On Apr 3, 5:45 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 4, 5:54 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 3, 10:53 am, "A B" <a...@a.uk> wrote: > > > > "Graham Cooper" <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote on 3rd April: > > > > > [PETER BOW-DITCH] > > > > AUSTRALIAN SKEPTICS INC. FORMER PREZIDENT > > > > "I know you can't do it, but please try to understand this. > > > > I have never flipped back and forth on this. You have yet to suggest > > > > any test which can detect any form of paranormal ability. > > > > If you admit that > > > > you are guessing it is not paranormal. If you provide the list of > > > > words from which the guesses are derived it is not paranormal. If you > > > > require someone else to give you line and page numbers out of some > > > > unspecified book to help you guess the answers it is not paranormal. > > > > If you want to keep guessing until you get something almost right it > > > > is not paranormal." > > > > Shouldn't get involved really, but... if this is really what Peter Bowditch > > > said, only the last one stands up. I can't see how the others have any > > > bearing on the question. > > > > If someone can CONSISTENTLY tell you something that they couldn't have known > > > by any normal means, at least more often than they could by chance, then > > > it's paranormal - however eccentric their methods. > > > > (I'm being hypothetical. Herc's never so far done that for me personally. > > > There have been odd incidents, but they've all been one-offs separated by > > > many fluffs.) > > > I think you and I are on the same page. If he could consistently > > guess correctly at levels significantly above random chance, *that* > > would mean something. In an early test with me, he *did* perform > > better than chance, but that was a one-off. Unfortunately, every time > > he's given a chance to demonstrate consistent ability, he finds one > > excuse or another to either bail out when it doesn't go his way, or > > refuse to even start. See other threads where I've offered to do > > tests for him to demonstrate guessing ability, and he's refused. I've > > repeatedly modified my test protocols to suit his objections, but he > > continues to refuse. It no longer looks like he's merely deluded, it > > now appears that he has no belief in special abilities himself. He > > presents himself as a complete fraud, incapable of doing anything to > > demonstrate his claims > > You bullshit every post BS! > > You flat out refused to duplicate the test where I scored 7/11 and > the expected was 4/11.
I welcome anyone to check the archives and see the truth on *that* one!
> Every time I come up with a test you make 3 or 4 changes to > increase the difficulty by a factor of 10X at every point, then > complain > non stop 50 times running now that that somehow stops "RANDOMNESS".
You want tests that emphasize random effects. I want tests that minimize it. Which one sounds more like a genuine search for extraordinary talents, and which one sounds like a fraud hoping for a lucky streak.
> You flat out refuse to allow the 2 basic tenets of the ZENNER TEST. > > 1/ 5:1 odds per trial > 2/ Show the card after each guess.
Funny that you should say that, right after I proposed just such a test, in the "Question for Sylvia" thread and you snipped it out. You're a fraud, and everyone can see it.
> Yes I know you have your (silly) reason, no need to further explain > them. > > The only difference between scoring at the end is you can claim > > SCORE AT END: Herc had normal guesses with 99.999999% confidence > level. > > SCORE AS YOU GO: Herc bailed after 99% confidence level the reponses > were normal. > > So fricking what, I need to isolate blind channels so they don't cross > over, by scoring as we go to complete the channel.
Sorry excuses from a fraud, who only wants to keep trying quick tests again and again until he hits a few chance successes in a row.
> Got it yet you constantly lying cheating defaming moron? > > If you want to explain the protocol to everyone Bruce, explain your > objections to these two points of the most common mindreading test > there is! > > 1/ 5:1 odds per trial > 2/ Show the card after each guess.
I already offered a test with just those features, despite my objection to number 2, and you just snipped and ran. Typical.
> NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR BRUCE! > > PSYCHIC MIGHT BAIL! AND TOO MUCH RANDOMNESS!
So agree to the test I proposed, if you have *any* belief in your magic powers. If you don't, you're just making it that much clearer to everyone who reads these posts that you don't even believe in yourself anymore. You've descended from delusional to dishonest. I'm disappointed. Others here are just shaking their heads wondering why I ever thought you believed any of your own lies.