|
|
Re: SKEPTICS SHOULD HAVE LABOTAMIES NOT LABORATORIES !!!
Posted:
Apr 15, 2011 1:55 PM
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:08:59 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Graham Cooper
<grahamcooper7@gmail.com>:
>On Apr 15, 5:19 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
>I posted PREDICTION OF CATASTROPHE to SCI.SKEPTIC and
>ALT.PROPHECIES.NOSTRADAMUS
You predicted nothing. "Dark day Monday" isn't a prediction.
>and gave the day of the week.
Actually, since it occurred on a Sunday you didn't even get
that right. But without stating the week (since the tsunami
wasn't that week) it would have been worthless even *if* you
got the day correct.
>This DENIAL that a prediction took place at all is your ADMISSION that
>it was a HIT!
Your "logic" is...interesting.
>The discussion in the thread is obvious that people knew it was a time
>stamped prediction.
It was a timestamped statement which made no prediction.
>Skeptics are all cheats who have never scored a single hit to anything
>subjective in the last 100 years.
Two points:
1) Skeptics don't make predictions; we leave that to the
self-proclaimed "psychics" and other loons.
2) Predictions of future events aren't subjective; they are
about real objective events. If not they're meaningless and
useless. "Dark day Monday" is a perfect example of this.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
|
|
