🚀 go-pugleaf

"Wolfgang Wildeblood" <wolfgangwildeblood@gmail.com> wrote 
> On Sep 19, 9:35 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>
>> >> So far the results I have seen from this protocol show people failing to
>> >> make the 'correct' associations, and Herc fixating on the best (3 out of
>> >> 5) results and dismissing all of the 'incorrect' responses. So while
>> >> looking for a "better than random correlation" suggests taking all the
>> >> results together and looking at the average/mean/etc., the reality is
>> >> that nobody is recording the totals and Herc is cherry picking the best
>> >> outcomes to reinforce his beliefs.
>>
>> > Yes, to the small extent that it has been applied, the protocol seems to
>> > be falsifying Herc's belief.
>>
>> Wrong!
>>
>> Les 3/5
>>
>> AB 1/5
>>
>> AB 1/5 1/5 1/5  (independent answers)
>> Bruce 3/5
>>
>> Wolfgang 0/5
>> Bruce 0/5
>>
>> Both the last 2 missed "for you here every day" in answer to
>> whether the internet was a fad, among others.
>>
>> Herc
> 
> Herc, you claim that Bruce and I deliberately ignored the obvious
> answer to thwart your demonstration. Dude, that's defamatory; I don't
> know about Bruce, but I did just what you asked, in good faith. If you
> think that "for you here every day" is an obvious reference to the
> internet, good-o. It's not obvious to me. I'm here almost every day,
> Sylvia is here almost every day, Coach is here almost every day. To
> me, "for you here every day" is *obviously* a reference to my
> question, Is Coach really Sylvia?
> 
> What your test has demonstrated is that Herc, Wolfy and Bruce think
> differently. That's because at least two of us are different people (I
> can't vouch for Bruce not being you). It's as simple as that:
> different people, when asked to associate unrelated texts, will make
> different associations. That's because the texts are unrelated - there
> is no correct association. Even if you had a paranormal ability, this
> test could not possibly demonstrate it, unless you're claiming the
> ability of Jedi-style mind control - that you could make Bruce and I
> choose the same answers as you - in which case, you've failed.
>

It's clearly a reference to something that you use not being a fad.

I highly doubt you considered each answer against each question,
you just glanced over them and said OK this goes with this.

If you want me to make a 5 option poll and send 10,000 hits to find
the modal answer to prove you wrong I will.

Herc