BP OIL SPILL PREDICTIONS WAS Re: THE HOLY GRAIL
in [Math]
|
Prev: All you have to do is c o m p r e h e n d this statement anddiagonalisation falls apart
Next: Light comming together in odd wavefunction
From: Tim Little on 15 Jun 2010 01:34 On 2010-06-13, |-|ercules <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Will X be sacked? > "Man of the house" > > (my finger landed directly on that phrase) Funny, on my first try my finger landed directly on the phrase "Of Caesar's death" in the text I have of the complete works of William Shakespeare. That seems much more direct than your silly phrase. Just as Caesar's death removed him from his position as the leader, the CEO will also be removed. The second phrase I hit from the same source was "Is left to govern". Again much clearer and more direct than yours. So much for your "million-to-one" or even "thousand-to-one" odds of hitting a phrase that could be construed as relevant. Doing 10 more tests yielded 3 more phrases that were both clearly more relevant than yours and less ambiguous. All but 2 of the phrases I hit could easily be construed by analogies no more indirect than yours to favour one side or other of the question. By taking at most one line of context, they do favour one answer. So your "million to one odds" per phrase are at best more like 5 in 6. - Tim
From: |-|ercules on 15 Jun 2010 02:56 "Tim Little" <tim(a)little-possums.net> wrote ... > On 2010-06-13, |-|ercules <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Will X be sacked? >> "Man of the house" >> >> (my finger landed directly on that phrase) > > Funny, on my first try my finger landed directly on the phrase "Of > Caesar's death" in the text I have of the complete works of William > Shakespeare. That seems much more direct than your silly phrase. > Just as Caesar's death removed him from his position as the leader, > the CEO will also be removed. > > The second phrase I hit from the same source was "Is left to govern". > Again much clearer and more direct than yours. > > > So much for your "million-to-one" or even "thousand-to-one" odds of > hitting a phrase that could be construed as relevant. Doing 10 more > tests yielded 3 more phrases that were both clearly more relevant than > yours and less ambiguous. > > All but 2 of the phrases I hit could easily be construed by analogies > no more indirect than yours to favour one side or other of the > question. By taking at most one line of context, they do favour one > answer. > > So your "million to one odds" per phrase are at best more like 5 in 6. I don't see how "death" is a better fit than "won't be going to work" (staying at home) but at any rate the fact you posted your answers for me to read voids the experiment, because I channel from every information source. Sorry for the psychic copout, not as bad as Sylvia Browne who said "if you don't recognize what I'm talking about it's because it's going to happen in the future!" But even a rudimentary analysis of natural language phrases should prove MUCH higher than 5 to 1. Herc
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 15 Jun 2010 08:49 "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: > "Tim Little" <tim(a)little-possums.net> wrote ... >> On 2010-06-13, |-|ercules <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Will X be sacked? >>> "Man of the house" >>> >>> (my finger landed directly on that phrase) >> >> Funny, on my first try my finger landed directly on the phrase "Of >> Caesar's death" in the text I have of the complete works of William >> Shakespeare. That seems much more direct than your silly phrase. >> Just as Caesar's death removed him from his position as the leader, >> the CEO will also be removed. >> >> The second phrase I hit from the same source was "Is left to govern". >> Again much clearer and more direct than yours. >> >> >> So much for your "million-to-one" or even "thousand-to-one" odds of >> hitting a phrase that could be construed as relevant. Doing 10 more >> tests yielded 3 more phrases that were both clearly more relevant than >> yours and less ambiguous. >> >> All but 2 of the phrases I hit could easily be construed by analogies >> no more indirect than yours to favour one side or other of the >> question. By taking at most one line of context, they do favour one >> answer. >> >> So your "million to one odds" per phrase are at best more like 5 in 6. > > > I don't see how "death" is a better fit than "won't be going to work" > (staying at home) but at any rate the fact you posted your answers for > me to read voids the experiment, because I channel from every > information source. > > Sorry for the psychic copout, not as bad as Sylvia Browne who said "if > you don't recognize what I'm talking about it's because it's going to > happen in the future!" No, this is just as lame. We finally get you to answer some significant questions that will be verifiable in half a year, and then later you chicken out and declare your answers don't count. You really have no faith at all that this channeling produces true answers. You don't believe in your own claims. You only want to give answers that cannot be verified. Really, Herc, that's pathetic. I don't see how Tim's post somehow makes your answers retroactively unreliable. -- Jesse F. Hughes "Mistakes are big part of the discovery process. I make lots of them. Kind of pride myself on it." -- James S. Harris
From: |-|ercules on 15 Jun 2010 14:44 "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote > "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: > >> "Tim Little" <tim(a)little-possums.net> wrote ... >>> On 2010-06-13, |-|ercules <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> Will X be sacked? >>>> "Man of the house" >>>> >>>> (my finger landed directly on that phrase) >>> >>> Funny, on my first try my finger landed directly on the phrase "Of >>> Caesar's death" in the text I have of the complete works of William >>> Shakespeare. That seems much more direct than your silly phrase. >>> Just as Caesar's death removed him from his position as the leader, >>> the CEO will also be removed. >>> >>> The second phrase I hit from the same source was "Is left to govern". >>> Again much clearer and more direct than yours. >>> >>> >>> So much for your "million-to-one" or even "thousand-to-one" odds of >>> hitting a phrase that could be construed as relevant. Doing 10 more >>> tests yielded 3 more phrases that were both clearly more relevant than >>> yours and less ambiguous. >>> >>> All but 2 of the phrases I hit could easily be construed by analogies >>> no more indirect than yours to favour one side or other of the >>> question. By taking at most one line of context, they do favour one >>> answer. >>> >>> So your "million to one odds" per phrase are at best more like 5 in 6. >> >> >> I don't see how "death" is a better fit than "won't be going to work" >> (staying at home) but at any rate the fact you posted your answers for >> me to read voids the experiment, because I channel from every >> information source. >> >> Sorry for the psychic copout, not as bad as Sylvia Browne who said "if >> you don't recognize what I'm talking about it's because it's going to >> happen in the future!" > > No, this is just as lame. > > We finally get you to answer some significant questions that will be > verifiable in half a year, and then later you chicken out and declare > your answers don't count. You really have no faith at all that this > channeling produces true answers. You don't believe in your own > claims. You only want to give answers that cannot be verified. > > Really, Herc, that's pathetic. I don't see how Tim's post somehow makes > your answers retroactively unreliable. Do you ever miss the wrong ambiguous interpretation? All I said was Tim's answers were good. Too good. In fact Tim's hands were guided to find those answers just like my hands. But if he never intended to SHOW_THEM_TO_ME then they would not work. There's a minor bias issue with using controls, I can't see my own test results. I picked your Stanley Cup winner and that's your response! You said "what can we CONCLUDE if you DON'T pick the winner?" but it doesn't work the other way around. BTW - getting a 1,000 to 1 "in context response" AND getting it right just MULTIPLIES the odds broken. If he quits, that just makes it 2,000 to 1 odds broken on video. Of course skeptics will only buy the *right* right answer. Herc
From: Jesse F. Hughes on 15 Jun 2010 15:05
"|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: > "Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote >> "|-|ercules" <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> writes: >> >>> "Tim Little" <tim(a)little-possums.net> wrote ... >>>> On 2010-06-13, |-|ercules <radgray123(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Will X be sacked? >>>>> "Man of the house" >>>>> >>>>> (my finger landed directly on that phrase) >>>> >>>> Funny, on my first try my finger landed directly on the phrase "Of >>>> Caesar's death" in the text I have of the complete works of William >>>> Shakespeare. That seems much more direct than your silly phrase. >>>> Just as Caesar's death removed him from his position as the leader, >>>> the CEO will also be removed. >>>> >>>> The second phrase I hit from the same source was "Is left to govern". >>>> Again much clearer and more direct than yours. >>>> >>>> >>>> So much for your "million-to-one" or even "thousand-to-one" odds of >>>> hitting a phrase that could be construed as relevant. Doing 10 more >>>> tests yielded 3 more phrases that were both clearly more relevant than >>>> yours and less ambiguous. >>>> >>>> All but 2 of the phrases I hit could easily be construed by analogies >>>> no more indirect than yours to favour one side or other of the >>>> question. By taking at most one line of context, they do favour one >>>> answer. >>>> >>>> So your "million to one odds" per phrase are at best more like 5 in 6. >>> >>> >>> I don't see how "death" is a better fit than "won't be going to work" >>> (staying at home) but at any rate the fact you posted your answers for >>> me to read voids the experiment, because I channel from every >>> information source. >>> >>> Sorry for the psychic copout, not as bad as Sylvia Browne who said "if >>> you don't recognize what I'm talking about it's because it's going to >>> happen in the future!" >> >> No, this is just as lame. >> >> We finally get you to answer some significant questions that will be >> verifiable in half a year, and then later you chicken out and declare >> your answers don't count. You really have no faith at all that this >> channeling produces true answers. You don't believe in your own >> claims. You only want to give answers that cannot be verified. >> >> Really, Herc, that's pathetic. I don't see how Tim's post somehow makes >> your answers retroactively unreliable. > > > > Do you ever miss the wrong ambiguous interpretation? Maybe not. > All I said was Tim's answers were good. Too good. In fact Tim's hands > were guided to find those answers just like my hands. But if he never > intended to SHOW_THEM_TO_ME then they would not work. Ah! So you do indeed stick by your earlier predictions? Very well, then. > There's a minor bias issue with using controls, I can't see my own > test results. > > I picked your Stanley Cup winner and that's your response! Yes, you succeeded, though the odds were no worse than 1/8 (better, if you took into account bookie odds). > You said "what can we CONCLUDE if you DON'T pick the winner?" but > it doesn't work the other way around. Oh, you got it right. In fact, I made a point of telling you so. Don't you recall? I don't think you would've notice your answer was correct if I hadn't told you so. > BTW - getting a 1,000 to 1 "in context response" AND getting it right > just MULTIPLIES the odds broken. If he quits, that just makes it > 2,000 to 1 odds broken on video. Does this mean that, even if you're wrong, you're right? Whether the answer is correct or not, you've beaten the odds? > Of course skeptics will only buy the *right* right answer. Well, mostly because you keep telling us that this method never fails, right? -- "They are anti-mathematicians, evil incarnate, dedicated to undermining intellectual development in this area. If you never thought such people could actually exist, outside of myths or legends, welcome to the real world." --James S Harris on evil incarnate's Usenet presence |