🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Cornford" <Richard@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote...
> |-|ercules wrote:
>> BruceS wrote:
>>> On Sep 15, 3:56 pm, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> [QUESTION]
>>>> 1 - Was the internet just a fad?
>>>>
>>>> [ANSWER A KID COULD GET]
>>>> B For you here every day
>>>>
>>>> [BRUCE = TOP 0.1% IQ]
>>>> D High speed film in there incase there's not much light
>>>>
>>>> Oh I get it!  You all JOKED that you would match the answers
>>>> back to the questions, since you don't believe in paranormal
>>>> what difference does it make???
>>>>
>>>> There goes the 'rely on skeptics honestly' test protocol.
>>>
>>> <ngs trimmed for GGs sake, and because this is wildly OT for some>
>>>
>>> I wasn't treating this as a joke at all, but honestly picking the
>>> responses that had the "best" association to me.  What you're seeing
>>> is the difference in associations made by different people.  This is
>>> part of the effect that raven1 tried to explain.  There are all sorts
>>> of associations that can be inferred between random items, and we
>>> generally consider them "coincidences".  One of the unfortunate
>>> aspects of schizophrenia is (AIUI) a tendency to overemphasize these
>>> coincidences and consider them to be important patterns.
>>> Also note that you seem to have edited the answers you got to fit
>>> better.  Your "obvious" answer to this question originally was more
>>> verbose, with words that have no relation to the question.  Even
>>> without that, the answer you chose doesn't answer the question at
>>> all---it speaks to reliability of the 'Net, not durability of
>>> importance.
>>
>>
>>>> [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.

If you think I'm a fraud just tell me a page number and line number and
I'll read out what you are thinking about from my book.


Herc