🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 2, 6:31 pm, Brad <goog...@vk2qq.com> wrote:
> On May 2, 4:10 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 2:06 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
> > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On May 1, 8:21 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> > > >> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >then a few more subjective goes, don't know if it's working good
> > > >> >enough yet to proceed to the guessing stage.
>
> > > >> What? You want "subjective goes", but you haven't even started
> > > >> guessing yet? Doesn't sound very psychic to me.
>
> > > >Yep,  GUESSING is OBJECTIVE if you get them right!  ;)
>
> > > No, it isn't.
>
> > Yes it is!  If I can guess which number comes up on roullette every
> > time,
> > or even just above expected average, I could win $1,000,000 very
> > quickly
> > every gambling session!
>
> > > >Brad's teleasking skill is yet to be confirmed.  He seems to be
> > > >getting some paranormal channels going:
>
> > > >BUCK - FRUIT
>
> > > Pardon? In what way is the word "buck" related to "fruit"?
>
> > it doesn't have to be, although they both suggest PRIZE!
>
> > > >His words were very closely tied to the channels.  But both channels
> > > >were META-CHANNELS.
>
> > > >CHANNEL 1 - BUCKED OFF HIS HORSE  ( Brad couldn't master doing a
> > > >channel )
> > > >CHANNEL 2 - MISSING CRITICAL ELEMENT  ( Brad forgot to use the POST
> > > >TEMPLATE )
>
> > > >These 2 channels seem quite Expected for someone like Brad and his
> > > >lack of Positive Aptitude in conducting the test.
>
> > > >If he changes tune and starts doing the protocol, remembering the post
> > > >template, remembering the word, I think he'll make the biggest
> > > >discovery in science of all time!
>
> > > >Right here and right now!
>
> > > >Until then, more subjective demos....
>
> > > Translation: Until then, no evidence of any psychic or paranormal
> > > powers.
>
> > practically true!
>
> > Do ANY skeptics follow my suggestion of just doing channels until I'm
> > happy
> > with that part of the protocol, and THEN doing the objective test?
>
> > How many times are skeptics going to whinge about a subjective demo =/
> > = proof?
>
> > Why doesn't someone just teleask me a few words as the protocol
> > dictates?
>
> > You won't do a telepathy trial with me, demand I prove paranormal, and
> > complain doing a demo won't prove anything!
>
> > Yeh alright - TELEPATHY TAKES TWO - GOT THAT ANYONE?
>
> Tell me what I'm thinking Now

not much