🚀 go-pugleaf

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote...
> On 26/09/2010 10:05 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>> On 26/09/2010 8:44 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote
>>>>> On 9/26/2010 3:31 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>>> "DanielSan" <danielsan@speakeasy.net> wrote...
>>>>>>> On 9/26/2010 3:13 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote ...
>>>>>>>>> Therefore, it's impossible for me to change my guess and still
>>>>>>>>> match
>>>>>>>>> the MD5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well 99.9999999% of the time it's impossible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can WINZIP your question with 256 bit encryption if you prefer,
>>>>>>>> then tell you the password after you have posted your question?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, do that. Provide my original question in a zip and then you can
>>>>>>> password protect it so I can't open it until I get the password from
>>>>>>> you. I won't reveal my question until I have confirmation that you
>>>>>>> can't change it on me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess at DanielSan's question (from 3 options)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www.hercshome.com/psychicquestion1.zip
>>>>>
>>>>> Is my cat a tortoiseshell?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not a question of interest.
>>>>
>>>> You ticked: I have a genuine or moderate interest in finding out the
>>>> answer to my question
>>>>
>>>> Don't you know what breed your own cat is?
>>>>
>>>> Null result.
>>>
>>> Herc, the time to object to one of the questions is before it is
>>> determined that you failed to choose it. Waiting until afterwards just
>>> makes you look dishonest.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> I assumed it was one of the dummy questions.
> 
> I dare say, but this is meant to be a paranormal test, not a test of 
> deductive reasonining. If you seek to apply the latter, and then reject 
> trials where the reasoning gave the wrong answer, but accept those where 
> it gave the right answer, then you're testing a combination of 
> paranormal power and deductive reasoning, and the results, whatever they 
> are, only relate to the combination. Since such combinations are not 
> what skeptics societies are about, the results won't be of any interest 
> to ASS and the like.
> 
>>
>> If Daniel checked this text box it's not my fault.
>>
>> You must agree to the following I have a genuine or moderate interest in
>> finding out the answer to my question.
>>
>>
>> Looks like he asked a genuine question, forgot to ask genuine questions
>> for the other 2 options, saw I was calling him on the test and played
>> switcheroo.
>>
>> He either lied on the form or switched answers.
>>
>> But I will keep an eye out for morons in future.
> 
> Remember what you're trying to achieve here. Convincing yourself is not 
> the object of the exercise. You need to be squeaky clean if you want to 
> have any chance of convincing other people. That means that you either 
> object to a trial before performing it, or accept the outcome, whatever 
> it is.
> 
> You've previously indicated that it's sufficient if you have an interest 
> in the answer. The obvious course is to accept only those trials for 
> which you have an interest in the answers to all the questions. That way 
> the level of interest the questioner may, or may not, have, won't affect 
> the outcome.
> 
> Sylvia.


You have a point that statistically I'm not breaking 3:1 if I apply validity
criteria after the guess has been posted.  It looks like he changed
his answer to see what my guess was, since it's easier to forget to post real
questions on page 2 so his cat was likely a dummy question.... as in an unrelated 
option question.

But skeptics won't consider the data anyway, not from a website form
not from a usenet thread.  Because the passes could all be rigged from
communication between the asker and myself.  All I can hope to achieve
is people ask me a question, I get most of them right on usenet and some of
the askers say I guessed what was on their mind.

Although if I guess 40 out of 60 questions, I'll have 20 angry skeptics booing
every thread and 1 person saying "he got mine right!".

Looks like I'll have to fork out some dough for MindReading.com and buy
1,000 hits a day unless people start taking me seriously on the skeptics groups.


Herc