WHY SKEPTICS $1,000,000s IN PRIZES ARE A JOKE!
|-|ercules
under proper scientific testing conditions
Its a really simple procedure
Legally tight claim -> do the test
Right?
WRONG!
It might work if skeptics were genuinely interested in detecting a
result but they are more concerned about keeping their $millions
There are 2 (TWO) test protocols involved in most demonstratioms
1 the protocol to demo 1 single hit
2 the protocol to empirically prove significant odds
Unless it's a basic spoon bending or water divining test, you will never get
any cooperation to get past demonstrating 1, because 2 always crops up
as an excuse. Try and combine 2 in your claim and it's over complicated
and you will not even get a reply to 99% of skeptics who offer tests.
If a skeptic competition has rules such as "no anecdotal evidence will even be looked at"
then they are hardly interested in paranormal, yet alone proving it.
If a skeptic competition does not have an offer to view a paranormal demonstration,
they are jokers, even if you can get a reply, it will just be a "We're right, you're wrong"
answer, nothing more.
And it's all a publicity stunt just part of the biggest organised gang bash in history.
Herc
--
[BULLFROG] Hopefully she's alerted the cops and you'll be done for sexual
harassment and stalking, and then it's off again to the lockup for you..
[HERC] You know nothing about legal procedure and enforcement....
oh wait, that's exactly how it works...
son of a bitch
No matter how times you've tried to Scam/Extort money out of these
bastards they won't give you a Brass Razoo, Those Bastards.
|-|ercules
> So what you're saying is:
>
> No matter how times you've tried to Scam/Extort money out of these
> bastards they won't give you a Brass Razoo, Those Bastards.
>
Well yeh, but NO, NO no no no, according to my legal council I shouldn't answer
questions like that that remove any reason from the equation, people can go to
jail for wanting money.
Herc
son of a bitch
No, you can go to jail for wasting the Courts Time or not being truthful.
Terrys
> "son of a bitch" <bitchin_2...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> > No matter how times you've tried to Scam/Extort money out of these
> > bastards they won't give you a Brass Razoo, Those Bastards.
>
> Well yeh, but NO, NO no no no, according to my legal council I shouldn't answer
> questions like that that remove any reason from the equation, people can go to
> jail for wanting money.
No, people go to jail for issuing threats to get money they have no
entitlement to.
ps: alt.politics.libertarian is not what you probably think it is
[though it could be your second home], aus.media-watch wouldn't be the
slightest bit interested.
|-|ercules
----------------------
The rather sarcastic threat was to 'please reply', the police asked me a series of WHAT FOR?
until collecting the prize money was revealed as my motive! Then 'please reply' became a $100,000
extortion bid on TV, radio, newspaper, 100s of website URLS posted on usenet with YOU SICK FUCK
attached every group / forum I go to, 500 websites with 'DICK SMITH FOOD EXTORTIONIST' ....
Oh THAT "liberal"
Herc
Sapient Fridge
<radgr...@yahoo.com> writes
The bit you went to jail for was this:
"I am about to put Ratsak in as much Dick Smith food as I can"
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
|-|ercules
"Sapient Fridge" <use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote >>
>>> > No matter how times you've tried to Scam/Extort money out of these
>>> > bastards they won't give you a Brass Razoo, Those Bastards.
>>>
>>> Well yeh, but NO, NO no no no, according to my legal council I shouldn't answer
>>> questions like that that remove any reason from the equation, people can go to
>>> jail for wanting money.
>>
>>No, people go to jail for issuing threats to get money they have no
>>entitlement to.
>> ps: alt.politics.libertarian is not what you probably think it is
>>[though it could be your second home], aus.media-watch wouldn't be the
>>slightest bit interested.
>>
>>
>>----------------------
>>
>>
>>The rather sarcastic threat was to 'please reply', the police asked me a series of WHAT FOR?
>>until collecting the prize money was revealed as my motive! Then 'please reply' became a $100,000
>>extortion bid on TV, radio, newspaper, 100s of website URLS posted on usenet with YOU SICK FUCK
>>attached every group / forum I go to, 500 websites with 'DICK SMITH FOOD EXTORTIONIST' ....
>>
>>Oh THAT "liberal"
>
> The bit you went to jail for was this:
>
> "I am about to put Ratsak in as much Dick Smith food as I can"
Hey that's clever how you snip half way through a sentence starting with a capital!
Of course you realise, everyone who cites the Alfoil Beannie Deflector website to me
will be mind probed for 20 years, and everyone who cites the fake extortion rap will
do 10 years prison in the faggot rapist ward. I'll see your cell has a nice view of the shower room.
Herc
Terrys
> Of course you realise, everyone who cites the Alfoil Beannie Deflector website to me
> will be mind probed for 20 years, and everyone who cites the fake extortion rap will
> do 10 years prison in the faggot rapist ward. I'll see your cell has a nice view of the shower room.
>
Back to what you do best, inane empty threats from an impotent fat
failure.
Sapient Fridge
<radgr...@yahoo.com> writes
>
That is the full sentence according to:
http://www.electronicspoint.com/re-erc-graham-andrew-cooper-wanker-t29793.html
So what do you claim the full sentence was then?
>Of course you realise, everyone who cites the Alfoil Beannie Deflector
>website to me
>will be mind probed for 20 years, and everyone who cites the fake
>extortion rap will
>do 10 years prison in the faggot rapist ward. I'll see your cell has a
>nice view of the shower room.
Sorry but I'm not interested in your fantasies.
|-|ercules
You're an idiot.
I'm giving you an extra 5 years in Fag Unit for that ridiculous cite.
Herc
Sapient Fridge
>>
>> Sorry but I'm not interested in your fantasies.
>
>
>You're an idiot.
And you are a liar. That *was* the full sentence:
"I am about to put Ratsak in as much Dick Smith food as I can"
and it's the reason you were jailed. You threatened to poison people.
>I'm giving you an extra 5 years in Fag Unit for that ridiculous cite.
Not interested, I don't smoke any more. I gave up years ago.
|-|ercules
+6 years for making accusations when you are clearly incapable of comprehending the written word.
Keep going sunshine, you think the son of God is not a man of his word?
Herc
Sapient Fridge
<radgr...@yahoo.com> writes
>"Sapient Fridge" <use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote
>>>>>>>> > No matter how times you've tried to Scam/Extort money out of these
>>>>>>>> > bastards they won't give you a Brass Razoo, Those Bastards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well yeh, but NO, NO no no no, according to my legal council I
>>>>>>>>shouldn't answer
>>>>>>>> questions like that that remove any reason from the equation,
>>>>>>>>people can go to
>>>>>>>> jail for wanting money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, people go to jail for issuing threats to get money they have no
>>>>>>>entitlement to.
>>>>>>> ps: alt.politics.libertarian is not what you probably think it is
>>>>>>>[though it could be your second home], aus.media-watch wouldn't be the
>>>>>>>slightest bit interested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>----------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The rather sarcastic threat was to 'please reply', the police
>>>>>>>until collecting the prize money was revealed as my motive! Then
>>>>>>>'please reply' became a $100,000
>>>>>>>extortion bid on TV, radio, newspaper, 100s of website URLS
>>>>>>>posted on usenet with YOU SICK FUCK
>>>>>>>attached every group / forum I go to, 500 websites with 'DICK
>>>>>>>SMITH FOOD EXTORTIONIST' ....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh THAT "liberal"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bit you went to jail for was this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I am about to put Ratsak in as much Dick Smith food as I can"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Hey that's clever how you snip half way through a sentence starting
>>>>>with a capital!
>>>>
>>>> That is the full sentence according to:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.electronicspoint.com/re-erc-graham-andrew-cooper-wanker-t297
>>>>93.html
>>>>
>>>> So what do you claim the full sentence was then?
>>>>
>>>>>Of course you realise, everyone who cites the Alfoil Beannie
>>>>>Deflector website to me
>>>>>will be mind probed for 20 years, and everyone who cites the fake
>>>>>extortion rap will
>>>>>do 10 years prison in the faggot rapist ward. I'll see your cell
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but I'm not interested in your fantasies.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're an idiot.
>>
>> And you are a liar. That *was* the full sentence:
>>
>> "I am about to put Ratsak in as much Dick Smith food as I can"
>>
>> and it's the reason you were jailed. You threatened to poison people.
>>
>>>I'm giving you an extra 5 years in Fag Unit for that ridiculous cite.
>>
>> Not interested, I don't smoke any more. I gave up years ago.
>
>
>+6 years for making accusations when you are clearly incapable of
>comprehending the written word.
Look up the word "fag" and you will notice that it has different
meanings around the world. See if you can work out what in means in the
UK, where I'm posting from.
>Keep going sunshine, you think the son of God is not a man of his word?
I'm sure he would be, if there were such a thing. Not relevant to this
conversation though.
What *is* relevant is that you lied when you said that I misquoted the
sentence where you threatened to poison people. You also lied when you
said you were jailed for saying "please reply".
Terrys
>
> Keep going sunshine, you think the son of God is not a man of his word?
>
We don't think that - we've had years of observation enabling us to
know that `the son of god' [AKA Fat Weasel] is a lying deluded fraud.
|-|ercules
"Terrys" <merry...@gmail.com> wrote in ...
-----
Yeh but all your delusions and fraud are based on a "christ complex" and "paranormal beliefs"
making your atheist confirmation retarded.
Herc
|-|ercules
Rubbish, it was the same sentence.
OK if you think I can't put a homosapien in the cooler you really should take a look at yourself,
or your alias at least.
Herc
Peter Bowditch
The "please reply" was followed by a threat to poison food. That is
why you were correctly labelled as "Dick Smith Food Extortionist".
>
>Oh THAT "liberal"
>
>Herc
>
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter
|-|ercules
> The "please reply" was followed by a threat to poison food. That is
> why you were correctly labelled as "Dick Smith Food Extortionist".
>
Your senility is becoming more and more obvious.
If that's what you think then please stop asking me to apply for your $100,000 competition
as you are obviously doing so in jest, and I have already written a dozen valid claims and protocols.
And like I said last time that made you send the police around, you better hope I'm not Genesis Adam.
Herc
dev....@example.com
Name your leagal council.
dev....@example.com
false claim of a false god by a fraud
dev....@example.com
Oh, I'm sure you are not 'Genesis Adam' just as I am sure you possess
no paranormal powers.
Don't forget that I have already defeated you so badly that you could
not even complete the test. Don't forget that you are dodging my offer
to retest you.
Your mind is modeling clay kowtow before your betters, knave.
|-|ercules
TEST 33 Thu, 11 Nov 10 10:31:45 -0800
their minds evil affected against the brethren.
QUICK ANSWER Thu, 11 Nov 10 10:33:13 -0800
And Joash the king of Israel came down unto him, and wept over
his face, and said, O my father, my father, the chariot of
Israel, and the horsemen thereof.
TEST 34 Thu, 11 Nov 10 10:35:11 -0800
that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in
>> The "please reply" was followed by a threat to poison food. That is
>> why you were correctly labelled as "Dick Smith Food Extortionist".
>>
>
>Your senility is becoming more and more obvious.
I'm not the one making idiotic claims about possession of paranormal
powers.
>
>If that's what you think then please stop asking me to apply for your $100,000 competition
I have never asked you to apply. I told you that the challenge existed
and what you had to do to qualify. You went straight from "I can do
something" to "I have done something, give me the money or I will
poison food".
>as you are obviously doing so in jest, and I have already written a dozen valid claims and protocols.
No, you have not.
>
>And like I said last time that made you send the police around, you better hope I'm not Genesis Adam.
The police were sent round (not by me) because you made a threat to
put ratsak in food.
I don't hope you're not Genesis Adam. I know it.
|-|ercules
>>> The "please reply" was followed by a threat to poison food. That is
>>> why you were correctly labelled as "Dick Smith Food Extortionist".
>>>
>>
>>Your senility is becoming more and more obvious.
>
> I'm not the one making idiotic claims about possession of paranormal
> powers.
What's idiotic about a claim that 1 billion people believe will happen at some time?
>
>>
>>If that's what you think then please stop asking me to apply for your $100,000 competition
>
> I have never asked you to apply. I told you that the challenge existed
> and what you had to do to qualify. You went straight from "I can do
> something" to "I have done something, give me the money or I will
> poison food".
You've asked me 10 to 20 times to state a clear claim.
>
>>as you are obviously doing so in jest, and I have already written a dozen valid claims and protocols.
>
> No, you have not.
Dozens of people on usenet have already tried the protocols.
Everyone can see it but you.
>
>>
>>And like I said last time that made you send the police around, you better hope I'm not Genesis Adam.
>
> The police were sent round (not by me) because you made a threat to
> put ratsak in food.
You sent them around in January 2010.
They accused me of poisioning food from the 'please reply in day or two' sigline
from 2002.
There is a court order from a Supreme Court judge for the prosecution to cease Peter.
If you keep dupign police like that you are breaking the court order.
>
> I don't hope you're not Genesis Adam. I know it.
Because you've spent the last 50 years of your life mocking psychics.
Herc
george
> Because you've spent the last 50 years of your life mocking psychics.
>
Is there a better way to spend 50 years ?
|-|ercules
On Nov 21, 2:23 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Because you've spent the last 50 years of your life mocking psychics.
>
Is there a better way to spend 50 years ?
That's why I never killfile George. JessHC, TerryS, Clocky, Raven1, same bullshit comment
every post, but not Mr Black.
Herc
Sylvia Else
> There is a court order from a Supreme Court judge for the prosecution to cease Peter.
>
> If you keep dupign police like that you are breaking the court order.
I'm not sure what "dupign" police means, but it is unlikely that there
is an order from the Supreme court that prevents Peter from doing it.
Certainly a court order in respect of a prosecution would not do so.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
conspiring to break a court order?
conspiring to have a court order broken?
Herc
Sylvia Else
Conspiring with whom? Not with the police. They may or may not act on a
complaint from Peter, but they won't conspire with him, which means he
can't conspire with them.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
What are you talking about? Are you saying deliberately trying to get me prosecuted
over a case with a court order against the prosecution continuing is legal?
Herc
Sylvia Else
A person cannot conspire on their own.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
You can't follow a thread properly dear.
Herc
Sylvia Else
I think I probably can, but that you misunderstand what is meant by
"conspiring". Specifically, it does not mean "planning to",
"trying to", "intending to", etc., on the part of one person, but
relates to an interaction between two or more people.
Before you can begin to suggest that Peter is breaching the law by
conspiring in relation to a court order, you have to identify the one or
more people with whom you claim he was conspiring, or at least assert
that there exists such a person or people, even if their identities are
unknown.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
Maybe the lack of expression in text communications is confusing you.
>>> I'm not sure what "dupign" police means, but it is unlikely that there is an order from the Supreme court that prevents Peter
>>> from doing it. Certainly a court order in respect of a prosecution would not do so.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>
> conspiring to break a court order?
>
> conspiring to have a court order broken?
> ....
> ....
Does the ... help? Does changing the topic from what I obviously meant and clarified 3 posts running
to your own little subtopic with the opposite outcome unrelated information amuse you?
Herc
Sylvia Else
Not really. How are you going to fit the previous line, which you omitted?
"If you keep dupign police like that you are breaking the court order. "
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
indirectly by duping
Herc
Sylvia Else
At least now I know what you intended by "dupign".
If there's a court order in respect of your being prosecuted for
extortion (What was it? A permanent stay?) then you cannot be
prosecuted, or the prosecution cannot continue, in respect of that
particular instance.
But I don't see how Peter could dupe the police so as to result in a
breach of the order, much less how his action could itself amount to a
breach of the order.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
You see nothing wrong with police banging on my door 6 years after the prosecution
was ordered to cease asking me if I poisoned anyone as I threatened to?
Herc
Sylvia Else
You do like to put words into people's mouths don't you? Even though
were clearly annoyed that you think the police did that to you.
Whether there's something wrong with the police banging on your door
depends on the facts of the situation.
They can enter your property, but not your dwelling, for the purpose of
making inquiries.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ppara2000365/s19.html
However, if you indicate that you do not intend to answer their
questions, then they should immediately leave, on the grounds that their
presence is no longer for the purpose of making inquiries. If they don't
leave, they will be tresspassing.
But until then, it's not unlawful.
An order for the police to cease a prosecution in respect of a threat to
contaminate food doesn't mean they can't prosecute you either in respect
of another such threat, or if you were to follow up on the original
threat, and it certainly doesn't prevent the police from making
enquiries in those regards.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
What? Your advice is drivel and specifically written to suggest the opposite
of what you are actually saying. Your advice about twisting statements in complete
opposites, abuse of law, blame shifting and evasion of any legal protocol is somehow
apt in this instance.
Herc
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in
>>>> The "please reply" was followed by a threat to poison food. That is
>>>> why you were correctly labelled as "Dick Smith Food Extortionist".
>>>>
>>>
>>>Your senility is becoming more and more obvious.
>>
>> I'm not the one making idiotic claims about possession of paranormal
>> powers.
>
>
>What's idiotic about a claim that 1 billion people believe will happen at some time?
I don't care what a billion people believe. You are the one making the
claim of paranormal powers.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>If that's what you think then please stop asking me to apply for your $100,000 competition
>>
>> I have never asked you to apply. I told you that the challenge existed
>> and what you had to do to qualify. You went straight from "I can do
>> something" to "I have done something, give me the money or I will
>> poison food".
>
>You've asked me 10 to 20 times to state a clear claim.
So when are you going to do it?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>as you are obviously doing so in jest, and I have already written a dozen valid claims and protocols.
>>
>> No, you have not.
>
>Dozens of people on usenet have already tried the protocols.
>Everyone can see it but you.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>And like I said last time that made you send the police around, you better hope I'm not Genesis Adam.
>>
>> The police were sent round (not by me) because you made a threat to
>> put ratsak in food.
>
>You sent them around in January 2010.
No, I did not.
>
>They accused me of poisioning food from the 'please reply in day or two' sigline
>from 2002.
Because those words were associated with a threat to poison food.
>
>There is a court order from a Supreme Court judge for the prosecution to cease Peter.
Which prosecution would that be?
>
>If you keep dupign police like that you are breaking the court order.
I am not subject to any court order.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I don't hope you're not Genesis Adam. I know it.
>
>Because you've spent the last 50 years of your life mocking psychics.
I'm still waiting for a psychic to turn up and demonstrate some
psychic powers.
Peter Bowditch
Nothing to do with me as I am not subject to any court order.
|-|ercules
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in ...
BOW-DITCH = Renegger!
You can't get more psychic than that!
Herc
Sylvia Else
understand such things was evident in your WIN statement of claim,
which, if you recall, got you exactly nowhere.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>
>>You've asked me 10 to 20 times to state a clear claim.
>
> So when are you going to do it?
>
Here's a basic one.
Send me 3 horoscopes each day from the Sydney paper with the sign clipped each day this December,
one of them is my sign Pisces.
I'll guess over 15/30 times the Pisces sign. Take NYE off.
You'll have to trust me not to check the Sydney paper, but it's just a start to get a formal test done
so cheating would do me no good.
15 or more Pisces picks by me would break roughly 20:1 odds.
2 months running is 500:1
Herc
Sylvia Else
Seems a fair question. Why don't you answer it? Even post a copy of the
order.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
Yes or No?
If any of you bothered to point me to a sample claim maybe I could have mimicked
the baby language 1 2 3 point by point necessary to say HEY LOOK AT THE
DEFAMATION ON THE NEWS PAPER COPY ATTACHED
Herc
Sylvia Else
What on Earth has that to do with this subthread? That was another thing
that your statement of claim showed - you are unable to keep issues
separate in your mind. To you, all the wrongs to which you think you
were subject are one big tangle.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
The extortion case, obviously. I fully predicted every one of Peter's handwaving replies
so I'm just going to post BOW-DITCH = RENEGGER to every one of his posts on my
threads from now on, unless he finally gets off his ass Re: Paranormal Challenge
Herc
Sylvia Else
> "Peter Bowditch"<myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>
>>> You've asked me 10 to 20 times to state a clear claim.
>>
>> So when are you going to do it?
>>
>
>
> Here's a basic one.
>
> Send me 3 horoscopes each day from the Sydney paper with the sign clipped each day this December,
> one of them is my sign Pisces.
>
> I'll guess over 15/30 times the Pisces sign. Take NYE off.
It wouldn't surprise me particularly if you could do it. Aren't the
various starsigns meant to be associated with characterstics (even if
only by the particular charla, er, I mean astrologist) which presumably
writers of horoscopes would manifest in their articles . How would it
evidence a psychic power?
>
> You'll have to trust me not to check the Sydney paper, but it's just a start to get a formal test done
> so cheating would do me no good.
>
> 15 or more Pisces picks by me would break roughly 20:1 odds.
> 2 months running is 500:1
Only if there were no correlation between a horoscope and its associated
starsign, which for the reason I give above, is likely to be untrue.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
OMG PICKY PICKY. You bring up the claim out of nowhere then come up with that!
My claim was 100% perfectly clear explanation of the defamation given the annexes.
It was obviously written by someone fluent in English with higher qualifications.
The fact it wasn't in typical format is just another excuse to overlook the injustice because
you all think RUDE = ILLEGAL so give him 10 years anyway who cares.
They said it cannot be used IN ITS CURRENT FORM, i.e the defamation was clearly expressed.
Herc
Sylvia Else
There are various ways to make a case go away. What *specifically* was
the order?
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
The prosecution to cease.
By supreme court judge Margaret Wilson in Feb 2003
Herc
Sylvia Else
It was a mishmash of allegations that dragged in stuff that was totally
irrelevant. The court wouldn't have thrown it out merely because it used
unconventional language. But that wasn't the problem with it. It comes
as no surprise to me that you got nowhere.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
What association? People born earlier in the year are perhaps more dominant as they
are older than their peers. That's not a 50% bias in descibing your daily activities.
Mabye LEO would get a GO GET EM reading and would have some bias, but
Pisces hardly talks about two fish.
Use a control. Stop trying to STOP getting data with hypotheticals of "maybe there
is no power."
Herc
Sylvia Else
Was it a permament stay? A dissmisal? On what grounds?
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote>
> On 22/11/2010 12:46 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Peter Bowditch"<myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> You've asked me 10 to 20 times to state a clear claim.
>>>>
>>>> So when are you going to do it?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's a basic one.
>>>
>>> Send me 3 horoscopes each day from the Sydney paper with the sign clipped each day this December,
>>> one of them is my sign Pisces.
>>>
>>> I'll guess over 15/30 times the Pisces sign. Take NYE off.
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me particularly if you could do it. Aren't the various starsigns meant to be associated with characterstics
>> (even if only by the particular charla, er, I mean astrologist) which presumably writers of horoscopes would manifest in their
>> articles . How would it evidence a psychic power?
>>
>>>
>>> You'll have to trust me not to check the Sydney paper, but it's just a start to get a formal test done
>>> so cheating would do me no good.
>>>
>>> 15 or more Pisces picks by me would break roughly 20:1 odds.
>>> 2 months running is 500:1
>>
>> Only if there were no correlation between a horoscope and its associated starsign, which for the reason I give above, is likely to
>> be untrue.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> What association? People born earlier in the year are perhaps more dominant as they
> are older than their peers. That's not a 50% bias in descibing your daily activities.
I'm not suggesting there's an association between when people were born
and their actual characteristics. Indeed, I strongly doubt it. I'm
suggesting that there's an association between star signs and what is
written in horoscopes, because those who write horoscopes make sure that
there is.
>
> Mabye LEO would get a GO GET EM reading and would have some bias, but
> Pisces hardly talks about two fish.
>
> Use a control. Stop trying to STOP getting data with hypotheticals of "maybe there
> is no power."
You have no reasonable grounds for objecting to people raising concerns
about the validity of your protocols.
What form would a control take?
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
Bullshit. Anyone who throws that claim out of court which clearly depicts the events
of the annexes is a con, pure and simple. There are numerous writing styles and your
version conveys much the same information rearranged.
I'll be running the show soon Sylvia and I'LL APPOINT *REASONABLE* *TRUTHFUL*
JUDGES to go over that very claim, read it WORD FOR WORD in front of a honest jury
and ask all the charade artists what they found incomprehensible UNDER THOUGHT PROBE
to ensure a totally honest answer. They will ALL BE EXPOSED as corrupt liars.
If Dick Smith lodged that claim they'd offer him another $250,000
Herc
|-|ercules
Unsound mind at the time of the offence.
Herc
|-|ercules
Yes I do. You deliberately use unsound arguments to sway skeptics not to test me,
based on such nonsense as "if he loses he might suggest another test", "it's not possible
for the result to show anything (due to being paranromal)", "he changed protocol during
another test", "he failed in the test I gave him", "he dismissed results after the trial", "he
hasn't proven anything in 10 years".... actually you came up with HUNDREDS of this ALL NONSENSE.
>
> What form would a control take?
>
A control. What a ludicrously stupid question.
Herc
|-|ercules
"|-|ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote
> If Dick Smith lodged that claim they'd offer him another $250,000
>
> Herc
>
I'm not saying I don't like your claim better, but when judges stop reading common English
descriptions of a crime in a claim ... <insert anecdote>
Herc
|-|ercules
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote >>
>> You see nothing wrong with police banging on my door 6 years after the prosecution
>> was ordered to cease asking me if I poisoned anyone as I threatened to?
>>
>
> You do like to put words into people's mouths
I think your subconscious is cottoning on on what sarcasm entails.
Herc
Terrys
>
> The extortion case, obviously. I fully predicted every one of Peter's handwaving replies
> so I'm just going to post BOW-DITCH = RENEGGER to every one of his posts on my
> threads from now on, unless he finally gets off his ass Re: Paranormal Challenge
>
He's under no obligation to you at all. You refuse to accept the rules
of the sceptic prize, so you are not eligible.
If I offer money for someone to paint my house, I pay the painter when
he has done it. I don't pay them when they claim to have done it, and
the house is clearly not painted.
Congratulations on putting a whole new bunch of people off-side
[media,watch]. You're like a pentecostal hassling people at random so
they can feel `persecuted' and `holy' when told to naff off.
|-|ercules
------------------------------------------------
What is untestable about this claim?
www.tinyurl.com/telepathy-mindreading
One of dozens I have sent to Peter.
Herc
Sunny
"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
news:8ks1v0...@mid.individual.net...
> On 21/11/2010 5:35 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
Is this group (aus.tv) going to be re-named "Pander to |-|ercules" ?
Beats me why anyone would bother replying to the idiot.
Sylvia Else
Leaving aside whether they're nonsense, I certainly haven't come up with
hundreds of them. They're also not concerns about the validity of your
protocols.
Your described protocol relies on there being no actual correlation
between the content of a horoscope and the starsign it purports to
represent. I question the correctness of that - I think there is a real
correlation that would allow you to do better than chance without having
a psychic power (yet another one, apparently).
>
>
>>
>> What form would a control take?
>>
>
>
> A control.
Yes. Saying "control" doesn't mean that one necessarily exists. I
question whether one does for this particular test. So I ask again, what
form would the control take?
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
So was it a permanent stay, a finding of not-guilty by reason of
insanity, what?
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
What do you think an order for the prosecution to cease means?
There is no guilty or not guilty verdict, however to sign the application for mental review
you have to admit guilt of the charges.
Herc
|-|ercules
Skeptics are always spouting on each horoscope is the same.
If I can demonstrate a bias then that bias can be exploited / isolated, trivially.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What form would a control take?
>>>
>>
>>
>> A control.
>
> Yes. Saying "control" doesn't mean that one necessarily exists. I question whether one does for this particular test. So I ask
> again, what form would the control take?
>
I can answer that question with one word.
DUMMY
Herc
Corinto
Sunny
"Corinto" <cori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:PLOZXPX140504.3439814815@reece.net.au...
Really, it changed its name to "Sylvia Else" ?
Sylvia Else
I doubt that. One only has to look at a horoscope page to see that the
horoscopes are not the same.
There have been tests that indicate that even if many people are given
the same horoscope, they will still respond that the horoscope has a
particular application to themselves. But that's not the same as saying
that each horoscope is the same.
>
> If I can demonstrate a bias then that bias can be exploited / isolated, trivially.
If, as I suspect, there is a correlation between horoscopes and
starsigns, then all you'd be doing would be exploiting that correlation.
It would not demonstrate a psychic ability.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> What form would a control take?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A control.
>>
>> Yes. Saying "control" doesn't mean that one necessarily exists. I question whether one does for this particular test. So I ask
>> again, what form would the control take?
>>
>
>
> I can answer that question with one word.
>
> DUMMY
What form would the dummy take?
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
Deliberate dumb miscomprehension noted.
Unable to tell apart.
>
>>
>> If I can demonstrate a bias then that bias can be exploited / isolated, trivially.
>
> If, as I suspect, there is a correlation between horoscopes and starsigns, then all you'd be doing would be exploiting that
> correlation. It would not demonstrate a psychic ability.
>
Total ignorance of statement you are responding to.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What form would a control take?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A control.
>>>
>>> Yes. Saying "control" doesn't mean that one necessarily exists. I question whether one does for this particular test. So I ask
>>> again, what form would the control take?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can answer that question with one word.
>>
>> DUMMY
>
> What form would the dummy take?
>
Deliberate ignorance of obvious answer and shifting blame.
I'm noticing a pattern about you Sylvia.
You either get everything inside out and upside down together so it comes out roughly coherent
and nobody notices, or you're a bad little troll.
Herc
Sylvia Else
I have never heard of an order for a prosecution to cease, so I'm
doubting that that is exactly what the order said.
>
> There is no guilty or not guilty verdict, however to sign the application for mental review
> you have to admit guilt of the charges.
It seems highly improbable that there would be any requirements of any
kind whatsoever imposed on someone thought to be mentally ill. It would
be absurd for a mentally ill person to be deprived of legal protections
intended for them merely because they are too ill to comply with a
requirement.
It looks to me as if the most likely course would be
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/mha2000128/s281.html
in which case there would be no order in respect of the prosecution.
Instead, the termination of the prosecution would be a consequence of
the decision that you were of unsound mind.
By the way, a finding by the Mental Health Court that you were of
unsound mind at the time of the alleged offence would be significant in
support of your claim to be able to start your action against WIN
oustide the normal timeframe.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
I haven't even alluded to blame.
You need to show that there is no correlation between horoscopes and
starsigns. You have referred to controls, and "dummy", but haven't
described either in terms that allow any view about whether they will
actually do what is required.
Peter hasn't bothered to reply to this subthread, but I'm pretty sure he
won't accept this horoscope test as being a valid test of your power,
because of the evident difficulty of excluding non-psychic methods of
passing.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
Good find! I'll try and track it down.
Herc
|-|ercules
Pure conjecture and you know full well nobody could consistently score higher than 40%
picking their own horoscope from any Austrlalian newspaper.
Let's go to horoscopes.com shall we?
Back to the simple things. Today, simplicity is your key to having the most successful and satisfying day. That means you'll want to
avoid situations that seem overly complex. Instead, choose to do things in the simplest manner possible. It's also a great day to
focus your time on favorite places, activities and people.
Make up your mind! Today spending too long making decisions won't benefit you. In fact, it could cause you some unnecessary grief.
That's because today you'll tend to overanalyze your options. The simple solution to this problem is to make decisions more quickly,
especially on unimportant matters.
So which is which sign?
Apart from the fact getting grief from discussions today is obviously about me.
Herc
Sylvia Else
I dare say, but that's an entirely different matter. It amounts to an
observation that people cannot recognise a correlation between
themselves and a horoscope. But I'm not claiming such a correlation. I'm
claiming a correlation between a horoscope and its star sign. Both are
human artefacts, and a correlation between them would be unsuprising.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
Your distinction seem so to imply most people are not sure what their own horoscope is.
Clocky was adamant they're all the same with this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dp2Zqk8vHw
Randi certainly has a handle on how the human psyche operates and how it's
fallability can be abused by charlatans to make paranormal claims.
Herc
Sylvia Else
I assume you meant that they're not sure what their own star-sign is.
They may not (though even I do), but more likely they won't know what
characteristics to look for in the corresponding horoscope.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
That would defeat the purpose of giving them characteristics. At any rate an ex horoscope
writer as control would give the expected non-paranormal bias.
That ANY horoscope will equally describe your day effectively is the claim made by
numerous skeptics, as Randi tries to demonstrate without any evidence just a guffawed classroom
which gave Clocky a skeptics hardon.
Herc
Sylvia Else
I don't see why.
>
> That ANY horoscope will equally describe your day effectively is the claim made by
> numerous skeptics, as Randi tries to demonstrate without any evidence just a guffawed classroom
> which gave Clocky a skeptics hardon.
As I've already indicated several times, that's irrelevant.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
Wrongly indicated. You seem to be of the opinion the skill is intractable as defeating any
control the skeptics can find would be insignificant.
Like saying Phar Lap might have been using faster running skills so it wasn't the winning horse.
Herc
Sylvia Else
Herc, you're supposed to be proving that you have a psychic power. Any
test used for that has to be one where there's no apparent way of
passing it other than by using a psychic power. The test you described
doesn't have that property.
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
It's up to the skeptics whether they want to support their claims that horoscopes
are unrelated to individual people's day to day activities, and I wouldn't accept the
$100,000 unless I scored 20% above the best horoscope professionals and skeptics
in the biz! Ok I would but I'd like to think otherwise..
Herc
Sylvia Else
Can you really not see that your success in this would not contradict
skeptics' claims, nor prove that you have psychic powers?
Sylvia.
|-|ercules
Are you claiming that nobody the skeptics could convince to be a control could
select their Star Sign anywher near 20% LESS than I could?
- - - - - - - - - PISCES LEO VIRGO
HERC : - - - - 60% - - 20% - - 20% (Herc= Pisces - Score = 60%)
SYL: - - - - - - 35% - - 30% - - 35% (Syl=Leo - Score = 30%)
Proff.HorScoper -30%--30%---40% (Horoscoper=Virgo - Score = 40%)
You claim this would not prove a correlation from the CONTENT of the reading
to my daily actions?
Getting 20% above anyone else you want to test would definitely be due to
the horoscopes matching typical traits of each star sign, but nobody else could
pick that only me?
If I was LEO and there were only 11 other controls for each starsign, then
you might have a case, due to LEO being more obvious than others.
You seem to think statistical anomalies can be ignored as reason for anything.
Herc
dev....@example.com
<radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>------------------------------------------------
>
>
>What is untestable about this claim?
>
>www.tinyurl.com/telepathy-mindreading
>
>
>One of
(the half baked subject to change)
>dozens I have sent to Peter.
>
>
>Herc
>
{herc's claim fromt he link follows with my annotations inserted}
Claim: I can guess what question you are thinking of if you tell me a
random
page number and line number of a novel, and give me 3 options to
choose from.
{so long as the 3 questions are not remotely related }
____________________________________________________________
Example of Test Protocol
I write 22 questions on 22 cards.
{so we have 22x22= 484 questions or maybe you should learn remedial
english)
You select any card you want and don't let me see the question side of
the card,
you tell me any made up page number and line number, I look up my
novel and tell
you the quote at that line, that's the answer to the question and
completes the channel.
(except if the questioner doubts the validity of the answer at which
point you become a petulant, often profane, whiner who cries of
cheating}
Then you shuffle the deck and take the top 2 cards, add them to your
selected card and
then shuffle those 3 cards and hand them to me. I then show you the
card you selected.
{don't forget that the questions offered must be distinct according to
the alleged psychic e.g. are my eyes brown? are ny eyes blue? & are ny
eyes green? is not allowed because well the "the channeler from god"
explain why ...}
2nd trial, we remove the selected card from the deck and do it again
with 21 cards.
For the final 20th trial there will be 3 cards left, one is your
selection and the other 2 are
the options to guess from.
{an option you would like so you have more chances to "guess" - that
is the word you use - the correct question
Basic Zenner card test without the meaningless symbols, and a lookup
quote to trigger
the mind read & channeled answer.
{ a desperate hope that you will hit a lucky streak and win a prize
since you have no powers and hope to argue the testers to death }
clarifying where Herc attempts to muddy the waters,
your friend
defeater of the false voice of a false god