Brad
Posts:
33
Registered:
4/21/10
|
|
Re: SKEPTICS SHOULD HAVE LABOTAMIES NOT LABORATORIES !!!
Posted:
Apr 12, 2011 5:40 PM
|
|
On Apr 13, 3:35 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 16:17:51 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
> <grahamcoop...@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/5c24116273...
>
> >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
I can confidently predict the following:
SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN SOMETIME SOON.
There. Now prove me wrong.
|
|
