Michael Halis writes :
Mr. Malone,
I must say, I am extremely disheartened to see the quality of editing which has gone into the e-zine "teemings," and especially within your own article, "Play a Vibration..." The flagrant disregard for nearly every rule of grammar, syntax, and punctuation (not to mention more than a few spelling errors) were shocking considering it issued from the fingertips of the Editor in Chief himself.
I certainly don't mean to complain simply for complaining's sake. I voice my concern for two reasons only. First, I dearly enjoy the information and wit displayed in Cecil Adams' publications, and your site reflects directly back on the name that he has created. Second, I am a true lover of the English language, and hate to see it trampled upon, especially in an article which intends to portray such weighty information.
Sincerely,
Michael Hails
Dear Mr. Halis,
While we appreciate your comments we also have to admit that we make no pretense to being either highbrow or "literary" in the traditional sense. This 'zine is done in more of a way to let Dopers know each other and gain some insight into their personal style. Consequently, we would rather let a few grammatical mistakes slip by in order to hear a particular authors "voice" than to determine if they've read Strunk and White.
Regardless, in the spirit of Gaudere's Law, we must point out that in your letter you twice incorrectly use "which" where "that" is indicated. You also have a number agreement error in the first paragraph ("the flagrant disregard...WERE (sic) shocking...") Please try to do better in the future.
Nun of your business writes :
I think this whole article was misleading. The science of reading the future is very imprecise because the future is always changing. This is why psychics can't predict the future with 100% certainty and they will be the first to admit that. Yes, there are some psychic parasites that prey on people and take their money for poor service. But the people are responsible for their own actions and shouldn't blame someone for their dumb mistakes. Just because predictions don't come true doesn't mean they are not psychic, it just means that they are not very talented at predicting the future. I have no doubt that John Edwards or Sylvia Browne see ghosts, but there is no reason to believe they are con-artists.
David Bloomberg replies :
Apparently this person would prefer to live in a world where testability and science do not exist. As it is, we can see that s/he doesn't know what "science" actually is, considering that s/he equated "reading the future" with "science." And s/he is also apparently against any tests because the results would be meaningless in the strange world this person inhabits.
But let's take a look at the claims. First, we are told that reading the future is imprecise because the is always changing. Later we are told that just because predictions don't come true doesn't mean a person isn't psychic. Um, okay, so what is the definition of psychic? Why do self-proclaimed psychics say they can predict the future? You can't have it both ways. They can't claim to be right when they've scored an apparent hit but then claim in the same breath that their wrong guesses shouldn't count against them.
Contrary to the final statement, there is quite a lot of reason to believe these so-called psychics are parasites and con-artists. Indeed, I listed a whole bunch of those reasons in my original article. Perhaps you should reread it.
The only thing that should haunt the likes of John Edward or Sylvia Browne are their consciences, presuming they have one. And that's another thing I've seen no evidence for.