RootsBooster Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 Again, you're making assumptions. It's only going to be good for business if- 1. your customer group actually cares that you're regulated, and, you can't just assume they are: many clients or mediums and/or alternative practices in general go to a medium because they have found one they have a affinity for- they're often people who have found the conventional 'regulated' industries to be highly lacking- they don't much care for 'regulation' by officials, and, further, like the mediums themselves, their client base are probably sick and tired of the establishments ocasional attempts to harrass mediums/alternative practitioners via demanding scientific validation of the industry. 2. any extra profits brought in by regulation (if there where any- see point 1 above) aren't offset by the costs of attending regulatory courses/taking exams etc- which, in some industries, are considerable. I don't know. You'd have to run it as a study to find out, wouldn't you? IMO, anything that can guarantee you are genuine will benefit your business. Can you give an answer to this question please? (and why are you talking about regulation again?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 IMO, anything that can guarantee you are genuine will benefit your business. Can you give an answer to this question please? (and why are you talking about regulation again?) Then we have a different opinion I explained the regulation thing several posts back I don't know if you did or not- someone on this thread did- I replied, then I guess you joined in? if you don't want to talk about regulation, don't: equally, if i do see it as being relevant, i will mention it. as to the question- post it: if I answer a question I may want to re-quote it for context, so I'm not chasing links around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Yada yada yada, your deluded. the dead can't talk, pack it in being silly. Do you only believe anything that has impirical evidence? Lots of things don't. Try keeping an open mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 Then we have a different opinion Okay I explained the regulation thing several posts back It wasn't an explanation, however, I've had a good look now, the confusion happened at post #72. Up until and including post #51 we were talking about authentication, they were your words. In your post #72, when quoting my response, you (for reasons beyond me) changed your wording to "regulation", which is a totally different thing. So back to my original question, why would voluntary authentification quickly turn into compulsory authentification. ? if you don't want to talk about regulation, don't: equally, if i do see it as being relevant, i will mention it. then at least do so in a relevant way as to the question- post it: if I answer a question I may want to re-quote it for context, so I'm not chasing links around. Okay... So, it's going to be none then, isn't it? No medium with any kind of respect for their craft or any degree of intelligence is going to get involved in that. Why on Earth not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Okay It wasn't an explanation, however, I've had a good look now, the confusion happened at post #72. Up until and including post #51 we were talking about authentication, they were your words. In your post #72, when quoting my response, you (for reasons beyond me) changed your wording to "regulation", which is a totally different thing. So back to my original question, why would quickly turn into ? then at least do so in a relevant way Okay... Correction- we were not talking about 'authentication' or, at least weren't using that word (authentification). You may have been, but this authentification stuff is news to me. For example- Okay It wasn't an explanation, however, I've had a good look now, the confusion happened at post #72. Up until and including post #51 we were talking about authentication, they were your words. In your post #72, when quoting my response, you (for reasons beyond me) changed your wording to "regulation", which is a totally different thing. So back to my original question, why would In reality, I was talking about 'regulation', at least as far back as post #46, in reply to Moosey- That's kind of the point I was making. If professionals have to 'prove' they can do what they say, and, if that's done via regulatory bodies, the exams and regualtory system has to actually be effective. I question the effectiveness of many such regulatory systems and so, again I say- mediums should only have to proof themselves if/when all professionals have to prove themsleves, and, not via a bought exam certificate that often, actually does not, in reality, prove anything. you'll agree that post#46 comes well before the 2 posts you mention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 As for Originally Posted by onewheeldave View Post So, it's going to be none then, isn't it? No medium with any kind of respect for their craft or any degree of intelligence is going to get involved in that. It's just my opinion- I see no reason why such a medium would get involved in tests of that kind. A lot of the quality mediums are- 1. not interested in proving the existence of the dead 2. tend not to rate the abilites of scientists to construct fair and meaningful testing protocols, that would show it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 Correction- we were not talking about 'authentication' or, at least weren't using that word (authentification). You may have been, but this authentification stuff is news to me. For example- In reality, I was talking about 'regulation', at least as far back as post #46, in reply to Moosey- you'll agree that post#46 comes well before the 2 posts you mention? Maybe so, in regards to your interactions with him, but I made a response specifically to this post of yours... But, as history shows, voluntary authentification can very quickly turn into compulsory authentification. That's not really relevant here, this thread is simply about coming up with a test we can agree on. Feel free to begin a poll about whether or not mediums should take compulsory tests when you replied again you changed the wording Actually, i consider it relevant. I was simply pointing out that voluntary regualation in this instance would likely become compulsory regulation: given that mediums may well read this thread, I consider that worth mentioning. but we might as well forget about this now, it is of no consequence. Back to the matter at hand, can you answer the question in my last post please? EDIT: Just saw answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted August 16, 2012 Author Share Posted August 16, 2012 As for Originally Posted by onewheeldave View Post So, it's going to be none then, isn't it? No medium with any kind of respect for their craft or any degree of intelligence is going to get involved in that. It's just my opinion- I see no reason why such a medium would get involved in tests of that kind. A lot of the quality mediums are- 1. not interested in proving the existence of the dead 2. tend not to rate the abilites of scientists to construct fair and meaningful testing protocols, that would show it I never mentioned anything about scientists. So, if a test was agreed upon by believers, non-believers, mediums and even scientists, and was recognised and accepted publicly, with the award meaning that you are a genuine, capable medium, do you think that a medium with any kind of respect for their craft or any degree of intelligence will get involved with it? Also, what exactly do you mean by "quality medium" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 I never mentioned anything about scientists. So, if a test was agreed upon by believers, non-believers, mediums and even scientists, and was recognised and accepted publicly, with the award meaning that you are a genuine, capable medium, do you think that a medium with any kind of respect for their craft or any degree of intelligence will get involved with it? Also, what exactly do you mean by "quality medium" ? if "a test was agreed upon by believers, non-believers, mediums and even scientists, and was recognised and accepted publicly, with the award meaning that you are a genuine, capable medium, do you think that a medium with any kind of respect for their craft or any degree of intelligence will get involved with it?" Then, yes, I expect they would- given that the mediums themselves, in that exteremely unlikely scenario, had agreed the test was a good one, it would be strange for them not to get involved. However, it won't happen- unless, like the 'Randi $1,000,000 challenge', the only 'mediums ' involved in the agreement, were the type who head towards that 'test', like moths to a flame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 17, 2012 Share Posted August 17, 2012 Also, what exactly do you mean by "quality medium" ? Those who are sincere in what they do, intelligent, and, unlikely to bother trying to prove the unprovable to the likes of Mr Randi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.