🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Cornford" <Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote ...
> |-|ercules wrote:
>> Richard Cornford  wrote:
>>> |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> BruceS wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 15, 3:56 pm, |-|ercules wrote:
> <snip>
>>>>>> [QUESTION]
>>>>>> 1 - Was the internet just a fad?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ANSWER A KID COULD GET]
>>>>>> B For you here every day
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that answer that says "Internet", and one
>>> of the other questions was "Will I ever own an iPhone?", for
>>> which this seems like an equally appropriate answer (as if
>>> "I" ever had an iPhone it would be something that would be
>>> expected to be carried/used (be "here" ) every day). And if
>>> you consider that the original 'full' answer was "For you
>>> here every day.  Her lips moved silently in" then the addition of 
>>> "lips moved" suggests speech (so phones) more
>>> than Internet.
>>>
>>> You probably see the association as obvious because for you
>>> the response followed the question. Other people are going
>>> to see the responses as nearly completely arbitrary, and so
>>> just make the best associations they can. Those associations
>>> would be based on nothing but the words/statements found in
>>> the various responses offered.
>>>
>>>> Sub 99.9 IQ on your part if you ask me.
>>>>
>>>> For YOU here every day, answers the question precisely.
>>>
>>> Even if that were the case, didn't it equally well answer
>>> some of the other questions? "Will Kelpie ever be my
>>> Facebook friend?" -> "For you here every day"; apparently
>>> a yes, and a loyal friend at that. "Is  aus.tv moderated?"
>>> -> "For you here every day": apparently a yes, and it is 
>>> relentless/continuous task (objectively a false "answer",
>>> but that doesn't seem to be important here).
>>>
>>>> Don't blame my lack of psychic evidence on mental illness
>>>> you buffoon.
>>>
>>> I think most will be attributing your lack of psychic
>>> evidence to either there being no such thing as
>>> psychic/paranormal abilities, and/or to your not possessing
>>> such abilities. The mental illness is only to blame for your 
>>> inability to see that what you are doing is not psychic/paranormal.
>>
>> Rubbish.  90% of people would pick it in a poll due to the
>> direct match of sustainability.
> 
> "90% of people" is an easily testable claim (and certainly would look 
> paranormal if achieved), but the samples you have so far are nowhere 
> near close to that.
> 
>> If you think I'm a fraud
> 
> I don't think you are a fraud (there would have to be money changing 
> hands if that were to be the case). I think you are self-deluded.
> 
>> just tell me a page number and line number and
>> I'll read out what you are thinking about from my book.
> 
> Is this a serious request, bearing in mind that you have previously been 
> insisting that the subject being thought about be "interesting" to 
> someone (without specifying whether that be interesting to me, 
> interesting to you, generally interesting or interesting to some third 
> party)? If caveats of this sort are going to be applied they should be 
> explicitly stated up-front.
> 
> Still, I have a decision on my mind this morning which will have been 
> made by the time you answer, so - page 52, line 9.
> 
> But you aren't going to tell me what was in my mind. What you will 
> likely do is quote some arbitrary sequence of words and then insist that 
> they relate to whatever I say I was thinking after I tell you what I was 
> thinking. That is, you won't actually know what I was thinking until 
> after I tell you. 
>


Trust me this is REAL mind reading!

"Yes" he said, appearing keen, reacting to the kind of nuances, exactly the kind of attitude


Sounds like an answer to a decision to me!  (Can back up with photo of quote on p52)

Herc