On Apr 3, 8:04 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 4, 11:52 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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! > > That should be easy, you insisted on 1 (ONE) guess instead of the > original 3 or 4 guesses about 200 times! > > > > > > > > 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. > > What? You admitted your protocol constraints were arbitrary by > CHANGING YOUR TEST and within 24 hours call ME the fraud? > > When you clear up your accusations maybe we can agree to a trial run. > > Don't worry if I score 1000:1 on my 1000th test I'm sure somebody will > offer to see if it's repeatable or not. > > That is the f&cking idea!
I just replied to one of your rants to adjust *yet again* to fit your lunatic requirements, but I bet you'll still fail to do the test. No matter how many changes are made to meet your "special needs", you always seem to find another excuse to fail.