DO YOU WANT ME TO *PROVE* PSYCHIC POWERS OR NOT?
|-|ercules
2/ THIS IS A BIBLIOMANCY TEST
3/ I DESIGN THE TEST (YES *I* DESIGN THE TEST)
4/ YOU HAVE TO COOPERATE WITH MY RULES
5/ I NEED 5 VOLUNTEERS TO POST HERE "I AGREE"
6/ IT IS FUTILE TO DISCUSS THE TEST PROTOCOL UNTIL PEOPLE (SKEPTICS) VOLUNTEER
7/ THE 5 VOLUNTEERS WILL BE ASKED TO FORMULATE 5 QUESTIONS
8/ I ALREADY BOUGHT A LOTTO TICKET DAY 2 AFTER I FOUND OUT I WAS GOD.
IT DIDN'T WIN - NEXT. NO QUESTIONS THAT WOULD PROVE PSYCHIC POWERS
IN A SINGLE HIT WITH THE CORRECT ANSWER.
9/ FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE - YES / NO QUESTIONS.
10/ REFUSAL TO VOLUNTEER IS YOUR ADMISSION YOU KNOW I CAN PROVE POWERS
AND YOU ARE STALLING TO CONCEAL THAT FACT.
11/ NO VIDEOS. JUST MY ANSWERS. VIDEOS MAY BE LATER CHECKED HOW I GOT THE ANSWERS.
12/ ENDLESS PROTOCOL DISCUSSIONS AND THEORIES 'IT WON'T WORK BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE'
ARE *AGAINST* SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Herc
The Man From Havana
> 1/ FORGET ALL PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF PSYCHIC TEST
>
snip drivel.
Im afraid no-one gives a toss anymore you mindless obese cunt.
|-|ercules
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:55:18 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> Why bother when you'll just CHICKEN OUT?
This is a genuine way to prove bibliomancy. It's not a one way bet where a skeptic asks
"Tell me what number I'm thinking of".
If nobody posts "I AGREE" within 24 hours then you all reneged.
You have nothing to lose, if I do pass MY test then the SKEPTICS can try to duplicate
the result under their own terms. No money involved. I'm not going anywhere. It
has to be repeatable.
Give me 25 yes/no questions and I'll give you a new religion.
Herc
Auntie Lib
> 10/ REFUSAL TO VOLUNTEER IS YOUR ADMISSION YOU KNOW I CAN PROVE POWERS
> AND YOU ARE STALLING TO CONCEAL THAT FACT.
This reminds me of a very inventive scam I read last week.
I love to peruse the Junk folder in my e-mail looking for interesting
cons. They're usually very boring ("You don't know me but I'm dying
in the hospital and need someone to leave all my husband's stolen
millions to. I just know you'll use the money for good Christian
works." Hah!) This one though, stated that we had a business
relationship but that I hadn't responded in awhile and he wanted me to
know that my share of our business transaction was in a box at UPS in
Nigeria. I had to do this, this, and that, in order to claim my
millions.
The kicker was that if I didn't respond, he would assume I had agreed
to the terms of the deal and would expect payment of the customs fees
within the week.
Who FALLS for this shit anymore!? I mean, really?
Herc? The "If you ignore me and fail to respond then I win" ultimatum
doesn't even work on three-year-olds. What makes you think it'll work
on us? We all know you're a fraud and a liar (and probably seriously
deluded) and your "proof" proves nothing about your supposed psychic
abilities, except that you know how to set up a test you can't lose.
So... I guess that's a No.
elizabeth
aa#2098
EAC Director of Useless Endeavors
Vice-Chairman Of The Committee On Wasted Time
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
"I was born with a skeptical mind. Now I ask you, is that fair?
If God gives me a skeptical nature and you an accepting one, then
you're going to be a believer and I'm not. If belief is a ticket to
eternal happiness, I'm definitely handicapped. God gives me a mind
capable of asking questions and what? I'm damned if I use it?"
F. Paul Wilson "The Haunted Air"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
A B
Herc - how on earth are we supposed to agree to your test protocol if we
don't know what it is?
I'll send you a question if I can. But if, for instance, you specify a very
particular kind of question, I might not have one that fits the bill. OK?
And I'm not agreeing in advance to stand by the results. That would be
daft! I'll tell you that when I see what the test is.
One more thing - you can't judge the results yourself, not if this is
supposed to be a fair test. That ought to be obvious. I realise it's
difficult to find anyone unbiased on here, though. It might be best just to
sum up the questions and answers and let them speak for themselves.
--
All the best,
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at zendotcodotuk.
I don't check that account very often, so tell me on the newsgroup if you've
sent me an e-mail.
|-|ercules
Yes I rethought the blind I AGREE point. All you agree to is to go along with my
instructions as long as you think they're fair.
Technically it could be interpreted as agreeing to do anything I request.
There's 2 ways to conduct an experiment. Rigid protocol agreed to by all before hand,
that wasted 10 years of our time. Do what the psychic requests and examine the data
afterwards, since it has to be repeatable anyway there is nothing to lose.
But we are heading down the infinite protocol design path of "how to see if something
talks intelligently".
Ask 5 Yes/No questions, or to hell with thee.
Herc
Desertphile
<radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Subject: DO YOU WANT ME TO *PROVE* PSYCHIC POWERS OR NOT?
No. Just produce some evidence. Got any?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote ...
> > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:55:18 +1000, "ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > Why bother when you'll just CHICKEN OUT?
> This is a genuine way to prove bibliomancy. It's not a one
> way bet where a skeptic asks "Tell me what number I'm thinking of".
Post your VIN guess. What the bloody hell are you waiting for?
Desertphile
<radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ask 5 Yes/No questions, or to hell with thee.
Post your VIN guess, coward.
A B
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 02:22:08 +1000, "ercules"
> <radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ask 5 Yes/No questions, or to hell with thee.
>
> Post your VIN guess, coward.
VIN guess already posted, actually. It was "V9", I'm afraid. As usual,
vaguely appropriate to the question in that it sounds like "VIN", but
nothing like what was actually asked for. (Unless "V9" appeared in the
actual VIN. Come on, Raven1, did it?)
--
A B
news:8e7cti...@mid.individual.net...
Fine. Anyway, I should have read all your postings before replying to this
one. I know what you were aiming at now.
For those who didn't spot it, here's Herc's protocol:
"Say you ask me 5 Yes/No questions.
Q1 Will man make it to the moon by 2020?
Q2 Will I find my beloved?
Q3 Is Brad Pitt gay?
Q4 Will the biggest to date catastrophe happen in 2012?
Q5 Does Oprah do drugs?
Then I channel my 5 answers, each answer is channeled exactly the same way
from the same book, using a marking pen to select the nearest word and the
answer is read out to the next full stop. Entirely mechanistic, I have no
power
over what the answers are.
Then I randomly shuffle the 5 answers and give them back to you.
He's a homo
Total annihilation
High as a kite
She's a honey
10 seconds to countdown
Then you "make the answers fit". You (albeit honesty required) put the best
answers
next to the best matching question.
Then I reveal my video, or I encrypt the questions and answers something
like that and
IF YOUR ANSWERS AGREE WITH MY (RANDOM) ANSWERS
then I defeated 5! to 1 odds. I broke 120 to 1 odds if all 5 Q&A match!"
To clarify: although questions are used, the test doesn't depend on getting
the right answers. And although yes/no questions are specified, the answers
can't be yes/no answers and aren't supposed to be. I daresay Herc has his
reasons for this. Although rather silly, it doesn't affect the validity of
the test.
Here's my contribution, Herc:
Q1) Is there life after death?
Q2) Did humans evolve from other animals?
Can't think of any more portentous questions offhand, so:
Q3) Is all this discussion of Edmond Wollmann's court cases really
necessary?!
Q4) Do I live in America?
Q5) Is the Prime Minister of the UK too rich for his own good?
--
Cheers,
martin
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 12:13:41 +1000, "|-|ercules"
> <radgr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "raven1"<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote ...
>>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:55:18 +1000, "ercules"<radgr...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why bother when you'll just CHICKEN OUT?
>
>> This is a genuine way to prove bibliomancy. It's not a one
>> way bet where a skeptic asks "Tell me what number I'm thinking of".
>
> Post your VIN guess. What the bloody hell are you waiting for?
No, no, no. It's "what the bloody fuck are you waiting for?"
|-|ercules
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 12:13:41 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote ...
>>> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:55:18 +1000, "|-|ercules" <radgr...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why bother when you'll just CHICKEN OUT?
>>
>>This is a genuine way to prove bibliomancy.
>
>
>>1/ FORGET ALL PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF PSYCHIC TEST
>
>
>>2/ THIS IS A BIBLIOMANCY TEST
>
> trying to demonstrate?
>
>>3/ I DESIGN THE TEST (YES *I* DESIGN THE TEST)
>
>
>>4/ YOU HAVE TO COOPERATE WITH MY RULES
>
>>5/ I NEED 5 VOLUNTEERS TO POST HERE "I AGREE"
>
>>6/ IT IS FUTILE TO DISCUSS THE TEST PROTOCOL UNTIL PEOPLE (SKEPTICS) VOLUNTEER
>
> worthless.
>
>>7/ THE 5 VOLUNTEERS WILL BE ASKED TO FORMULATE 5 QUESTIONS
>
>
>>8/ I ALREADY BOUGHT A LOTTO TICKET DAY 2 AFTER I FOUND OUT I WAS GOD.
>
>
>> IT DIDN'T WIN - NEXT. NO QUESTIONS THAT WOULD PROVE PSYCHIC POWERS
>> IN A SINGLE HIT WITH THE CORRECT ANSWER.
>
> guessing a VIN).
>
>>9/ FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE - YES / NO QUESTIONS.
>
> That's not very impressive.
>
>>10/ REFUSAL TO VOLUNTEER IS YOUR ADMISSION YOU KNOW I CAN PROVE POWERS
>> AND YOU ARE STALLING TO CONCEAL THAT FACT.
>
> that you're not psychic, you're just nuts.
>
>>11/ NO VIDEOS. JUST MY ANSWERS. VIDEOS MAY BE LATER CHECKED HOW I GOT THE ANSWERS.
>
> particular demand for them.
>
>>12/ ENDLESS PROTOCOL DISCUSSIONS AND THEORIES 'IT WON'T WORK BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE'
>> ARE *AGAINST* SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
>
> answers, not vague phrases that can be subjectively interpreted any
> way you choose. (Prime previous example: "Are Adam and Eve alive
> today?" "After creating both of these". It's a yes/no question, but
> your response says neither.)
>
> If you want to be tested, propose something objective. Of course, you
> won't, because you're a dishonest coward who will weasel out of any
> objective test.
There is no single scientific method.
This is my fourth objective test protocol
1/ blind judge
2/ synonym match
3/ prescreened quotes on paper slips picked from a hat
4/ answers are revealed to the skeptic but not in order
None of you DO ANYTHING. You winge and wine that I can't guess trillion, trillion, trillion to one bets.
Listen to all the OBJECTIONS to this simple experiment!
I have 2 sets of 5 questions so far.
Any more?
Herc
Jim Reid
Obese, ok, I admit to eating baby dicks.
--
Emcc Web Design - Better Websites for Better Porn
1446 Claret Court, Ft Myers FL 33919
Tel: 239 433 4873 Email: c...@emccdesign.com
Desertphile
wrote:
That, too. :-) "ercules" need only post his guess, and the issue
will be resolved utterly and conclusively. But he is a typical
"psychic" fraud: they know better than to be honest.
hagman
Hm, this would allow me to prpose publicly 5 questions of the type
"When writing the smallest prime factor of the number ... in binary,
is the 17th
digit from the right a 1?"
The correct answers could easily be revealed by me after the test and
a timely(!) correct set of replies would be at least impressive.
Would you allow this type of question?
hagman
|-|ercules
No, 5 different questions you want to find out the answer to.
You have to try to match the 5 shuffled answers back to the questions.
Herc
Terrys
[after he added aus.tv back in, now deleted
>
> You have to try to match the 5 shuffled answers back to the questions.
>
We don't _have_ to do anything, you impotent weasely fat fuckwit.
You have failed many times.
Just piss off like you promised so many times.