|
|
Re: SKEPTICS SHOULD HAVE LABOTAMIES NOT LABORATORIES !!!
Posted:
Apr 12, 2011 1:35 PM
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:17:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 12, 7:58 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:10:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
>> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>:
>> >On Apr 11, 5:41 pm, Government Shill #2 <gov.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 23:46:10 -0700 (PDT), Graham Cooper
>> >> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> >> >DEC 14 - HERC "predict a catastrophe" "DARK DAY MONDAY"
>>
>> >> >DEC 26 - 100,000 DEAD mid Sunday
>>
>> >> Nope. Sorry. Don't see any statements made about the future in any of that
>> >> bullshit.
>>
>> >> Maybe I'm not crazy enough?
>>
>> >just plain stupdity!
>>
>> But not stupid enough to buy this BS.
>>
>> >"actually it was DARKFALZ, DAVID, MONTY, DAVID dark day mon day
>> >just after I got the message 'you can predict catastrophe'"
>>
>> >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
>>
>> >Any school kid can see it's a valid prediction and a hit.
>>
>> Let's see...
>>
>> No mention of the nature of the catastrophe.
[Crickets...]
>> No mention of the time of the catastrophe.
>a coming monday
Wow, what a precise time! "A coming Monday"! That's
certainly so well-defined that everyone will know what you
mean and be able to take precautions! Not.
>> No mention of the location of the catastrophe.
[Crickets...]
>> No mention of *which* Monday.
[Crickets...]
>> Yeah, that's certainly a valid prediction, all right. Not.
>>
>> Did you only have to take "Stupid 101" to post this kind of
>> crap, or was "Advanced Stupid" required?
Did you? I'd really like to know...
>OK what about when I made an encrypted prediction
>
>http://tinyurl.com/bowditch-prediction
>
>goes to >>
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/aus.tv/browse_thread/thread/5c24116273ec9b4/08008c61c86c96e5?lnk=gst&q=prediction+peter+bowditch#08008c61c86c96e5
>
>
>Prediction for early 2011
>|-|ercules radgray...@yahoo.com aus tv sci skeptic alt prophecies
>nostradamus
>Peter Bowditch" <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote with your kookiness.
>Here is an
>image segment of the prediction. http://hercshome.com/petersays/prediction-
>bowditch.jpg True so far! Herc.
>Nov 30 2010 by |-|ercules - 7 messages - 3 authors
>
>
>and posted the MD5 of the image file back in October 2010
>and stated it would happen early 2011.
>
>
>The sneak peak of the prediction image was here:
>
>http://hercshome.com/petersays/prediction-bowditch.jpg
>
>The secret prediction image is here:
>
>http://hercshome.com/readnewz-com/prediction1HIDE.png
>
>which should match the first MD5 given in October 2010
>
>
>OK, so before I post how Peter 'erred then hangs on' early 2011,
>are we clear on the time frame and person and the nature of the
>prediction?
No. Your "time frame" is ridiculous, and the "nature of the
prediction" is so vague as to be meaningless. You could as
well post a "prediction" that I won't buy your claims
without evidence and then claim that your "prediction" was
accurate.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
|
