🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1/10/2010 3:06 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote
>> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "A Real Psychic" <arealpsychic@crystalball.com> wrote
>>>> I bet I can out-psychic Herc, so here's the challenge...
>>>>
>>>> I'll answer any question off the top of my psychic head and Herc
>>>> does whatever it is he does to answer the same question and we post
>>>> the replies here.
>>>>
>>>> Whichever one answers the question correctly gets a point, whilst a
>>>> wrong answer loses a point.
>>>>
>>>> The original poster replies with the correct answer after both
>>>> "psychically" read answers have been given.
>>>>
>>>> I nominate Sylvia to keep score and no MD5 nonsense or any other
>>>> bullshit just plain answers to questions.
>>>>
>>>> Accept the challenge Herc?
>>>
>>>
>>> No. My answers are channeled through random quotes and often
>>> metaphorical.
>>
>> Oh, so they are not answers at all. Thanks for clearing that up.
>
>
> How did you conclude that?
>
> I can channel answers to genuine (not purely test) questions.
>
> You won't even do a subjective demo to see what I can do,
> then flounder around an objective test protocol because you
> have the idea set in your head that I'm not paranormal and
> you'll just debunk me with an argument.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> Any idiot can impress a crowd of dullard skeptics with a direct
>>> although stupid answer
>>> that directly addresses the question.
>>
>> But you are not just any idiot.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Find a book with 500 pages and 50 lines per page.
>>>
>>>
>>> People ask us questions that are not just for test purposes,
>>> interesting questions.
>>>
>>> They give a page and line number - we both upload a screen shot of
>>> that page
>>> and my answer will piss all over your random quote.
>>
>> But he isn't offering to provide random quotes - he is offering to
>> answer questions.
>
>
> Yes Peter, it's called a conversation.
>
> This is a conversation, Mindreading.com is a test, Australian Skeptics
> challenge
> is just a cherry picking exercise and therefore has no valid conclusions.
>
> How can a 'fake' magician duplicate or better my test protocol?
>
> I'll tell you what.
>
> If MindReading.com starts to get some real paranormal results come in,
> THEN you can try and duplicate the feat
> AND/OR see if I can guess YOUR (volunteers) ideas.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> PS this is valid paranormal test but skeptics are too stupid to use a
>>> brain
>>> to distinguish intelligence from noise.
>>>
>
> You should try it Peter.
>
> Just get a few judges to blindly score which answer is better.

In practice I don't think that would work, even though it is arguably a 
valid protocol.

In the trial you did where I submitted two groups of three questions, I 
found it next to impossible to choose matchings between your responses 
and the original questions (though my doing that didn't form part of the 
test protocol). The fact that you believe that the responses had been 
shuffled somehow doesn't alter the fact that faced with the task of 
choosing matches, I'd have got next to nowhere. Even if matches exist, 
as you claim, it would seem that most people can't recognise them, and 
the judges would essentially be randomly ordering them even if you 
weren't, meaning you would fail the test even if your power exists.

Sylvia.

>
> You've spent 9 years whining about subjectiveness of answers that can't
> be marked right or wrong.
>
> Forget ANSWERS - just mark which answer is BEST.
>
> You could at least organize a simple buy subjective demo comparing my
> random quote answers
> to someone Else's random quote answers.
>
> This is science, you're playing a lawyer in a paranormal competition and
> refusing
> to investigate my power.
>
>
> Herc
>
>