On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:17:51 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper <email@example.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:
>> >> >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.
>> 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.
>> No mention of *which* Monday.
>> 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?
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. --
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless