🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Cornford" <Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote
> On Sep 17, 1:23 pm, |-|ercules wrote:
>> Richard Cornford wrote
>>> On Sep 17, 10:57 am, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> Richard Cornford wrote ...
>>>>> |-|ercules wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> 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!
>>
>>> That will be judged by the results, when they are provided, or
>>> the absence of results if they are not.
>>
>>>> "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!
>>
>>> Possibly, but you said "and I'll read out what you are thinking
>>> about from my book", so tell me _what_I_was_thinking_about_.
>>> That particular collection of words has no subject and implies
>>> no specific subject, so it does not provide your promised "what".
>>> If you say you are going to do something then actually doing it
>>> is what will be expected. And don't bother telling me that the
>>> odds of your guessing what I was thinking about are astronomical;
>>> I already know that they are. If you weren't going to tell me
>>> what I was thinking about your shouldn't have offered to tell me
>>> "what you are thinking about".
>>
>>>> (Can back up with photo of quote on p52)
>>
>>> There is no need. That quote itself can be taken on trust, the
>>> promise that remains uncompleted is your telling me what I was
>>> thinking about.
>>
>> Just what you see Pal!
> 
> I don't see what I was thinking about, so if there is nothing more I
> assume you failed to "read out what you are thinking about".
> Strangely, above I made a prediction about what you would do, and you
> have done it; spooky eh?
> 
>> More fucking skeptic whining.
> 
> Yes, it is so unreasonable to expect people to do what they say they
> are going to do. But remember that I did not force you to offer to
> "... read out what you are thinking about ...", you did that on your
> own, but I will still judge you on your failure to deliver.


Crystal clear evidence of mind reading demo if you ask me.

The "define and justify a paranormal claim" game is long over.

Good game that one!  Get the applicants to rationalize a conventional
impossibility and point out the flaw!

But due to your STILL ASSHOLE nature in going along with a demonstration
just enough to say Pass / Fail / Better / Worse than average quote,
my mind reading offer is now over.

If nobody can play fair - you can all rot in hell.


Herc