🚀 go-pugleaf

On 03/09/2013 07:01 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:49 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03/09/2013 03:59 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 10, 7:48 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 03/09/2013 01:33 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 9, 12:32 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/08/2013 05:52 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> and has been GOING ON THESE PERPETUAL D.O.S. TANGENTS TOPICS
>>
>>>>>>>>> for 3 years EVER SINCE HE WAS THE FIRST SKEPTIC TO EVER LOSE TO A
>>>>>>>>> MINDREADER!!
>>
>>>>>>>>> BOO YEH!
>>
>>>>>>>> And yet, I *have* put my money where my mouth is, several times, and you
>>>>>>>> keep refusing even though there's no risk to you.  I keep giving you the
>>>>>>>> opportunity to prove your abilities, and you (knowing as well as we do
>>
>>>>>>> Yes yes Brucey Boy!
>>
>>>>>>> I call this a DENIAL OF SERVICE  argument.
>>
>>>>>>> You keep bombarding me with 50 Trillion To 1 blind tests for a tasty
>>>>>>> $5 morsel!
>>
>>>>>> Actually, it's a $1,024 "morsel"---more than the amount you owe Brad.
>>>>>> All with no financial risk to you.
>>
>>>>>>> -----------------------
>>
>>>>>>> SAME DOS diversion tactics by ALL people who then use it against me.
>>
>>>>>>> Skeptics are particular prone to use this tactic, keep asking a never
>>>>>>> ending string of Questions, there is no reasonable test, and no prize
>>>>>>> money ever to be offered!
>>
>>>>>> I just described and offered a very reasonable test.  I'd state it
>>>>>> again, but anyone who cares can simply look upthread for it.
>>
>>>>>>> Same with the Ray White receptionist, keeps asking and asking for more
>>>>>>> pay slips and proof of income then has me arrested when I mention I
>>>>>>> work with CAMGIRLS.com
>>
>>>>>> No, that wasn't about you "working" with camgirls (who have nothing to
>>>>>> do with you and probably never will), but rather with her assessment
>>>>>> that you have no income.
>>
>>>>>>> Same with CHANNEL 9 LAWYER when I tried to sue for defamation.  Keeps
>>>>>>> asking me again and again and again for CAUSE OF ACTION, never
>>>>>>> responds to a single word I say, just blind DOS tactics until they
>>>>>>> take you court.
>>
>>>>>> Now you're just babbling.
>>
>>>>>>> Same with CSICOP, asks me for more and more and  more and more details
>>>>>>> on the DEMO until they ditch you.
>>
>>>>>> I don't even know what you're babbling about now.
>>
>>>>>>> STANDARD TACTICS BRUCES - KEEP ON AND KEEP ON ASKING ME THIS AND
>>>>>>> OFFERING THAT
>>
>>>>>>> ALL THE TIME - 3 YEARS NOW YOU'VE DISTRACTED AND DETERRED A 2nd
>>>>>>> MINDREADING TEST.
>>
>>>>>> I'm *offering* another test, just as I've done many times before.
>>
>>>>>>> One has to wonder why you've taken it upon yourself to go to these
>>>>>>> extremes (OVER 3 YEARS) to never let me mindread another person??
>>
>>>>>> You didn't even *try* to come up with an excuse this time!  OK, let's
>>>>>> sweeten the pot a little.  Instead of the $1024 prize for getting 20 of
>>>>>> 20 right, I'll drop the odds a bit.  Instead of 20 questions, we'll just
>>>>>> have 10.  Get just *half* of them right (that's 5 for
>>>>>> arithmetically-challenged folks), and I'll pay you $1.  Then I'll
>>>>>> *quadruple* it for every extra one you get right.  That's right, get 6
>>>>>> right, and you get $4, 7 right gets you $16, 8 right gets you $64, 9
>>>>>> right gets you $256, and getting all 10 right gets you $1024!  Are you
>>>>>> really going to snub your nose at the chance to both prove your
>>>>>> abilities *and* to make a little better than a grand?  How long does it
>>>>>> take for you to make that much money on your public assistance?  And no
>>>>>> risk!
>>
>>>>>> Oh, and of course, I have not done anything to prevent anyone else from
>>>>>> participating in your tests.  That's just your paranoia speaking.  Even
>>>>>> though I have seven times as much magic power as you have, it isn't
>>>>>> enough to force other people to avoid you.  That's all down to you.
>>
>>>>>> I guess it's fair enough to wonder why I do this.  On the one hand, I
>>>>>> know that you'll never agree to a reasonable test.  Even if you did
>>>>>> (which would amaze everyone *far* more than your cloud pics do), you'd
>>>>>> fail that test.  On the other hand, I retain enough open-mindedness to
>>>>>> be willing to be convinced, even after you've shown yourself a deluded
>>>>>> loon so many times in the past.
>>
>>>>> I have a Test.
>>
>>>>> a VERY SIMPLE TEST
>>
>>>>> It proves Paranormal reasonably quickly though it takes a while to get
>>>>> rolling.
>>
>>>>> You Think Of A Word
>>>>> You Tell me a random Page Number
>>>>> I Describe Your Word using Bibliomancy   (TELEPATHY)
>>>>> After 3 goes - I guess all 3 words   (OBJECTIVE)
>>
>>>> And if my word is "toboggan", but you come up with "sushi", you claim
>>>> that's close enough, because sushi has a connection to tofu, which
>>>> starts with the same two letters.  No, I don't think so.  Of course, we
>>>> also know you'll change the rules, so it will be something like the one
>>>> where you guess the *order* of the words, and not the words themselves.
>>>>     That way, you have as much chance of getting it right by random chance
>>>> as if you were guessing a roll of a single six-sided die.
>>
>>>> On the very off chance that you're serious, and believe you can actually
>>>> guess what the three words are (not just the order), then say what the
>>>> supposed "bet" is.  What happens if you don't exactly match any of the
>>>> three, what if you get one, what if you get two, and what if you get all
>>>> three?  And is this another where you have to have a day between each
>>>> post, and where you throw a tantrum if anyone on Usenet posts anything
>>>> else while it's going on?
>>
>>>>> There is a Small Wager because working out 1,000,000:1 contracts has
>>>>> stalled any observations for 10 years now!
>>
>>>> You haven't even said what the "small wager" is on this latest test.  It
>>>> doesn't really matter, since we all know you'd back out of it anyway, if
>>>> anyone took you up on it.  Just like you backed out of paying Brad the
>>>> $1000 you promised.
>>
>>>>> NO TAKERS!    FINE!   YOU CAN ALL GO TO HELL!
>>
>>>>> I MAKE EDEN ANYWAY!   I USE ALL GODS POWER ALL ON MY OWN FAMILY.   YOU
>>>>> ALL LIVE LIKE MONKEYS FOR LIFE.
>>
>>>> Your idea of Eden is living all by yourself, in squalor, with the
>>>> constant threat of police action against you?  OK, if that's what you
>>>> want, I guess you can keep it.
>>
>>>>> OWNER OF THE $100 MILLION WEBSITE WWW.CAMGIRLS.COM
>>
>>>> No, you aren't.  I don't know why you persist in this patently false
>>>> claim.  Why don't you claim to be the sole owner of Microsoft instead?
>>>> As long as you're going to lie, lie big!
>>
>>>> So it all comes down to your refusing to take a test that has a real
>>>> chance of demonstrating your claimed powers, at no risk to you and with
>>>> a substantial money prize.  That's just what I predicted would happen.
>>>> I'll even change the above test from being questions to being words.
>>>> I'll come up with 10 words instead of 10 questions, and leave the rest
>>>> of the test as is.  You just have to guess what the order of the ten
>>>> words is, and if you're right, you make over a thousand dollars---a
>>>> princely sum to an impoverished ward of the state such as yourself.
>>
>>> YOU'VE DESIGNED 20 TESTS BRUCE
>>
>>> AND THEY ARE ALL SHIT!
>>
>> By which you mean that they would effectively weed out random noise, and
>> only demonstrate extraordinary ability.  My tests would require someone
>> to have some sort of magic power (or be incredibly lucky) to win.  Your
>> tests just require an ordinary amount of luck, and no magic powers.
>> Guess which ones are more likely to impress people as evidence of you
>> having magic powers?
>>
>>> LISTEN!  ITS THIS EASY!
>>
>> Yes, your tests are easy to "win" by luck.  We get that.
>>
>>> PARABET 1.0
>>
>>> YOU THINK OF A WORD
>>> I DESCRIBE IT
>>> REPEAT 3 TIMES
>>
>>> SHUFFLE 3 WORDS
>>
>>> I PUT THEM IN ORDER
>>
>> Ah, so it's just like I thought; you're making up new rules as you go
>> along.  Just above, you claimed you'd be able to guess the words.  Now
>> you're back to just guessing which of 6 possible orders they're in.  You
>> went from an incredible long shot to a single die throw in one fell
>> swoop.  This is just a rehash of the test you failed with Brad.  We've
>> already seen you fail this test spectacularly.  Why would anyone be
>> interested in watching you fail it again?
>>
>>> HOW THE FUCK SOMEONE COULD BE SO STUPID
>>
>>> TO CALL THAT SUBJECTIVE
>>
>>> AND THEN MAKE HIS OWN TESTS
>>
>>> IS BEYOND STUPIDITY!
>>
>> I realize that your mental illness renders you less capable of
>> understanding how people could be less than impressed with your claim of
>> sometimes being able to do a single die throw in the course of a week,
>> but try to concentrate, and you'll get it eventually.
>>
>>> FUCK OFF BRUCE
>>
>>> YOU'RE THE BIGGEST STUPID IDIOT I'VE EVER FUCKING MET
>>
>> You seem confused, which is not surprising.  You have never met me.  In
>> fact, I doubt you've ever been on the same continent with me.  Would you
>> like me to send you a nice, relaxing picture of some clouds?
>>
>> Oh, and for the record, I'm really not very big.  I'm sure you've met
>> plenty of people bigger than I am.  Then again, the fact that you've
>> resorted to an all-caps psychotic break indicates that your views are
>> unlikely to be at all rational.
>>
>
>
> Look you moron!
>
>
> I'VE OFFERED THE SAME 1 TEST FOR 5 MONTHS!
>
> PARABET 1.0
>
>
> I GUESS WHAT WORD YOU WERE THINKING

No, you don't.  Your test is to guess the *order* of three words, after 
you've been told what the words are.  You don't guess what the words 
are.  You don't guess what anyone is thinking.  You guess the order of 
three words, from six possible orders.  That is as simple as guessing a 
throw of a fair six-sided die.

> 1ST OF ALL SUBJECTIVELY
>
> THEN I MAKE A 1 IN 3 OPTIONS GUESS.
>
>
> ----------------
>
> You can't even get that far!

You're the one who can't get that far.  Brad agreed to your silly 1:6 
test, and accepted your bet on it.  You bailed out, even though you said 
you couldn't, and now you refuse to pay Brad the $1000 you owe him.


> All your tests are SHIT!
>
> YOU DESIGN THEM AROUND Things I've said DONT WORK!

I design them around testing something without the huge opportunity to 
"win" by random chance that your tests have.  Other than that, I design 
them to be mechanically the same as the ones you say you can do.

> LOOK!
>
> ITS THE SAME AS A ZENNER TEST

No, we've tried to get you to do something like a Zener card test, but 
you always refuse, saying you can't do that.  You also like to say you 
can guess random numbers, but then back out of that.

> YOU HAVE 3 SHEETS OF CARDBOARD!
>
> (I'M SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY HERE)
>
> ----
>
> DO *NOT* SPEND 6 MONTHS TELLING ME ABOUT CARDBOARD!
>
> ----
>
> YOU WRITE
>
> "GOD"   on 1 sheet
>
> YOU WRITE
>
> "HOUSE"  on sheet 2
>
> YOU WRITE
>
> "BIRD"  on sheet 3
>
> ----
>
> You KEEP THE WORD TO YOUSELF
>
> ----
>
> YOU HOLD UP THE BACK OF THE CARD TO ME
>
> (I'M SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY AGAIN)
>
> DO NOT SPEND 6 MONTHS LECTURING ME ABOUT HOLDING UP CARDBOARD!
>
> -----
>
>
> I DESCRIBE EACH CARDBOARD  BLIND!
>
> -----
>
> THEN YOU SHUFFLE THE 3 CARDS AND SHOW THEM TO ME
>
>
> -----
>
> I SAY
>
> THE 1ST CARD WAS BIRD
> THE 2ND CARD WAS  HOUSE
> THE 3RD CARD WAS GO

No, you say the first card gave you a "channel" of "ten months of the 
year", the second something like "and the man said he's going to", and 
the third one something like "every other day".  Then, only in 
hindsight, you try to make up excuses for how your "channels" relate to 
the words.  You never manage to match the words, even though it's a 
simple 1:6 chance.

> ITS AS SIMPLE AS FUCKING POSSIBLE

It's simple to "win" by random chance, you mean.

> ITS THE ONLY TEST I EVER MENTION

That's blatantly false.  You've mentioned quite a few tests.