On Apr 3, 12:32 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 3, 4:23 pm, Greendistantstar <Greendistants...@iinet.net.au> > wrote: > > > On 3/04/2011 2:17 PM, Peter Bowditch wrote: > > > > Graham Cooper<grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Correctly guessing at 25:1 isn't paranormal. It's lucky. > > >> - Peter Bow-Ditch Australian Skeptics President renegs on their > > >> $100,000 prize > > > > As you have never applied for the prize and I would have nothing to do > > > with it if you did, I can hardly renege on anything. > > > > When are you going to apply, following the rules of the competition? > > I've sent 10 written applications over 10 years and none were replied > to. > > That's why I'm asking you, the guy who told me to apply for the > $100,000 prize in December 2001. > > > > > We know how it will go though, don't we? > > > He applies, fails miserably, then whines about the previously-agreed-to protocols and claims that > > the skeptics poisoned his powers, the laws of physics hate him etc etc etc. > > > GDS > > > "Let's roll!" > > That's a little presumptous. > > I'm the only psychic on Earth who offers to answers questions BLIND, > before I'm told the question, and I have 1000 askers names and cities > on file with their questions and my blind answers.
You have yet to provide *any* answer to these questions. All you'll do is quote from a book, call it a "channel" of the answer, and refuse to interpret that channel. If nobody (including you) can convert the channel to an actual answer, it has no value. It can be interpreted to have a correlation to the question, but so what? It doesn't answer the question, in any sense.