| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 884.1 | | GLDOA::WETHERINGTON | | Tue Oct 11 1988 13:12 | 19 |
| I would not recommend a seance to anyone at any time. What you're
basically doing is inviting any entity who happens to be around,
to come down onto the physical plane into the room and be with you.
Given the nature of some of these entities, it's not a terribly
wise thing to do.
Why do you wish to contact it? Just curious.
If you will concentrate your thoughts on Jack, and fill your mind
with the idea of his prescence, and address him with your thoughts,
if he is there and chooses to communicate with you, it will very
likely happen.
You might want to mention to him that he no longer belongs on this
plane, that he has passed through transition, and that he needs
to go toward the white light, where he will be told what to do from
there.
DW
|
| 884.2 | | VAXWRK::CONNOR | We are amused | Tue Oct 11 1988 16:32 | 4 |
| A seance, really? Spirits coming down to the physical
plane? Wow. Wonder what Monty PYthon could do with
this. Shudder! I am already scared.
|
| 884.3 | WHITE LIGHT AY? | USRCV1::JEFFERSONL | Jesus cares for you! | Wed Oct 12 1988 16:37 | 7 |
|
I think someone has benn watching a little bit too much of
poltergist, myself.. What do you think?
LORENZO
|
| 884.4 | Carol-anne!!... | GRYHWK::WITHERS | Thorin Decairn | Wed Oct 12 1988 19:22 | 7 |
| Now don't get down on "Poltergiest"! :-)
I'm sure there are *LOTS* of psychic midgets cleaning houses every
day! It's just not the sort of thing that gets widely reported!
Gaw
|
| 884.5 | We, too, can be sarcastic... | GLDOA::WETHERINGTON | Green grass and high tides forever | Fri Oct 14 1988 13:07 | 12 |
| I think the makers of Poltergeist borrowed a concept that is already
well known in certain spiritual quarters.
And I think I wouldn't have said anything if I didn't think I had
something valid to add to the discussion.
And I think next time...I'll keep my mouth shut.
Is it just me, or has the character of this conference changed
somewhat.
DW
|
| 884.6 | "Is there anybody in there?" --Pink Floyd | WRO8A::WARDFR | Going HOME--as an Adventurer | Fri Oct 14 1988 13:41 | 10 |
| re: Doug
I'm not too sure of what's going on in this note, but
I can't resist saying:
"It's just YOU!"
Frederick
;-) :-0 :-)
|
| 884.7 | But there is no need to be... | ERLTC::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Fri Oct 14 1988 14:12 | 37 |
| RE: .5 (DW)
It changes every day, depending on who's contributing, how their
feeling, and whether or not a topic has touched one of their "buttons"
(positive or negative).
One of the long term patterns you'll see if you read back over old
notes is waves of intollerance. Their focus may be broad or narrow,
and may be against "skeptics" or "believers" or against "skeptics"
about one particular thing or against "believers" in one particular
thing. Frequently it seems to be triggered by someone saying something
a bit strongly or more negatively than they intended, or out of
ignorance.
For what it is worth, Poltergeist started on a sound "factual"
basis -- i.e., it drew on methods actually used by parapsychologists,
belief systems common among American psychics, and typical
ostensible haunting and poltergeist phenomena. It then added a
whole lot of stuff with no relation to any of them -- it was,
after all, a piece of fantasy and never claimed to be anything else.
Offhand I don't know of any psychics who work with parapsychologists
who are little people; but I've met very few personally and a
technical report is unlikely to mention such a fact. It is not
an unlikely combination, however: people who feel a bit alienated
already are much more likely than others to take up a profession
or hobby which is likely to result in further alienation -- less
to lose.
The modern technique of investigating haunted houses by using psychics
(generally more than one) and correlating their reports with the
residents' reports was pioneered by Dr Gertrude Schmeidler. Bill
Roll, unquestionably the countries top parapsychologist specializing
in investigating poltergeist phenomena, regularaly brings in psychics
to hold seances as part of his efforts to council the family.
Topher
|
| 884.8 | <:-) | GLDOA::WETHERINGTON | Green grass and high tides forever | Fri Oct 14 1988 14:59 | 1 |
|
|
| 884.9 | I agree with Doug... | SHRBIZ::WAINE | Linda | Fri Oct 14 1988 15:33 | 18 |
| Doug,
I agree with what you replied.... What I would add also is for
the person who posted the base note (I'm sorry, I forgot your name...)
also to picture this "Jack" being surrounded in white light. If you
cannot visualize the person, visualize the name "Jack" surrounded
in white light. This should also help the being to "go on".
I would not recommend to ANYONE to just go and hold a seance unless
you know what you are doing, who exactly you are contacting, is
the being of Good and God, and ONLY if you know how to protect yourself
psychically. If you do not know how to protect yourself psychically,
you should never, ever, ever, ever open yourself up to a being who you
do not know!!!
Just my 2 cents...
Linda
|
| 884.10 | Freely expressing opinions or harassment?? | SHIRE::ESTAHLI | | Tue Oct 18 1988 08:46 | 15 |
| 884.5
<..has this conference changed..>
If the answer to your question is based on the last couple of comments
then yes it has changed. People open a conference on subjects which
interest them, they then feel that they can express their ideas
freely to other interested readers. To write about experiences
and/or feelings and then have others mock it, because it is not
their way of thinking/feeling makes a person feel very vulnerable.
My understanding of this notefile and what has been contained in
the past is that psychic phenomenon is an openly discussed
controversial subject. The controversary at this point however
is not on ideas to help this person make contact or discourage him
from so doing, but ridicule. If you don't mind the paraphrase...
My notesfile....right or wrong or My notesfile...love it or delete
it .....and find someone else to harass.
|
| 884.11 | Sorry... | GRYHWK::WITHERS | Thorin Decairn | Tue Oct 18 1988 14:53 | 25 |
| As the person who started the base note I have to add something...
When I posted the note it was poorly worded and I, whose main intent
was just to do some research on a possible "haunting" (I'm afraid
to use terms now :-) ), posted a poorly written note and got responce
saying, logically I'll add, not to touch seances etc. (which wasn't
necessarily the intent...again poorly written...I'll get out of
the conference and hide my head in shame after I exit).
As to Poltergeist, it was a fantastic movie. A horror film with
a haunted house that finally had a real reason for the family to
remain. Usually in such films they ignore occurences that would
send people screaming out into the morning/day/night. They had
a reason to stay. It also didn't offend the intellect completley
on its "reasons" for the haunting. I liked it and am sorry if I
made a statement that offended you or anyone (see previous paragraphs
end parenthesis).
Since I, by posting the base note etc., caused this I will again
reiterate that I'm sorry. In the future I'll avoid posting notes,
or at least not post/reply until I have had time to look into things
and will avoid just casual adding of my pennies.
George
|
| 884.12 | No appology needed!!! | ERLTC::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Tue Oct 18 1988 15:48 | 24 |
| RE: .11 (George)
You have nothing to appologize for. Absolutely nothing. Those
who critisized your question (or seemed to) were in the wrong, not you.
As I said earlier, such behavior surfaces periodically in this
conference (I have said things, myself, which I was later sorry
for, either because I overreacted to something or because my words
were open to misinterpretation and did harm) but it is *not*
typical of it.
No question should be made fun of, since a question represents a
desire to learn and that is always to be valued. As it happens,
those who made fun of your question (or seemed to) were simply
showing their ignorance -- the use of psychics and seances to
investigate a haunting is, as I indicated in a previous note, a
valid scientific method of investigation when coupled with the
proper controls and auxilary investigations. Poltergeist borrowed
from life.
Please, please, continue to "add your pennies", some rather ordinary
pennies turn out to be rare coins, and even the dullest of them
are worth their face value.
Topher
|
| 884.13 | we must master the language | LETO::KELLOGG | | Tue Oct 18 1988 16:34 | 7 |
|
I agree with Topher. I just got womped on for trying to tell someone
over in (Holistic notes) to stop being negative and defensive. I
should have just let it alone and observed. Don't stop your input..
this is excellent practice for learning how to get your real point
across to many. See how well Topher can *coin* a phrase? sorry.
rk
|
| 884.14 | | ANT::JLUDGATE | it's only life.... | Thu Oct 20 1988 13:25 | 25 |
| Hey there George!!!!!!!
So you want to contact somebody? HAHAHAHAHAHA
Oops, sorry about that, this isn't SOAPBOX (aka, flame anything
that moves), is it?
Well, I was going to suggest a seance, but then, I know nothing
about the field of parapsychology, and people who know about it
apparently think that a bad idea. I say stick to what the others
suggested: think positively to the name Jack, try to acknowledge
his presence, don't doubt his existance, be more receptive, etc
etc etc. Children seem to be more reachable because they don't
"know" that ghosts aren't real.
Now for more commentary..... Why? Why do you seek him? Perhaps
are you trying to find out why he is sticking around? I suggest
this because this is a question I would like to ask also. Maybe..
maybe....maybe you could try a Ouija board?
Well, let us know if you and your friend try anything, and if you
get any results.
.................................jonathan
|
| 884.15 | COULDN'T RESIST | NRADM::THIBODEAU | | Mon Oct 24 1988 15:22 | 32 |
| < COULDN'T RESIST MY TWO CENTS >
I am definately not a psychic expert by any means, nor am I religious.
But I have certainly read a great deal of literature over the years
and have had many experiences of my own.
My comments are these, based on various books/articles etc. that
I have read:
Ouji (pardon the spelling) and seances are very dangerous because
they provide an opportunity for a living being to be exposed to
another plane of life that is not the same.
Without proper training and preparation, this can be extremely
dangerous to a person's life and mental/emotional well-being.
Now - you might think I'm full of s---, I don't really care - but
there are DEFINATELY too many unexplained phenomenons in this world.
Unless you are extremely well educated and experienced in the areas
you intend to explore, then my is advice is "leave it alone".
If you still have some desire to make contact, then get in touch
with a professional medium and ask for assistance.
"Channeling" through a medium is also an excellent form of contact
which you may want to pursue further. Via channelling, a medium
provides a safe barrier between you and the "other" person or entity.
|
| 884.16 | | STRATA::RUDMAN | The Posthumous Noter | Fri Oct 28 1988 13:37 | 42 |
| Y'know, I'm glad this issue was raised. Too many times in this
conference people have suggested they may be interested in pursuing
the supernatural on a personal level for the desired purpose of
contacting a entity suspected of manifesting itself on this plane
and immediately they get jumped on and terrified to the degree of
backing off entirely. Now, you people don't want us to get the
impression you're afraid there's really nothing to it and any
first-hand attempts which fail would tend to disprove your positions.
Seance? Too dangerous, you may be hurt if the entity enters this
physical plane. ('Course, if *it* can hurt *you*, then, logically,
*you* can hurt *it*...) Better pay an expert to come in and do it
for you. If you have first-hand knowledge of occurances of physical
injury please share it.
Ouija Board? Too dangerous, your mind may be taken over or influenced
to your detriment. (The board is a prop; it is the mind that's
the key. It's no different than the visualization method prev.
mentioned.)
[Before you jump, I've participated in an ouija experiment which,
coincidence or not, worked w/o ill effects.]
If the supernatural is so dangerous, why are so many people involved
in it? (You shouldn't skydive w/o proper instruction and guidance,
but you can go up in a plane and look out the window.)
Better to wish the white light at it so if nothing happens ever
again you can say you sent it to Heaven.
.0 seems to be the typical viewpoint of the layman: curiosity (killed
the cat, I know) and seeking after knowledge, and it appears you've
discouraged this one, also. My viewpoint is convince yourself
there's really something "there" before bringing in "experts".
I had hoped to read a lot of accounts of supernatural events and
subsequent investigations in this conference as well as all the
book-learnin', and I still have hope.
Remember, the more negative attitudes the less sharing.
Don
|
| 884.17 | Logic? Who said this has anything to do with logic? | CTHULU::YERAZUNIS | I'm one of the bugs. | Fri Oct 28 1988 16:21 | 9 |
| Not to get detoured into a "shaggy shoggoth" story, but:
> ... ('Course, if *it* can hurt *you*, then, logically,
> *you* can hurt *it*...)
I'll remember that next time I'm being chased by Freddie in a
Sherman Tank. :-)
-Bill
|
| 884.18 | the stuff of which legends are made ... | MARKER::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason | Fri Oct 28 1988 16:37 | 5 |
| Re .17 (Bill):
Don't keep us in suspense: When was the _last_ time? :-D
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 884.19 | More 2 cents (plus tax) | VAXWRK::CONNOR | We are amused | Wed Nov 02 1988 12:33 | 16 |
| RE. 16
Wasn't Houdini offered $10,000 to any Medium who could
contact his wife on the other side? It never happened.
The so-called mediums many of whom considred reputable
were exposed as fakes. Can you name a medium who is
legit?
Ouija boards, I have not worked with for a long time.
I was scared off when I ask who we contacted and it said
"Devil". Looking back on that experience and what some
others did, I feel that the dangers of the Ouija board
is mostly psychological. (A psychologist explainded that
the movement is controlled by the subconscious). The
use of the board may cause breakdown of the normal
"defense system".
|
| 884.20 | not quite | MARKER::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason | Wed Nov 02 1988 12:54 | 15 |
| Re .16:
>Wasn't Houdini offered $10,000 to any Medium who could
>contact his wife on the other side? It never happened.
>The so-called mediums many of whom considred reputable
>were exposed as fakes.
Kinda backwards. Houdini's wife outlived him. However, Houdini
spent a lot of time and effort exposing fake mediums. _Houdini
On Magic_, a collection of his writings (edited by Walter Gibson,
who may have ghosted one or two) is available as a Dover Press reprint.
It includes his duel of wits with "Margery," a famous medium of
the time.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 884.21 | "Houdini" | SENIOR::DISMAIN | | Wed Nov 02 1988 13:18 | 32 |
| RE: 19
Houdini made the offer of $10,000 to any medium who could
contact his Mother,after her death,which happened while he was away
on tour. Houdini led the fight to expose fraudulent mediums,often
assuming a disguise to attend the sceances. The only medium that
perhaps gave Houdini any trouble as far as exposure goes was "Margery"
who was from Boston. The Scientific America was about to award
her the prize, until Houdini stepped in to expose her. There is
still much conjecture as to wether she was a true medium or a fraud
and I have read articles that sway it both ways. Yankee Magazine
published an article on "The Medium Who Baffled Houdini".
The exact issue date I am not sure but could look up if needed,
as I have a copy at home. There have been other mediums who could
produce spirits who seemed totally real,as the spirit of Katy King
was. "Dunninger" who made his fame as a mind reader,worked along
with Houdini to expose false mediums, and compiled a book after
Houdini's death entitled "Houdini's Spirit Exposes" which include
many of the experiences they both had during the sceances.
I have tried to put most of this down from memory as I do not
have any of the sources at hand . There are many other books that
I could mention as sources for info on the sceances and about
Houdini. If any of this is backwards or not correct it is because
of this. I will put any other info in as requested.
Magically
Paul
|
| 884.22 | on exposes | MARKER::KALLIS | Anger's no replacement for reason | Wed Nov 02 1988 13:40 | 50 |
| Re .20 (me), .21 (Paul):
> >Wasn't Houdini offered $10,000 to any Medium who could
> >contact his wife on the other side? It never happened.
> >The so-called mediums many of whom considred reputable
> >were exposed as fakes.
>
> Kinda backwards. Houdini's wife outlived him.
... But what I forgot to add was that before nHoudini's death, he
gave a secret word to his wife that, he told her, if anty medium
was able to produce, would demonstrate that he'd contacted her.
After years, at one seance, the word was uttered, ostensibly by
Houdini./ However, there is some evidence that the secrecy of the
word had been unwittingly compromised by his wife, so whether it
was genuine or not is quite up in the air.
> ... Houdini led the fight to expose fraudulent mediums,often
>assuming a disguise to attend the sceances. The only medium that
>perhaps gave Houdini any trouble as far as exposure goes was "Margery"
> who was from Boston. The Scientific America was about to award
>her the prize, until Houdini stepped in to expose her. There is
>still much conjecture as to wether she was a true medium or a fraud
>and I have read articles that sway it both ways.
Milbourne Christopher's biography, as I recall, suggests she was
a fraud; Christopher gained his reputation as a stage magician.
In Houdini's writings, he presents it as a duel of wits; if he is/was
corect, "Margery" was an extraordinarily inventive young woman.
>"Dunninger" who made his fame as a mind reader,worked along
>with Houdini to expose false mediums, and compiled a book after
>Houdini's death entitled "Houdini's Spirit Exposes" which include
>many of the experiences they both had during the sceances.
One Houdini-Dunninger book I recall is titled _A Magician Among
the Spirits_; it's pure expose.
The interesting thing I read about all this ios that Houdini/Weiss
originally was most anxious to meet a true medium, and it was when
he was attending seances that his _professional_ talents showed
him fraud was taking place. This apparently infuriated him and
started him on his crusade.
Dunninger ran a stage-magic column is a magazine (_Science and
Invention_? my memory's rusty), and frequently, he'd show some
of the more common mediums' tricks.
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 884.23 | Margery. | ERLTC::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Wed Nov 02 1988 14:18 | 51 |
| RE: (last bunch)
The Margery case is quite complex. A fair amount has been written
about it in the parapsychological literature since several key
events in the history of the field revolve around it.
Knowing Houdini's flair for showmanship, I have no doubt that he,
or his companions, may have presented the situation as him rushing
in to save the bamboozled savants at Scientific American from
awarding the prize, and Houdini as leading a personal duel of
wits with Margery, but my understanding is that though certainly
an important character in the events he was in no way the key
central character implied by this.
First off, the Scientific American prize was distinct from Houdini's.
A committee was appointed to investigate claimant's for the prize
Complicating the issue was that the American Society for Psychical
Research had become politically split between two factions: one
pushing for continuation of the rigorous methods advocated by
the Society in the past and the other perceived by most modern
historians as having a position of advocacy for Spiritualism.
The latter group was in the acendency. They performed several
investigations of Margery and pronounced her genuine.
Several members of the Scientific American committee had been
impressed by Margery in some initial, informal sittings with
her, but they were far from awarding her the prize. When formal
investigations were held, Houdini was there, as I remember it,
right from the start. Houdini and others claimed to have found
opportunities for Margery to have cheated, and noted various
behaviors which were suspicious to say the least. But, once again,
to the best of my memory, no explicit cheating was actually
observed.
Until a young biologist with an interest in the area was granted
a sitting. He was shocked to observe Margery cheating several
times during the session -- it must have been a bad night for her.
As a result of this he concluded that investigations of the
area would have to be done in the laboratory, without "professional"
mediums, and using protocols completely designed by the investigator.
The scientist was J.G. Rhine, and modern laboratory parapsychology
was the result.
Eventually, "the goods", hard, irrefutable evidence were found proving
that Margery used fraud, at least some of the time. Specifically,
"ghosts" who left mysterious imprints in wax in some of her sessions
were found to share fingerprints with, if I remember correctly,
her dentist.
Topher
|
| 884.24 | "Addendum" | SENIOR::DISMAIN | | Wed Nov 02 1988 14:33 | 13 |
| Re:23
Topher,Thanks for going over the Margery case, I told you I
might have forgotten some info,besides this was a hectic weeks as
I was married on Halloween evening,after I did a magic show in town.
I did have an additional note concerning the margery case,but
it got eaten up by this machine, and lost in transit.
Magically
Paul
|
| 884.25 | | STRATA::RUDMAN | The Posthumous Noter | Mon Nov 28 1988 14:15 | 25 |
| Re: .19
"...name a medium who is legit?"
--Was I supposed to? Having never knowingly even *met* one, I'm
afraid I'd be no help. I do, however, have a Dunninger/Houdini
book on exposing mediums, and will not believe a true medium
exists until I see it.
Uhhh, actually, it was his mother he wanted to contact. Sorry.
(Actually, he told his *wife* he'd contact her after *his* death.
.22 covered this quite nicely.)
Re: .21
Wow! If you could find it in your heart to make a photocopy & send
it to me I'd appreciate it.
Re: .23
Was her dentist alive at the time? This seems to be the key
question... :-)
Don
|
| 884.26 | | WILLEE::FRETTS | Noting with my Higher Self | Mon Nov 28 1988 16:41 | 10 |
|
RE: .19, .25
"...name a medium who is legit?"
Could you define what your criteria is to be legit?
Thanks,
Carole
|
| 884.27 | Off the top of my head... | STRATA::RUDMAN | The Posthumous Noter | Tue Nov 29 1988 14:31 | 56 |
| re: -.1
The basic requirement of a successful medium is to have people
believe in them. Blind Faith works, but for any who have a bit
of skepticism (i.e., self-protection) in them a little convincing
is required.
As in a work environment, a medium must "prove" their revelations.
e.g., I want to make a change in the process. I set up and perform
a few tests. When I'm satisfied, I seek approval by those who
job it is to ensure we maintain yields. Do I get their approval
by my word alone? No. They want data based on the current process
reality and established test matrices to ensure my changes will
be beneficial and repetitive.
Applying this to the supernatural, should I believe a medium just
because he/she professes expertise and has a following? (Add to
this the difference between on-going buiness decisions vs. those
that directly affect your life.) I'd like some data. A little
proof. [Tangent--believing in a medium offering hard truth from
the beyond and viewing their revelations on speculated lifepaths
are two different things. In the latter you get to chose the path.
The former must either be believed as gospel or treated as fiction.
The former is what I'm refering to; the potentialy more dangerous.]
Yeah, its great to talk to someone who has all the answers, but
how do you know which one it is? So tell me something specific
(not vague, like the newspaper horoscopes) about me that is either
unknown or so obscure or trivial that I *have* to be impressed,
or predict an unexpected specific near-future event which can't
be used to cover a typical news story (and no quatrains, please).
Toss some hard data in front of me to establish your bona fides
(e.g., conjure up my father and let him tell me something that passed
between us alone) so I can consider the "unknown" data as legit.
A quick thought on medium-lecturers: Another category altogether.
This aspect can be viewed differently. Like religion, you get out
of it what feels right to you. The lectures offer information to
consider and apply to your own views. Hopefully, it is insightful
enough to beneficially alter your life-perceptions and make you
a happier individual. And I'm wondering if the lecturers are
more succesful by using the being-through-medium approach rather
than a professor of pyschology on tour.
BTW, what is a "scientifically-accredited medium"? Who accredits
them? Is there a report available at the door? Actually, it would
be nice if the medium sat by the door and jotted down homey, revealing
little notes for each cash customer on 3x5s as they enter. If they
don't get hung for a telepath they've got it made.
And consider this: Houdini (& later Dunninger) spent how many years in
futile search of a real medium? Did the real ones go into hiding?
Don
|
| 884.28 | | WILLEE::FRETTS | Noting with my Higher Self | Tue Nov 29 1988 16:05 | 68 |
|
RE: .27 Don -< Off the top of my head... >-
I asked the question because I wasn't quite sure what you were
looking for. Now I understand. What I initially thought you
meant was a medium who, with integrity and responsibility and
honesty, has developed their abilities over a period of time
and does not use gimmicks or lies in the communication process.
Based on the type of mediumship involved, proof varies. There
is inspirational mediumship that really can have no proof other
than personal, subjective response on the part of the receiver
of the information. Add a good dose of balanced open-mindedness
and common sense here.
Trance mediumship can function as either inspirational or it
can also be used for evidential work (evidential meaning
giving information to a person that gives evidence that the
spirit communicating is someone they know and/or that the
information has personal significance). Again, this is highly
subjective. As an example, a communication from a mother in
spirit to her son in the body will be significant and meaningful
and evidential to the son, but not necessarily to anyone else
who is present. Mental mediumship would perform the same function.
If the trance medium is a deep-trance medium, there could possibly
be some physical changes that could be scientifically tested/
analyzed, however with mental mediumship there would be no
physical changes (necessarily). The only way this type of
medium could be tested is by feedback from the receivers of the
messages.
Physical mediumship is a much more testable process in that
there is some physical phenomena that can be recorded.
I have worked with mediumship for 6 years and let me tell you,
the development process *is hard work*! If a person chooses
to work in this way, it should be done with a commitment to service.
I work with a wonderful group of people and everyone of them is
*legitimately* developing so that they can be workers in service
to their brothers and sisters. The instructors of our class
stress integrity, responsibility and honesty as our top priorities.
We recently had a group of people in phase 1 of our program who
got caught up in ego issues and competition. The instructors
closed this particular class down because the group could not
get by these issues, which naturally arise in the development
process but they must be dealt with and gone beyond. *That's*
integrity!
There is a lot of misuse of psychic and mediumistic abilities
that is very sad to see because people can be really hurt.
But there are good people out there who are sincere in this
work. If you are interested in attending a demonstration of
evidential mediumship, make a note of the following info:
Wednesday, December 15, 1988
7:30 pm (be prompt!)
Demonstration of Evidential Mediumship
First Spiritual Temple
16 Monmouth Street
Brookline, MA 02147
617-566-7639
Donation: $5
Carole
|
| 884.29 | | WILLEE::FRETTS | Noting with my Higher Self | Tue Nov 29 1988 16:19 | 7 |
|
RE. -1
Oops! Please change the date to Wednesday, December 21, 1988.
C.
|