On Oct 6, 12:44 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> Graham, last night I dreamt that I was having a salary dispute with my
> employer. Then this morning I read in the paper about an actor having a
> salaray dispute with his employer.
> My dream seems so clearly prophetic that I'm wondering whether I should
> apply to Australian Skeptics to do a test, or whether they should just
> hand over the prize straight away.
> What do you think?
> Sylvia.
Was is the ONLY dream you had and the MAIN NEWS STORY and did you
DOCUMENT THE DREAM before the news article. did you FULLFILL some
criteria you previously detailed to the skeptics as being paranormal?
e.g. I published on my FACEBOOK account once about the T3 actress
KRISTANNA LOKAN??
So when the main newspaper the next day had
DONT MISS THE BOAT ANNA
on the front page in big letters I detailed the coincidence.
Skeptics reverse engineer their null conclusion into psychiatric
diagnosis rather than distinguish between my real paranormal phenomena
and your idiotic reverse engineered attempt at a a pathetic feat to
make some inane point.
> On Oct 6, 12:44 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> Graham, last night I dreamt that I was having a salary dispute with my
>> employer. Then this morning I read in the paper about an actor having a
>> salaray dispute with his employer.
>> My dream seems so clearly prophetic that I'm wondering whether I should
>> apply to Australian Skeptics to do a test, or whether they should just
>> hand over the prize straight away.
>> What do you think?
>> Sylvia.
> Was is the ONLY dream you had and the MAIN NEWS STORY and did you
> DOCUMENT THE DREAM before the news article. did you FULLFILL some
> criteria you previously detailed to the skeptics as being paranormal?
Sadly, no, and anyway by the time I was in a position to document the dream, the paper had already been published, though I hadn't read it.
I'm glad to see that you do now have some understanding of the requirements for real evidence of psychic abilities.
Clearly, what I should have done was to have the dream earlier, and then specify which element of the dream constituted a prediction, and how and when the prediction would be fulfilled.
Oh, and I should make sure that I'm not simply flooding the web with predictions, the vast majority of which fail dismally.
> e.g. I published on my FACEBOOK account once about the T3 actress
> KRISTANNA LOKAN??
> So when the main newspaper the next day had
> DONT MISS THE BOAT ANNA
> on the front page in big letters I detailed the coincidence.
> Skeptics reverse engineer their null conclusion into psychiatric
> diagnosis rather than distinguish between my real paranormal phenomena
> and your idiotic reverse engineered attempt at a a pathetic feat to
> make some inane point.
> > On Oct 6, 12:44 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >> Graham, last night I dreamt that I was having a salary dispute with my
> >> employer. Then this morning I read in the paper about an actor having a
> >> salaray dispute with his employer.
> >> My dream seems so clearly prophetic that I'm wondering whether I should
> >> apply to Australian Skeptics to do a test, or whether they should just
> >> hand over the prize straight away.
> >> What do you think?
> >> Sylvia.
> > Was is the ONLY dream you had and the MAIN NEWS STORY and did you
> > DOCUMENT THE DREAM before the news article. did you FULLFILL some
> > criteria you previously detailed to the skeptics as being paranormal?
> Sadly, no, and anyway by the time I was in a position to document the
> dream, the paper had already been published, though I hadn't read it.
> I'm glad to see that you do now have some understanding of the
> requirements for real evidence of psychic abilities.
> Clearly, what I should have done was to have the dream earlier, and then
> specify which element of the dream constituted a prediction, and how and
> when the prediction would be fulfilled.
> Oh, and I should make sure that I'm not simply flooding the web with
> predictions, the vast majority of which fail dismally.
> > e.g. I published on my FACEBOOK account once about the T3 actress
> > KRISTANNA LOKAN??
> > So when the main newspaper the next day had
> > DONT MISS THE BOAT ANNA
> > on the front page in big letters I detailed the coincidence.
> > Skeptics reverse engineer their null conclusion into psychiatric
> > diagnosis rather than distinguish between my real paranormal phenomena
> > and your idiotic reverse engineered attempt at a a pathetic feat to
> > make some inane point.
> I think it achieved it's goal quite well.
> Sylvia.
Today 14 people signed up to Camgirls.com with their credit card
details.
I'm thinking of offering a $1,000,000 prize on the website
and when people fill out the application form an automailer sends them
an ebook on Self Delusion and Scientific Method and another form
asking for the 6 lotto numbers for next week (to collect their
$1000000)
Do you think 1 billion idiot skeptics around the world will use that
as evidence they are right and the entire world will act like bigots
cursing at palm readers and astrologists and hunting them down for
sport quoting scientific evidence to do so?
> On Oct 6, 1:54 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> On 6/10/2012 1:43 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 12:44 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>> Graham, last night I dreamt that I was having a salary dispute with my
>>>> employer. Then this morning I read in the paper about an actor having a
>>>> salaray dispute with his employer.
>>>> My dream seems so clearly prophetic that I'm wondering whether I should
>>>> apply to Australian Skeptics to do a test, or whether they should just
>>>> hand over the prize straight away.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>> Sylvia.
>>> Was is the ONLY dream you had and the MAIN NEWS STORY and did you
>>> DOCUMENT THE DREAM before the news article. did you FULLFILL some
>>> criteria you previously detailed to the skeptics as being paranormal?
>> Sadly, no, and anyway by the time I was in a position to document the
>> dream, the paper had already been published, though I hadn't read it.
>> I'm glad to see that you do now have some understanding of the
>> requirements for real evidence of psychic abilities.
>> Clearly, what I should have done was to have the dream earlier, and then
>> specify which element of the dream constituted a prediction, and how and
>> when the prediction would be fulfilled.
>> Oh, and I should make sure that I'm not simply flooding the web with
>> predictions, the vast majority of which fail dismally.
>>> e.g. I published on my FACEBOOK account once about the T3 actress
>>> KRISTANNA LOKAN??
>>> So when the main newspaper the next day had
>>> DONT MISS THE BOAT ANNA
>>> on the front page in big letters I detailed the coincidence.
>>> Skeptics reverse engineer their null conclusion into psychiatric
>>> diagnosis rather than distinguish between my real paranormal phenomena
>>> and your idiotic reverse engineered attempt at a a pathetic feat to
>>> make some inane point.
>> I think it achieved it's goal quite well.
>> Sylvia.
> Today 14 people signed up to Camgirls.com with their credit card
> details.
> I'm thinking of offering a $1,000,000 prize on the website
> and when people fill out the application form an automailer sends them
> an ebook on Self Delusion and Scientific Method and another form
> asking for the 6 lotto numbers for next week (to collect their
> $1000000)
> Do you think 1 billion idiot skeptics around the world will use that
> as evidence they are right and the entire world will act like bigots
> cursing at palm readers and astrologists and hunting them down for
> sport quoting scientific evidence to do so?
Leaving aside the "idiot" attribution, the initial problem is defining what it is that the skeptics would claim they were right about.
Merely applying for a $1,000,000 prize is not evidence of anything much, other than, possibly, a lack of wealth. At best it's a triumph of hope over experience.
If you indicate up front that receipt of the prize is conditional on the supply of winning lotto numbers, then I expect fewer people would apply, but if the application is free, then the rational person who places no value on their time, and has no marginal cost for internet data, would still apply, despite knowing that their chances are slim indeed.
By the way, you would be somewhat exposed to the risk that someone does supply the winning numbers, thereby requiring you to pay the prize despite not having won it yourself (I assume you won't be buying tickets for all the submitted numbers).
The ACCC (being Australia's consumer protection agency) might come after you regarding misleading and deceptive conduct, though probably not, because you're not policitically interesting, which seems, for some reason, to be a consideration.
If you charged a fee to process the application, and people still applied (paying the fee), I think skeptics would regard that as sufficient evidence that a fool and his money are soon parted. However, that's not much in doubt anyway.
So what exactly would the skeptics be claiming vindication for?
> > On Oct 6, 1:54 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >> On 6/10/2012 1:43 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> >>> On Oct 6, 12:44 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> >>>> Graham, last night I dreamt that I was having a salary dispute with my
> >>>> employer. Then this morning I read in the paper about an actor having a
> >>>> salaray dispute with his employer.
> >>>> My dream seems so clearly prophetic that I'm wondering whether I should
> >>>> apply to Australian Skeptics to do a test, or whether they should just
> >>>> hand over the prize straight away.
> >>>> What do you think?
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>> Was is the ONLY dream you had and the MAIN NEWS STORY and did you
> >>> DOCUMENT THE DREAM before the news article. did you FULLFILL some
> >>> criteria you previously detailed to the skeptics as being paranormal?
> >> Sadly, no, and anyway by the time I was in a position to document the
> >> dream, the paper had already been published, though I hadn't read it.
> >> I'm glad to see that you do now have some understanding of the
> >> requirements for real evidence of psychic abilities.
> >> Clearly, what I should have done was to have the dream earlier, and then
> >> specify which element of the dream constituted a prediction, and how and
> >> when the prediction would be fulfilled.
> >> Oh, and I should make sure that I'm not simply flooding the web with
> >> predictions, the vast majority of which fail dismally.
> >>> e.g. I published on my FACEBOOK account once about the T3 actress
> >>> KRISTANNA LOKAN??
> >>> So when the main newspaper the next day had
> >>> DONT MISS THE BOAT ANNA
> >>> on the front page in big letters I detailed the coincidence.
> >>> Skeptics reverse engineer their null conclusion into psychiatric
> >>> diagnosis rather than distinguish between my real paranormal phenomena
> >>> and your idiotic reverse engineered attempt at a a pathetic feat to
> >>> make some inane point.
> >> I think it achieved it's goal quite well.
> >> Sylvia.
> > Today 14 people signed up to Camgirls.com with their credit card
> > details.
> > I'm thinking of offering a $1,000,000 prize on the website
> > and when people fill out the application form an automailer sends them
> > an ebook on Self Delusion and Scientific Method and another form
> > asking for the 6 lotto numbers for next week (to collect their
> > $1000000)
> > Do you think 1 billion idiot skeptics around the world will use that
> > as evidence they are right and the entire world will act like bigots
> > cursing at palm readers and astrologists and hunting them down for
> > sport quoting scientific evidence to do so?
> Leaving aside the "idiot" attribution, the initial problem is defining
> what it is that the skeptics would claim they were right about.
> Merely applying for a $1,000,000 prize is not evidence of anything much,
> other than, possibly, a lack of wealth. At best it's a triumph of hope
> over experience.
> If you indicate up front that receipt of the prize is conditional on the
> supply of winning lotto numbers, then I expect fewer people would apply,
> but if the application is free, then the rational person who places no
> value on their time, and has no marginal cost for internet data, would
> still apply, despite knowing that their chances are slim indeed.
> By the way, you would be somewhat exposed to the risk that someone does
> supply the winning numbers, thereby requiring you to pay the prize
> despite not having won it yourself (I assume you won't be buying tickets
> for all the submitted numbers).
> The ACCC (being Australia's consumer protection agency) might come after
> you regarding misleading and deceptive conduct, though probably not,
> because you're not policitically interesting, which seems, for some
> reason, to be a consideration.
> If you charged a fee to process the application, and people still
> applied (paying the fee), I think skeptics would regard that as
> sufficient evidence that a fool and his money are soon parted. However,
> that's not much in doubt anyway.
> So what exactly would the skeptics be claiming vindication for?
> Sylvia.
I wasn't really going to offer a $1,000,000 prize, it was an analogy
to the current skeptic scientific methodology.
If Dick Smith paid his $50,000 or $100,000 in the hope or expectation
of finding supernatural evidence what exactly did he get for his
money?
Not even a list of potential powers on offer for testing.
Dick Smith "trusts the scientific decision of the Australian
Skeptics".
Skeptics are just organised anti-religious, whos every moral fibre is
entrenched in putting down the applicants.
I have reported to fair trading these organisations who CLAIM "no-one
has passed a test of supernatural powers" because it is
unsubstantiated by the possibility of data mining the applications.
Unless ALL applications are published then any claim over ALL PEOPLE
FREE TO APPLY is unsupported.
All you have to do is the HITCH HIKERS BIOLOGICAL COMPUTER EARTH TEST!
You cookie the users name, randomize 5 scrabble letters on the webpage
when they press a button, and tally their DICTIONARY WORD / TRIES
ratio and make a high scores list.
If there is a paranormal Arthur on the planet, his scrabble letters
will be more likely to be dictionary words.
Or you could PUT UP a cloud photo anywhere near as detailed and
realistic as 100s of mine.
>On Oct 6, 5:28 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> On 6/10/2012 4:11 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>> > On Oct 6, 1:54 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> >> On 6/10/2012 1:43 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>> >>> On Oct 6, 12:44 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>> >>>> Graham, last night I dreamt that I was having a salary dispute with my
>> >>>> employer. Then this morning I read in the paper about an actor having a
>> >>>> salaray dispute with his employer.
>> >>>> My dream seems so clearly prophetic that I'm wondering whether I should
>> >>>> apply to Australian Skeptics to do a test, or whether they should just
>> >>>> hand over the prize straight away.
>> >>>> What do you think?
>> >>>> Sylvia.
>> >>> Was is the ONLY dream you had and the MAIN NEWS STORY and did you
>> >>> DOCUMENT THE DREAM before the news article. did you FULLFILL some
>> >>> criteria you previously detailed to the skeptics as being paranormal?
>> >> Sadly, no, and anyway by the time I was in a position to document the
>> >> dream, the paper had already been published, though I hadn't read it.
>> >> I'm glad to see that you do now have some understanding of the
>> >> requirements for real evidence of psychic abilities.
>> >> Clearly, what I should have done was to have the dream earlier, and then
>> >> specify which element of the dream constituted a prediction, and how and
>> >> when the prediction would be fulfilled.
>> >> Oh, and I should make sure that I'm not simply flooding the web with
>> >> predictions, the vast majority of which fail dismally.
>> >>> e.g. I published on my FACEBOOK account once about the T3 actress
>> >>> KRISTANNA LOKAN??
>> >>> So when the main newspaper the next day had
>> >>> DONT MISS THE BOAT ANNA
>> >>> on the front page in big letters I detailed the coincidence.
>> >>> Skeptics reverse engineer their null conclusion into psychiatric
>> >>> diagnosis rather than distinguish between my real paranormal phenomena
>> >>> and your idiotic reverse engineered attempt at a a pathetic feat to
>> >>> make some inane point.
>> >> I think it achieved it's goal quite well.
>> >> Sylvia.
>> > Today 14 people signed up to Camgirls.com with their credit card
>> > details.
>> > I'm thinking of offering a $1,000,000 prize on the website
>> > and when people fill out the application form an automailer sends them
>> > an ebook on Self Delusion and Scientific Method and another form
>> > asking for the 6 lotto numbers for next week (to collect their
>> > $1000000)
>> > Do you think 1 billion idiot skeptics around the world will use that
>> > as evidence they are right and the entire world will act like bigots
>> > cursing at palm readers and astrologists and hunting them down for
>> > sport quoting scientific evidence to do so?
>> Leaving aside the "idiot" attribution, the initial problem is defining
>> what it is that the skeptics would claim they were right about.
>> Merely applying for a $1,000,000 prize is not evidence of anything much,
>> other than, possibly, a lack of wealth. At best it's a triumph of hope
>> over experience.
>> If you indicate up front that receipt of the prize is conditional on the
>> supply of winning lotto numbers, then I expect fewer people would apply,
>> but if the application is free, then the rational person who places no
>> value on their time, and has no marginal cost for internet data, would
>> still apply, despite knowing that their chances are slim indeed.
>> By the way, you would be somewhat exposed to the risk that someone does
>> supply the winning numbers, thereby requiring you to pay the prize
>> despite not having won it yourself (I assume you won't be buying tickets
>> for all the submitted numbers).
>> The ACCC (being Australia's consumer protection agency) might come after
>> you regarding misleading and deceptive conduct, though probably not,
>> because you're not policitically interesting, which seems, for some
>> reason, to be a consideration.
>> If you charged a fee to process the application, and people still
>> applied (paying the fee), I think skeptics would regard that as
>> sufficient evidence that a fool and his money are soon parted. However,
>> that's not much in doubt anyway.
>> So what exactly would the skeptics be claiming vindication for?
>> Sylvia.
>I wasn't really going to offer a $1,000,000 prize, it was an analogy
>to the current skeptic scientific methodology.
>If Dick Smith paid his $50,000 or $100,000 in the hope or expectation
>of finding supernatural evidence what exactly did he get for his
>money?
>Not even a list of potential powers on offer for testing.
>Dick Smith "trusts the scientific decision of the Australian
>Skeptics".
>Skeptics are just organised anti-religious, whos every moral fibre is
>entrenched in putting down the applicants.
>I have reported to fair trading these organisations who CLAIM "no-one
>has passed a test of supernatural powers" because it is
>unsubstantiated by the possibility of data mining the applications.
>Unless ALL applications are published then any claim over ALL PEOPLE
>FREE TO APPLY is unsupported.
>All you have to do is the HITCH HIKERS BIOLOGICAL COMPUTER EARTH TEST!
>You cookie the users name, randomize 5 scrabble letters on the webpage
>when they press a button, and tally their DICTIONARY WORD / TRIES
>ratio and make a high scores list.
>If there is a paranormal Arthur on the planet, his scrabble letters
>will be more likely to be dictionary words.
>Or you could PUT UP a cloud photo anywhere near as detailed and
>realistic as 100s of mine.
>Herc
Are you taking your cloud pictures to your hearing?
Shill #2
--
Ears on the loon go round and round, round and round, round and round...
theobviousgcashman
> I wasn't really going to offer a $1,000,000 prize, it was an analogy
> to the current skeptic scientific methodology.
> If Dick Smith paid his $50,000 or $100,000 in the hope or expectation
> of finding supernatural evidence what exactly did he get for his
> money?
> Not even a list of potential powers on offer for testing.
> Dick Smith "trusts the scientific decision of the Australian
> Skeptics".
> Skeptics are just organised anti-religious, whos every moral fibre is
> entrenched in putting down the applicants.
> I have reported to fair trading these organisations who CLAIM "no-one
> has passed a test of supernatural powers" because it is
> unsubstantiated by the possibility of data mining the applications.
> Unless ALL applications are published then any claim over ALL PEOPLE
> FREE TO APPLY is unsupported.
> All you have to do is the HITCH HIKERS BIOLOGICAL COMPUTER EARTH TEST!
> You cookie the users name, randomize 5 scrabble letters on the webpage
> when they press a button, and tally their DICTIONARY WORD / TRIES
> ratio and make a high scores list.
> If there is a paranormal Arthur on the planet, his scrabble letters
> will be more likely to be dictionary words.
> Or you could PUT UP a cloud photo anywhere near as detailed and
> realistic as 100s of mine.
Wow. A fact free rant from the resident stalker and retard.
> > I wasn't really going to offer a $1,000,000 prize, it was an analogy
> > to the current skeptic scientific methodology.
> > If Dick Smith paid his $50,000 or $100,000 in the hope or expectation
> > of finding supernatural evidence what exactly did he get for his
> > money?
> > Not even a list of potential powers on offer for testing.
> > Dick Smith "trusts the scientific decision of the Australian
> > Skeptics".
> > Skeptics are just organised anti-religious, whos every moral fibre is
> > entrenched in putting down the applicants.
> > I have reported to fair trading these organisations who CLAIM "no-one
> > has passed a test of supernatural powers" because it is
> > unsubstantiated by the possibility of data mining the applications.
> > Unless ALL applications are published then any claim over ALL PEOPLE
> > FREE TO APPLY is unsupported.
> > All you have to do is the HITCH HIKERS BIOLOGICAL COMPUTER EARTH TEST!
> > You cookie the users name, randomize 5 scrabble letters on the webpage
> > when they press a button, and tally their DICTIONARY WORD / TRIES
> > ratio and make a high scores list.
> > If there is a paranormal Arthur on the planet, his scrabble letters
> > will be more likely to be dictionary words.
> > Or you could PUT UP a cloud photo anywhere near as detailed and
> > realistic as 100s of mine.
> Wow. A fact free rant from the resident stalker and retard.
George The Skeptic refuses to click on HTML links to actually view
evidence.
It's like: PROVE YOU ARE SUPERNATURAL IN 25 WORDS OR LESS.
$1,000,000s TO BE WON!
APPLICATION FORMS OCCASIONALLY PERUSED
APPLICATIONS SENT TO THE POLICE AND USED AS EVIDENCE TO GET YOU
DRUGGED FOR 10 YEARS!
Herc
--
CITIZEN: "THE CIA ARE READING OUR MINDS"
SKEPTIC: HAHAHAHA
CIA: AHAHAHAH
Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Oct 7, 5:08 am, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> Graham Cooper wrote:
>>> I wasn't really going to offer a $1,000,000 prize, it was an analogy
>>> to the current skeptic scientific methodology.
>>> If Dick Smith paid his $50,000 or $100,000 in the hope or expectation
>>> of finding supernatural evidence what exactly did he get for his
>>> money?
>>> Not even a list of potential powers on offer for testing.
>>> Dick Smith "trusts the scientific decision of the Australian
>>> Skeptics".
>>> Skeptics are just organised anti-religious, whos every moral fibre is
>>> entrenched in putting down the applicants.
>>> I have reported to fair trading these organisations who CLAIM "no-one
>>> has passed a test of supernatural powers" because it is
>>> unsubstantiated by the possibility of data mining the applications.
>>> Unless ALL applications are published then any claim over ALL PEOPLE
>>> FREE TO APPLY is unsupported.
>>> All you have to do is the HITCH HIKERS BIOLOGICAL COMPUTER EARTH TEST!
>>> You cookie the users name, randomize 5 scrabble letters on the webpage
>>> when they press a button, and tally their DICTIONARY WORD / TRIES
>>> ratio and make a high scores list.
>>> If there is a paranormal Arthur on the planet, his scrabble letters
>>> will be more likely to be dictionary words.
>>> Or you could PUT UP a cloud photo anywhere near as detailed and
>>> realistic as 100s of mine.
>> Wow. A fact free rant from the resident stalker and retard.
> George The Skeptic refuses to click on HTML links to actually view
> evidence.
No need. That you're a raving nutter needs no clicking on links for evidence.
And stop stalking that woman
> Graham Cooper wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 5:08 am, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >> Graham Cooper wrote:
> >>> I wasn't really going to offer a $1,000,000 prize, it was an analogy
> >>> to the current skeptic scientific methodology.
> >>> If Dick Smith paid his $50,000 or $100,000 in the hope or expectation
> >>> of finding supernatural evidence what exactly did he get for his
> >>> money?
> >>> Not even a list of potential powers on offer for testing.
> >>> Dick Smith "trusts the scientific decision of the Australian
> >>> Skeptics".
> >>> Skeptics are just organised anti-religious, whos every moral fibre is
> >>> entrenched in putting down the applicants.
> >>> I have reported to fair trading these organisations who CLAIM "no-one
> >>> has passed a test of supernatural powers" because it is
> >>> unsubstantiated by the possibility of data mining the applications.
> >>> Unless ALL applications are published then any claim over ALL PEOPLE
> >>> FREE TO APPLY is unsupported.
> >>> All you have to do is the HITCH HIKERS BIOLOGICAL COMPUTER EARTH TEST!
> >>> You cookie the users name, randomize 5 scrabble letters on the webpage
> >>> when they press a button, and tally their DICTIONARY WORD / TRIES
> >>> ratio and make a high scores list.
> >>> If there is a paranormal Arthur on the planet, his scrabble letters
> >>> will be more likely to be dictionary words.
> >>> Or you could PUT UP a cloud photo anywhere near as detailed and
> >>> realistic as 100s of mine.
> >> Wow. A fact free rant from the resident stalker and retard.
> > George The Skeptic refuses to click on HTML links to actually view
> > evidence.
> No need. That you're a raving nutter needs no clicking on links for
> evidence.
> And stop stalking that woman
You skeptics offer $1,000,000, don't check out the evidence then call
all psychics nutters to get away with it.
