🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 28, 2:40 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 6:38 pm, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 10:59 pm, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > the whole thing up.
>
> > > > Take your pick.
>
> > > > RT
> > > > PS If you could have read my mind you would have known that I still
> > > > would like you to tell me what is coming up next for me. Just like the
> > > > psychic did….
>
> > > There are a million stories no different to yours out there.
>
> > > I'm not interested in a discussing about trusting a strangers psychic
> > > claims or not with a few usenet posts as evidence!
>
> > > *****MY TURN****
>
> > > I can only accurately read your mind if you follow the simple remote-
> > > bibliomancy protocol.
>
> > > I can read about 10 words per day, whatever your were thinking at the
> > > time when you post on usenet "READ MY MIND NOW"..
>
> > > If you want to NOT see a demonstration of mind reading, you're going
> > > about it the right way.
>
> > > If you want to see real mindreading, I need a subject!  10 years of no
> > > takers!
>
> > > Are you IN our OUT?
>
> > > Herc
>
> > Graham, you know why 10 years and no takers? Your,“reading my mind”,
> > is a total waste of time. It certainly wasted 10 years of yours.  Look
> > at what you said:
>
> No, vtcapo, you have it wrong.  There is no reason for Graham having
> no takers, because he *has* in fact had "takers".  He just likes to
> lie about it, despite the clear history, readily recovered from
> Google.  He's come up with challenge after challenge, with various
> (and often changing midstream) protocols.  Various people (I'm one of
> them) have agreed to his terms and followed his protocols.  Usually,
> his test shows him a complete failure, as with his claim to be able to
> guess raven1's VIN and coming up with something like "v9".  In one
> test with me, he did a good bit better than pure chance, but he didn't
> want to go ahead with longer odds.  Graham likes to do tests where he
> has a substantial chance of getting "hits" by chance alone.  Even
> then, he's had a taker recently in A_B, but Graham chose to drop out
> of that test because of something A_B said in an unrelated thread.
> <snip>


So Graham is a con.  Go figure? Tell me if I’ve made the correct
adjustments to his number line analogy? The centerline being the
truth…

<-Graham-More Bullshit-Bullshit-Skeptics-BJ-|-VT-Faith Based on
Experience-Atheism-Organized Religion-Blind Faith->

RT