🚀 go-pugleaf

On 3/10/2010 3:48 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>> On 1/10/2010 3:56 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>> On 1/10/2010 3:29 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>> You write 3 Yes/No questions* each on a sheet of cardboard.
>>>>>
>>>>> * You must want to find out the answer for the answers sake, not
>>>>> purely
>>>>> for test purposes. A genuine question that you might ask a friend, if
>>>>> you have any.
>>>>>
>>>>> You select one of the cards and hold it and concentrate on the
>>>>> question written on the card.
>>>>>
>>>>> You roll 3 10 sided dice and tell me the digits in order.
>>>>> You roll 2 10 sided dice and tell me the digits in order.
>>>>>
>>>>> You hand me the 3 cards shuffled and I will hand you the card with
>>>>> your
>>>>> question on it.
>>>>> We video tape the whole thing to check which card you
>>>>> were holding.
>>>>
>>>> And if you fail, you claim that the requirement marked with an
>>>> asterisk wasn't complied with. If you succeed, you don't question it.
>>>
>>> I'm a happy winner, sore loser, got it!
>>
>> No - you're a cherry picker - which is much worse.
>
>
> What? I'm not demanding a MISS be counted as a HIT or not tallied.

Yes you are. You've already demonstrated your willingness to wait until 
after you've failed a trial before claiming that the question failed the 
criterion. That's not tallying a miss.

>
> ALL the skeptics prizes refuse to publish paranormal applications, that's
> evidently cherry picking.

JREF publishes applications. At best you know that they don't publish 
any more of yours, but given your behaviour towards them, it's likely 
they just throw them away as soon as they realise who it's from.

Sylvia.