On Feb 28, 2:40 pm, BruceS <bruce...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 27, 6:38 pm, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 27, 10:59 pm, vtcapo <vtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > the whole thing up. > > > > > Take your pick. > > > > > RT > > > > PS If you could have read my mind you would have known that I still > > > > would like you to tell me what is coming up next for me. Just like the > > > > psychic did?. > > > > There are a million stories no different to yours out there. > > > > I'm not interested in a discussing about trusting a strangers psychic > > > claims or not with a few usenet posts as evidence! > > > > *****MY TURN**** > > > > I can only accurately read your mind if you follow the simple remote- > > > bibliomancy protocol. > > > > I can read about 10 words per day, whatever your were thinking at the > > > time when you post on usenet "READ MY MIND NOW".. > > > > If you want to NOT see a demonstration of mind reading, you're going > > > about it the right way. > > > > If you want to see real mindreading, I need a subject! 10 years of no > > > takers! > > > > Are you IN our OUT? > > > > Herc > > > Graham, you know why 10 years and no takers? Your,?reading my mind?, > > is a total waste of time. It certainly wasted 10 years of yours. Look > > at what you said: > > No, vtcapo, you have it wrong. There is no reason for Graham having > no takers, because he *has* in fact had "takers". He just likes to > lie about it, despite the clear history, readily recovered from > Google. He's come up with challenge after challenge, with various > (and often changing midstream) protocols. Various people (I'm one of > them) have agreed to his terms and followed his protocols. Usually, > his test shows him a complete failure, as with his claim to be able to > guess raven1's VIN and coming up with something like "v9". In one > test with me, he did a good bit better than pure chance, but he didn't > want to go ahead with longer odds. Graham likes to do tests where he > has a substantial chance of getting "hits" by chance alone. Even > then, he's had a taker recently in A_B, but Graham chose to drop out > of that test because of something A_B said in an unrelated thread. > <snip>
So Graham is a con. Go figure? Tell me if I?ve made the correct adjustments to his number line analogy? The centerline being the truth?
<-Graham-More Bullshit-Bullshit-Skeptics-BJ-|-VT-Faith Based on Experience-Atheism-Organized Religion-Blind Faith->