🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 18, 3:47 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/09/2010 2:38 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Richard Cornford" <Rich...@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote ...
> >> |-|ercules wrote:
> >>> Peter Bowditch wrote
> >>>> 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.
>
> >>> For your FINAL test you have to break 1,000,000:1 odds.
>
> >>> Not sure what your preliminary requirement is but JREF
> >>> is just 1000:1 odds.
>
> >>> I.e. to pass a preliminary all I have to do is roll a 6 on
> >>> a dice 4 times.
>
> >>> To guess Barry's questions right, it would be equivalent of
> >>> selecting one single atom out of every atom in the Universe,
> >>> such are the odds.
>
> >>> Which is harder?
>
> >> Your assessment of odds seems very arbitrary. The total number of
> >> words in all the languages spoken by humans is going to be far fewer
> >> than the number of atoms in the universes. If you are asked for 10
> >> names they will come from the total set of words.
>
> > I would still have to do 30 THIRTY correct channels running and the odds
> > are in the realm of Avagadaros number squared : 1 to be correct.
>
> > I stated I get the answers from quotes, all skeptics assume any mention
> > of 'psychic' means they can ask for lotto numbers or fail.
>
> >> Your problem here mostly stems from your inability to formulate your
> >> claim such that it precisely describes what it is that you think you
> >> can do. If you make the unqualified assertion that you can answer
> >> questions then you can expect the testing of that assertion to be
> >> cantered around the asking of questions, where the failure to answer
> >> will be taken as failing the test.
>
> >> The odds of correctly answering the questions does not come into it,
> >> until or unless you qualify your claim in such a way as to exclude
> >> questions where the odds of guessing the answer are too long, or where
> >> the odds are anything but meaningless (if the latter is what you
> >> actually want).
>
> >> For example, if you qualified your claim such that "for any question
> >> where the accuracy of any response is undeterminable (such as a
> >> 'should I do ... ?' question, where it is not possible to compare the
> >> consequences of 'doing' with those of 'not doing' as it is never
> >> possible to do both) you can generate a response, where if that
> >> response were inserted into a list of, say, 9 random quotes (genuinely
> >> randomly generated) from the same book, a minimum of 90% of ordinary
> >> humans would be able to pick out the psychically generated response
> >> from that list as the most apt/appropriate response to the question",
> >> then such a formulation would not be tested with questions that you
> >> were expected to accurately answer. Indeed test protocols for such a
> >> claim should be fairly easy to devise, and many of them would be
> >> completely acceptable 'sceptic organisations'.
>
> >> It is the vague claims that encompass things that you clearly are not
> >> capable of doing, such as 'answering questions' or 'reading minds',
> >> that are going to leave you running around in circles not being taken
> >> seriously by anyone.
>
> >> If you win a paranormal prize by being able to do what you say you can
> >> do (where what you say you can do would be paranormal) then it seems
> >> like a good idea to be very precise about what it is exactly you are
> >> saying you can do.
>
> > There is a CLAIM, and then there is a mutually worked together test
> > protocol
> > which details all the specifications and limits of the claim.
>
> > I've designed 10 TEN test protocols on my own, 2 to Sylvia's satisfaction
> > but skeptics ignore them.
>
> I remember one. Not sure about two. But it doesn't matter. You want to
> go directly from inventing a reasonable test protocol to consuming the
> time and effort of skeptics organisation members when those people could
> reasonably anticipate that you will fail and be a complete waste of
> their resources.
>
> The next step after devising a protocol is to show that you can succeed
> with it. Only when you have credible third parties who support your
> claim can you expect skeptics organisations to take notice. In the case
> of JREF, you're also required to have a media presence.
>
> > They ask for lotto numbers instead.
>
> Some do. I've yet to see the proposed answers to BigLN's questions and
> the MD5 hash of the video in which those answers were produced.
>
> Sylvia.


Remember Les and I broke 11:1 odds by Les correctly correlating the
answers
to the questions.

I posted the MD5 of the answer sheet, and the password to the video at
popetoyou.com/psychictestvideo.zip

I think it was
clocky dingo raven sylvia 314

Here's the answer sheet, you can look up where I posted the MD5


Big Les 5 Questions & Answers

1) Will Richmond play in the AFL finals in 2011?
B Think it would be a shame to lose it!

2) Will Queen Elizabeth live to 100?
E Was about as cheerful as is he had just returned from his mother's
funeral.

3) Is aus.tv moderated?
A Bank spun his web of ambition.

4) Will a bloke named Peter win the Chicago 2010 marathon?
D Struck with an axe.

5) Does Raven1 have a secret crush on you?
C Glass of water from the kitchen, Father Oscar gulped it down.


Les got the first 3 right, which should be obvious to anyone,

If you watch the video the fourth answer was spot on too.
Dumb question about an arbitrary person named Peter
--> STRUCK OUT


BTW: Camgirls.com website is a COBRAND, best I can do is add a link
at the bottom to CamAffiliate.com next month.

I'm not going to redirect to a THIS IS MINE page and lose 100
customers.

You approved my protocol to merely CORRELATE answers was sufficient
and my 2 page bibliomancy protocol.

Herc

CAPTCAH = squab !!!