🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29/09/2010 1:15 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> It's quite elementary:
>
> My first application to Australian Skeptics my address on the
> application form was
>
> 4 MACINTOSH STREET
>
> and after being asked about my claim to get answers from God, I said I
> was Genesis Adam.
>
> That's what threw the spanner in the works BTW!

I can see that it would. Once you indicated to people that you're 
delusional it becomes much harder to get them to take you seriously.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
> On 29/09/2010 1:15 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> It's quite elementary:
>>
>> My first application to Australian Skeptics my address on the
>> application form was
>>
>> 4 MACINTOSH STREET
>>
>> and after being asked about my claim to get answers from God, I said I
>> was Genesis Adam.
>>
>> That's what threw the spanner in the works BTW!
> 
> I can see that it would. Once you indicated to people that you're 
> delusional it becomes much harder to get them to take you seriously.


If I knew skeptics were so vocal about anti-religious matters I would
have just made the paranormal claim, I thought skeptics running these
prizes were scientists and would assess the claims on grounds of testability.

They have no idea how to organize any test that hasn't been popularized
on TV.  Peter can't work out how many trials it takes at such a hit rate
to break 1,000,000:1, he thinks multi choice tests you can cheat by guessing,
he doesn't like anything subjective as part of the test, even if you give
an objective answer yourself, he's a fucking social worker doing a maths
evaluation and none of them honor the protocol for a committee review
of claims.

Herc
 

"|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It's quite elementary:
>
>My first application to Australian Skeptics my address on the application form was
>
>4 MACINTOSH STREET

Which has no probative value at all.

>
>and after being asked about my claim to get answers from God, I said I was Genesis Adam.

At which point red flags were raised.

>
>That's what threw the spanner in the works BTW!

No, what threw the spanner in the works was that you couldn't state
clearly what your paranormal power was, claimed that you had won the
challenge and then proceeded to make threats about poisoning food.

>
>
>
>
>I have posted quizzes on usenet where people recognize the address 4 MACINTOSH ST
>as being appropriate and SELECTING that address from 10 options.
>
>http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.skeptic/msg/0b75d63b81e37336?hl=en
>
>These addresses were picked from a phone book except one 
>8 Gelling St 
>10 Rossriver Rd 
>34 Bourke St 
>4 Macintosh St 
>62 Philip Rd 
>177 Cammoweal St 
>25 Field St 
>7 Porter St 
>16 Stephanie St 
>
>...
>I like the "4 Macintosh St" myself. 
>Steve 
>...
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>Most skeptics deny it as anything at all, until they see the quiz above which
>puts it at 10:1 with a simple objective proof.
>
>Some estimate it as 1,000:1 to 10,000:1 coincidence for a claimed Genesis Adam
>to apply for $100,000 supernatural prize from 4 MACINTOSH ST.... (for Apple!)

For a very restricted value of "some".

>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>It's definitely a HUGE coincidence, it's CONSERVATIVE to put it at 10,000:1
>and the fact the skeptics just gloss over it without the penny dropping.... could
>this be the real deal.... it's EXACTLY what you would expect someone who could
>REALLY WIN THE PRIZE would have as his address!

I live in Tableland Road and I am putting my claim on the table. Pay
me $100,000.

Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>It's 10,000:1 granted!  At 4 Macintosh Street applying for a $100,000 Apple!

But you weren't applying for an apple. You were applying to be tested
for paranormal powers.


>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>Check my address on my 2010 application 8 1/2 years later!
>
>APPLICANT: GRAHAM COOPER, KINGS BEACH, QUEENSLAND.
>
>100:1 coincidence that IF THE APPLICANT WON would be a KING of some description!!

I have already told you that my grandfather lived in Kings Road and I
used to catch the train at Kingswood station. My pair of kings beats
your singleton. (And yes, I have been to Singleton.)

Did I mention that last night I drove past a sign pointing to Kings
Langley, and I was on my way home from Castle Hill? King. Castle.
Million to one.

>
>If he's Genesis Adam and the KING - then where would he meet Eve?
>
>In the movie Coming To America they "leave it to fate" and go to QUEENS.

Yes, scriptwriters do things like that. Did you notice that if you say
the name of the actor Eddie M quickly it can sound like Adam?

>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>100:1 for KINGS BEACH
>100:1 for QUEENSLAND
>
>AGAIN AN EASY 10,000:1 COINCIDENCE FOR A CLAIMANT SAYING HE IS GENESIS ADAM
>
>________________________________________________________________
>
>THE EVIDENCE IS CLEAR:
>
>2001 APPLICATION ADDRESS: 4 MACINTOSH STREET  (FOR APPLE)
>2010 APPLICATION ADDRESS: KINGS BEACH, QUEENSLAND (WHERE ADAM FIRST MET EVE)

Adam met Eve in Eden. That town is on the south coast of New South
Wales. They used to hunt whales there but I will not follow that
thought up with possibly disparaging comparisons.

>
>10,000:1 X 10,000:1
>
>= 100,000,000:1 PROOF OF GENESIS IN THE 21ST CENTURY.
>
>
>Herc

-- 
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

"|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>> On 29/09/2010 1:15 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> It's quite elementary:
>>>
>>> My first application to Australian Skeptics my address on the
>>> application form was
>>>
>>> 4 MACINTOSH STREET
>>>
>>> and after being asked about my claim to get answers from God, I said I
>>> was Genesis Adam.
>>>
>>> That's what threw the spanner in the works BTW!
>> 
>> I can see that it would. Once you indicated to people that you're 
>> delusional it becomes much harder to get them to take you seriously.
>
>
>If I knew skeptics were so vocal about anti-religious matters I would
>have just made the paranormal claim, I thought skeptics running these
>prizes were scientists and would assess the claims on grounds of testability.

They do. Suggest a power that can be tested.

>
>They have no idea how to organize any test that hasn't been popularized
>on TV.  Peter can't work out how many trials it takes at such a hit rate
>to break 1,000,000:1,

20 correct answers to 20 yes/no questions would do for a start.

> he thinks multi choice tests you can cheat by guessing,

Yep.

>he doesn't like anything subjective as part of the test

Because "subjective" implies judgment, and there has to be an
unequivocal yes/no answer.

>, even if you give
>an objective answer yourself,

Objective is good.

> he's a fucking social worker doing a maths
>evaluation and none of them honor the protocol for a committee review
>of claims.

Make a testable claim. Agree to a protocol that will test the claim.
Easy.

>
>Herc

-- 
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>> On 29/09/2010 1:15 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> It's quite elementary:
>>>>
>>>> My first application to Australian Skeptics my address on the
>>>> application form was
>>>>
>>>> 4 MACINTOSH STREET
>>>>
>>>> and after being asked about my claim to get answers from God, I said I
>>>> was Genesis Adam.
>>>>
>>>> That's what threw the spanner in the works BTW!
>>> 
>>> I can see that it would. Once you indicated to people that you're 
>>> delusional it becomes much harder to get them to take you seriously.
>>
>>
>>If I knew skeptics were so vocal about anti-religious matters I would
>>have just made the paranormal claim, I thought skeptics running these
>>prizes were scientists and would assess the claims on grounds of testability.
> 
> They do. Suggest a power that can be tested.
> 
>>
>>They have no idea how to organize any test that hasn't been popularized
>>on TV.  Peter can't work out how many trials it takes at such a hit rate
>>to break 1,000,000:1,
> 
> 20 correct answers to 20 yes/no questions would do for a start.
> 
>> he thinks multi choice tests you can cheat by guessing,
> 
> Yep.
> 
>>he doesn't like anything subjective as part of the test
> 
> Because "subjective" implies judgment, and there has to be an
> unequivocal yes/no answer.
> 
>>, even if you give
>>an objective answer yourself,
> 
> Objective is good.
> 
>> he's a fucking social worker doing a maths
>>evaluation and none of them honor the protocol for a committee review
>>of claims.
> 
> Make a testable claim. Agree to a protocol that will test the claim.
> Easy.


I have.

www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2

It trivially proves supernatural if I can 'work out' what question you are thinking of.

You don't seem to communicate with me Peter.

The only claim you seem to accept regarding psychic powers is being told the lotto numbers
and if they are correct you will pay the $100,000 prize.

You can keep dancing if you want but I will tell you now I won't tell you a single fucking number,
nor a single fucking answer to any possible question without criteria.

You keep demanding lotto numbers and infinite knowledge that can be verified.

I've never heard a claimed psychic ever claim to do such a thing - to answer every
single possible question exactly the same as the concealed answers.

If you can shift your ideal test away from such a fuckwit idea then let me know.

Apart from that, as soon as my trip out west is over I'll start pumping hundres of hits
a day to www.MindReading.com and I can prove psychic powers over the web mate!

As sure as BOLT is fast and BILL is rich and BOWDITCH reneges mate!!  As sure
as Graham Cooper fucks like computerized groom mate!

You're the biggest fucking fool in history mate!  And you cost Adam and Eve
8 children already.  We have enough time for 1 kid to procreate Earth you killer.

I can't wait another year for you you cunt, Eve is 33, she'll be baron before you ask
the first question you human killer Ape.

Herc 

"|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>>> On 29/09/2010 1:15 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>> It's quite elementary:
>>>>>
>>>>> My first application to Australian Skeptics my address on the
>>>>> application form was
>>>>>
>>>>> 4 MACINTOSH STREET
>>>>>
>>>>> and after being asked about my claim to get answers from God, I said I
>>>>> was Genesis Adam.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what threw the spanner in the works BTW!
>>>> 
>>>> I can see that it would. Once you indicated to people that you're 
>>>> delusional it becomes much harder to get them to take you seriously.
>>>
>>>
>>>If I knew skeptics were so vocal about anti-religious matters I would
>>>have just made the paranormal claim, I thought skeptics running these
>>>prizes were scientists and would assess the claims on grounds of testability.
>> 
>> They do. Suggest a power that can be tested.
>> 
>>>
>>>They have no idea how to organize any test that hasn't been popularized
>>>on TV.  Peter can't work out how many trials it takes at such a hit rate
>>>to break 1,000,000:1,
>> 
>> 20 correct answers to 20 yes/no questions would do for a start.
>> 
>>> he thinks multi choice tests you can cheat by guessing,
>> 
>> Yep.
>> 
>>>he doesn't like anything subjective as part of the test
>> 
>> Because "subjective" implies judgment, and there has to be an
>> unequivocal yes/no answer.
>> 
>>>, even if you give
>>>an objective answer yourself,
>> 
>> Objective is good.
>> 
>>> he's a fucking social worker doing a maths
>>>evaluation and none of them honor the protocol for a committee review
>>>of claims.
>> 
>> Make a testable claim. Agree to a protocol that will test the claim.
>> Easy.
>
>
>I have.
>
>www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2
>
>It trivially proves supernatural if I can 'work out' what question you are thinking of.

No, it does not.

>
>You don't seem to communicate with me Peter.

I try, but you don't seem to listen.

>
>The only claim you seem to accept regarding psychic powers is being told the lotto numbers
>and if they are correct you will pay the $100,000 prize.

It is perfectly possible to create a mutually agreed protocol to test
your psychic powers without a single mention of lotto numbers.

>
>You can keep dancing if you want but I will tell you now I won't tell you a single fucking number,
>nor a single fucking answer to any possible question without criteria.

What do you mean - "without criteria"? A question is a question. A
psychic should be able to give answers to questions, not suggest
questions that might have been asked.

>
>You keep demanding lotto numbers and infinite knowledge that can be verified.

I keep demanding knowledge that can be verified. That is how
scientific investigation works. It asks questions and looks for
answers.

>
>I've never heard a claimed psychic ever claim to do such a thing - to answer every
>single possible question exactly the same as the concealed answers.

Then you haven't seen many psychics. Nobody has asked anyone to answer
"every single possible question", just some questions with non-obvious
answers where the accuracy of the answers can be checked. What you
propose cannot be falsified, therefore it cannot be tested.

>
>If you can shift your ideal test away from such a fuckwit idea then let me know.

As my "ideal test" is nothing like that I can't really shift it away.

>
>Apart from that, as soon as my trip out west is over I'll start pumping hundres of hits
>a day to www.MindReading.com and I can prove psychic powers over the web mate!
>
>As sure as BOLT is fast and BILL is rich and BOWDITCH reneges mate!!  As sure
>as Graham Cooper fucks like computerized groom mate!

I would have thought that someone with a name like Cooper would look
more like barrel than a Symbian.

>
>You're the biggest fucking fool in history mate!  And you cost Adam and Eve
>8 children already.  We have enough time for 1 kid to procreate Earth you killer.

Surely a computerised fucking machine like you can find alternative
women.

>
>I can't wait another year for you you cunt, Eve is 33, she'll be baron before you ask
>the first question you human killer Ape.

Is this "Eve" aware of your obsession and stalking? And surely, as a
female, she would be a baroness.

>
>Herc 

-- 
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote
>>If you can shift your ideal test away from such a fuckwit idea then let me know.
> 
> As my "ideal test" is nothing like that I can't really shift it away.


Yes it is.  You want to ask ANY questions and me to I have to answer everything
exactly what is on your answer sheet.

Only someone with infinite knowledge could always pass your test.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 not a claim that can be tested
for paranormal powers?

You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.

It is NOT possible to cheat by guessing.  If you can beat 1,000,000:1 by selecting
the right idea that you are thinking of then it's a pass.

Say you do a Zenner test and write down which card you're thinking of: a square.

Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.

I pick square.  I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY TEST.

All that is required is to substitute Zenner Cards for a more interesting idea or request
so that my powers kick in!


Herc
 

"|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>If you can shift your ideal test away from such a fuckwit idea then let me know.
>> 
>> As my "ideal test" is nothing like that I can't really shift it away.
>
>
>Yes it is.  You want to ask ANY questions and me to I have to answer everything
>exactly what is on your answer sheet.
>
>Only someone with infinite knowledge could always pass your test.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Why is www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 not a claim that can be tested
>for paranormal powers?
>
>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.

Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was thinking
of. Sorry, no cigar.

>
>It is NOT possible to cheat by guessing.  If you can beat 1,000,000:1 by selecting
>the right idea that you are thinking of then it's a pass.
>
>Say you do a Zenner test and write down which card you're thinking of: a square.

Say I do a Zenner test where I look at a card instead of imagining
one.

>
>Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.

Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.

>
>I pick square.  I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.

You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.

The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
the results compared to your predicted accuracy.

>
>THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY TEST.
>
>All that is required is to substitute Zenner Cards for a more interesting idea or request
>so that my powers kick in!

So instead of Zenner cards you want unanswerable questions to which
you will give vague "correlated" responses? Sorry, not falsifiable,
therefore not testable.

>
>
>Herc
> 

-- 
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>>If you can shift your ideal test away from such a fuckwit idea then let me know.
>>> 
>>> As my "ideal test" is nothing like that I can't really shift it away.
>>
>>
>>Yes it is.  You want to ask ANY questions and me to I have to answer everything
>>exactly what is on your answer sheet.
>>
>>Only someone with infinite knowledge could always pass your test.
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Why is www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 not a claim that can be tested
>>for paranormal powers?
>>
>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
> 
> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was thinking
> of. Sorry, no cigar.


Huh?  That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.

You have to use a dozen volunteers anyway and I'm sure most of them
will follow the directions easily.

If you use a DATA ENTRY FORM then the first question is LOCKED IN
and I can't complain.

The page numbers are sent and the 2 dummy questions are posted later.

There is no confusion, I get it right or you mark me wrong.




> 
>>
>>It is NOT possible to cheat by guessing.  If you can beat 1,000,000:1 by selecting
>>the right idea that you are thinking of then it's a pass.
>>
>>Say you do a Zenner test and write down which card you're thinking of: a square.
> 
> Say I do a Zenner test where I look at a card instead of imagining
> one.

God won't channel meaningless nonsense.



> 
>>
>>Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
> 
> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
> 
>>
>>I pick square.  I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
> 
> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
> 
> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.


I can EASILY "guess" what question you posted on page one of a form
like that on MindReading.com 1/2 of the time.  (only 50% higher than expected)

I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3.  (double expected).

But I need to do some tests before I set a bench mark that high.








>>
>>THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY TEST.
>>
>>All that is required is to substitute Zenner Cards for a more interesting idea or request
>>so that my powers kick in!
> 
> So instead of Zenner cards you want unanswerable questions to which
> you will give vague "correlated" responses? Sorry, not falsifiable,
> therefore not testable.
> 


NO NO NO NO NO.

I select A, B or C.

I'm smart enough to interpret the word of God from bible quotes to any question
posed to him.

I work out what question you asked on page 1 from 3 options.  There is nothing
subjective to mark - there is just a little bit of intelligence on the English language
required ON MY PART.

Can you either think my protocol over a lot more carefully or get a competent 
statistician to advise you whether the claim could hold?


Herc 

"ScienceWins" <ScienceWins@Apikoros.Org> wrote...
> JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sep 28, 11:15=A0pm, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> It's quite elementary:
>>Quick, how many fingers are you holding up?
> 
> ROFL! That's the best way to handle the mentally deranged. It used
> to be that as kids we were told not to make fun of the insane but
> this is the era of the Internet(s).


A few more mind reading results and it'll be you proven to be monkeys
that I'll be laughing at!

Herc 

<panamfloyd@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> On Sep 29, 8:43 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote
>> >>>If you can shift your ideal test away from such a fuckwit idea then let me know.
>>
>> >> As my "ideal test" is nothing like that I can't really shift it away.
>>
>> >Yes it is.  You want to ask ANY questions and me to I have to answer everything
>> >exactly what is on your answer sheet.
>>
>> >Only someone with infinite knowledge could always pass your test.
>>
>> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------�-----
>>
>> >Why iswww.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2not a claim that can be tested
>> >for paranormal powers?
>>
>> >You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
>>
>> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was thinking
>> of. Sorry, no cigar.
>>
>>
>>
>> >It is NOT possible to cheat by guessing.  If you can beat 1,000,000:1 by selecting
>> >the right idea that you are thinking of then it's a pass.
>>
>> >Say you do a Zenner test and write down which card you're thinking of: a square.
>>
>> Say I do a Zenner test where I look at a card instead of imagining
>> one.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
>>
>> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
>>
>>
>>
>> >I pick square.  I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
>>
>> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
>>
>> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
>> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.
>>
>>
>>
>> >THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY TEST.
>>
>> >All that is required is to substitute Zenner Cards for a more interesting idea or request
>> >so that my powers kick in!
>>
>> So instead of Zenner cards you want unanswerable questions to which
>> you will give vague "correlated" responses? Sorry, not falsifiable,
>> therefore not testable.
>
> Peter, this "seppo" appreciates your continued attempts to get this
> fraud to commit to a test that will expose his fraudulence. Please
> inform me as to when you're tired of him..seeing your continued
> presence here in alt.atheism is the only reason I haven't thrown him
> "under the bus" to the wolves at the usenet kooks group yet. <g>
>

oh pulleeze, your entrenched disbelief is more embarrassing to listen
to than mormans at my door.

no, not a crosspost to alt.usenet.kooks and the 90iq dullards therein even more
moronic than a.a. and s.s.

Herc 

"|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote ...
>> "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote
>>>>>If you can shift your ideal test away from such a fuckwit idea then let me know.
>>>> 
>>>> As my "ideal test" is nothing like that I can't really shift it away.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes it is.  You want to ask ANY questions and me to I have to answer everything
>>>exactly what is on your answer sheet.
>>>
>>>Only someone with infinite knowledge could always pass your test.
>>>
>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Why is www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 not a claim that can be tested
>>>for paranormal powers?
>>>
>>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
>> 
>> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was thinking
>> of. Sorry, no cigar.
>
>
>Huh?  That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.

On what basis could I score you wrong unless I know what the correct
answer is?

>
>You have to use a dozen volunteers anyway and I'm sure most of them
>will follow the directions easily.

I don't need a dozen volunteers. I need one person with a pack of
Zenner cards.

>
>If you use a DATA ENTRY FORM then the first question is LOCKED IN
>and I can't complain.
>
>The page numbers are sent and the 2 dummy questions are posted later.
>
>There is no confusion, I get it right or you mark me wrong.

So you are saying that the first question is the real one and you win
if you guess that the first question is the real one? Not very
psychic.

>
>
>
>
>> 
>>>
>>>It is NOT possible to cheat by guessing.  If you can beat 1,000,000:1 by selecting
>>>the right idea that you are thinking of then it's a pass.
>>>
>>>Say you do a Zenner test and write down which card you're thinking of: a square.
>> 
>> Say I do a Zenner test where I look at a card instead of imagining
>> one.
>
>God won't channel meaningless nonsense.

Must be a pretty pathetic god if it can't see what card I'm holding.

>
>
>
>> 
>>>
>>>Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
>> 
>> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
>> 
>>>
>>>I pick square.  I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
>> 
>> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
>> 
>> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
>> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.
>
>
>I can EASILY "guess" what question you posted on page one of a form
>like that on MindReading.com 1/2 of the time.  (only 50% higher than expected)

Forget guessing. If God is supplying the answers then 100% is the
benchmark.

>
>I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3.  (double expected).

So what?

>
>But I need to do some tests before I set a bench mark that high.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF MY TEST.
>>>
>>>All that is required is to substitute Zenner Cards for a more interesting idea or request
>>>so that my powers kick in!
>> 
>> So instead of Zenner cards you want unanswerable questions to which
>> you will give vague "correlated" responses? Sorry, not falsifiable,
>> therefore not testable.
>> 
>
>
>NO NO NO NO NO.
>
>I select A, B or C.
>
>I'm smart enough to interpret the word of God from bible quotes to any question
>posed to him.

Here's a question - what Zenner card am I looking at right now?

>
>I work out what question you asked on page 1 from 3 options.  There is nothing
>subjective to mark - there is just a little bit of intelligence on the English language
>required ON MY PART.

No, it is you guessing at something, a guess which cannot be checked
for correctness.

>
>Can you either think my protocol over a lot more carefully or get a competent 
>statistician to advise you whether the claim could hold?

I topped my class in statistics at university. Your claim (whatever it
really is today) does not hold.

>
>
>Herc 

-- 
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter

On 30/09/2010 4:36 PM, Peter Bowditch wrote:

>
> So you are saying that the first question is the real one and you win
> if you guess that the first question is the real one? Not very
> psychic.

Actually, he's saying that the questions are shuffled before he sees 
them. He then has to determine which was originally the first.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is NOT possible to cheat by guessing.  If you can beat 1,000,000:1 by selecting
>>>> the right idea that you are thinking of then it's a pass.
>>>>
>>>> Say you do a Zenner test and write down which card you're thinking of: a square.
>>>
>>> Say I do a Zenner test where I look at a card instead of imagining
>>> one.
>>
>> God won't channel meaningless nonsense.
>
> Must be a pretty pathetic god if it can't see what card I'm holding.

And the power seems pretty useless. But we skeptics don't get to dictate 
what form a power must take, nor that it must have a use.

>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
>>>
>>> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I pick square.  I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
>>>
>>> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
>>>
>>> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
>>> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.
>>
>>
>> I can EASILY "guess" what question you posted on page one of a form
>> like that on MindReading.com 1/2 of the time.  (only 50% higher than expected)
>
> Forget guessing. If God is supplying the answers then 100% is the
> benchmark.

However it appears that the channelled answers aren't at all clear (God 
only knows why) and Herc has to interpret them, which can introduce errors.

>
>>
>> I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3.  (double expected).
>
> So what?

Well, in a test where chance gives a 1 in 3 outcome, achieving 2 in 3 
over a sufficient number of trials would be significant.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>PB wrote
>>> God won't channel meaningless nonsense.
>>
>> Must be a pretty pathetic god if it can't see what card I'm holding.

He can see it, he doesn't bombard me with trivial pursuit knowledge.




> 
> And the power seems pretty useless. But we skeptics don't get to dictate 
> what form a power must take, nor that it must have a use.

I can ask what your thoughts, motives, comprehension, ideas, plans are
and I get very accurate answers.

Take the set of all knowledge.

Subtract highly specific data - like the president's name
Subtract anything that is useless or already known.

What do you have left?  I know everything, you just can't ask a real
question without turning it into a game of Sale of the Century.


> 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
>>>>
>>>> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I pick square.  I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
>>>>
>>>> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
>>>>
>>>> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
>>>> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can EASILY "guess" what question you posted on page one of a form
>>> like that on MindReading.com 1/2 of the time.  (only 50% higher than expected)
>>
>> Forget guessing. If God is supplying the answers then 100% is the
>> benchmark.
> 
> However it appears that the channelled answers aren't at all clear (God 
> only knows why) and Herc has to interpret them, which can introduce errors.


This is not a test of God, that's just a name of the spirit where I get my answers
and nothing to do with your preconceived notions of religion.

The original claim is to get intelligent responses or answers.

The second claim is to get them without even knowing your question.




> 
>>
>>>
>>> I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3.  (double expected).
>>
>> So what?
> 
> Well, in a test where chance gives a 1 in 3 outcome, achieving 2 in 3 
> over a sufficient number of trials would be significant.
> 
> Sylvia.


Syl, do YOU think www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 is testable for paranormal powers?


Herc
 

On 30/09/2010 5:42 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>> PB wrote
>>>> God won't channel meaningless nonsense.
>>>
>>> Must be a pretty pathetic god if it can't see what card I'm holding.
>
> He can see it, he doesn't bombard me with trivial pursuit knowledge.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> And the power seems pretty useless. But we skeptics don't get to
>> dictate what form a power must take, nor that it must have a use.
>
> I can ask what your thoughts, motives, comprehension, ideas, plans are
> and I get very accurate answers.
>
Herc, you don't provide answers.

By your own admission you cannot even figure out which question of three 
is being answered with any degree of certainty.


> Take the set of all knowledge.
>
> Subtract highly specific data - like the president's name
> Subtract anything that is useless or already known.
>
> What do you have left? I know everything, you just can't ask a real
> question without turning it into a game of Sale of the Century.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I pick square. I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
>>>>>
>>>>> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
>>>>>
>>>>> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
>>>>> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can EASILY "guess" what question you posted on page one of a form
>>>> like that on MindReading.com 1/2 of the time. (only 50% higher than
>>>> expected)
>>>
>>> Forget guessing. If God is supplying the answers then 100% is the
>>> benchmark.
>>
>> However it appears that the channelled answers aren't at all clear
>> (God only knows why) and Herc has to interpret them, which can
>> introduce errors.
>
>
> This is not a test of God, that's just a name of the spirit where I get
> my answers
> and nothing to do with your preconceived notions of religion.
>
> The original claim is to get intelligent responses or answers.
>
> The second claim is to get them without even knowing your question.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3. (double
>>>> expected).
>>>
>>> So what?
>>
>> Well, in a test where chance gives a 1 in 3 outcome, achieving 2 in 3
>> over a sufficient number of trials would be significant.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> Syl, do YOU think www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 is testable for
> paranormal powers?

That has the character of a test protocol, but in order to make sense of 
your question, I have to construe it as a description of a paranormal 
power, and your question to be whether it is possible to test for that 
power.

Since there is no objective way of determining whether the idea in each 
trial was of interest, the test would not be for the specific power 
claimed. Instead, a positive result would be evidence for the existence 
of an encompassing power that did not include the "interest" 
requirement. So it would test for paranormal powers, just not your 
particular one.

Sylvia

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote 
> On 30/09/2010 5:42 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>> PB wrote
>>>>> God won't channel meaningless nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> Must be a pretty pathetic god if it can't see what card I'm holding.
>>
>> He can see it, he doesn't bombard me with trivial pursuit knowledge.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And the power seems pretty useless. But we skeptics don't get to
>>> dictate what form a power must take, nor that it must have a use.
>>
>> I can ask what your thoughts, motives, comprehension, ideas, plans are
>> and I get very accurate answers.
>>
> Herc, you don't provide answers.


huh?  I've stated Ask me any question you are interested in
200 times.



> 
> By your own admission you cannot even figure out which question of three 
> is being answered with any degree of certainty.
 

That is a specific piece of data which I can and am working out.

You're only test of my infinite knowledge is trivial meaningless data
you already know or can find out.



> 
>> Take the set of all knowledge.
>>
>> Subtract highly specific data - like the president's name
>> Subtract anything that is useless or already known.
>>
>> What do you have left? I know everything, you just can't ask a real
>> question without turning it into a game of Sale of the Century.
> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I pick square. I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
>>>>>> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can EASILY "guess" what question you posted on page one of a form
>>>>> like that on MindReading.com 1/2 of the time. (only 50% higher than
>>>>> expected)
>>>>
>>>> Forget guessing. If God is supplying the answers then 100% is the
>>>> benchmark.
>>>
>>> However it appears that the channelled answers aren't at all clear
>>> (God only knows why) and Herc has to interpret them, which can
>>> introduce errors.
>>
>>
>> This is not a test of God, that's just a name of the spirit where I get
>> my answers
>> and nothing to do with your preconceived notions of religion.
>>
>> The original claim is to get intelligent responses or answers.
>>
>> The second claim is to get them without even knowing your question.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3. (double
>>>>> expected).
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> Well, in a test where chance gives a 1 in 3 outcome, achieving 2 in 3
>>> over a sufficient number of trials would be significant.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> Syl, do YOU think www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 is testable for
>> paranormal powers?
> 
> That has the character of a test protocol, but in order to make sense of 
> your question, I have to construe it as a description of a paranormal 
> power, and your question to be whether it is possible to test for that 
> power.

huh?  The subject is Paranormal Claim.



> 
> Since there is no objective way of determining whether the idea in each 
> trial was of interest, the test would not be for the specific power 
> claimed. Instead, a positive result would be evidence for the existence 
> of an encompassing power that did not include the "interest" 
> requirement. So it would test for paranormal powers, just not your 
> particular one.


Rephrase "tell me an idea that you (declare to) find interesting", using
at least a dozen members of public as volunteers.

Then the claim to read minds could be tested right?  There is a possibility
many of the volunteers will cheat, in which the test may give a false negative,
which is of little concern since the potential to prove a paranormal power
should it exist as I think it does, is evident.

Herc

 

At one time, not so long ago, "|-|ercules" <radgray123@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Why is www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 not a claim that can be tested
>for paranormal powers?
>
>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.

     That's similar to what you have on your mind reader web page.  I
entered three questions but there is no way to check your answers
since the link to the forum links to the front page.
     Will you ever get your site to work properly?

-- 
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

On 30/09/2010 6:12 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 30/09/2010 5:42 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>>> PB wrote
>>>>>> God won't channel meaningless nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Must be a pretty pathetic god if it can't see what card I'm holding.
>>>
>>> He can see it, he doesn't bombard me with trivial pursuit knowledge.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And the power seems pretty useless. But we skeptics don't get to
>>>> dictate what form a power must take, nor that it must have a use.
>>>
>>> I can ask what your thoughts, motives, comprehension, ideas, plans are
>>> and I get very accurate answers.
>>>
>> Herc, you don't provide answers.
>
>
> huh? I've stated Ask me any question you are interested in
> 200 times.

Yes, I can ask you questions, and sometimes you can tell me which 
question I asked, but you still don't actually give answers. That 
doesn't affect the validity of the test protocol, but it does limit the 
usefulness of the power, even if it actually exists.
>
>>
>> By your own admission you cannot even figure out which question of
>> three is being answered with any degree of certainty.
>
>
> That is a specific piece of data which I can and am working out.

I don't know what you mean by that.

>
> You're only test of my infinite knowledge is trivial meaningless data
> you already know or can find out.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Take the set of all knowledge.
>>>
>>> Subtract highly specific data - like the president's name
>>> Subtract anything that is useless or already known.
>>>
>>> What do you have left? I know everything, you just can't ask a real
>>> question without turning it into a game of Sale of the Century.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you show me 3 cards in random order, including the square.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then I ask you to tell me which card I'm looking at.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I pick square. I'm right most of the time over dozens of trials.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You pick square and are marked wrong because it's a star.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The test is repeated the number of times agreed in the protocol and
>>>>>>> the results compared to your predicted accuracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can EASILY "guess" what question you posted on page one of a form
>>>>>> like that on MindReading.com 1/2 of the time. (only 50% higher than
>>>>>> expected)
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget guessing. If God is supplying the answers then 100% is the
>>>>> benchmark.
>>>>
>>>> However it appears that the channelled answers aren't at all clear
>>>> (God only knows why) and Herc has to interpret them, which can
>>>> introduce errors.
>>>
>>>
>>> This is not a test of God, that's just a name of the spirit where I get
>>> my answers
>>> and nothing to do with your preconceived notions of religion.
>>>
>>> The original claim is to get intelligent responses or answers.
>>>
>>> The second claim is to get them without even knowing your question.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can probably "guess" the correct option 2 times out of 3. (double
>>>>>> expected).
>>>>>
>>>>> So what?
>>>>
>>>> Well, in a test where chance gives a 1 in 3 outcome, achieving 2 in 3
>>>> over a sufficient number of trials would be significant.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> Syl, do YOU think www.tinyurl.com/ParanormalClaim2 is testable for
>>> paranormal powers?
>>
>> That has the character of a test protocol, but in order to make sense
>> of your question, I have to construe it as a description of a
>> paranormal power, and your question to be whether it is possible to
>> test for that power.
>
> huh? The subject is Paranormal Claim.
>
>
>
>>
>> Since there is no objective way of determining whether the idea in
>> each trial was of interest, the test would not be for the specific
>> power claimed. Instead, a positive result would be evidence for the
>> existence of an encompassing power that did not include the "interest"
>> requirement. So it would test for paranormal powers, just not your
>> particular one.
>
>
> Rephrase "tell me an idea that you (declare to) find interesting", using
> at least a dozen members of public as volunteers.

That doesn't change anything. The test protocol is still not sensitive 
to whether the volunteers are actually interested.

>
> Then the claim to read minds could be tested right? There is a possibility
> many of the volunteers will cheat, in which the test may give a false
> negative,
> which is of little concern since the potential to prove a paranormal power
> should it exist as I think it does, is evident.

If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is 
something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power 
does not, or at least might not, work if people make false declarations, 
with the result that the protocol would still not be testing for your power.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
> If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is 
> something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power 
> does not, or at least might not, work if people make false declarations, 
> with the result that the protocol would still not be testing for your power.
> 
> Sylvia.


Putting the clause "they declare XYZ" does not impact the scientific statement,
it's just an arbitrary clause of the claim.

Therefore it has no impact on the validity of the test and you are wrong.

Thinking of any idea will work.
Thinking of any idea and making a declaration of interest - improved results.
Thinking of actually interesting ideas - more improved.
Thinking of a question - more improved.
Thinking of a question and declaration of interest - more improved.
Thinking of a question and actually interested - maximum psychic powers displayed.

The general claim is line 1 - the suggested test protocol is the 2nd last line.

My question to you is NOT whether the stated claim will definitely demonstrate
my known supposed power should it exist, it's whether Paranormal Claim 2 with
any suitable minor modifications discussed here is a testable paranormal claim.

Herc
 

On 30/09/2010 6:35 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>> If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is
>> something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power
>> does not, or at least might not, work if people make false
>> declarations, with the result that the protocol would still not be
>> testing for your power.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> Putting the clause "they declare XYZ" does not impact the scientific
> statement,
> it's just an arbitrary clause of the claim.
>
> Therefore it has no impact on the validity of the test and you are wrong.
>
> Thinking of any idea will work.
> Thinking of any idea and making a declaration of interest - improved
> results.


If that will work, then test that. The idea is A, B or C. That is, the 
idea is a letter. The person declares that they have an interest (it 
doesn't matter whether it's true). You decide which letter. Easy. No 
arguments. Done.

Sylvia.


> Thinking of actually interesting ideas - more improved.
> Thinking of a question - more improved.
> Thinking of a question and declaration of interest - more improved.
> Thinking of a question and actually interested - maximum psychic powers
> displayed.
>
> The general claim is line 1 - the suggested test protocol is the 2nd
> last line.
>
> My question to you is NOT whether the stated claim will definitely
> demonstrate
> my known supposed power should it exist, it's whether Paranormal Claim 2
> with
> any suitable minor modifications discussed here is a testable paranormal
> claim.
>
> Herc
>

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote 
> On 30/09/2010 6:35 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>> If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is
>>> something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power
>>> does not, or at least might not, work if people make false
>>> declarations, with the result that the protocol would still not be
>>> testing for your power.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> Putting the clause "they declare XYZ" does not impact the scientific
>> statement,
>> it's just an arbitrary clause of the claim.
>>
>> Therefore it has no impact on the validity of the test and you are wrong.
>>
>> Thinking of any idea will work.
>> Thinking of any idea and making a declaration of interest - improved
>> results.
> 
> 
> If that will work, then test that. The idea is A, B or C. That is, the 
> idea is a letter. The person declares that they have an interest (it 
> doesn't matter whether it's true). You decide which letter. Easy. No 
> arguments. Done.
> 
> Sylvia.

That's a really idiotic suggestion.



> 
> 
>> Thinking of actually interesting ideas - more improved.
>> Thinking of a question - more improved.
>> Thinking of a question and declaration of interest - more improved.
>> Thinking of a question and actually interested - maximum psychic powers
>> displayed.
>>
>> The general claim is line 1 - the suggested test protocol is the 2nd
>> last line.
>>
>> My question to you is NOT whether the stated claim will definitely
>> demonstrate
>> my known supposed power should it exist, it's whether Paranormal Claim 2
>> with
>> any suitable minor modifications discussed here is a testable paranormal
>> claim.
>>
>> Herc


Well my predictive power that you would abandon the topic and post on an irrelevant
tangent was spot on!


Herc 

On 30/09/2010 7:30 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 30/09/2010 6:35 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>>> If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is
>>>> something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power
>>>> does not, or at least might not, work if people make false
>>>> declarations, with the result that the protocol would still not be
>>>> testing for your power.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> Putting the clause "they declare XYZ" does not impact the scientific
>>> statement,
>>> it's just an arbitrary clause of the claim.
>>>
>>> Therefore it has no impact on the validity of the test and you are
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Thinking of any idea will work.
>>> Thinking of any idea and making a declaration of interest - improved
>>> results.
>>
>>
>> If that will work, then test that. The idea is A, B or C. That is, the
>> idea is a letter. The person declares that they have an interest (it
>> doesn't matter whether it's true). You decide which letter. Easy. No
>> arguments. Done.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> That's a really idiotic suggestion.

Care to explain why? It appears to eliminate problems you've had with 
people perhaps not being interested, or not interested in the right way, 
and it obviates the potential for people thinking you're still trying to 
offer subjective semantic matches as proof.

The most obvious objection is that it might require unreasonably many 
trials to show a statistically significant result. But if that's the 
case, on what basis did you claim it would work?

Of course, since all elements of the test are visible, you would not be 
able to argue that a negative result was invalid, which I suspect is the 
real issue for you.

Sylvia.

>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Thinking of actually interesting ideas - more improved.
>>> Thinking of a question - more improved.
>>> Thinking of a question and declaration of interest - more improved.
>>> Thinking of a question and actually interested - maximum psychic powers
>>> displayed.
>>>
>>> The general claim is line 1 - the suggested test protocol is the 2nd
>>> last line.
>>>
>>> My question to you is NOT whether the stated claim will definitely
>>> demonstrate
>>> my known supposed power should it exist, it's whether Paranormal Claim 2
>>> with
>>> any suitable minor modifications discussed here is a testable paranormal
>>> claim.
>>>
>>> Herc
>
>
> Well my predictive power that you would abandon the topic and post on an
> irrelevant
> tangent was spot on!
>
>
> Herc

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote...
> On 30/09/2010 7:30 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>> On 30/09/2010 6:35 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>>>> If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is
>>>>> something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power
>>>>> does not, or at least might not, work if people make false
>>>>> declarations, with the result that the protocol would still not be
>>>>> testing for your power.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Putting the clause "they declare XYZ" does not impact the scientific
>>>> statement,
>>>> it's just an arbitrary clause of the claim.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore it has no impact on the validity of the test and you are
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Thinking of any idea will work.
>>>> Thinking of any idea and making a declaration of interest - improved
>>>> results.
>>>
>>>
>>> If that will work, then test that. The idea is A, B or C. That is, the
>>> idea is a letter. The person declares that they have an interest (it
>>> doesn't matter whether it's true). You decide which letter. Easy. No
>>> arguments. Done.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> That's a really idiotic suggestion.
> 
> Care to explain why? 


You want a 200th rewording of the explanation?

When I said "think of any idea" it was in the context of asking volunteers
to think of any idea.  Not for a technical caveat where the skeptics instruct
everyone to think of a wavy line or the number 7.

The majority of people volunteering for a test or clicking on a
"MIND READING DEMO CLICK HERE" ad on Google will think of something
that is somewhat interesting to them, only a few percent will focus on a 
head or tail or the letter B or meaningless nonsense.

The web is a totally different crowd to usenet re:paranormal, when I get
a few hits to my sites or videos I get dozens of people saying the channeling
is spot on.

Why don't you test out www.MindReading.com with a question and 2 dummy
questions?  Pick 3 from your cosmology set.  Takes 2 minutes then we can
further the stalled discussion over false anti negative non claim etc.

Put it this way, if you are Peter are so certain I'm not Genesis Adam why
are you both avoiding doing a test?

All you have to do is think of a question.

Herc 

On 30/09/2010 8:03 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote...
>> On 30/09/2010 7:30 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>> On 30/09/2010 6:35 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>>>>> If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is
>>>>>> something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power
>>>>>> does not, or at least might not, work if people make false
>>>>>> declarations, with the result that the protocol would still not be
>>>>>> testing for your power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting the clause "they declare XYZ" does not impact the scientific
>>>>> statement,
>>>>> it's just an arbitrary clause of the claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore it has no impact on the validity of the test and you are
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thinking of any idea will work.
>>>>> Thinking of any idea and making a declaration of interest - improved
>>>>> results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that will work, then test that. The idea is A, B or C. That is, the
>>>> idea is a letter. The person declares that they have an interest (it
>>>> doesn't matter whether it's true). You decide which letter. Easy. No
>>>> arguments. Done.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> That's a really idiotic suggestion.
>>
>> Care to explain why?
>
>
> You want a 200th rewording of the explanation?
>
> When I said "think of any idea" it was in the context of asking volunteers
> to think of any idea. Not for a technical caveat where the skeptics
> instruct
> everyone to think of a wavy line or the number 7.

My mistake for assuming that "any" had its everyday meaning of "without 
restriction". Are there any, er, I mean other, without restriction, 
words that you're redefining? You're going to find dificulty agreeing 
with skeptics on a test protocol if you can't even agree what the words 
mean.

>
> The majority of people volunteering for a test or clicking on a
> "MIND READING DEMO CLICK HERE" ad on Google will think of something
> that is somewhat interesting to them, only a few percent will focus on a
> head or tail or the letter B or meaningless nonsense.
>
> The web is a totally different crowd to usenet re:paranormal, when I get
> a few hits to my sites or videos I get dozens of people saying the
> channeling
> is spot on.
>
> Why don't you test out www.MindReading.com with a question and 2 dummy
> questions? Pick 3 from your cosmology set. Takes 2 minutes then we can
> further the stalled discussion over false anti negative non claim etc.
>
> Put it this way, if you are Peter are so certain I'm not Genesis Adam why
> are you both avoiding doing a test?
>
> All you have to do is think of a question.

I can't speak for Peter, but in my case it's because my certainty leads 
me to the conclusion that a test that can't falsify your power is a 
complete waste of time. Why would I want to embark on a test that I 
fully expect to produce no result?

Sylvia.

On 30/09/2010 7:24 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30/09/2010 6:35 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>>> If you remove the parenthesese, and include "declare to" then that is
>>> something that is objectively determinable, but you claim your power
>>> does not, or at least might not, work if people make false
>>> declarations, with the result that the protocol would still not be
>>> testing for your power.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> Putting the clause "they declare XYZ" does not impact the scientific
>> statement,
>> it's just an arbitrary clause of the claim.
>>
>> Therefore it has no impact on the validity of the test and you are wrong.
>>
>> Thinking of any idea will work.
>> Thinking of any idea and making a declaration of interest - improved
>> results.
>
>
> If that will work, then test that. The idea is A, B or C. That is, the
> idea is a letter. The person declares that they have an interest (it
> doesn't matter whether it's true). You decide which letter. Easy. No
> arguments. Done.
>
> Sylvia.

Added alt.paranoid.thinking

Actually, I'd forgotten about one of my earlier concerns. A record of 
which letter the person thought of would have to be made, presumably by 
asking them what it was and writing it down. When he fails the test, 
Herc could claim that some people thought of one letter, but lied when 
asked what it was (even though they wouldn't at that point know what 
Herc's answer was). He would further claim that just enough people had 
done this to offset his higher than chance hit rate bringing the actual 
hit rate back down to 1 in 3.

Sylvia.
>
>
>> Thinking of actually interesting ideas - more improved.
>> Thinking of a question - more improved.
>> Thinking of a question and declaration of interest - more improved.
>> Thinking of a question and actually interested - maximum psychic powers
>> displayed.
>>
>> The general claim is line 1 - the suggested test protocol is the 2nd
>> last line.
>>
>> My question to you is NOT whether the stated claim will definitely
>> demonstrate
>> my known supposed power should it exist, it's whether Paranormal Claim 2
>> with
>> any suitable minor modifications discussed here is a testable paranormal
>> claim.
>>
>> Herc
>>
>

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>> When I said "think of any idea" it was in the context of asking volunteers
>> to think of any idea. Not for a technical caveat where the skeptics
>> instruct
>> everyone to think of a wavy line or the number 7.
> 
> My mistake for assuming that "any" had its everyday meaning of "without 
> restriction". Are there any, er, I mean other, without restriction, 
> words that you're redefining? You're going to find dificulty agreeing 
> with skeptics on a test protocol if you can't even agree what the words 
> mean.

How do you go from:

A subject is asked to think of any idea

TO

A subject is ask to think of the letter A, B or C.

and insist that is the only definition of any?

Considering I've said over 100 times it has to be meaningfully interesting, and only dropped "interesting" 
as a sequence of claim levels to make the claim legalese parsable due to your inane objections and avoiding 
the question of whether a paranormal claim has been made.

Here is where we are at:

SKEPTICS : WE PAY MILLIONS FOR PROOF OF PARANORMAL,
WE WILL DO ANYTHING WE CAN TO HELP,
JUST TELL US WHAT YOU CAN DO AND WE'LL WORK OUT A TEST TOGETHER

ADAM (SON OF GOD): OPEN THIS BOX AND IT PROVES I'M ADAM
*HANDS BOX TO SKEPTICS*

SKEPTICS: NO!  IT CANNOT BE FALSIFIED.

???

Herc 

"Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote ...
> On 30 Sep, 07:36, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> >>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
>>
>> >> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was thinking
>> >> of. Sorry, no cigar.
>>
>> >Huh?  That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.
>>
>> On what basis could I score you wrong unless I know what the correct
>> answer is?
> 
> Herc is no longer claiming to be able to actually answer the question,
> just that he can guess which one you first thought of from a huge
> selection of three randomised choices. So if he picks your first
> question out of three, that is the right answer. It doesn't matter
> that he hasn't actually answered the question itself.
> 
> Of course, the problem is still his caveat that the power only works
> properly if the asker was "genuinely interested" in knowing the answer
> to the question, because it means he can dismiss all the fail results
> as invalid due to no genuine interest,while keeping all the hits (no
> doubt even if they were also not of genuine interest). Of course he'll
> never drop that get-out clause because then he'd have to face a proper
> test of his powers which he'll inevitably fail.
> 
> Also, I am wondering if a good mentalist magician could achieve the
> same effect by simply examining the questions? That would basically
> render the whole test worthless.
> 
> Andy


Utter fricking bullshit.

To count as a valid result I have to dismiss the obviously poorly worded questions
beforehand.

I assumed DanielSan would follow the instructions as it was the first trial of the
website and his question obviously had a known answer by Daniel, "what type of
cat do I own?".

It is really low of you idiots to take any hiccup in early experiments and twist them
into stupid refutations of the now finalized protocol at www.MINDREADING.com

If you don't want to test it, then I don't want to hear your bullshit theories.

Herc
--
www.MINDREADING.com 

On 1/10/2010 1:15 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>> When I said "think of any idea" it was in the context of asking
>>> volunteers
>>> to think of any idea. Not for a technical caveat where the skeptics
>>> instruct
>>> everyone to think of a wavy line or the number 7.
>>
>> My mistake for assuming that "any" had its everyday meaning of
>> "without restriction". Are there any, er, I mean other, without
>> restriction, words that you're redefining? You're going to find
>> dificulty agreeing with skeptics on a test protocol if you can't even
>> agree what the words mean.
>
> How do you go from:
>
> A subject is asked to think of any idea
>
> TO
>
> A subject is ask to think of the letter A, B or C.
>
> and insist that is the only definition of any?

If yout power works with any idea, then it must work with specific 
ideas, becauswe a specific idea is a member of the set of any ideas.
>
> Considering I've said over 100 times it has to be meaningfully
> interesting, and only dropped "interesting" as a sequence of claim
> levels to make the claim legalese parsable due to your inane objections
> and avoiding the question of whether a paranormal claim has been made.

But you did drop it. If it's a requirement, then fine, but you removed it.

>
> Here is where we are at:
>
> SKEPTICS : WE PAY MILLIONS FOR PROOF OF PARANORMAL,
> WE WILL DO ANYTHING WE CAN TO HELP,
> JUST TELL US WHAT YOU CAN DO AND WE'LL WORK OUT A TEST TOGETHER
>
> ADAM (SON OF GOD): OPEN THIS BOX AND IT PROVES I'M ADAM
> *HANDS BOX TO SKEPTICS*
>
> SKEPTICS: NO! IT CANNOT BE FALSIFIED.

Skeptics: Open the damned box yourself.

Sylvia.

On 1/10/2010 3:46 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote ...
>> On 30 Sep, 07:36, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
>>>
>>> >> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was
>>> thinking
>>> >> of. Sorry, no cigar.
>>>
>>> >Huh? That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.
>>>
>>> On what basis could I score you wrong unless I know what the correct
>>> answer is?
>>
>> Herc is no longer claiming to be able to actually answer the question,
>> just that he can guess which one you first thought of from a huge
>> selection of three randomised choices. So if he picks your first
>> question out of three, that is the right answer. It doesn't matter
>> that he hasn't actually answered the question itself.
>>
>> Of course, the problem is still his caveat that the power only works
>> properly if the asker was "genuinely interested" in knowing the answer
>> to the question, because it means he can dismiss all the fail results
>> as invalid due to no genuine interest,while keeping all the hits (no
>> doubt even if they were also not of genuine interest). Of course he'll
>> never drop that get-out clause because then he'd have to face a proper
>> test of his powers which he'll inevitably fail.
>>
>> Also, I am wondering if a good mentalist magician could achieve the
>> same effect by simply examining the questions? That would basically
>> render the whole test worthless.
>>
>> Andy
>
>
> Utter fricking bullshit.
>
> To count as a valid result I have to dismiss the obviously poorly worded
> questions
> beforehand.

Are you now willing to say that you will

a) Perform the test on Usenet, so that all trials are visible,

b) not attempt to respond to a trial before an MD5 hash for the proposed 
correct answer has been posted,

c) either accept or reject a trial before posting your reponse,

d) include ALL results for accepted trials, provided only that the 
posted MD5 matches one of the 3 questions (with due allowance for the 
secret key that prevents you from doing a search), with NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS,

e) not even consider arguing that such a result should not be included 
on some basis,

f) promise that if you fail to achieve an aggreed success rate over 
some agreed number of trials, you will once and for all abandon your 
attempts to get people to test you for this or any other paranormal power,

g) cease to accuse anyone, skeptic or otherwise, of dishonesty, 
criminality or any like conduct, in their attitude towards testing you, and

h) not attempt to avoid the requirements above on any basis whatsoever?

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
> On 1/10/2010 3:46 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote ...
>>> On 30 Sep, 07:36, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
>>>>
>>>> >> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was
>>>> thinking
>>>> >> of. Sorry, no cigar.
>>>>
>>>> >Huh? That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.
>>>>
>>>> On what basis could I score you wrong unless I know what the correct
>>>> answer is?
>>>
>>> Herc is no longer claiming to be able to actually answer the question,
>>> just that he can guess which one you first thought of from a huge
>>> selection of three randomised choices. So if he picks your first
>>> question out of three, that is the right answer. It doesn't matter
>>> that he hasn't actually answered the question itself.
>>>
>>> Of course, the problem is still his caveat that the power only works
>>> properly if the asker was "genuinely interested" in knowing the answer
>>> to the question, because it means he can dismiss all the fail results
>>> as invalid due to no genuine interest,while keeping all the hits (no
>>> doubt even if they were also not of genuine interest). Of course he'll
>>> never drop that get-out clause because then he'd have to face a proper
>>> test of his powers which he'll inevitably fail.
>>>
>>> Also, I am wondering if a good mentalist magician could achieve the
>>> same effect by simply examining the questions? That would basically
>>> render the whole test worthless.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>>
>> Utter fricking bullshit.
>>
>> To count as a valid result I have to dismiss the obviously poorly worded
>> questions
>> beforehand.
> 
> Are you now willing to say that you will
> 
> a) Perform the test on Usenet, so that all trials are visible,
> 
> b) not attempt to respond to a trial before an MD5 hash for the proposed 
> correct answer has been posted,
> 
> c) either accept or reject a trial before posting your reponse,
> 
> d) include ALL results for accepted trials, provided only that the 
> posted MD5 matches one of the 3 questions (with due allowance for the 
> secret key that prevents you from doing a search), with NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS,
> 
> e) not even consider arguing that such a result should not be included 
> on some basis,
> 
> f) promise that if you fail to achieve an aggreed success rate over 
> some agreed number of trials, you will once and for all abandon your 
> attempts to get people to test you for this or any other paranormal power,
> 
> g) cease to accuse anyone, skeptic or otherwise, of dishonesty, 
> criminality or any like conduct, in their attitude towards testing you, and
> 
> h) not attempt to avoid the requirements above on any basis whatsoever?
> 
> Sylvia.

why?  to get you to ask a question?  You have given me TOS and no service.

When I'm back home I'll put a couple $$$ per week into google adwords, psychic
traffic is only 1c a click and open minded people are not dickheads trying to thwart
an experiment like all of you.

If I can turn away questions, then using my online form at www.MINDREADING.com
is sufficient to accept questions as nobody can follow simple instructions on usenet.

I'll post the good questions in <<MIND READING>> RESULTS OCTOBER and I
have added an MD5 field.

Check that October thread, the data is very systematic.

Check out the new page 2 of the site (just type in 1 field on page 1 and you can 
click through the 4 pages of forms).  It's has the famous DO NOT TELL ME YOUR CARD!
cliche!  Loveit!

I can accommodate your 'terms' all pretty well except f.  If the answers are to ANY
of the 3 dummy questions - then I will have to try a FIRST QUESTION FIRST protocol,
THEN I will quit.

Herc

 

On 1/10/2010 1:34 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>> On 1/10/2010 3:46 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote ...
>>>> On 30 Sep, 07:36, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was
>>>>> thinking
>>>>> >> of. Sorry, no cigar.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Huh? That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> On what basis could I score you wrong unless I know what the correct
>>>>> answer is?
>>>>
>>>> Herc is no longer claiming to be able to actually answer the question,
>>>> just that he can guess which one you first thought of from a huge
>>>> selection of three randomised choices. So if he picks your first
>>>> question out of three, that is the right answer. It doesn't matter
>>>> that he hasn't actually answered the question itself.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the problem is still his caveat that the power only works
>>>> properly if the asker was "genuinely interested" in knowing the answer
>>>> to the question, because it means he can dismiss all the fail results
>>>> as invalid due to no genuine interest,while keeping all the hits (no
>>>> doubt even if they were also not of genuine interest). Of course he'll
>>>> never drop that get-out clause because then he'd have to face a proper
>>>> test of his powers which he'll inevitably fail.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I am wondering if a good mentalist magician could achieve the
>>>> same effect by simply examining the questions? That would basically
>>>> render the whole test worthless.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> Utter fricking bullshit.
>>>
>>> To count as a valid result I have to dismiss the obviously poorly worded
>>> questions
>>> beforehand.
>>
>> Are you now willing to say that you will
>>
>> a) Perform the test on Usenet, so that all trials are visible,
>>
>> b) not attempt to respond to a trial before an MD5 hash for the
>> proposed correct answer has been posted,
>>
>> c) either accept or reject a trial before posting your reponse,
>>
>> d) include ALL results for accepted trials, provided only that the
>> posted MD5 matches one of the 3 questions (with due allowance for the
>> secret key that prevents you from doing a search), with NO OTHER
>> EXCEPTIONS,
>>
>> e) not even consider arguing that such a result should not be included
>> on some basis,
>>
>> f) promise that if you fail to achieve an aggreed success rate over
>> some agreed number of trials, you will once and for all abandon your
>> attempts to get people to test you for this or any other paranormal
>> power,
>>
>> g) cease to accuse anyone, skeptic or otherwise, of dishonesty,
>> criminality or any like conduct, in their attitude towards testing
>> you, and
>>
>> h) not attempt to avoid the requirements above on any basis whatsoever?
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> why? to get you to ask a question? You have given me TOS and no service.

Getting input data that will produce results that will be believed seems 
to be the problem you're having. I'm willing to provide that input data, 
but only on the above terms.

>
> When I'm back home I'll put a couple $$$ per week into google adwords,
> psychic
> traffic is only 1c a click and open minded people are not dickheads
> trying to thwart
> an experiment like all of you.
>
> If I can turn away questions, then using my online form at
> www.MINDREADING.com
> is sufficient to accept questions as nobody can follow simple
> instructions on usenet.
>
> I'll post the good questions in <<MIND READING>> RESULTS OCTOBER and I
> have added an MD5 field.
>
> Check that October thread, the data is very systematic.
>
> Check out the new page 2 of the site (just type in 1 field on page 1 and
> you can click through the 4 pages of forms). It's has the famous DO NOT
> TELL ME YOUR CARD!
> cliche! Loveit!
>
> I can accommodate your 'terms' all pretty well except f. If the answers
> are to ANY
> of the 3 dummy questions - then I will have to try a FIRST QUESTION
> FIRST protocol,
> THEN I will quit.

You mean if you can't get the question right when it's always the first 
question, you'll quit?

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote 
> On 1/10/2010 1:34 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>> On 1/10/2010 3:46 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> "Andy W" <vorath@mailinator.com> wrote ...
>>>>> On 30 Sep, 07:36, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>You tell me 3 options, I tell you what option you were thinking of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> Then when you get it wrong you demand that I prove what I was
>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>> >> of. Sorry, no cigar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >Huh? That is just speculation and you just score me wrong anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On what basis could I score you wrong unless I know what the correct
>>>>>> answer is?
>>>>>
>>>>> Herc is no longer claiming to be able to actually answer the question,
>>>>> just that he can guess which one you first thought of from a huge
>>>>> selection of three randomised choices. So if he picks your first
>>>>> question out of three, that is the right answer. It doesn't matter
>>>>> that he hasn't actually answered the question itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, the problem is still his caveat that the power only works
>>>>> properly if the asker was "genuinely interested" in knowing the answer
>>>>> to the question, because it means he can dismiss all the fail results
>>>>> as invalid due to no genuine interest,while keeping all the hits (no
>>>>> doubt even if they were also not of genuine interest). Of course he'll
>>>>> never drop that get-out clause because then he'd have to face a proper
>>>>> test of his powers which he'll inevitably fail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I am wondering if a good mentalist magician could achieve the
>>>>> same effect by simply examining the questions? That would basically
>>>>> render the whole test worthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Utter fricking bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> To count as a valid result I have to dismiss the obviously poorly worded
>>>> questions
>>>> beforehand.
>>>
>>> Are you now willing to say that you will
>>>
>>> a) Perform the test on Usenet, so that all trials are visible,
>>>
>>> b) not attempt to respond to a trial before an MD5 hash for the
>>> proposed correct answer has been posted,
>>>
>>> c) either accept or reject a trial before posting your reponse,
>>>
>>> d) include ALL results for accepted trials, provided only that the
>>> posted MD5 matches one of the 3 questions (with due allowance for the
>>> secret key that prevents you from doing a search), with NO OTHER
>>> EXCEPTIONS,
>>>
>>> e) not even consider arguing that such a result should not be included
>>> on some basis,
>>>
>>> f) promise that if you fail to achieve an aggreed success rate over
>>> some agreed number of trials, you will once and for all abandon your
>>> attempts to get people to test you for this or any other paranormal
>>> power,
>>>
>>> g) cease to accuse anyone, skeptic or otherwise, of dishonesty,
>>> criminality or any like conduct, in their attitude towards testing
>>> you, and
>>>
>>> h) not attempt to avoid the requirements above on any basis whatsoever?
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> why? to get you to ask a question? You have given me TOS and no service.
> 
> Getting input data that will produce results that will be believed seems 
> to be the problem you're having. I'm willing to provide that input data, 
> but only on the above terms.


No, skeptics won't cooperate is no longer a problem.  I'll just preach to the converted instead!

You've backflipped 3 times and so has Peter with his "we'll consider a test
if you yadayada" then he refuses to discuss any protocol and dismisses it
with some general denial he's heard off you.

Your questions would be a good run for my dark matter book is all.


> 
>>
>> When I'm back home I'll put a couple $$$ per week into google adwords,
>> psychic
>> traffic is only 1c a click and open minded people are not dickheads
>> trying to thwart
>> an experiment like all of you.
>>
>> If I can turn away questions, then using my online form at
>> www.MINDREADING.com
>> is sufficient to accept questions as nobody can follow simple
>> instructions on usenet.
>>
>> I'll post the good questions in <<MIND READING>> RESULTS OCTOBER and I
>> have added an MD5 field.
>>
>> Check that October thread, the data is very systematic.
>>
>> Check out the new page 2 of the site (just type in 1 field on page 1 and
>> you can click through the 4 pages of forms). It's has the famous DO NOT
>> TELL ME YOUR CARD!
>> cliche! Loveit!
>>
>> I can accommodate your 'terms' all pretty well except f. If the answers
>> are to ANY
>> of the 3 dummy questions - then I will have to try a FIRST QUESTION
>> FIRST protocol,
>> THEN I will quit.
> 
> You mean if you can't get the question right when it's always the first 
> question, you'll quit?


huh?  Sylvia Sylvia, if you want to test my power you must assume the hypothesis
that 1 billion religious people are right momentarily and like Mulder said to Scully
GO WITH IT SYLVIA!

www.MindReading.com

1 Q per day - put (Cosmology) next to your name so God doesn't use the bible instead,
and page numbers are 1..333, line 1..33.

Herc



Before posting this I checked if it was all good with a channel.

<<members of the selection committee of Epik for choosing me to receive this very special award of recognition.>>

Seems to be a comment on the subjective judge test.

ITS SOOOOO EASY TO TEST IF YOU USE BRAINS!


Herc 

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote 
> 
> What is the "FIRST QUESTION FIRST" protocol?
> 
> Sylvia.


The web forms at MR.com are a compromise solution.  They separate the first
question, page number and line number FROM the third page where
3 questions are simultaneously submitted, BUT the 3 questions are submitted
almost immediately afterwards.

Failing that, my next protocol would be more tedious and I would send the 
answer to the first (unknown by me) question before the 3 options are worked out.

Then there is no way God could mix up the questions and answer the wrong one!

You can either try MR.com and see if the protocol works, knowing I have a copout
if it doesn't.   Or you can do a single final test where I answer you before you
send the 3 options, over usenet.

There is a problem with people knowing my answer and then selecting the dummy
questions to BETTER FIT than their original question, but since your 5 cosmology
Qs are preset it won't be an issue.  If you use a random number to select the
two dummy questions, (after hearing my channeled answer) then that would
be a valid test assuming you don't cheat.

Herc

 

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
> On 1/10/2010 6:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 1/10/2010 5:43 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>>
>>>> What is the "FIRST QUESTION FIRST" protocol?
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>>> The web forms at MR.com are a compromise solution. They separate the
>>> first
>>> question, page number and line number FROM the third page where
>>> 3 questions are simultaneously submitted, BUT the 3 questions are
>>> submitted
>>> almost immediately afterwards.
>>>
>>> Failing that, my next protocol would be more tedious and I would send
>>> the answer to the first (unknown by me) question before the 3 options
>>> are worked out.
>>>
>>> Then there is no way God could mix up the questions and answer the wrong
>>> one!
>>
>> Glad you think so, but it seems to me that you're arguing that God can
>> get confused about the order of questions if they're all posted at once,
>> but there's no danger that God would get confused if it happens that the
>> questioner has *thought* of all the questions in advance. Given that
>> this is allegedly a mind-reading power, whether on your part or on
>> God's, that seems a rather rash position to take. However, I have a
>> solution. See below.
>>
>>>
>>> You can either try MR.com and see if the protocol works, knowing I have
>>> a copout
>>> if it doesn't. Or you can do a single final test where I answer you
>>> before you
>>> send the 3 options, over usenet.
>>>
>>> There is a problem with people knowing my answer and then selecting the
>>> dummy
>>> questions to BETTER FIT than their original question, but since your 5
>>> cosmology
>>> Qs are preset it won't be an issue. If you use a random number to select
>>> the
>>> two dummy questions, (after hearing my channeled answer) then that would
>>> be a valid test assuming you don't cheat.
>>
>> Let me try to get this clear, which a couple of modifications of my own.
>>
>> a) Before each trial, you will post a 10 decimal digit string. It is in
>> your interest that it be random, but that is not a requirement.
>>
>> b) Either before or after (a) I will choose one of the 5 cosmology
>> questions. After (a) I will post an MD5 of a 30 decimal digit string, of
>> which the first digit is the question number, the next 19 digits are of
>> my choosing, and the last 10 digits are the ones you posted. The reason
>> for including the last 10 is explained below.
>>
>> c) You will channel an answer for the numbered question, and tell me
>> that you have done so. You will not tell me what the answer is (you
>> implied otherwise, but I can't see a need for you to tell me, and it
>> eliminates one form of cheating on my part).
>>
>> d) At some time before I need them, including possibly before I choose
>> the question for which I post the MD5, I'll choose 2 other cosmology
>> questions out of the 5. I will now present the numbers of all three
>> shuffled. Since I won't know what your channelled answer is, I cannot
>> cheat by choosing better matching questions. There's also no need for
>> them to be chosen randomly, though I would be inclined to anyway.
>>
>> e) You'll tell me which of the 5 I posted the MD5 for.
>>
>> Since I've previously asked the 5 questions, and you've channelled
>> answers to them, you're obviously not objecting to their reuse.
>> Presumably we can therefore reuse them multiple times to perform a
>> sequence of trials.
>>
>> IMPORTANTLY, it is assumed that God can read from my mind the specific
>> question for which I've chosen to post the MD5. That posting is a
>> discrete act on my part. There is one question, and I'm posting the MD5
>> for it. There can be no question of God's getting confused.
>>
>> Consequently the answer at the end is either right or wrong, and it's
>> impossible for me to cheat by any kind of mental deception.
>>
>> The only way I could cheat would be by being able to choose random keys
>> such as to create collisions between MD5s despite the restriction on the
>> source text. It is accepted by you that this is not something I am
>> likely to be able to do, and certainly not within the available time.
>> Note in particular that your 10 decimal digit string prevents me from
>> launching a birthday-party attack on the MD5 algorithm.
>>
>> A failure on your part to achieve more than chance over a suitably long
>> sequence of trials would be EVIDENCE that neither you, nor God, can read
>> my mind in the required way. There would be NO NULL RESULT.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
> Sadly, I've subsequently realised that there is a way for me to cheat.
> 
> Let's see whether Herc can figure it out.
> 
> This would be a whole lot easier to test of God weren't so totally feeble.
> 
> Sylvia.


God's been saying for 10 years "HEY I CAN TALK" and 10,000 skeptics scoffed
and never bothered to listen.  Who's feeble?

Your MD5 idea is no good.  If you limit a private key to 15 numbers you can't
birthday attack a collision.  Just look at page 2 on mindreading.com, you're 
reinventing the wheel with balsa wood.  What would an initial number 5 imply
to systematically quantum entangle your question with the answer?  You may
as well put on 5 ear rings and jump up and down 5 times.


Herc

 

On 1/10/2010 8:38 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>> On 1/10/2010 6:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 1/10/2010 5:43 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the "FIRST QUESTION FIRST" protocol?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The web forms at MR.com are a compromise solution. They separate the
>>>> first
>>>> question, page number and line number FROM the third page where
>>>> 3 questions are simultaneously submitted, BUT the 3 questions are
>>>> submitted
>>>> almost immediately afterwards.
>>>>
>>>> Failing that, my next protocol would be more tedious and I would send
>>>> the answer to the first (unknown by me) question before the 3 options
>>>> are worked out.
>>>>
>>>> Then there is no way God could mix up the questions and answer the
>>>> wrong
>>>> one!
>>>
>>> Glad you think so, but it seems to me that you're arguing that God can
>>> get confused about the order of questions if they're all posted at once,
>>> but there's no danger that God would get confused if it happens that the
>>> questioner has *thought* of all the questions in advance. Given that
>>> this is allegedly a mind-reading power, whether on your part or on
>>> God's, that seems a rather rash position to take. However, I have a
>>> solution. See below.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can either try MR.com and see if the protocol works, knowing I have
>>>> a copout
>>>> if it doesn't. Or you can do a single final test where I answer you
>>>> before you
>>>> send the 3 options, over usenet.
>>>>
>>>> There is a problem with people knowing my answer and then selecting the
>>>> dummy
>>>> questions to BETTER FIT than their original question, but since your 5
>>>> cosmology
>>>> Qs are preset it won't be an issue. If you use a random number to
>>>> select
>>>> the
>>>> two dummy questions, (after hearing my channeled answer) then that
>>>> would
>>>> be a valid test assuming you don't cheat.
>>>
>>> Let me try to get this clear, which a couple of modifications of my own.
>>>
>>> a) Before each trial, you will post a 10 decimal digit string. It is in
>>> your interest that it be random, but that is not a requirement.
>>>
>>> b) Either before or after (a) I will choose one of the 5 cosmology
>>> questions. After (a) I will post an MD5 of a 30 decimal digit string, of
>>> which the first digit is the question number, the next 19 digits are of
>>> my choosing, and the last 10 digits are the ones you posted. The reason
>>> for including the last 10 is explained below.
>>>
>>> c) You will channel an answer for the numbered question, and tell me
>>> that you have done so. You will not tell me what the answer is (you
>>> implied otherwise, but I can't see a need for you to tell me, and it
>>> eliminates one form of cheating on my part).
>>>
>>> d) At some time before I need them, including possibly before I choose
>>> the question for which I post the MD5, I'll choose 2 other cosmology
>>> questions out of the 5. I will now present the numbers of all three
>>> shuffled. Since I won't know what your channelled answer is, I cannot
>>> cheat by choosing better matching questions. There's also no need for
>>> them to be chosen randomly, though I would be inclined to anyway.
>>>
>>> e) You'll tell me which of the 5 I posted the MD5 for.
>>>
>>> Since I've previously asked the 5 questions, and you've channelled
>>> answers to them, you're obviously not objecting to their reuse.
>>> Presumably we can therefore reuse them multiple times to perform a
>>> sequence of trials.
>>>
>>> IMPORTANTLY, it is assumed that God can read from my mind the specific
>>> question for which I've chosen to post the MD5. That posting is a
>>> discrete act on my part. There is one question, and I'm posting the MD5
>>> for it. There can be no question of God's getting confused.
>>>
>>> Consequently the answer at the end is either right or wrong, and it's
>>> impossible for me to cheat by any kind of mental deception.
>>>
>>> The only way I could cheat would be by being able to choose random keys
>>> such as to create collisions between MD5s despite the restriction on the
>>> source text. It is accepted by you that this is not something I am
>>> likely to be able to do, and certainly not within the available time.
>>> Note in particular that your 10 decimal digit string prevents me from
>>> launching a birthday-party attack on the MD5 algorithm.
>>>
>>> A failure on your part to achieve more than chance over a suitably long
>>> sequence of trials would be EVIDENCE that neither you, nor God, can read
>>> my mind in the required way. There would be NO NULL RESULT.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>>
>> Sadly, I've subsequently realised that there is a way for me to cheat.
>>
>> Let's see whether Herc can figure it out.
>>
>> This would be a whole lot easier to test of God weren't so totally
>> feeble.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> God's been saying for 10 years "HEY I CAN TALK" and 10,000 skeptics scoffed
> and never bothered to listen. Who's feeble?

It's just that He seems remarkably easy to hoodwink, or just plain 
confuse, in these tests - at least, according to you.

>
> Your MD5 idea is no good. If you limit a private key to 15 numbers you
> can't
> birthday attack a collision.

I'm happy with any number of digits that are long enough to prevent you 
from doing an exaustive search, and which you are happy cannot be 
birthday party attacked.

  Just look at page 2 on mindreading.com,
> you're reinventing the wheel with balsa wood. What would an initial
> number 5 imply

Since we're using just 5 possible questions, and they can be listed in 
some order in advance, each can be identified by a number, between 1 and 
5. I cannot for the life of me see why it would be necessary to copy and 
paste the text of the question for the purpose of this test, unless God 
can't count to 5, or has a really bad memory for lists. An initial 
number of 5 would indicate that the question chosen is the fifth in the 
list. If you want the text copied and pasted, then OK. It just seems 
like a waste of effort.

I take it you haven't figured out how I could cheat using the above 
protocol.

OK, I'll leave that for you to think about some more, but consider that 
for many years you claim to have been channelling answers to questions 
that you are interested in getting the answer to. You consider that the 
answers are definite, even if no one else does.

Consider also that you clearly really really want to be able to get one 
of these protocols working, so as to prove your point.

So if *you* asked the question "Is Sylvia cheating in the current round 
of the test", you could certainly be considered to be interested in the 
answer. If you then channelled an answer, you should be able to 
determine whether or not I am cheating, either absolutely, with one 
channel, or with sufficient probability with a number of channels. In 
any trial, before you gave your answer, you could decide to reject that 
trial on the grounds that I was cheating in it. It would then not count, 
and we'd move on to the next trial.

So in all the accepted trials, we'd have definite hit-miss result, and 
you'd have a channelled answer indicating that I hadn't cheated.

So if you failed the test overall, it would either be because you didn't 
have a better than average chance of determining which question I chose, 
or because your channelling to determine whether I was cheating didn't 
work. The latter would obviously bring the whole chanelling concept into 
question.

To avoid the situation where you claim I'm cheating consistently when 
you see that things aren't going your way, but before the result is a 
statistically significant fail, you wouldn't get any feedback on your 
hit-miss rate until the end of the test.

Sylvia.

On Oct 1, 3:38 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote ...
>
>
>
> > On 1/10/2010 6:48 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 1/10/2010 5:43 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> >>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote
>
> >>>> What is the "FIRST QUESTION FIRST" protocol?
>
> >>>> Sylvia.
>
> >>> The web forms at MR.com are a compromise solution. They separate the
> >>> first
> >>> question, page number and line number FROM the third page where
> >>> 3 questions are simultaneously submitted, BUT the 3 questions are
> >>> submitted
> >>> almost immediately afterwards.
>
> >>> Failing that, my next protocol would be more tedious and I would send
> >>> the answer to the first (unknown by me) question before the 3 options
> >>> are worked out.
>
> >>> Then there is no way God could mix up the questions and answer the wrong
> >>> one!
>
> >> Glad you think so, but it seems to me that you're arguing that God can
> >> get confused about the order of questions if they're all posted at once,
> >> but there's no danger that God would get confused if it happens that the
> >> questioner has *thought* of all the questions in advance. Given that
> >> this is allegedly a mind-reading power, whether on your part or on
> >> God's, that seems a rather rash position to take. However, I have a
> >> solution. See below.
>
> >>> You can either try MR.com and see if the protocol works, knowing I have
> >>> a copout
> >>> if it doesn't. Or you can do a single final test where I answer you
> >>> before you
> >>> send the 3 options, over usenet.
>
> >>> There is a problem with people knowing my answer and then selecting the
> >>> dummy
> >>> questions to BETTER FIT than their original question, but since your 5
> >>> cosmology
> >>> Qs are preset it won't be an issue. If you use a random number to select
> >>> the
> >>> two dummy questions, (after hearing my channeled answer) then that would
> >>> be a valid test assuming you don't cheat.
>
> >> Let me try to get this clear, which a couple of modifications of my own.
>
> >> a) Before each trial, you will post a 10 decimal digit string. It is in
> >> your interest that it be random, but that is not a requirement.
>
> >> b) Either before or after (a) I will choose one of the 5 cosmology
> >> questions. After (a) I will post an MD5 of a 30 decimal digit string, of
> >> which the first digit is the question number, the next 19 digits are of
> >> my choosing, and the last 10 digits are the ones you posted. The reason
> >> for including the last 10 is explained below.
>
> >> c) You will channel an answer for the numbered question, and tell me
> >> that you have done so. You will not tell me what the answer is (you
> >> implied otherwise, but I can't see a need for you to tell me, and it
> >> eliminates one form of cheating on my part).
>
> >> d) At some time before I need them, including possibly before I choose
> >> the question for which I post the MD5, I'll choose 2 other cosmology
> >> questions out of the 5. I will now present the numbers of all three
> >> shuffled. Since I won't know what your channelled answer is, I cannot
> >> cheat by choosing better matching questions. There's also no need for
> >> them to be chosen randomly, though I would be inclined to anyway.
>
> >> e) You'll tell me which of the 5 I posted the MD5 for.
>
> >> Since I've previously asked the 5 questions, and you've channelled
> >> answers to them, you're obviously not objecting to their reuse.
> >> Presumably we can therefore reuse them multiple times to perform a
> >> sequence of trials.
>
> >> IMPORTANTLY, it is assumed that God can read from my mind the specific
> >> question for which I've chosen to post the MD5. That posting is a
> >> discrete act on my part. There is one question, and I'm posting the MD5
> >> for it. There can be no question of God's getting confused.
>
> >> Consequently the answer at the end is either right or wrong, and it's
> >> impossible for me to cheat by any kind of mental deception.
>
> >> The only way I could cheat would be by being able to choose random keys
> >> such as to create collisions between MD5s despite the restriction on the
> >> source text. It is accepted by you that this is not something I am
> >> likely to be able to do, and certainly not within the available time.
> >> Note in particular that your 10 decimal digit string prevents me from
> >> launching a birthday-party attack on the MD5 algorithm.
>
> >> A failure on your part to achieve more than chance over a suitably long
> >> sequence of trials would be EVIDENCE that neither you, nor God, can read
> >> my mind in the required way. There would be NO NULL RESULT.
>
> >> Sylvia.
>
> > Sadly, I've subsequently realised that there is a way for me to cheat.
>
> > Let's see whether Herc can figure it out.
>
> > This would be a whole lot easier to test of God weren't so totally feeble.
>
> > Sylvia.
>
> God's been saying for 10 years "HEY I CAN TALK" and 10,000 skeptics scoffed
> and never bothered to listen.  Who's feeble?

You are, spammer.

"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> On Oct 1, 3:39 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
>> This would be a whole lot easier to test of God weren't so totally feeble.
> 
> LOL.  Really (I don't say ROTFL if I'm just snickering, or LOL if I'm
> really LQTM), this was one of the funniest bits I've seen in a while.
> Sylvia, I'm amazed at your stamina, and amused at your humor.  Of
> course, you're also being sacrilegious, and you know the penalty for
> *that*, right?
> 
> Herc, I keep trying to give you questions that fit your criteria, and
> you keep failing to respond to them.  What gives?


Did you post them on www.MindReading.com ?


Herc 

"BruceS" <bruces42@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> On Oct 2, 12:34 am, "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "BruceS" <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>>
>> > On Oct 1, 3:39 am, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.here.invalid> wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >> This would be a whole lot easier to test of God weren't so totally feeble.
>>
>> > LOL.  Really (I don't say ROTFL if I'm just snickering, or LOL if I'm
>> > really LQTM), this was one of the funniest bits I've seen in a while.
>> > Sylvia, I'm amazed at your stamina, and amused at your humor.  Of
>> > course, you're also being sacrilegious, and you know the penalty for
>> > *that*, right?
>>
>> > Herc, I keep trying to give you questions that fit your criteria, and
>> > you keep failing to respond to them.  What gives?
>>
>> Did you post them onwww.MindReading.com?
> 
> No, I posted them in this very forum (rec.org.mensa) in one of your
> threads.  Do posts in response to your posts no longer count as
> responses?
>

I don't read r.o.m.

I just crosspost to other groups from aus.tv.

Any reason you can't follow the instructions on www.MindReading.com ?


Herc 

On 4/10/2010 9:22 PM, The Raven wrote:
> Sylvia, and everyone else reading this thread, please cut out the irrelevant
> crossposted drivel to other groups.
>
>

Which are the other groups?

Talk to Herc. He's the one who puts the groups in the first place.

Sylvia.

Sylvia, and everyone else reading this thread, please cut out the irrelevant 
crossposted drivel to other groups. 

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message 
news:8gtld6F2imU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 4/10/2010 9:22 PM, The Raven wrote:
>> Sylvia, and everyone else reading this thread, please cut out the 
>> irrelevant
>> crossposted drivel to other groups.
>
> Which are the other groups?
>
> Talk to Herc. He's the one who puts the groups in the first place.

aus.tv is the essential one, since Herc doesn't actually read any of the 
others (see above).  I don't know what aus.tv think of it all.  The single 
most appropriate other group is alt.paranormal, though it's not well used.
(I left all the groups in for this one so anyone following the thread would 
know the score).

-- 
A. B.
My e-mail address is zen177395 at  zendotcodotuk.
I don't check that account very often, so tell me on the newsgroup if you've 
sent me an e-mail. 

A B wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.here.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8gtld6F2imU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 4/10/2010 9:22 PM, The Raven wrote:
>>> Sylvia, and everyone else reading this thread, please cut out the
>>> irrelevant
>>> crossposted drivel to other groups.
>>
>> Which are the other groups?
>>
>> Talk to Herc. He's the one who puts the groups in the first place.
>
> aus.tv is the essential one, since Herc doesn't actually read any of
> the others (see above).  I don't know what aus.tv think of it all. The 
> single most appropriate other group is alt.paranormal, though
> it's not well used. (I left all the groups in for this one so anyone
> following the thread would know the score).

He responds to me and I cut everything but AA.