On Sep 24, 3:30 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 23, 10:58 am, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 24, 2:42 am, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 20, 4:40 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 21, 8:27 am, "Clocky" <notg...@happen.com> wrote: > > > > > > Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 19, 6:02 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > > > > > >> Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> On Sep 19, 11:07 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> Will anyone volunteer to think of a word while I mind read it? > > > > > > >>>> Yes. I just thought of a word. Tell me what it is. > > > > > > >>> BOW-DITCH = RENEGER! > > > > > > >> Wrong. > > > > > > >>> Too easy! > > > > > > >> Too hard. > > > > > > > aus skeptics are a bunch of geriatrics spouting bullshit about > > > > > > scientific method. > > > > > > > what are their catalogued results? the experiments that went in their > > > > > > favour. > > > > > > Where are the catalogued results from your tests, that went in your favour? > > > > > > Oh that's right, 10 years and no favourable results at all, only results > > > > > that with almost all certainty prove that your claims are false. > > > > > Nope! I scored nearly 100% reading BruceS mind. > > > > It amazes me that you say such things when the actual test and results > > > are available for anyone to see. Did you forget that Google keeps an > > > archive of this stuff? You made 47 guesses on a matching test of 11 > > > questions, and got 7 of those 47 correct. > > > the max I could get correct was 11, so this is misleading. > > OK, I'll grant you that. It's misleading to say you got 7 of 11 > correct, since you really made 47 guesses, but it's also misleading to > say you got 7 of 47 correct, since the 47 guesses were to only 11 > questions. I suppose the best way to state it is to say that you > correctly matched 7 of the 11 questions using a total of 47 guesses, > having made multiple guesses per question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > He 'shifted the answer' away from 2 of my guesses, > > > > in order the munge the results to make sure I didn't > > > > use a dictionary attack. > > > > Since we were working with questions, not single words, the problem > > > wasn't really a dictionary attack, but I'll let that stand since it's > > > close enough. The changes in the question phrasings did not change > > > the nature of the question, so it should not have had any effect on > > > your success. This was a case of you doing a good bit better than > > > pure chance on a single test, and trying to rearrange the results to > > > make it look like you did even better. No matter how many times you > > > misstate the results, you did not ever come anywhere close to 100% > > > success on any of these tests. Oddly, you seemed to have done far > > > better with the reworded questions I did than with any of the tests > > > you've done with random numbers at the end. I would think you'd be > > > happy that I munged the questions as I did, given the results. > > > Your secret question was > > > "Will Obama get troops OUT OF Iraq?" > > > My BLIND CHANNELED ANSWER was something like > > > "let's get OUT OF here" > > > Then the OPTION YOU GAVE ME was > > > "Will Obama end the war". > > > CANT YOU SEE THAT YOU CHEATED? > > No, I did not cheat. In fact, if you had paranormal ability to match > your channels to my questions, it seems to me that you should have > matched "let's get out of here" to "Will Obama end the war". Then > again, you've misstated the munged question. I'd actually given it to > you as "Will our occupation of Iraq end this year?", which should have > been an even more obvious match to "let's get out of here". Then > again, it looks like that wasn't one of your channels anyway. Why do > you keep misquoting things like this? Don't you realize people will > check the actual text, and see what you're doing? > > > > > The 2 answers he munged were easy to score a hit too. (Go figure!) > > > > > My actual score was 7 right out of 11. (+2 bad munges = 9/11 possible) > > > > Are you forgetting that you made multiple guesses for each question? > > > 11/11 (using 4 guesses from 11 options each turn) > > is STILL 100% ACCURATE! > > In one very limited sense it is. However, consider that this claim > holds true even if you have 11 guesses per question. You can still > claim you were 100% accurate, but nobody will be at all impressed. > > > If you respond "but Graham... you didn't score 11/11" I'll hit you! > > Since we all know very well that you didn't, I'll leave that as an > example being used to back your nomenclature. See above for why it's > misleading. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I defeated 20:1 ODDS on the first mindreading test of this kind. > > > > It was more like 18:1 (still very good), and the test was one of many > > > you've started. You have a habit of starting these tests, then > > > changing the rules partway through when you keep failing. Given your > > > rule changes, I suppose you could call every one of your tests "the > > > first of its kind", but to any outside observer, it isn't a reasonable > > > description. > > > > > If someone else was tested in the matching phase using my guesses > > > > and scored 9/11 it would demonstrate closer to 200:1 ODDS BROKEN! > > > > > It was Serendipity I passed at all! > > > > > Bruce refusing to append a random private key to his answers like > > > > > 4 WILL I BUY A RETIREMENT HOUSE IN 2011? 329829874239823789 > > > > > Instead BruceS (against my wishes) just munged the question > > > > > 4 WILL I BE ABLE TO GET THE RETIREMENT HOUSE IN 2011? > > > > Actually, I don't believe you had made the "append a number" > > > suggestion at that point, or at least I hadn't noticed it. > > > Rearranging the question's phrasing seemed then (and now) a reasonable > > > way to avoid the sort of minimal brute force approach to picking the > > > correct answer by way of running the MD5 on every question and > > > matching them up. Again, since you did much better with this approach > > > than with the appended number approach, it's odd that you complain > > > about it. > > > > > This is what I had to go on.. > > > > > That actually worked! And the 32349834843894389 DOESN'T > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.org.mensa/browse_thread/thread/e51... > > > > It looks like you *do* realize that Google keeps archives. For anyone > > > interested, you can see the results starting with the 60th post > > > (sorted by date) in the thread. The link gets truncated in my post > > > (thanks Google!), but is good in Graham's post above. Graham had > > > about a 5.5% chance of getting at least 7 correct, according to > > > another poster (Richard) who seems to have a solid grasp of the stats > > > involved. If it had been me doing the guessing, I'd have called that > > > "great" and accepted it. > > > > > No one has offered to duplicate the test except Brad who stuffed > > > > around every turn and didn't follow the protocol posting template 80% > > > > of the time. > > > > I admit freely that I'm not happy with tests that have a high random > > > factor to them. I much prefer tests where the effects of random noise > > > are distinct from the effects of some sort of paranormal ability. > > > I've offered many times to do tests with less random noise effect, but > > > you always prefer to trust to luck rather than any special powers. > > > What does that say about your faith in your powers? > > > Most of the mistests were using appending digits to the MP3. > > > Both times the TESTER used different techniques I got good results. > > > You flatly refused to do 2 demo words before the test. > > You said in one thread that you were all done with the demo phase and > were ready to do real tests. Then, when I offered to do the real test > with you, you reverted to wanting to do a demo phase. > > > The power is evident when any of you skeptics come crawling out of > > your shells of denial. > > > Takes 5 days to do 1 section, 1 post a day, up to 24:1 ODDS possible > > to demonstrate. > > I keep offering to do a test that would provide an opportunity for any > real paranormal ability to shine, and you keep refusing, preferring to > trust to lucky guesses. I'm still open to a test with a very small > chance of lucky hits.
er no you're not.
it takes 1000 posts to clarify each step of the protocol with you, and you still refuse to follow it.