🚀 go-pugleaf

On 1/10/2010 1:34 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 1/10/2010 3:46 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote ...
>>>> On 30 Sep, 07:36, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was
>>>>> thinking
>>>>> >> of. Sorry, no cigar.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Huh? That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> On what basis could I score you wrong unless I know what the correct
>>>>> answer is?
>>>>
>>>> Herc is no longer claiming to be able to actually answer the question,
>>>> just that he can guess which one you first thought of from a huge
>>>> selection of three randomised choices. So if he picks your first
>>>> question out of three, that is the right answer. It doesn't matter
>>>> that he hasn't actually answered the question itself.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the problem is still his caveat that the power only works
>>>> properly if the asker was "genuinely interested" in knowing the answer
>>>> to the question, because it means he can dismiss all the fail results
>>>> as invalid due to no genuine interest,while keeping all the hits (no
>>>> doubt even if they were also not of genuine interest). Of course he'll
>>>> never drop that get-out clause because then he'd have to face a proper
>>>> test of his powers which he'll inevitably fail.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I am wondering if a good mentalist magician could achieve the
>>>> same effect by simply examining the questions? That would basically
>>>> render the whole test worthless.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> Utter fricking bullshit.
>>>
>>> To count as a valid result I have to dismiss the obviously poorly worded
>>> questions
>>> beforehand.
>>
>> Are you now willing to say that you will
>>
>> a) Perform the test on Usenet, so that all trials are visible,
>>
>> b) not attempt to respond to a trial before an MD5 hash for the
>> proposed correct answer has been posted,
>>
>> c) either accept or reject a trial before posting your reponse,
>>
>> d) include ALL results for accepted trials, provided only that the
>> posted MD5 matches one of the 3 questions (with due allowance for the
>> secret key that prevents you from doing a search), with NO OTHER
>> EXCEPTIONS,
>>
>> e) not even consider arguing that such a result should not be included
>> on some basis,
>>
>> f) promise that if you fail to achieve an aggreed success rate over
>> some agreed number of trials, you will once and for all abandon your
>> attempts to get people to test you for this or any other paranormal
>> power,
>>
>> g) cease to accuse anyone, skeptic or otherwise, of dishonesty,
>> criminality or any like conduct, in their attitude towards testing
>> you, and
>>
>> h) not attempt to avoid the requirements above on any basis whatsoever?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> why? to get you to ask a question? You have given me TOS and no service.

Getting input data that will produce results that will be believed seems 
to be the problem you're having. I'm willing to provide that input data, 
but only on the above terms.

>
> When I'm back home I'll put a couple $$$ per week into google adwords,
> psychic
> traffic is only 1c a click and open minded people are not dickheads
> trying to thwart
> an experiment like all of you.
>
> If I can turn away questions, then using my online form at
> www.MINDREADING.com
> is sufficient to accept questions as nobody can follow simple
> instructions on usenet.
>
> I'll post the good questions in <<MIND READING>> RESULTS OCTOBER and I
> have added an MD5 field.
>
> Check that October thread, the data is very systematic.
>
> Check out the new page 2 of the site (just type in 1 field on page 1 and
> you can click through the 4 pages of forms). It's has the famous DO NOT
> TELL ME YOUR CARD!
> cliche! Loveit!
>
> I can accommodate your 'terms' all pretty well except f. If the answers
> are to ANY
> of the 3 dummy questions - then I will have to try a FIRST QUESTION
> FIRST protocol,
> THEN I will quit.

You mean if you can't get the question right when it's always the first 
question, you'll quit?

Sylvia.