Re: Warren Caylor

by bravo321uk Wed Dec 03, 2014 12:28 am

In the UK we have a tv show called eastenders,,

by scottmilligan Wed Dec 03, 2014 1:08 am

Sadly yes it looks like eastenders but I have to say people like wc make my job harder. I will support anyone who is seeking and demo on behalf of the other world but when you sit with him there is no power and sence of the spirit there. I have had enough of people lip speaking for the spirit. Doing a diservice to the spirit. no one is prepared to stand up and say this is not right.
people on this site have there view on how pm should be demo but "YOU WOULD NOT WALK INTO A SYNAGOGUE EATING A BANCON SANDWICH." why walk into a seance room and say I want you to sit this and that , but I agree a standard Must be set regarding demos and I know wc fall under par ......

by Mark74 Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:06 am

scottmilligan wrote:Sadly yes it looks like eastenders but I have to say people like wc make my job harder. I will support anyone who is seeking and demo on behalf of the other world but when you sit with him there is no power and sence of the spirit there. I have had enough of people lip speaking for the spirit. Doing a diservice to the spirit. no one is prepared to stand up and say this is not right.
people on this site have there view on how pm should be demo but "YOU WOULD NOT WALK INTO A SYNAGOGUE EATING A BANCON SANDWICH." why walk into a seance room and say I want you to sit this and that , but I agree a standard Must be set regarding demos and I know wc fall under par ......

What is your take on Kai Muegge Scott, you had been part of the physical weekend with him at Eastbourne a few years back?

by Lis Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:11 am

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your post.

While many on this forum may consider what currently occurs in many physical séances lacks the certainty of séances in the past, I feel sure that all would agree there is a need for clear standards set for what constitutes a controlled séance demonstration - standards that ensure there is no possibility of fraud.

You say that no one is prepared to stand up and say that things are, in your opinion, and based on your experience, not right in the Warren Caylor séances. What I have noticed, however, is that to stand up and say something is not right, especially if one is part of the PM community, almost inevitably results in people being ostracised or banned.

That makes it very difficult, I think, for people to speak up even when they really know for sure that something is wrong. In many respects this forum is one of the very few outlets for people to speak out about concerns with some physical mediums without fear of censure.

We want the truth, and do not want to see fraud in mediumship. While there has always been a certain amount of fraud associated with physical mediumship (sadly, all too often a great deal of fraud) as Spiritualists we know that there can be genuine physical mediumship and we do not want to see Spiritualism, and the spirit world's interaction with our realm to be ridiculed and its credibility destroyed by those who do act fraudulently.

As for Warren Caylor, there seem to be many who privately express significant concerns, but few are willing to actually offer specific evidence to support their claims. And it is specific first-hand evidence that is needed to put a stop to dishonest actions by those mediums who are prepared to do such a dis-service to the spirit world, while claiming they are working for spirit.

Until people are prepared to say Enough is Enough" (to re-use the heading of Caylor's post) and speak up to expose the dishonesty, those like Caylor will continue to do what they do with total disregard for the damage they are causing. By remaining silent, when people know that fraud is going on ultimately places the responsibility for that damage on the backs of the people who could have spoken up and put a stop to it.

Caylor suggests that he really doesn't care what we say (thank's Warren) and even that by talking about him it only serves to improve his client list. But, if people really spoke up and told what they have seen that was wrong - what was false - then Caylor's popularity just might begin to decline.

So, for all out there that have real concerns about Caylor now is your opportunity to share what you know.

by Lis Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:12 am

Hi Mark74,

I take your point, but perhaps your question should be posted on the Kai Muegge thread.

by Mark74 Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:16 am

Lis wrote:Hi Mark74,

I take your point, but perhaps your question should be posted on the Kai Muegge thread.

Ok Lis I respect that, and as an Admin of this forum, you can redirect my comment.

by Lis Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:39 am

No need to do that Mark74, just also post your comment on the other thread - that way if people don't catch your comment on this thread they will on the other. Smile

by Mark74 Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:46 am

I posted that comment here Lis because Scott hadn't commented on the Kai thread, I thought perhaps Scott might see the comment here first. I will know in future if I am to comment.

by mac Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:44 am

It's not the first time that detailed, objective criticism has been dismissed using feigned (or real!) disdain.

Either that or this practitioner is simply too thick to understand the importance and significance of what's being said. His inability to express himself adequately and/or clearly might also be an indicator of such an inability....

by Lis Wed Dec 03, 2014 4:46 am

Indeed, Mac!

by AngelCake Wed Dec 03, 2014 8:59 am

I'm interested to hear about your experience with WC, Scott. Where did you sit with him?

by Jane Lyzell Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:50 am

Lis wrote:Hi Scott,

Thanks for your post.

While many on this forum may consider what currently occurs in many physical séances lacks the certainty of séances in the past, I feel sure that all would agree there is a need for clear standards set for what constitutes a controlled séance demonstration - standards that ensure there is no possibility of fraud.

You say that no one is prepared to stand up and say that things are, in your opinion, and based on your experience, not right in the Warren Caylor séances. What I have noticed, however, is that to stand up and say something is not right, especially if one is part of the PM community, almost inevitably results in people being ostracised or banned.

That makes it very difficult, I think, for people to speak up even when they really know for sure that something is wrong. In many respects this forum is one of the very few outlets for people to speak out about concerns with some physical mediums without fear of censure.

We want the truth, and do not want to see fraud in mediumship. While there has always been a certain amount of fraud associated with physical mediumship (sadly, all too often a great deal of fraud) as Spiritualists we know that there can be genuine physical mediumship and we do not want to see Spiritualism, and the spirit world's interaction with our realm to be ridiculed and its credibility destroyed by those who do act fraudulently.

As for Warren Caylor, there seem to be many who privately express significant concerns, but few are willing to actually offer specific evidence to support their claims. And it is specific first-hand evidence that is needed to put a stop to dishonest actions by those mediums who are prepared to do such a dis-service to the spirit world, while claiming they are working for spirit.

Until people are prepared to say Enough is Enough" (to re-use the heading of Caylor's post) and speak up to expose the dishonesty, those like Caylor will continue to do what they do with total disregard for the damage they are causing. By remaining silent, when people know that fraud is going on ultimately places the responsibility for that damage on the backs of the people who could have spoken up and put a stop to it.

Caylor suggests that he really doesn't care what we say (thank's Warren) and even that by talking about him it only serves to improve his client list. But, if people really spoke up and told what they have seen that was wrong - what was false - then Caylor's popularity just might begin to decline.

So, for all out there that have real concerns about Caylor now is your opportunity to share what you know.

This was the best i heard in a long time - totely agree whit you - well spoken Very Happy

by Neilos Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:12 pm

Great post and what would you consider an acceptable standard of controls? Picking up on Scott's heartfelt stand should the Psychic News re-issue the challenge to Warren with strict controls in place?

by mac Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:42 pm

Neilos wrote:Great post and what would you consider an acceptable standard of controls? Picking up on Scott's heartfelt stand should the Psychic News re-issue the challenge to Warren with strict controls in place?

Are the folk at PN really likely to be that interested and what would be the point? Nothing useful appeared to come as a result of his backing down from the previously called-off demonstration and I'd be astounded if WC were to even consider the prospect of another test sitting unless he really is dumb.

by Neilos Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:28 pm

If it is declined it could deter people from sitting and could be tied in with having a universal set of controls that people could agree are hard to get around. Perhaps I am being a little naive lol!

by scottmilligan Wed Dec 03, 2014 3:32 pm

mac wrote:
Neilos wrote:Great post and what would you consider an acceptable standard of controls? Picking up on Scott's heartfelt stand should the Psychic News re-issue the challenge to Warren with strict controls in place?

Are the folk at PN really likely to be that interested and what would be the point? Nothing useful appeared to come as a result of his backing down from the previously called-off demonstration and I'd be astounded if WC were to even consider the prospect of another test sitting unless he really is dumb.

I like sue very much and she has sat with me a number of times including sitting next to me why I work . She know her stuff about pm and all aspect of mediumship and she knows alot of people who understand the nature of pm.
warren should agree to this as it would put the matter to bed . as I said I suport anyone who sits for the spirit and trys there best but if there is fraud involed I not a very nice person.
Like sue if you carry the gift of the spirit I will surport it you dont and you take money a diseve people IM A PITBULL......

by AngelCake Wed Dec 03, 2014 5:58 pm

Scott, I don't think you saw my comment further up. I am interested about your personal experience with WC, where did you sit with him?

I believe W was already tested by the ASSMPI a couple of years back? They are an up and coming organisation who seem to be doing great stuff for standards in mediumship.

by mac Wed Dec 03, 2014 6:19 pm

scottmilligan wrote:
mac wrote:
Neilos wrote:Great post and what would you consider an acceptable standard of controls? Picking up on Scott's heartfelt stand should the Psychic News re-issue the challenge to Warren with strict controls in place?

Are the folk at PN really likely to be that interested and what would be the point? Nothing useful appeared to come as a result of his backing down from the previously called-off demonstration and I'd be astounded if WC were to even consider the prospect of another test sitting unless he really is dumb.

I like sue very much and she has sat with me a number of times including sitting next to me why I work . She know her stuff about pm and all aspect of mediumship and she knows alot of people who understand the nature of pm.
warren should agree to this as it would put the matter to bed . as I said I suport anyone who sits for the spirit and trys there best but if there is fraud involed I not a very nice person.
Like sue if you carry the gift of the spirit I will surport it you dont and you take money a diseve people IM A PITBULL......

I wasn't doubting the staff at PN but simply asking why they'd again go to the trouble of setting up a controlled session with a practitioner who had already jibbed at the controls proposed. (I think that's correct?) Warren Caylor has stated he doesn't much care what anyone says about his claim to be a genuine physical medium who produces authentic physical phenomena....

Recent history suggests that many ordinary folk don't have the knowledge or experience to distinguish between the real McKoy and frauds and even practitioners may use this so-called mixed mediumship. I hope your 'pit-bull' approach achieves something worthwhile in protecting the genuine, but maybe vulnerable, seekers of evidential mediumship but it might be the case that those simply seeking out phenomena won't share your approach...

by Neilos Wed Dec 03, 2014 10:04 pm

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." Eldridge Cleaver.

Just think that if the people involved do not strive to raise the standards nothing will change...

by Lis Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:44 pm

Neilos wrote:Great post and what would you consider an acceptable standard of controls? Picking up on Scott's heartfelt stand should the Psychic News re-issue the challenge to Warren with strict controls in place?

Hi Neilos,

To take your second comment first, While it might well be desirable for PN to re-issue the challenge to WC, I, like Mac, doubt that Caylor would agree to do it, and certainly not under the strict controls that the editor of PN would insist on (and rightly so).

Caylor has made it very clear that he really doesn't care less what others think of his mediumship, nor is he apparently concerned about claims he has been caught acting fraudulently. Why would he be willing, therefore, to put himself under the microscope of PN, especially given PN would surely publish an article describing the séance and their view of his mediumship. Such an article would also surely need to review concerns, past history and Caylor's previous last minute 'withdrawal' from a test séance organised by PN.

Just cannot see Caylor doing it - especially since he seems to believe that there are more than enough people willing to attend his séances regardless of the concerns about their legitimacy.

As for your first comment, the question of what would constitute " acceptable" standards of controls, is not easy to answer. Acceptable to whom? What the medium may consider acceptable - in order that their particular form of mediumship is able to operate? What an investigator may think is required to be an acceptable level of control to ensure, as far as is possible, that fraud could not occur, or acceptable to the general public who might wish to attend such séances.

I am not trying to avoid responding with my thoughts on this difficult subject, however, I don't right now have time to outline my personal view of what standards of control would be acceptable. I assure you, however, I will return and set out exactly what might be required as soon as I can. Smile

by Lis Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:07 am

I have just been informed that Warren Caylor's "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" rant on PM4U and several associated comments, including Gary Mannion's regarding what happened at the Wallacia Centre have now disappeared from that site. Curious. No explanation given apparently for the removal, leaving some members of that site rather disturbed by what looks like silent censorship of the worst kind.

I am kind of glad I am not a member of that site. Shocked

by Admin Thu Dec 04, 2014 12:39 am

Me too Lis but I doubt that we would be allowed to join it. Suspect

by mac Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:34 am

Lis wrote:I have just been informed that Warren Caylor's "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" rant on PM4U and several associated comments, including Gary Mannion's regarding what happened at the Wallacia Centre have now disappeared from that site. Curious. No explanation given apparently for the removal, leaving some members of that site rather disturbed by what looks like silent censorship of the worst kind.

Well I'm blowed - who'da thought it!? Laughing

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose....

by mac Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:36 am

Admin wrote:Me too Lis but I doubt that we would be allowed to join it.

You could always register using a different name, Jim, and routing your input via TOR so your IP address can't be seen....

by mac Thu Dec 04, 2014 2:42 am

Lis wrote:I have just been informed that Warren Caylor's "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" rant on PM4U and several associated comments, including Gary Mannion's regarding what happened at the Wallacia Centre have now disappeared from that site. Curious. No explanation given apparently for the removal, leaving some members of that site rather disturbed by what looks like silent censorship of the worst kind.

I am kind of glad I am not a member of that site.

The members who are concerned could do worse than to join us here, Lis, to properly discuss the material that's since been removed from the PM4U pages - wonder if they'd really want to engage, though, in a discussion that's not supportive of certain of the celebrity 'mediums' who post on that website. Neutral

by Sponsored content