On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:19:17 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by BruceS <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>On Apr 14, 12:18 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:31:03 -0700 (PDT), the following >> appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper >> <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>: >> >> >You're an idiot! >> >> >There's only 5 or 6 major catastrophes in the last decade. >> >> Define "major". >> >> >The Tsunami caused 100,000 deaths. >> >> >Exacty 2 weeks before I post a prediction of a catastrophe. >> >> >I gave the DARK DAY MONDAY which was spot on regarding the day of >> >morning. >> >> >TYPE = CHECK >> >> No type (flood [tsumani or otherwise], earthquake, fire, >> massive bolide impact, etc) given. "Dark Day Monday" means >> nothing. >> >> >TIME FRAME = CHECK >> >> No time frame given. >> >> >DAY OF WEEK = CHECK >> >> The tsumani happened on Sunday,not Monday, IIRC. But no week >> given. No location given. No time given. No mention of >> nature of catastrophe. >> >> >JUST BEFORE MAJOR CATASTROPHE = CHECK >> >> Still no prediction.. >> >> >That's just ONE of the 4 MAJOR catastrophes of the last decade where I >> >predicted them >> >> If all those "predictions" were of equal value your >> "predictions" are worthless, and so vague as to be >> meaningless. Like this one: >> >> >SPACE SHUTTLE EXPLOSION = CHECK >> >(EXACTLY ONE YEAR AFTER MEGA POST ABOUT "PREMONITION") >> >> ...and this one: >> >> >BOXING DAY TSUNAMI = CHECK >> >(CATASTROPHE ON THE COMING MONDAY - IT WAS THE SECOND MONDAY) >> >> >CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE = CHECK >> >> Details? Did you specifically predict an earthquake? In >> Christchurch? On a stated date? At a stated time? If the >> answer to these is "no" this doesn't qualify as a prediction >> either. >> >> >QUEENSLAND FLOODS = CHECK >> >> Ditto. >> >> >Plus other predictions that were spot on! >> >Peter Bowditch ERRS BUT HANGS ON for early 2011. >> >> That's not a prediction; it's an observation. How about this >> one: >> >> "Graham Cooper disagrees that his predictions are >> worthless." >> >> Does that make me an oracle? >> >> >You won't find ANYONE who has that many time stamped predictions ALL >> >WITH HITS >> >> Postdictions, and interpretations of vague statements to >> suit them, aren't "hits". > >The day before the big quake & tsunami, I ate Quaker oatmeal for >breakfast and gave a big wave to a friend I saw across the street. I >suppose now you're going to say *I* didn't make a valid prediction >either.
Well, it's better than Graham's; at least "quake" and "wave" were mentioned... ;-) --
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless