🚀 go-pugleaf

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>>>>>> OK, your problem as regards litigating against these organisations 
>>>>>>>> before you have a contract with them, or getting a Fair Trading 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Isn't Peter's post a contractual offer to set up a test with me?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.out-of-body/msg/9ce14f8854504863?hl=en
>>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>"|-|erc" <h...@c-h-e-s-s.com> wrote: 
>>>>>>>Probably because I'm in Australia, though they claim to do 
>>>>>>>local preliminary tests which noone has passed. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No problem being in Australia, Herc. 
>>>>>>The Australian Skeptics have their own prize (it's only $100,000, but 
>>>>>>it's still worth winning). 
>>>>>>The rules are simple: 
>>>>>>1) Tell us what you are going to do.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did you do that in unambiguous terms?
>>>>> 
>>>>>>2) Tell us the conditions under which you can do it. For example, if 
>>>>>>it only works on Fridays in rooms with red flock wallpaper we will 
>>>>>>book a suite at Madame Heloise's House of Happiness (I have a frequent 
>>>>>>flocker card).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did you do that in unambiguous terms? Remember the protocol and
>>>>> conditions have to be mutually agreed, but AS is prepared to
>>>>> accommodate claimants' wishes as far as possible.
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You got the protocol COMPLETELY wrong!
>>> 
>>> What protocol? You didn't agree to one.
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>I don't send a registered letter with a scientific test protocol with pass and fail
>>>>marks and objective unambiguous procedures.
>>> 
>>> You don't have to do that, but you do have to come to an agreement
>>> over a "scientific test protocol with pass and fail marks and
>>> objective unambiguous procedures". You didn't. You went straight to
>>> "Pay me or I will poison food".
>>
>>
>>Absolutely untrue!  As already stated you "invited" me to apply in Dec 2001.
>>The poison comment was in March 2002.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>Look at your website - "tell us what you can do" THAT'S IT!
>>> 
>>> So, tell us what you can do and why it is paranormal.
>>
>>
>>Quoting my first claim to A.S. back in 2001.
>>
>>I can state a question and get an answer from God from random quotes of information.
>>
>>That would imply using readily available quotes, not the names, ages and types
>>of 10 of Barry's pets.  The answer is not quoted in any book!
> 
> A question was stated. You claimed to be able to "get an answer from
> God from random quotes of information". You did not say that the
> answer would be in any book, but that it would come "from God from
> random quotes of information". You offered no random quotes. Therefore
> you offered no answers. Therefore you failed a preliminary test and
> nothing further needed to be done.
> 
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------



This is why I didn't bother posting a testing protocol to you last night,
you would just dismiss it.

It's easy for you to dismiss claims because you force people to legally justify
a supernatural power, which is trivially dismissed.

It was not a preliminary test it was an informal test, and I objected to it
but Barry didn't listen.

I DID channel an answer but Barry dismissed the answer too.

I told Barry to look at rec.org.mensa the next day.  This was the top post.

http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.org.mensa/msg/c36ca7c2fee66eeb?hl=en

Newbie Questions by The Ghost

I told Barry since I told him to check rec.org.mensa that that was a channel
from random quotes - that was a sign that his test question was silly.

I'm not expecting you to see that as a justified attempt at a 'preliminary' just
saying that was my channeled answer.

It was quite a coincidence in my book, having told Barry to check rec.org.mensa
the day before - then he asks me "newbie questions" and I said GOD will answer.





>>
>>
>>I appreciate the change of tune on your behalf Pete, I always knew you had it in you
>>but $100,000 is pocket change to me now, and nobody here is defending the reneging
>>that went on in the Paranormal Dataset Cluster.
> 
> $100,000 is pocket change but you have to save up to buy an iPhone
> cable?
> 


You're on the case Pete!   VISA cut off 100,000 webmaster VISA cards the same week
I bought CamAffiliate.com

Did you see my $1500 per day stats?

It's pointless going over the past, we each have some points.

If you want to give me a fair go after 10 years, then either set up a live
preliminary in public with news reporters present, or you can simply
get the committee to view my 3 videos 

www.PopeToYou.com

and

www.TinyUrl.com/Jeff-Wagg-JREF-Debunker-Cheats 
(control bibliomancy video)

If you can't assess my videos as being a testable claimed power then
I don't know what's wrong with you.


Herc