🚀 go-pugleaf

"DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote ...
> |-|ercules wrote:
>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote ...
>>>> -|ercules wrote:
>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote
>>>>>> -|ercules wrote:
>>>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote...
>>>>>>>> -|ercules wrote:
>>>>>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> -|ercules wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> -|ercules wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If your answer is a set NO and you ask me for an answer then
>>>>>>>>>>>> you broke the TOS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Okay, let me get this right:
>>>>>>>>>>> I think of a question, which must be one of the three
>>>>>>>>>>> questions I offer, and you will answer that question by
>>>>>>>>>>> somehow using the page and line nos. I enter. Are you saying
>>>>>>>>>>> that I am barred from asking a question that has only one
>>>>>>>>>>> possible answer, or a question to which I know the answer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's a yes / no question, I look at the bible quote which will
>>>>>>>>>> be God telling me something about your question or an answer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You haven't cleared up the apparent restrictions with the
>>>>>>>>> question. Above you imply that it can't be one with a "set"
>>>>>>>>> answer, which appears to rule out any question I know the
>>>>>>>>> answer to.
>>>>>>>>>> I work backwards to tell you exactly what your question was
>>>>>>>>>> because skeptics are too docile to score a subjective answer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In any case, you have a 1/2 chance of getting the right
>>>>>>>>>>> answer, which is not unlikely enough to attribute a correct
>>>>>>>>>>> answer to mind reading.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your stats escape me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If all you are doing is giving me the answer (Your site says
>>>>>>>>> "Before I attempt to answer your question I must read your mind
>>>>>>>>> what it is!"), then you have a 1/2 chance of getting it right
>>>>>>>>> (Heads for Yes/Tails for No). There's nothing there about
>>>>>>>>> determining the question also. Is that a service commitment or
>>>>>>>>> just a bonus ?
>>>>>>>>>> I can do it more than once BTW.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Have you seen the new www.MINDREADING.com site?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that's where your link takes me. Isn't that what we've
>>>>>>>>> been discussing? P.S. My Usenet server limits cross-posting to
>>>>>>>>> three other groups. That's why I'm deleting some of the groups
>>>>>>>>> you've added.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1/ read the terms check box
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have read the terms and I agree with them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2/ Guessing from 3 options is 3:1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Assuming that you are identifying the question. The site only
>>>>>>> claims to give the correct answer, which is a 1/2 chance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please think carefully before bombarding me with objections to a
>>>>>>>> trivial website form.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> These are not objections. I am trying to thoroughly understand
>>>>>>> what you are claiming to be able to do and what restrictions on
>>>>>>> my questions exist (if any). How about I just give you my
>>>>>>> questions. At afternoon tea time, do I usually drink a cup of:
>>>>>>> 1. Coffee?
>>>>>>> 2. Hot chocolate?
>>>>>>> 3. Tea?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of those is the question I would like the answer to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Page: 642
>>>>>>> Line: 71
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> huh?  I've explained over 200 times - a question you want to find
>>>>>> out the answer to.
>>>>>> Do any of you comprehend English?
>>>>>
>>>>> I only have this thread and one or two earlier ones to go on. I
>>>>> asked this only days ago in the "ANOTHER 1,000,000 TO 1 <<<MIND
>>>>> READING>>>" thread: * * *
>>>>> Can someone give a summary of what Herc is claiming to be able to
>>>>> do? It seems to be implied with each new thread that readers know
>>>>> what it's all about. Is Herc some sort of psychic?
>>>>> * * *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I posted
>>>> V V V V V V V V V V V V V
>>>> PARANORMAL CLAIM 1
>>>> PARANORMAL CLAIM 2
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> How could you miss them?
>>>
>>> No idea what that's about.
>>>
>>>>>> I can NOT determine what your question was you were thinking of
>>>>>> because  you already know the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I asked about three posts ago what the restrictions on questions
>>>>> are.
>>>>
>>>> I SAID READ THE TERMS OF SERVICE.
>>>>
>>>> YOU SAID YOU DID.  THEY SAY YOU MUST WANT TO *FIND OUT* THE ANSWER.
>>>
>>> That's right. _From you_. I can only conclude that you are not
>>> offering a mindreading service at all. You are merely an all-knowing
>>> being from whom any fact of interest may be extracted.
>>>
>>>> WHY DID YOU ASK WHAT DRINK YOU LIKE AND THEN TELL ME YOU FOLLOWED
>>>> THE TERMS OF SERVICE WHEN YOU DIDN'T?
>>>
>>> I did. I wanted to know the answer, as per the mindreading service I
>>> believed at the time you were offering.
>>>
>>>> If there was no money to be bet, would you really be interested in
>>>> which horse won, you don't even know the the horses names.
>>>
>>> But there _is_ money to be bet, so I very much want to know the
>>> answer. Now you appear to be imposing off-the-cuff restrictions on
>>> the permitted reasons one wants to know the answer.
>>>
>>> Alright. Give me an example of a reasonable set of questions (say, a
>>> set you've received before), and exactly what you mind-read from the
>>> subject.
>>
>>
>> Not interested buddy,  you are being dishonest
> 
> How? Any random person coming across your site more than likely wants to have 
> their mind read. Is that unreasonable? Are you saying that only mind-reading 
> believers are welcome? Okay, let's say a genuine believer shows up. They still 
> want to see you read their mind. What does "THEY SAY YOU MUST WANT TO *FIND OUT* 
> THE ANSWER" have to do with mind-reading?
> 
>> and there is no way
>> you have the aptitude to cooperate on a mind read.
>>
>> There is a balance between simplicity and practicality, if you follow
>> the website instructions I should be able to determine your question
>> by looking at the usually subjective answers I can channel.
> 
> This is what I'm not getting. I have to be genuinely interested in an answer I 
> don't already know, yet what you claim to be reading is the _question_ I'm 
> asking, which obviously I do know. It's not making sense to me.
> 
>> So far all your questions are intended to test the accuracy of the
>> answer, since skeptics cannot be persuaded this is not of genuine interest to
>> find out the answer I cannot help you any further.
>>
>> You can ask 1 question per day at www.MindReading.com if you want to
>> test me out!
> 
> After this exchange all day I still have no idea what service you are offering. 
> Is it a mind-read or the answer to a question I'm genuinely interested in?


both.

See Paranormal Claim 2.

http://tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2

Only change is to put your idea into a question and I get a more consistent channel
due to the interest factor.

Herc