someone might take it personally.

I congratulate you Ian on an IQ less than 400 people in the United States possess. A person with your intellectual magnitude would most certainly understand the need to occasionally be blunt with something so widely misunderstood that could bring so much to so many.

[TheGodSplinter]

RudeAwakening...

You're absolutely right! There...that's finished with! :D

Splinter.