🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mike Duffy" <respond@invalid.invalid> wrote in ...
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:8j4rpnFpvfU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in
>>> We are not going to embark on a research project to discover the
>>> protocol for you, particularly as few of us believe that the
>>> protocol even exists.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>>
>> Like I said, you have an extremely limited scientific method.
>>
>> It's apparent from your every post you have been abusing the
>> CONTRACT -> TEST method used on all the Skeptics prize offers in
>> order to cheat claimants out of demonstrating their claim in an
>> open fashion.
>>
>> No one asks me trial questions -> I can't invent a protocol.
>>
>> See my post the fundamental flaw with the skeptics prizes - they
>> don't recognize there are two distince protocols for most claims.
>>
>> 1 Isolating how to demonstrate a single hit.
>> 2 Rinse and repeat until desired odds are broken.
>>
>> You, Mike, Scott, dev.null, Peter, Les, BruceS, Jesse... all
>> bailed after mixed early results.
>
> I stopped replying when you started to ignore my posts. Despite the
> fact that I'm probably the only one here who believes that you can
> actually perform better than chance dictates, it seems to me that you
> do not like my assertion that is is due to unconscious "total recall".
>
> So where is the current version of the protocol? It keeps changing, so
> perhaps you should keep an updated version somewhere.
>


Mike if you can duplicate the bug take some screenshots of each page that
lead up to it and I'll see if I can duplicate it.  Send them to grahamcooper7@gmail.com
or upload somewhere if possible!

Herc