|
|
Re: SKEPTICS SHOULD HAVE LABOTAMIES NOT LABORATORIES !!!
Posted:
Apr 12, 2011 1:27 PM
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:44:56 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 12, 7:40 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 13:08:23 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by george <gbl...@hnpl.net>:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 11, 6:14 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 13:51:16 -0700, the following appeared
>> >> in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>>
>> >> >On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 21:35:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> >appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> >> ><grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> >> >>On Apr 9, 2:19 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> > On Apr 9, 8:24 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> > > Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
>> >> >>> > > involve the deity (or possibly weather ....
>>
>> >> >>> Why do I get the feeling that went straight over his head?
>>
>> >> >>[BOB]
>> >> >>> There are enough
>> >> >>> available catastrophes that you should be able to post one
>> >> >>> next week for the following week.
>>
>> >> >>[BOB] *
>> >> >>> Need I (ahem!) predict that the response will at some point
>> >> >>> involve the daily weather ....
>>
>> >> >Nope: "deity". As in (your repeated statement) "GOD (or
>> >> >GOES) DOESN'T PLAY DICE!". Whatever relevance that has...
>>
>> >> >>[HERC]
>> >> >>How about a daily weather forecast while we're at it?
>>
>> >> >Already answered; still waiting for *any* verifiable
>> >> >prediction...
>>
>> >> ><snip irrelevantia>
>>
>> >> Still waiting...
>>
>> >In that case you have a lifelong wait...
>>
>> Yeah, but that fact (his inability to predict anything)
>> needs to be reiterated occasionally.
>>
>> >The only thing out of that quarter is lies, damned lies and
>> >unsubstantiated statistics ...
>>
>> I'd go with "delusions" rather than lies; it's yet to be
>> demonstrated that he has the faintest idea what the truth
>> actually is.
>
>
>Nope! You guys are reverse engineering your denial (conclustions)
>based on your ASSUMPTION that predicting catastrophes is impossible.
>
>It's very clear.
>
>14 DEC 2004 in same thread
>"actually it was DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day
>just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'"
>
>THIS IS WHERE I CLARIFY THAT IT WAS A PREDICTION OF CATASTROPHE
>BECAUSE I POSTED "DARK DAY MONDAY" ON A SUNDAY IN SCI.SKEPTIC
>AND NOTHING HIT *THAT* MONDAY - THE NEXT DAY.
No location.
No date.
No time.
Equals... *No* prediction.
>GROUPS: aus.tv SCI.SKEPTIC
>SUBJECT: DARK DAY MONDAY
>DATE: 12 DECEMBER 2004
>TOPIC: Ouija Board message
>FOLLOW UP POST 14 DEC - *I* can predict catastrophe
>
>
>2 WEEKS LATER
>BOXING DAY TSUNAMI HIT ON SUNDAY
Yeah; so? You certainly didn't predict it.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
|
