|
|
Re: SKEPTICS SHOULD HAVE LABOTAMIES NOT LABORATORIES !!!
Posted:
Apr 13, 2011 1:40 PM
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:40:13 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad <google1@vk2qq.com>:
>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.
>I can confidently predict the following:
>
>SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN SOMETIME SOON.
I stand in awe... ;-)
>There. Now prove me wrong.
Obviously I can't, which means that you are indeed psychic.
Al least, by GrahamLogic.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
|
