Re: |-|erc's mindreading test - A. B.'s questions
A B
I've already said that I'm happy with the test. If you can get a good score
on the test as you've described it, without trying to change the rules, I'll
be satisfied. I should point out, though, that I'm not sure how much use
proving yourself to me will be. I mean, there's no special reason why
anyone should take any notice of me.
Question 1, Page 50, Line 199
83b0e31ba7b7fb407ee37116416b6f7f
Graham Cooper
OK, line numbers 1..33 please, page numbers 1..333,
better check my new channeling book for those ranges..
if I can find it!
Graham Cooper
Here is the protocol again.
THE MINDREADING VIA BIBLIOMANCY TEST IS CONDUCTED IN 2 PHASES.
QUESTION & ANSWER PHASE
STEP 1
The Tester writes down 10 yes or no questions that he has a genuine
interest in finding out the answer to, not just an interest in whether
I can give the answer for test purposes. The questions should cover
different topics and use various formats, not all of the same type
like whether something will happen in the future on all 10 questions.
STEP 2
The Tester appends 20 random digits to the first question, and uses an
MD5 calculator to send me the HASH of the question and private key in
STEP 3.
e.g Question 1 = Will my son pass his maths exam today?
Add 20 digits private key = Will my son pass his maths exam today?
9365012857394735289
MD5 = 8d8f057938438f0604b7b38158ea4d6d
STEP 3
The Tester thinks of a random page number (1..333) and a random line
number (1..33) and send me a message like this:
Question 1 Page 200 Line 20
MD5 = 8d8f057938438f0604b7b38158ea4d6d
STEP 4
I send the Tester the Bibliomancy 'answer' to his question like this:
<<didn't study very much>>
STEP 5
REPEAT STEP 2 TO STEP 4 UNTIL ALL 10 QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN 'ASKED' AND
'ANSWERED'.
SCORING PHASE
STEP 6
The Tester posts his 10 questions in random order.
STEP 7
I have 3 guesses at each question from the set of 10 bibliomancy
answers.
STEP 8
The Tester posts the 10 questions in original order with the 20 digit
private keys so everyone can check that was the actual order.
STEP 9
The number of correct guesses is tallied, the expected average result
is 3 out of 10.
STEP 10
If I scored above average, then my odds are calculated using a
binomial calculator. A maximum of 10 Testers with 10 questions each
would be required to defeat a total of 1,000,000:1 odds.
A B
Question 1, Page 199, Line 50
83b0e31ba7b7fb407ee37116416b6f7f
Graham Cooper
OK, let's keep those line numbers down!
And a reminder to keep polling your newsreader every 5 minutes so the
Q&A phase takes under an hour.
thanks
Page range 1..220, Line range 1..30
A B
Question 1, Page 199, Line 5
Graham Cooper
P199 L5
<<I saw you putting something into the food yesterday>>
A B
> Question 1, Page 199, Line 5
> 83b0e31ba7b7fb407ee37116416b6f7f
Question 2, Page 3, Line 3
1f2e17481acdcb4920dd292a744ae34d
Graham Cooper
P3 L3
<<ridge to fill their hungry bellies. And as for men, they never
seemed happier>>
A B
>
> Question 1, Page 199, Line 5
> 83b0e31ba7b7fb407ee37116416b6f7f
><<I saw you putting something into the food yesterday>>
>
> Question 2, Page 3, Line 3
> 1f2e17481acdcb4920dd292a744ae34d
>happier>>
Question 3, Page 50, Line 9
a831fa15f3a03f53f5eb943bca71f1d1
Graham Cooper
A B
Question 4, Page 210, Line 1
7ba2228338bde2272372d8b3765caa3b
Graham Cooper
<<Mma Ramotswe returned to Gaborone on the morning>>
A B
Question 5, Page 9, Line 20
6811dcb44bd19c48639680bb36adc089
Graham Cooper
<<cabinet of their small office, her thoughts were taken up with
the difficult task>>
Graham Cooper
Wait, that was LINE 5.
Here is P9, L20
<<Makutsi expressed herself very well - both in English and
Setswana>>
A B
> > Question 1, Page 199, Line 5
> > 83b0e31ba7b7fb407ee37116416b6f7f
> ><<I saw you putting something into the food yesterday>>
>
> > Question 2, Page 3, Line 3
> > 1f2e17481acdcb4920dd292a744ae34d
> ><<ridge to fill their hungry bellies. And as for men, they never seemed
> >happier>>
>
> > Question 3, Page 50, Line 9
> > a831fa15f3a03f53f5eb943bca71f1d1
> > <<glancing briefly at Mma Makutsi>>
>
> > Question 4, Page 210, Line 1
> > 7ba2228338bde2272372d8b3765caa3b
> ><<Mma Ramotswe returned to Gaborone on the morning>>
>
> Question 5, Page 9, Line 20
> 6811dcb44bd19c48639680bb36adc089
>Setswana>>
Question 6, Page 46, Line 7
29618727b33b19a48dae689d0a32eea0
Graham Cooper
<<enquired after Mr J. L. B. Matekoni, and received a brief report>>
A B
"Graham Cooper" <graham...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:344855c0-8e99-4ed6...@u9g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Question 7, Page 111, Line 5
91c15e58c1333729a5bdaf552078092c
Graham Cooper
> "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
<<was not much more than one filing cabinet and its contents>>
A B
Question 8, Page 99, Line 11
4a2a2ce92be15ace85e300c05bb2bae3
Graham Cooper
<<very distantly connected through her mother's side of the family>>
A B
Question 9, Page 215, Line 9
eec19b16fc97c305685ba67157f65c52
Graham Cooper
<<"So!" said the Government Man, leaning back in the chair>>
A B
Question 10, Page 6, Line 110
ebc0c544babde1fb96e36964e5d33486
Graham Cooper
Smaller line number!
A B
Sorry, I meant
Question 10, Page 110, Line 6
ebc0c544babde1fb96e36964e5d33486
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
<<herd boys were very young, no more than six or seven>>
I just reached Google Groups limit.
OK Q&A phase completed in 1 Hour 16 minutes.
ADAM
A B
> I just reached Google Groups limit.
> OK Q&A phase completed in 1 Hour 16 minutes.
Which would have been less if I'd thought to type and MD5 my questions in
advance. Other questioners please take note.
Here are the jumbled questions. I have to go now, so post your answers when
Google Groups lets you and I'll reply when I'm next online. I'll also post
the questions with their random numbers attached, so that you can check them
againat the MD5s if you want.
Have either of Irene Pepperberg's current parrots learnt their alphabet yet?
Does anyone know why horses are frightened of umbrellas?
Will KalElFan's "Optional Moderation" Usenet scheme become popular?
Does the tropical zodiac work better than the sidereal one for interpreting
natal charts?
Does the position of the Moon at sowing have any effect on the growth of
plants?
Will the pink rose bush in my garden flower this year?
Does the "Kolisko effect" really exist?
Why does Herc insist on Yes or No questions?
Will the current Coalition Government of the UK last a full term?
Did Nikola Tesla really contact aliens?
Good luck!
--
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.
Michael Gray
<graham...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 3, 6:35 am, "A B" <a...@a.uk> wrote:
>> Here's the question I tried to post at 8PM.
>> I've already said that I'm happy with the test. If you can get a good score
>> on the test as you've described it, without trying to change the rules, I'll
>> be satisfied. I should point out, though, that I'm not sure how much use
>> proving yourself to me will be. I mean, there's no special reason why
>> anyone should take any notice of me.
>>
>> Question 1, Page 50, Line 199
>> 83b0e31ba7b7fb407ee37116416b6f7f
>
>OK, line numbers 1..33 please, page numbers 1..333,
>
>better check my new channeling book for those ranges..
>
>if I can find it!
Hoo-bloody-ray.
At least you are posting under your real name for the first time in
recorded history.
One small step in a very very very long journey.
--
Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, is still there
Sylvia Else
> "/-\ |> /-\ |\/|" <G...@NESIS.ADAM> wrote on 2nd December:
>> I just reached Google Groups limit.
>> OK Q&A phase completed in 1 Hour 16 minutes.
>
> Which would have been less if I'd thought to type and MD5 my questions
> in advance. Other questioners please take note.
>
> Here are the jumbled questions. I have to go now, so post your answers
> when Google Groups lets you and I'll reply when I'm next online. I'll
> also post the questions with their random numbers attached, so that you
> can check them againat the MD5s if you want.
>
> Have either of Irene Pepperberg's current parrots learnt their alphabet
> yet?
> Does anyone know why horses are frightened of umbrellas?
> Will KalElFan's "Optional Moderation" Usenet scheme become popular?
> Does the tropical zodiac work better than the sidereal one for
> interpreting natal charts?
> Does the position of the Moon at sowing have any effect on the growth of
> plants?
> Will the pink rose bush in my garden flower this year?
> Does the "Kolisko effect" really exist?
> Why does Herc insist on Yes or No questions?
> Will the current Coalition Government of the UK last a full term?
> Did Nikola Tesla really contact aliens?
>
> Good luck!
Hmmm.....
Are you really interested in knowing whether anyone knows why horses are
frighted of umbrellas? I mean, as distinct from actually knowing why
horses are frightened? Just knowing whether anyone knows seems rather
uninteresting.
I raise this point because it is a requirement of Herc's protocol that
you be interested in the answers. If, as expected, Herc doesn't perform
particularly well, he will raise this issue himself.
Does Herc insist on Yes or No questions? If he does, then you've blown
it with the question about why. If not, then there's no answer, and you
cannot be interested in it.
Sylvia.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
interesting point prefacing a question with "does anybody know" as it bypasses
the yes/no requirement for basically any question, although there is an easy way to answer
(yes or no type answer) should the question be too high entropy to answer with a quote.
if the questions are not preverified then I can still dismiss the questions when they
are presented shuffled, should they not meet the protocol requirements.
the channels work with basically any question, yes/no or otherwise, it's just a contraint
to stop skeptics continual dumb questions that require a billion to 1 guess to get the
highly specific answers they only deem worthy of asking for.
AD
Peter Bowditch
>it's just a contraint
>to stop skeptics continual dumb questions that require a billion to 1 guess to get the
>highly specific answers they only deem worthy of asking for.
You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's
knowing.
--
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
Alan Morgan
/-\\ |> /-\\ |\\/| <G...@NESIS.ADAM> wrote:
>the channels work with basically any question, yes/no or otherwise, it's just a contraint
>to stop skeptics continual dumb questions that require a billion to 1 guess to get the
>highly specific answers they only deem worthy of asking for.
Only in Herc-land could yes/no questions require additional constraints to
keep them from being billion to one long shots.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
Sylvia Else
My concern is that you won't dismiss a question at that stage, but
later, after the results are in, but only if you've failed.
>
> the channels work with basically any question, yes/no or otherwise, it's just a contraint
> to stop skeptics continual dumb questions that require a billion to 1 guess to get the
> highly specific answers they only deem worthy of asking for.
Why should it matter? According to you, you're not guessing.
Sylvia.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
> "/-\\ |> /-\\ |\\/|" <G...@NESIS.ADAM> wrote:
>
>>it's just a contraint
>>to stop skeptics continual dumb questions that require a billion to 1 guess to get the
>>highly specific answers they only deem worthy of asking for.
>
> You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's
> knowing.
I know what question you were thinking of.
Would you do a variation on a Zenner card test, you hold up 4 Zenner cards one
after the other.
Then I give you my 'guesses' like so.
CARD 1
guess a/ wavy lines
guess b/ star
CARD 2
guess a/ circle
guess b/ square
CARD 3
guess a/ wavy lines
guess b/ circle
CARD 4
guess a/ star
guess b/ square
Expected average score is 2/4. Say I claim I can guess 3/4 or 4/4 repeatable.
AD
expected answers from Peter.
CAN YOU DO THAT?
THAT'S NOT 1,000,000 to 1 ODDS
NO YOU HAVE TO READ MINDS
WHY CAN'T YOU GET 4/4?
WRITE A CLEAR CLAIM
CAN YOU PROVE IT?
THAT'S NOT SUPERNATURAL
THAT'S NOT THE ZENNER CARD TEST
etc. etc.
total nutjob can't follow a basic paratest
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
> if the questions are not preverified then I can still dismiss the questions when they
> are presented shuffled, should they not meet the protocol requirements.
My concern is that you won't dismiss a question at that stage, but
later, after the results are in, but only if you've failed.
>
> the channels work with basically any question, yes/no or otherwise, it's just a contraint
> to stop skeptics continual dumb questions that require a billion to 1 guess to get the
> highly specific answers they only deem worthy of asking for.
Why should it matter? According to you, you're not guessing.
Sylvia.
-----------------------------------------
I've never dismissed a question after a guess. On the very first trial I missed a non y/n question
and pointed it out, as part of the protocol.
You want to gag me while you figure out 20 different ways to cheat and blame me for adding
contraints to make the protocol work.
If you demand this idiotic legal tight pre agreed regime before you even check out a demo
then you have to abide by MY rigid protocol
My answers are much better to genuine questions, if I let skeptics ask non yes no questions
then the entropy of a close answers is billions to one and you'll just get a "BAD QUESTION"
type answer which is harder to spot. e.g. will a bloke named Peter win the chicago marothon? --->
STRUCK WITH AN AXE.
AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
> type answer which is harder to spot. e.g. will a bloke named Peter win the chicago marothon? --->
> STRUCK WITH AN AXE.
>
>
> AD
>
God's way of saying "Genuine interest questions only please!"
AD
Jeremiah Bullfrog
Herc is God's way of saying, "I can create complete idiots just for
the fun of it!"
DavidW
I would be _very_ interested if the answer is yes, considering the difficulties
of extracting an intelligible answer from a horse following an enquiry of it as
to the reason. I suggest that perhaps only Herc knows, since the answer would
seem to require horse-mind-reading abilities.
Sylvia Else
One might ask, for example, why mice are frightened of cats. The answer
cannot be because their ancestors got eaten by cats, because clearly
their ancestors did not, being necessarily those who avoided being eaten
by cats.
The truth is simply that being frightened of cats caused the ancestors
to run away from same, and not be eaten, so living to reproduce.
So even if you could ask a mouse why it is frightened, and the mouse
could reply, I suspect the answer would be "because I am".
The same is likely to be true of horses and umbrellas, if indeed they
are afraid of them.
Sylvia.
DavidW
I would expect a slightly better answer, such as, "It's dangerous to me". Mice
are afraid of humans too, and probably all large creatures, so they wouldn't
necessarily recognize a cat.
> The same is likely to be true of horses and umbrellas, if indeed they
> are afraid of them.
Not quite the same. Mice have a good evolutionary reason to be afraid of cats,
but I'm unaware of any umbrella attacks on horses.
Sylvia Else
Still, evolution doesn't build in fears to specific threats. Any fear
that works does the job. The fear may be catching umbrellas as a buy
product. The horse still wouldn't know.
Sylvia.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
>
> Still, evolution doesn't build in fears to specific threats. Any fear that works does the job. The fear may be catching umbrellas
> as a buy product. The horse still wouldn't know.
>
> Sylvia.
PARATEST THREAD.
Paranormal investigator historians don't want to wade though all this a million times.
Cut the chatter Red 5.
AD
Sylvia Else
Nor would those reading aus.tv, al.astrology or rec.org.mensa. That
doesn't stop you posting your mindreading stuff to those groups.
People who live in glass houses...
Sylvia.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
I don't have a choice, sci.skeptic is just stomping grounds.
Another couple tests and that's all I need, you need to make 3 posts:
post 1: MD5s and line numbers
post 2: Questions shuffled
post 3: Questions in order with private keys
...assuming AB's test worked.
AD
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in
>> On 4/01/2011 2:27 PM, /-\ |> /-\ |\/| wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else"<syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote in
>>>>
>>>> Still, evolution doesn't build in fears to specific threats. Any fear that works does the job. The fear may be catching
>>>> umbrellas
>>>> as a buy product. The horse still wouldn't know.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> PARATEST THREAD.
>>>
>>> Paranormal investigator historians don't want to wade though all this a million times.
>>>
>>> Cut the chatter Red 5.
>>>
>>> AD
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nor would those reading aus.tv, al.astrology or rec.org.mensa. That doesn't stop you posting your mindreading stuff to those
>> groups.
>>
>> People who live in glass houses...
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> I don't have a choice, sci.skeptic is just stomping grounds.
Clearly you have a choice about which groups you post to. No one forces
you post to particular groups, or indeed at all.
If you're just saying that the people you want to reach do not read the
groups to which it is reasonable for you to post on this topic, well,
life's like that. Freedom of speech doesn't extend as far as a right to
force people to listen.
Sylvia.
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>> "/-\\ |> /-\\ |\\/|" <G...@NESIS.ADAM> wrote:
>>
>>>it's just a contraint
>>>to stop skeptics continual dumb questions that require a billion to 1 guess to get the
>>>highly specific answers they only deem worthy of asking for.
>>
>> You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's
>> knowing.
>
>I know what question you were thinking of.
>
>Would you do a variation on a Zenner card test, you hold up 4 Zenner cards one
>after the other.
>
>Then I give you my 'guesses' like so.
I'm not interested in guesses. I want to see something paranormal.
>
>
>
>CARD 1
>guess a/ wavy lines
Wrong.
>guess b/ star
Sorry, you don't get two goes at it.
>
>CARD 2
>guess a/ circle
>guess b/ square
Sorry, you don't get two goes at it.
>
>CARD 3
>guess a/ wavy lines
>guess b/ circle
Sorry, you don't get two goes at it.
>
>CARD 4
>guess a/ star
>guess b/ square
Sorry, you don't get two goes at it.
>
>
>Expected average score is 2/4. Say I claim I can guess 3/4 or 4/4 repeatable.
Are you assuming that the cards are different each time?
>
>AD
>
>
>expected answers from Peter.
>
>CAN YOU DO THAT?
Well, can you mindread Zenner cards?
>THAT'S NOT 1,000,000 to 1 ODDS
I can make it so if you like.
>NO YOU HAVE TO READ MINDS
Because I believe that is what you were at one time claiming to do.
>WHY CAN'T YOU GET 4/4?
You could if you had some sort of paranormal power.
>WRITE A CLEAR CLAIM
That would be a start.
>CAN YOU PROVE IT?
Prove what?
>THAT'S NOT SUPERNATURAL
You are right. Guessing isn't supernatural or paranormal. That is why
guessing isn't in the protocol.
>THAT'S NOT THE ZENNER CARD TEST
It would be if I were to be running a Zenner card test.
>etc. etc.
>
>total nutjob can't follow a basic paratest
Self-referential.
panam...@hotmail.com
snippy..
> >THAT'S NOT 1,000,000 to 1 ODDS
>
> I can make it so if you like.
>
> >NO YOU HAVE TO READ MINDS
>
> Because I believe that is what you were at one time claiming to do.
ROFL! Mr. Bowditch, I see you've spent much time in the company of
such madmen. Would the appropriate Austrailian phrase for my comment
upon your reply to Herc (by any other name) be, "..good on ya,
mate!.."? <g>
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
OK, let's simplify it further shall we?
You think of a number from 1 to 100, write it down.
I tell you 2 guesses, say 7 and 51.
My claim is to 'guess' the number you were thinking of with 2 guesses, 50% of the time.
Now what's your excuse, it's obviously paranormal and would take only a dozen trials
to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds.
VALID PARATEST - YES OR NO?
-----------------------------
Do you even know what the binomial distribution is Peter?
If you can't follow that then your "top of the class" in "statistics for psychology" didn't cover
any of the basics!
Have a play with this...
http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx
2 guesses from 100 numbers is P=0.02 per trial.
NUMBER OF TRIALS = 12
NUMBER OF SUCCESSES = 6
P (X>=6) = 5.33 X 10^-8
That's about 1 in 20 million odds to do that BY CHANCE with only a dozen trials.
--------------------------------------------
Read about a professional statistician's remarks on testing for paranormal using the binomial distribution,
he was a regular in sci.skeptic years ago.
http://automeasure.com/chance.html
Laws of Chance Tables
Used for testing claims of success greater than what can be attributed to random chance.
An example
The mysterious Jerome claims that he can name the suit of any ordinary playing card without seeing it, with a success rate
significantly better than random chance. You are called upon to test Jerome's claim. First, you construct a preliminary test
without too many tries, and you consult Table I below. The mathematical probability of guessing a suit correctly is 1 in 4, or 25%.
You could run a test with as few as 5 tries. The entry for 5 tries at 25% probability is "0-4", so Jerome would have to get all 5
guesses correct. Jerome might find that a lot to ask of him. A more friendly test would be 10 tries, which as you can see from the
table would require Jerome to get more than 6 guesses correct. To pass the preliminary test of his claim, he would need to get at
least 7 successes out of 10 tries.
--------------------------------------------------
The idea is to DEFEAT CHANCE!!! Don't discard claims over the word "GUESS".
IF YOU GUESS ABOVE EXPECTED AVERAGE AND IT'S REPEATABLE
BY DEFINITION IT'S PARANORMAL
AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
<panam...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >THAT'S NOT 1,000,000 to 1 ODDS
>
> I can make it so if you like.
>
> >NO YOU HAVE TO READ MINDS
>
> Because I believe that is what you were at one time claiming to do.
ROFL! Mr. Bowditch, I see you've spent much time in the company of
such madmen. Would the appropriate Austrailian phrase for my comment
upon your reply to Herc (by any other name) be, "..good on ya,
mate!.."? <g>
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
____________________
Regarding your dubious sig, I came across a great paragraph that is similar to my
main argument that atheists believe they are more moral.
It was in a book I flogged from my holiday rental, Morality For Beautiful Girls,
same book I used to channel AB's 10 questions.
If you're interested I'll type the paragraph out, if not I'll assume your higher morality
claim is all fluff.
AD
Jimbo
> Here's the question I tried to post at 8PM.
> I've already said that I'm happy with the test.
What the fuck? The holidays are over and all the nut cases are back
online? Geez Herc, how many times do you have to get your ass kicked?
Brad
> I would be _very_ interested if the answer is yes, considering the difficulties
> of extracting an intelligible answer from a horse following an enquiry of it as
> to the reason. I suggest that perhaps only Herc knows, since the answer would
> seem to require horse-mind-reading abilities.
I think David, you meant to write 'horses-ass reading abilities".
Peter Bowditch
>On Jan 3, 11:17 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>snippy..
>
>> >THAT'S NOT 1,000,000 to 1 ODDS
>>
>> I can make it so if you like.
>>
>> >NO YOU HAVE TO READ MINDS
>>
>> Because I believe that is what you were at one time claiming to do.
>
>ROFL! Mr. Bowditch, I see you've spent much time in the company of
>such madmen. Would the appropriate Austrailian phrase for my comment
>upon your reply to Herc (by any other name) be, "..good on ya,
>mate!.."? <g>
That'll do!
>
>-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
>aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
>"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
>-Mark Twain
>
>Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
>http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
--
Peter Bowditch
>It was in a book I flogged from my holiday rental
You stole a book?
Peter Bowditch
No.
>
>-----------------------------
>
>
>Do you even know what the binomial distribution is Peter?
I do, but it has nothing to do with being paranormal.
>
>If you can't follow that then your "top of the class" in "statistics for psychology" didn't cover
>any of the basics!
>
>Have a play with this...
>
>http://stattrek.com/Tables/Binomial.aspx
>
>2 guesses from 100 numbers is P=0.02 per trial.
So what?
>NUMBER OF TRIALS = 12
>NUMBER OF SUCCESSES = 6
>P (X>=6) = 5.33 X 10^-8
>
>That's about 1 in 20 million odds to do that BY CHANCE with only a dozen trials.
You claim to be informed by God. Why can't you give me a single number
each time and get it right?
>
>--------------------------------------------
>
>
>Read about a professional statistician's remarks on testing for paranormal using the binomial distribution,
>he was a regular in sci.skeptic years ago.
>
>http://automeasure.com/chance.html
>
>Laws of Chance Tables
>Used for testing claims of success greater than what can be attributed to random chance.
>An example
>The mysterious Jerome claims that he can name the suit of any ordinary playing card without seeing it, with a success rate
>significantly better than random chance. You are called upon to test Jerome's claim. First, you construct a preliminary test
>without too many tries, and you consult Table I below. The mathematical probability of guessing a suit correctly is 1 in 4, or 25%.
>You could run a test with as few as 5 tries. The entry for 5 tries at 25% probability is "0-4", so Jerome would have to get all 5
>guesses correct. Jerome might find that a lot to ask of him. A more friendly test would be 10 tries, which as you can see from the
>table would require Jerome to get more than 6 guesses correct. To pass the preliminary test of his claim, he would need to get at
>least 7 successes out of 10 tries.
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>The idea is to DEFEAT CHANCE!!! Don't discard claims over the word "GUESS".
>
>IF YOU GUESS ABOVE EXPECTED AVERAGE AND IT'S REPEATABLE
>BY DEFINITION IT'S PARANORMAL
So when are you going to start doing something paranormal.
>
>
>
>AD
yourfriend
<myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>"/-\\ |> /-\\ |\\/|" <G...@NESIS.ADAM> wrote:
>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in>>>
>>>>>>it's just a contraint
>>>>>>to stop skeptics continual dumb questions that require a billion to 1 guess to get the
>>>>>>highly specific answers they only deem worthy of asking for.
>>>>>
>>>>> You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's
>>>>> knowing.
>>>>
>>>>I know what question you were thinking of.
>>>>
>>>>Would you do a variation on a Zenner card test, you hold up 4 Zenner cards one
>>>>after the other.
>>>>
>>>>Then I give you my 'guesses' like so.
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in guesses. I want to see something paranormal.
{snip}
>You claim to be informed by God. Why can't you give me a single number
>each time and get it right?
Hi Peter - Graham Cooper has made claims that by offering multiple
attempts per question he has increased the odds against him. I find
this a dubious claim but, as expected he won't discuss or explain it.
Well, he does go off into his rambling "god told me" mode.
Do not forget that wrong answers/guesses are never to be counted
against him. e.g. Graham the para-sub-normal boy will claim 7 correct
out of 10 when the reality of the test was 7 correct out of 47
attempts.
your friend, dev.null
a Truman Company associate
"assisting you to a better 2011"
A B
> Are you really interested in knowing whether anyone knows why horses are
> frighted of umbrellas? I mean, as distinct from actually knowing why
> horses are frightened? Just knowing whether anyone knows seems rather
> uninteresting.
>
> be interested in the answers. If, as expected, Herc doesn't perform
> particularly well, he will raise this issue himself.
>
> Does Herc insist on Yes or No questions? If he does, then you've blown it
> with the question about why. If not, then there's no answer, and you
> cannot be interested in it.
Yes, the "does anyone know..." was a way of evading the yes/no requirement.
The "Why does Herc insist on Yes or No questions?" was just because I needed
two extra questions in a hurry and I wasn't thinking. Even my own question
didn't remind me! :-D Anyway, it seems to be all right. Herc says he only
did it to avoid questions so specific that the answer mightn't even be in
his book.
--
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.
Brad
> Hi Peter - Graham Cooper has made claims that by offering multiple
> attempts per question he has increased the odds against him. I find
> this a dubious claim but, as expected he won't discuss or explain it.
Multiple attempts per question reduces the odds, it does not increase
them.
Pick a number between 1 and 10. The odds are 10:1.
Pick a number between 1 and 10 and you have three guesses - the odds
reduce to around 3.3:1
If Herc can truly mindread then One 'guess' should be enough, not a
process of elimination.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
-----------------------------
There are 2 advantages to having several guesses.
It reduces the test time by 3.
e.g. to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds I would need 300 questions with 1 guess,
or 100 questions with 3 guesses.
There are multiple meanings to be found in any quote, it's a simple process to
find 3 relevant quotes. Selecting the most apt quote takes a lot of thinking
and guesswork.
Unless the paranormal bias is extremely obvious, more guesses is equivalent to having more trials.
AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>
>>OK, let's simplify it further shall we?
>>
>>You think of a number from 1 to 100, write it down.
>>
>>I tell you 2 guesses, say 7 and 51.
>>
>>My claim is to 'guess' the number you were thinking of with 2 guesses, 50% of the time.
>>
>>Now what's your excuse, it's obviously paranormal and would take only a dozen trials
>>to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds.
>>
>>VALID PARATEST - YES OR NO?
>
> No.
>
>>
>>-----------------------------
OK let's simplify it as far as we can!
You write down a number from 1 to 1,000,000 and don't show me.
I PSYCHIC-GUESS# your number right every time!
I can do it as many times as you like.
Is THAT a valid paranormal test?
What odds would I break every time I PSYCHIC-GUESSED right from 1,000,000 possible numbers?
Are you saying you wouldn't pay your $100K prize to someone who could tell you what number
you were thinking of, in any (reasonable) test conditions you wish to do the test in?
# use psychic powers to guess better than expected random guesses
AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
>>Do you even know what the binomial distribution is Peter?
>
> I do, but it has nothing to do with being paranormal.
No wonder all my paranormal claims with pass/fail rates established by the
binomial distribution were discarded!
It should be 100% evident why there has been a problem getting a psychic test
from such an utterly incompetent Australia Skeptics former president who insists
he be the only committee member to handle my application.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
The challenger must beat million to one odds against a chance result.
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
> You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's knowing.
AD
Peter Bowditch
In his latest rant to me he seemed to be suggesting that 6 correct
guesses out of 120 trials would beat million-to-one odds. Perhaps
because a million has six zeros in it. Who knows?
Peter Bowditch
>"Brad" <goo...@vk2qq.com> wrote in
>> Hi Peter - Graham Cooper has made claims that by offering multiple
>> attempts per question he has increased the odds against him. I find
>> this a dubious claim but, as expected he won't discuss or explain it.
>
>Multiple attempts per question reduces the odds, it does not increase
>them.
>Pick a number between 1 and 10. The odds are 10:1.
>Pick a number between 1 and 10 and you have three guesses - the odds
>reduce to around 3.3:1
>If Herc can truly mindread then One 'guess' should be enough, not a
>process of elimination.
>
>-----------------------------
>
>There are 2 advantages to having several guesses.
>
>It reduces the test time by 3.
That is not an advantage.
>
>e.g. to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds I would need 300 questions with 1 guess,
>or 100 questions with 3 guesses.
No.
>
>There are multiple meanings to be found in any quote, it's a simple process to
>find 3 relevant quotes. Selecting the most apt quote takes a lot of thinking
>and guesswork.
>
>Unless the paranormal bias is extremely obvious, more guesses is equivalent to having more trials.
No, it is not.
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>
>>>OK, let's simplify it further shall we?
>>>
>>>You think of a number from 1 to 100, write it down.
>>>
>>>I tell you 2 guesses, say 7 and 51.
>>>
>>>My claim is to 'guess' the number you were thinking of with 2 guesses, 50% of the time.
>>>
>>>Now what's your excuse, it's obviously paranormal and would take only a dozen trials
>>>to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds.
>>>
>>>VALID PARATEST - YES OR NO?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>>
>>>-----------------------------
>
>
>OK let's simplify it as far as we can!
>
>You write down a number from 1 to 1,000,000 and don't show me.
>
>I PSYCHIC-GUESS# your number right every time!
>
>I can do it as many times as you like.
Is that your current claim - that you can correctly "guess" which
number between 1 and 1,000,000 has been selected and you can do this
every time?
>
>Is THAT a valid paranormal test?
It would be if you could do it.
>
>What odds would I break every time I PSYCHIC-GUESSED right from 1,000,000 possible numbers?
>
>Are you saying you wouldn't pay your $100K prize to someone who could tell you what number
>you were thinking of, in any (reasonable) test conditions you wish to do the test in?
It's not MY $100,000.
>
># use psychic powers to guess better than expected random guesses
>
>AD
>
I have written down a number. What is it?
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>Do you even know what the binomial distribution is Peter?
>>
>> I do, but it has nothing to do with being paranormal.
>
>
>No wonder all my paranormal claims with pass/fail rates established by the
>binomial distribution were discarded!
>
>It should be 100% evident why there has been a problem getting a psychic test
>from such an utterly incompetent Australia Skeptics former president who insists
>he be the only committee member to handle my application.
I have never "insisted" that. In fact, I have never even suggested
that.
>
>
>http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
>The challenger must beat million to one odds against a chance result.
Yep. That's quite clear.
>
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>> You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's knowing.
Yep. That's quite clear.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>
>>It should be 100% evident why there has been a problem getting a psychic test
>>from such an utterly incompetent Australia Skeptics former president who insists
>>he be the only committee member to handle my application.
>
> I have never "insisted" that. In fact, I have never even suggested
> that.
>
I've asked you to consult other people numerous times and you said you
were "top of your class in statistics" (for psychology) and could handle
my claim yourself.
>>
>>
>>http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
>>The challenger must beat million to one odds against a chance result.
>
> Yep. That's quite clear.
>
>>
>>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>> You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's knowing.
>
> Yep. That's quite clear.
>
So you allow guessing type tests (against a chance result) but
not for mindreading, that has to be 100% accurate every trial?
AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
>>>>
>>>>You think of a number from 1 to 100, write it down.
>>>>
>>>>I tell you 2 guesses, say 7 and 51.
>>>>
>>>>My claim is to 'guess' the number you were thinking of with 2 guesses, 50% of the time.
>>>>
>>>>Now what's your excuse, it's obviously paranormal and would take only a dozen trials
>>>>to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds.
>>>>
>>>>VALID PARATEST - YES OR NO?
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----------------------------
>>
>>
>>OK let's simplify it as far as we can!
>>
>>You write down a number from 1 to 1,000,000 and don't show me.
>>
>>I PSYCHIC-GUESS# your number right every time!
>>
>>I can do it as many times as you like.
>
> Is that your current claim - that you can correctly "guess" which
> number between 1 and 1,000,000 has been selected and you can do this
> every time?
>
No, but it's directly equivalent to the first test above it.
What is your objection to the first test?
If you write down a number from 1 to 2,000,000
and I tell you TWO GUESSES, say 1041 and 533332
and one of my guesses is right every time, is THAT
a valid paranormal test?
Same 1,000,000:1 ODDS broken every number you think of.
AD
yourfriend
wrote:
>"Brad" <goo...@vk2qq.com> wrote in
(attention deficit?)
I agree with Brad on this.
Given 10 questions
case1: offer 0 answers, you would get 0 correct
case2: offer 10 answers, you would get 10 correct
The line (actually a stairstep) between is continous so I fail to see
where the odds increase as multiple attempts are given. Especially
when you disregard incorrect answers when you tally the score.
"Selecting the most apt quote takes a lot of thinking
and guesswork."
But I thought you were mindreading?
your friend, dev.null
a Truman Company associate
"settling the muddy waters of the paranormal"
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in>>>>
>>>>>OK, let's simplify it further shall we?
>>>>>
>>>>>You think of a number from 1 to 100, write it down.
>>>>>
>>>>>I tell you 2 guesses, say 7 and 51.
>>>>>
>>>>>My claim is to 'guess' the number you were thinking of with 2 guesses, 50% of the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now what's your excuse, it's obviously paranormal and would take only a dozen trials
>>>>>to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds.
>>>>>
>>>>>VALID PARATEST - YES OR NO?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>OK let's simplify it as far as we can!
>>>
>>>You write down a number from 1 to 1,000,000 and don't show me.
>>>
>>>I PSYCHIC-GUESS# your number right every time!
>>>
>>>I can do it as many times as you like.
>>
>> Is that your current claim - that you can correctly "guess" which
>> number between 1 and 1,000,000 has been selected and you can do this
>> every time?
>>
>
>
>No, but it's directly equivalent to the first test above it.
No, it is not. Having two guesses to "mindread" one number out of a
hundred is nothing like having one guess to "mindread" one number out
of a million.
>
>What is your objection to the first test?
>
>If you write down a number from 1 to 2,000,000
>and I tell you TWO GUESSES, say 1041 and 533332
>and one of my guesses is right every time, is THAT
>a valid paranormal test?
>
>Same 1,000,000:1 ODDS broken every number you think of.
Why complicate things? Just give me the "guessed" number from a
million possibilities every time.
>
>
>AD
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>
>>>It should be 100% evident why there has been a problem getting a psychic test
>>>from such an utterly incompetent Australia Skeptics former president who insists
>>>he be the only committee member to handle my application.
>>
>> I have never "insisted" that. In fact, I have never even suggested
>> that.
>>
>
>I've asked you to consult other people numerous times and you said you
>were "top of your class in statistics" (for psychology) and could handle
>my claim yourself.
I have never said that I would handle your claim myself.
When are you going to make that claim, by the way?
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
>>>The challenger must beat million to one odds against a chance result.
>>
>> Yep. That's quite clear.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>> You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's knowing.
>>
>> Yep. That's quite clear.
>>
>
>So you allow guessing type tests (against a chance result) but
>not for mindreading, that has to be 100% accurate every trial?
If you claim to be a mind reader then mind reading will be what is
tested. If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
but it won't be anything paranormal.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
>>>>It should be 100% evident why there has been a problem getting a psychic test
>>>>from such an utterly incompetent Australia Skeptics former president who insists
>>>>he be the only committee member to handle my application.
>>>
>>> I have never "insisted" that. In fact, I have never even suggested
>>> that.
>>>
>>
>>I've asked you to consult other people numerous times and you said you
>>were "top of your class in statistics" (for psychology) and could handle
>>my claim yourself.
>
> I have never said that I would handle your claim myself.
>
> When are you going to make that claim, by the way?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/prize/
>>>>The challenger must beat million to one odds against a chance result.
>>>
>>> Yep. That's quite clear.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>>> You see, Herc, here's the thing - mindreading isn't guessing, it's knowing.
>>>
>>> Yep. That's quite clear.
>>>
>>
>>So you allow guessing type tests (against a chance result) but
>>not for mindreading, that has to be 100% accurate every trial?
>
> If you claim to be a mind reader then mind reading will be what is
> tested. If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
> but it won't be anything paranormal.
>
Where does "The challenger must beat million to one odds against a chance result."
get used at all?
Can you give an example of a test where you have to beat million to 1 odds?
AB
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
"/-\ |> /-\ |\/|" <G...@NESIS.ADAM> wrote in
> Where does "The challenger must beat million to one odds against a chance result."
> get used at all?
>
> Can you give an example of a test where you have to beat million to 1 odds?
>
>
> AB
>
AD!
Brad
-----------------------------
>
> There are 2 advantages to having several guesses.
>
> It reduces the test time by 3.
It reduces the odds by 3.
>
> e.g. to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds I would need 300 questions with 1 guess,
> or 100 questions with 3 guesses.
Nope, that's 33:1
>
> There are multiple meanings to be found in any quote, it's a simple process to
> find 3 relevant quotes. Selecting the most apt quote takes a lot of thinking
> and guesswork.
Multiple meanings in each quote times three quotes per question
increases your chances of a correct answer and distorts the process.
The questions had Yes/No answers (your stipulation) WHY CAN'T YOU JUST
ANSWER THEM YES OR NO?
>
> Unless the paranormal bias is extremely obvious, more guesses is equivalent to having more trials.
No, it's like having less trials.
>
> AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
"Brad" <goo...@vk2qq.com> wrote in \>
> There are 2 advantages to having several guesses.
>
> It reduces the test time by 3.
It reduces the odds by 3.
>
> e.g. to defeat 1,000,000:1 odds I would need 300 questions with 1 guess,
> or 100 questions with 3 guesses.
Nope, that's 33:1
>
> There are multiple meanings to be found in any quote, it's a simple process to
> find 3 relevant quotes. Selecting the most apt quote takes a lot of thinking
> and guesswork.
Multiple meanings in each quote times three quotes per question
increases your chances of a correct answer and distorts the process.
The questions had Yes/No answers (your stipulation) WHY CAN'T YOU JUST
ANSWER THEM YES OR NO?
>
> Unless the paranormal bias is extremely obvious, more guesses is equivalent to having more trials.
No, it's like having less trials.
----------------------------
You're a fucking idiot! Support your claims with statistical examples or fuck off!
I've already proven 3 guesses takes 3 times less tests with numerous binomial statistical examples.
10 questions. 2/10. proves nothing.
10 questions. 3 guesses. 6/10 is 20 TO 1 ODDS BROKEN.
FFS why are all you high school dropouts and Arts Grads arguing with a computer science grad
over grade 8 maths?
You're like Kindergarten Kids! WITH ADHD!
I just explained why the number of guesses determines the test length, not the number of trials.
None of you have heard a word I've said for 10 years!
AD
Peter Bowditch
It gets used in establishing the possibility that someone might have
paranormal powers.
>
>Can you give an example of a test where you have to beat million to 1 odds?
Yes, but you reject them all because they "aren't real questions".
First six numbers, next Saturday's NSW Lotto draw.
>
>
>AB
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in ...
You're a fucking idiot!
I have no idea how 100s of skeptics reading this can support your idiotic testing requirements.
You'll do a Zenner Card Test but only if you score 50 out of 50 right because mindreading is not guessing?
You'll test someone who guesses a number from 1 to 1,000,000,
but not if he takes 2 guesses.
You've got the brain of a retard Peter, maybe there was some gray matter long ago, but you're truly senile.
A shame Aus Skeptics allows such retards to run the competition and ban any discussion or demoes with the committee.
AD
Peter Bowditch
Testing requirements that put the onus on the claimant to say what it
is they can do and then agree on an objective test of the claimed
power. I don't think that's too idiotic.
>
>You'll do a Zenner Card Test but only if you score 50 out of 50 right because mindreading is not guessing?
No, Australian Skeptics will do a test that evaluates the probability
that the claimant has the claimed paranormal power. In the most recent
test the claimant said that he could transfer thoughts between Sydney
and New York. Testing this involved having people in those two cites
at an agreed time.
>
>You'll test someone who guesses a number from 1 to 1,000,000,
>but not if he takes 2 guesses.
If you want to equal or beat 1:1,000,000 odds you only get one "guess"
per million, not two. That would be 1:500,000.
>
>You've got the brain of a retard Peter, maybe there was some gray matter long ago, but you're truly senile.
>
>A shame Aus Skeptics allows such retards to run the competition and ban any discussion or demoes with the committee.
I neither run the competition nor ban anything that the committee
wants to discuss. If you want to make a formal challenge for the
Australian Skeptics' $100,000 Challenge you are free to do so, as long
as you follow the steps set out on the AS web site.
>
>AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
I've applied a dozen times with no answer.
If you can't say whether you allow psychic-guesses on a Zenner Card Mindreading test or not
then we're stuck.
Why do you have this idiotic objection to guessing on a mindreading test?
If you say "mindreading is not guessing Herc" then you are just fucking me and everyone around.
Explain WHY no guessing is allowed. Explain WHY 2 guesses per question/trial are not allowed.
You've got no fucking idea Peter if you kick up a stink because a paranormal claim
says they'll have 2 guesses at a Zenner Card.
AD
Peter Bowditch
Perhaps because you indicated no intention to comply with the rules
but started making threats to poison food instead.
>
>If you can't say whether you allow psychic-guesses on a Zenner Card Mindreading test or not
>then we're stuck.
If someone wants to claim that their power relates to Zenner cards
then Zenner cards it will be.
>
>Why do you have this idiotic objection to guessing on a mindreading test?
I have no objection, but calling it guessing means that it isn't mind
reading. The AS challenge isn't about guessing, it's about
demonstrating paranormal powers.
>
>If you say "mindreading is not guessing Herc" then you are just fucking me and everyone around.
Mind reading is not guessing.
>
>Explain WHY no guessing is allowed. Explain WHY 2 guesses per question/trial are not allowed.
Because you either know the answer or you do not. Allowing multiple
guesses increases the probability of getting a correct answer by
chance.
I am going to toss a coin. How many "guesses" should I allow for you
to predict the outcome?
>
>You've got no fucking idea Peter if you kick up a stink because a paranormal claim
>says they'll have 2 guesses at a Zenner Card.
Why not allow five guesses?
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
If there were 5 cards and you took 4 guesses you can still prove paranormal
if you score 90% right.
You don't have the know how to work out how many trials would be needed.
Your maths, your objections, your constant general anwers of denial, your attitude,
your lies, you ignorance and your stupidity are all shit.
If you refuse to accept paranormal claims with the word guess you are obviously a fraud.
You twist every hypothesis into 'paranormal is impossible so that's wrong'.
You're the biggest idiot I've come across.
However I'm not going to have you sent to a leper colony like the rest, I can't blame
someone who atleast stands up for his bizarre beliefs, you are the only skeptic with
access to a test panel who talks to me atleast.
AD
DavidW
>> ...
> You're the biggest idiot I've come across.
Phew. I thought that might be me.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
> but it won't be anything paranormal.
Are you saying Australian Skeptics Inc. will automatically discard any paranormal claim
where the applicant uses guessing?
There are 6300 Google results for
"CARD GUESSING" PARANORMAL
AD
george
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote in
a mind like a plastic bag
Peter Bowditch
>If there were 5 cards and you took 4 guesses you can still prove paranormal
>if you score 90% right.
If there were 5 cards you would get one guess per card. If you guessed
4 of them correctly you would score 80%. If there were 50 cards and
you guessed 40 of them correctly (one guess per card) you would score
80%. If there were 500 cards and you guessed 400 of them correctly
(one guess per card) you would score 80%. Now we're talking.
>
>You don't have the know how to work out how many trials would be needed.
>
>Your maths, your objections, your constant general anwers of denial, your attitude,
>your lies, you ignorance and your stupidity are all shit.
>
>If you refuse to accept paranormal claims with the word guess you are obviously a fraud.
Guessing is not paranormal, it is guessing. Paranormal is knowing.
>
>You twist every hypothesis into 'paranormal is impossible so that's wrong'.
I have never said that.
>
>You're the biggest idiot I've come across.
>
>However I'm not going to have you sent to a leper colony like the rest, I can't blame
>someone who atleast stands up for his bizarre beliefs, you are the only skeptic with
>access to a test panel who talks to me atleast.
--
Peter Bowditch
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in
>>
>> If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
>> but it won't be anything paranormal.
>
>
>Are you saying Australian Skeptics Inc. will automatically discard any paranormal claim
>where the applicant uses guessing?
No, I am saying that AS will automatically discard any paranormal
claim where the claimant won't follow the rules.
>
>
>There are 6300 Google results for
>"CARD GUESSING" PARANORMAL
There are 620,000 Google results for "phlogiston", but that doesn't
mean it exists.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
>
> > If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
> > but it won't be anything paranormal.
>
> Are you saying Australian Skeptics Inc. will automatically discard any paranormal claim
> where the applicant uses guessing?
>
> There are 6300 Google results for
> "CARD GUESSING" PARANORMAL
>
And I thought you were slow on the uptake...
a mind like a plastic bag
-----------------------
George, are YOU saying any paranormal claim with the word "Guess" in it
should be discarded, as guessing is not paranormal.
I'm not slow, I'm trying to get an objective answer from the skeptics so I
can post to 1,000,000 people what idiots the skeptics are!
AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in...
> "/-\\ |> /-\\ |\\/|" <G...@NESIS.ADAM> wrote:
>
>>If there were 5 cards and you took 4 guesses you can still prove paranormal
>>if you score 90% right.
>
> If there were 5 cards you would get one guess per card. If you guessed
> 4 of them correctly you would score 80%. If there were 50 cards and
> you guessed 40 of them correctly (one guess per card) you would score
> 80%. If there were 500 cards and you guessed 400 of them correctly
> (one guess per card) you would score 80%. Now we're talking.
So if I could 'guess' the Zenner Card every card with 2 guesses, from 5 cards,
that would not be a paranormal claim or feat, and you would not allow that test?
AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
>>> If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
>>> but it won't be anything paranormal.
>>
>>
>>Are you saying Australian Skeptics Inc. will automatically discard any paranormal claim
>>where the applicant uses guessing?
>
> No, I am saying that AS will automatically discard any paranormal
> claim where the claimant won't follow the rules.
WTF is that about? The topic is the word GUESS in paranormal claims you moron.
Will you throw out all claims of guessing well above expected random responses?
AD
Peter Bowditch
No, I would not, and I have explained why. One card, one guess.
>
>
>AD
Peter Bowditch
No. Please try to read what I type.
>
>
>AD
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
>
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in
>>>>> If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
>>>>> but it won't be anything paranormal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying Australian Skeptics Inc. will automatically discard any paranormal claim
>>>>where the applicant uses guessing?
>>>
>>> No, I am saying that AS will automatically discard any paranormal
>>> claim where the claimant won't follow the rules.
>>
>>
>>WTF is that about? The topic is the word GUESS in paranormal claims you moron.
>>
>>Will you throw out all claims of guessing well above expected random responses?
>
> No. Please try to read what I type.
You will throw out all mindreading claims that the applicant claims he guesses well above expected
random responses?
That's what you said, mindreading is KNOWING and guessing is not paranormal.
Do you think there is a difference between BLIND GUESSING and GUESSING?
If you guess someones age is that paranormal?
You're just a fucking fool Peter, you're killfiled.
AD
george
> "george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in \>
>
> > > If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
> > > but it won't be anything paranormal.
>
> > Are you saying Australian Skeptics Inc. will automatically discard any paranormal claim
> > where the applicant uses guessing?
>
> > There are 6300 Google results for
> > "CARD GUESSING" PARANORMAL
>
> And I thought you were slow on the uptake...
> a mind like a plastic bag
>
> -----------------------
>
> George, are YOU saying any paranormal claim with the word "Guess" in it
> should be discarded, as guessing is not paranormal.
Wow. It only took you how long to guess that paranormal isn't
guessing ?
> I'm not slow, I'm trying to get an objective answer from the skeptics so I
> can post to 1,000,000 people what idiots the skeptics are!
>
In your world being wrong isn't slow.
Out here however it is a sign of mental disease especially when you
are so wrong for so long in so many fields.
Peter Bowditch
>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in...
>> "/-\\ |> /-\\ |\\/|" <G...@NESIS.ADAM> wrote:
>>
>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfir...@ratbags.com> wrote in
>>>>>> If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
>>>>>> but it won't be anything paranormal.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you saying Australian Skeptics Inc. will automatically discard any paranormal claim
>>>>>where the applicant uses guessing?
>>>>
>>>> No, I am saying that AS will automatically discard any paranormal
>>>> claim where the claimant won't follow the rules.
>>>
>>>
>>>WTF is that about? The topic is the word GUESS in paranormal claims you moron.
>>>
>>>Will you throw out all claims of guessing well above expected random responses?
>>
>> No. Please try to read what I type.
>
>
>You will throw out all mindreading claims that the applicant claims he guesses well above expected
>random responses?
>
>That's what you said, mindreading is KNOWING and guessing is not paranormal.
Correct, but if you want to call it guessing and then achieve what you
claim to be able to achieve, as measured using a mutually-agreed
objective testing method then it doesn't matter how you get the
answers. As long as they are answers, of course, not some meaningless
drivel that somebody else is supposed to guess the relevance of.
>
>Do you think there is a difference between BLIND GUESSING and GUESSING?
No.
>
>If you guess someones age is that paranormal?
No.
>
>You're just a fucking fool Peter, you're killfiled.
Is that a promise? Thank Darwin for that.
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
"george" <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote in
>
> > > If you claim to be a guesser then you can do whatever you want
> > > but it won't be anything paranormal.
>
> > Are you saying Australian Skeptics Inc. will automatically discard any paranormal claim
> > where the applicant uses guessing?
>
> > There are 6300 Google results for
> > "CARD GUESSING" PARANORMAL
>
> And I thought you were slow on the uptake...
> a mind like a plastic bag
>
> -----------------------
>
> George, are YOU saying any paranormal claim with the word "Guess" in it
> should be discarded, as guessing is not paranormal.
Wow. It only took you how long to guess that paranormal isn't
guessing ?
-------------
Why are there 2,000,000 webpages that contain both the word "paranormal" and "guess"
or "guessing".
What do you think the discussion is about on most of those webpages? 2 unrelated topics.
What does "guessing cards" mean? Not paranormal related.
You're a fucking idiot George, I'll stick your head up your sheeps ass.
AD
livvy
> Here's the question I tried to post at 8PM.
> I've already said that I'm happy with the test. If you can get a good score
> on the test as you've described it, without trying to change the rules, I'll
> be satisfied. I should point out, though, that I'm not sure how much use
> proving yourself to me will be. I mean, there's no special reason why
> anyone should take any notice of me.
>
> Question 1, Page 50, Line 199
> 83b0e31ba7b7fb407ee37116416b6f7f
You cannot be serious, what a gigantic waste of space, on so many
levels.
"Here's the question I tried to post at 8PM.
I've already said that I'm happy with the test. If you can get a good
score
on the test as you've described it, without trying to change the
rules, I'll
be satisfied. I should point out, though, that I'm not sure how much
use
proving yourself to me will be. I mean, there's no special reason
why
anyone should take any notice of me.
Question 1, Page 50, Line 199
83b0e31ba7b7fb407ee37116416b6f7f "
Gigantic. So, you. Is there a point? People will yammer on,
will there be a point at which you make it stop? Do you have any
exit, or edit buttons? I'd think not. Could you try?
/-\ |> /-\ |\/|
"livvy" <go...@yahoo.com> wrote in ...
----------------
YOU ARE SO FUCKING BLIND IT'S NOT FUNNY
YOU ABUSIVE PIECE OF SHIT SLUT
WHY DON'T YOU SKEPTICS GO AND FUCKING DIE
I'LL FIND EVERY ONE OF YOU
DO YOU THINK ANY OF YOUR FRIENDS WILL SEARCH THE 1000 LEPER COLONIES
IN INDIA FOR YOU?
AD
Terrys
>
> I'LL FIND EVERY ONE OF YOU
Try finding your Webster pack first.
george
He couldn't find water even if he lived in a lake
terrys
You must be psychic;-)