🚀 go-pugleaf

"Wolfgang Wildeblood" <wolfgangwildeblood@gmail.com> wrote 
> On Sep 29, 12:35 pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote...
>> > |-|ercules wrote:
>> >> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote
>> >>>> -|ercules wrote:
>> >>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote ...
>> >>>>>> -|ercules wrote:
>> >>>>>> "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote
>>
>> >>>>>> If your answer is a set NO and you ask me for an answer then you
>> >>>>>> broke the TOS.
>>
>> >>>>> Okay, let me get this right:
>> >>>>> I think of a question, which must be one of the three questions I
>> >>>>> offer, and you will answer that question by somehow using the page
>> >>>>> and line nos. I enter. Are you saying that I am barred from asking
>> >>>>> a question that has only one possible answer, or a question to
>> >>>>> which I know the answer?
>>
>> >>>> It's a yes / no question, I look at the bible quote which will be
>> >>>> God telling me something about your question or an answer.
>>
>> >>> You haven't cleared up the apparent restrictions with the question.
>> >>> Above you imply that it can't be one with a "set" answer, which
>> >>> appears to rule out any question I know the answer to.
>>
>> >>>> I work backwards to tell you exactly what your question was because
>> >>>> skeptics are too docile to score a subjective answer.
>>
>> >>>>> In any case, you have a 1/2 chance of getting the right answer,
>> >>>>> which is not unlikely enough to attribute a correct answer to mind
>> >>>>> reading.
>>
>> >>>> Your stats escape me.
>>
>> >>> If all you are doing is giving me the answer (Your site says "Before
>> >>> I attempt to answer your question I must read your mind what it
>> >>> is!"), then you have a 1/2 chance of getting it right (Heads for
>> >>> Yes/Tails for No). There's nothing there about determining the
>> >>> question also. Is that a service commitment or just a bonus ?
>>
>> >>>> I can do it more than once BTW.
>>
>> >>>> Have you seen the newwww.MINDREADING.comsite?
>>
>> >>> Yes, that's where your link takes me. Isn't that what we've been
>> >>> discussing? P.S. My Usenet server limits cross-posting to three other groups.
>> >>> That's why I'm deleting some of the groups you've added.
>>
>> >> 1/ read the terms check box
>>
>> > I have read the terms and I agree with them.
>>
>> >> 2/ Guessing from 3 options is 3:1
>>
>> > Assuming that you are identifying the question. The site only claims to give the
>> > correct answer, which is a 1/2 chance.
>>
>> >> Please think carefully before bombarding me with objections to a
>> >> trivial website form.
>>
>> > These are not objections. I am trying to thoroughly understand what you are
>> > claiming to be able to do and what restrictions on my questions exist (if any).
>>
>> > How about I just give you my questions.
>>
>> > At afternoon tea time, do I usually drink a cup of:
>> > 1. Coffee?
>> > 2. Hot chocolate?
>> > 3. Tea?
>>
>> > One of those is the question I would like the answer to.
>>
>> > Page: 642
>> > Line: 71
>>
>> huh?  I've explained over 200 times - a question you want to find out the answer to.
>>
>> Do any of you comprehend English?
>>
>> Here's your response.
>>
>> << Praise the Lord.  Praise the Lord>>
>>
>> I can NOT determine what your question was you were thinking of because
>> you already know the answer.
>>
>> Yes, call me names, call me fail, call me copout, just do anything other
>> than follow the simple rules.
>>
>> Herc
> 
> When will you learn that those trolls are just yanking your chain?


It's just IMPOSSIBLE for a skeptic to ask a psychic a question without
a right or wrong test being involved, I'm not sure what David's problem is,
I assumed a comprehension issue - skeptics will swear black and blue
that they are interested in finding out whether I can answer the question
so it's the same thing.   As I've already posted 30 times.


Herc