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: |-|ercules on 15 Jun 2010 15:40
"Jesse F. Hughes" <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote...
> "|-|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.

I would have looked it up at some point.



>
>> 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?

Sure thing! Say you wanted to find a hidden treasure and you're in LA.

You program a script to enter 2 random towns (from / to) into Google maps and it
gives you directions from LA to Mexico.

Did the 'random' map work?

What if the treasure was in fact in Mexico?
What if the treasure was at the North Pole?




>
>> Of course skeptics will only buy the *right* right answer.
>
> Well, mostly because you keep telling us that this method never fails,
> right?


Didn't I make the point of telling you "God works in mysterious ways".

Even I will admit it's hard (impossible) to tell if a symbol is a meaningful channel or not.

Herc

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
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