|
|
Re: SKEPTICS SHOULD HAVE LABOTAMIES NOT LABORATORIES !!!
Posted:
Apr 13, 2011 1:44 PM
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:08:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 13, 7:40 am, Brad <goog...@vk2qq.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
>
>How many posts in sci.skeptic and/or alt.nostradamus.prophesies are
>there stating a catastrophe is imminent and a day is given, less than
>2 weeks before a 0.1 megadeath catastrophe?
Who has the time to count? Charlatans abound.
>Now you are saying because I didn't warn which people to move to
>higher ground it's not valid??
No, Graham, I'm saying that a "prediction" of a catastrophe
which doesn't include nature, place or time is meaningless.
Note Brad's example; is that a valid prediction? It's
certainly as valid as yours. In fact, it's almost a clone of
yours.
>You're a lying cheating obfuscating reneging deceitful slandering
>blasphemous copout Bob, like all skeptics!
Thanks. Your inability to make any sort of meaningful
prediction is noted again.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
|
