From: "i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0" i| || ||| ||||| |||||| on

"|-|ercules" <milliondollarfraud(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:849gsbF1ubU1(a)mid.individual.net...
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote
>
>
> You haven't even looked at the videos! The answers are PRECISE!!!
>
> 7 VIDEOS www.GENESISPROOF.com NOW
>
> No more general skeptics Occam's Razor, give me EXAMPLES

Why bother with skeptics pocket change ? People reward what is useful.

Specify a major natural disaster, event, time and place .

Ask the channels the direct access email for Microsoft development departments.
Get the attention of the person who will read it with what they ate for breakfast
Give them the line numbers of five major flaws in their under-development software,
tell them half a megabuck per bug from now on.

Then duck, a lot, you will know when , because every business and government in the world
will keep trying to kill you to hide their secrets.



From: |-|ercules on
"i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0" <i| || ||| ||||| |||||| 2.0> wrote ...
>
> "|-|ercules" <milliondollarfraud(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:849gsbF1ubU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote
>>
>>
>> You haven't even looked at the videos! The answers are PRECISE!!!
>>
>> 7 VIDEOS www.GENESISPROOF.com NOW
>>
>> No more general skeptics Occam's Razor, give me EXAMPLES
>
> Why bother with skeptics pocket change ? People reward what is useful.
>
> Specify a major natural disaster, event, time and place .
>
> Ask the channels the direct access email for Microsoft development departments.
> Get the attention of the person who will read it with what they ate for breakfast
> Give them the line numbers of five major flaws in their under-development software,
> tell them half a megabuck per bug from now on.
>
> Then duck, a lot, you will know when , because every business and government in the world
> will keep trying to kill you to hide their secrets.
>
>
>


Well I did predict when the skeptics realized they lost they would feign disinterest!

Major to Alexander Graham Bell
"A fine invention but who would want to use it"

Herc
From: Sylvia Else on
On 4/05/2010 12:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote
>> On 4/05/2010 1:48 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>> "i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0" <i| || ||| ||||| |||||| 2.0> wrote >
>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bdede8b$0$32083$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pythagoras knew about prime numbers 2500 years ago and worked out a
>>>>>> formula
>>>>>> for determining them. He didn't need calculators nor computers.
>>>>>> Thymaridas
>>>>>> and Euclid knew about them too. Why are you so hell bound to
>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>> your ignorance?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that herc has latched onto the difficulty of factoring
>>>>> large composite numbers. It is indeed diffcult, and I certainly
>>>>> wouldn't be able to find a factor of the second one by hand.
>>>>
>>>> herc says these channels cannot be used to test them
>>>> if they can't be used they aren't useful
>>>> the channels don't even realise herc is fooling them by using videos
>>>> as proof
>>>
>>>
>>> NO, merely that trivial pursuit questions will not work.
>>>
>>> So you can't run a biology exam style test, you have to have a blind
>>> umpire and controls to overcome the subjectiveness of the answers.
>>>
>>> I have one rule, you MUST be interested in the answer. JR already knows
>>> what color his cat is. If he was blind and nobody ever told him his
>>> cat's color then sure it would work.
>>
>> If the 'answers' were saying anything relevant, then the rule would be
>> significant. But as it is, it makes no difference, because you're not
>> getting answers, right or wrong. You just getting what is gibberish in
>> context, and then supplying your own answer.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
>
> You haven't even looked at the videos! The answers are PRECISE!!!

Q. Is this religion idea crazy?

A. The earliest generalisation.

So what does that say in response to the question? Is it a Yes? It is a
No? Why?

Leaving that aside, is one to construe the answer as being a statement
that religion was the earliest generalisation? Or is it the religion
idea? Or asking questions about the religion idea?

On any rational analysis the conclusion is going to be that the
purported answer has nothing at all to do with the question, and is only
what it appeared to be - a more-or-less randomly selected phrase from a
book.

Sylvia.



From: |-|ercules on
"Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote...
> On 4/05/2010 12:59 PM, |-|ercules wrote:
>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote
>>> On 4/05/2010 1:48 AM, |-|ercules wrote:
>>>> "i|||| | | || ||| || |||| 2.0" <i| || ||| ||||| |||||| 2.0> wrote >
>>>>> "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4bdede8b$0$32083$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pythagoras knew about prime numbers 2500 years ago and worked out a
>>>>>>> formula
>>>>>>> for determining them. He didn't need calculators nor computers.
>>>>>>> Thymaridas
>>>>>>> and Euclid knew about them too. Why are you so hell bound to
>>>>>>> demonstrate
>>>>>>> your ignorance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that herc has latched onto the difficulty of factoring
>>>>>> large composite numbers. It is indeed diffcult, and I certainly
>>>>>> wouldn't be able to find a factor of the second one by hand.
>>>>>
>>>>> herc says these channels cannot be used to test them
>>>>> if they can't be used they aren't useful
>>>>> the channels don't even realise herc is fooling them by using videos
>>>>> as proof
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO, merely that trivial pursuit questions will not work.
>>>>
>>>> So you can't run a biology exam style test, you have to have a blind
>>>> umpire and controls to overcome the subjectiveness of the answers.
>>>>
>>>> I have one rule, you MUST be interested in the answer. JR already knows
>>>> what color his cat is. If he was blind and nobody ever told him his
>>>> cat's color then sure it would work.
>>>
>>> If the 'answers' were saying anything relevant, then the rule would be
>>> significant. But as it is, it makes no difference, because you're not
>>> getting answers, right or wrong. You just getting what is gibberish in
>>> context, and then supplying your own answer.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>>
>> You haven't even looked at the videos! The answers are PRECISE!!!
>
> Q. Is this religion idea crazy?
>
> A. The earliest generalisation.
>
> So what does that say in response to the question? Is it a Yes? It is a No? Why?
>
> Leaving that aside, is one to construe the answer as being a statement that religion was the earliest generalisation? Or is it the
> religion idea? Or asking questions about the religion idea?
>
> On any rational analysis the conclusion is going to be that the purported answer has nothing at all to do with the question, and
> is only what it appeared to be - a more-or-less randomly selected phrase from a book.
>
> Sylvia.


I guess not all generalizations are that a mystical force was responsible for something, so I can see your concern.

However, I substantiated "the earliest generalizations" in the video just below that one.
www.GenesisProof.com

Can you tell me a reason belief in religion is sane in 3 words!

Getting a perfect natural language response like "the answer to your question about primes is because..."
isn't going to occur often in random quotes from books.

But the response can INDICATE one way or the other to answer the question. And not all random quotes will indicate one way or
another to a typical question.

Q/ Why is belief in religion sane?
A/ I would like a hard boiled egg.
RANDOM

Q/ Why is belief in religion sane?
A/ Religion was on of the earliest generalizations of sentient beings.
IN CONTEXT

Herc

From: |-|ercules on
> But the response can INDICATE one way or the other to answer the question. And not all random quotes will indicate one way or
> another to a typical question.


As an example just now, I wouldn't expect this answer to pass any form of test,
but I just asked "Should I add the previous post to GenesisProof under the video
about The Earliest Generalizations"?

I scrolled down aus.tv subject headings and landed on NEW STATUE OUTSIDE

Now that is probably complete nonsense to you, but which way does the answer sway?

I bet you have already figured it out but won't admit it.

NEW = ADD
STATUE = DISPLAY = POST
OUTSIDE = UNDER the video

So I have another update to program! Simple hey?

Imagine you have a dual language book about Tom Sawyer, in English
and French. It's the only translation text you have, would you be able
to communicate with a Frechman? Find a telephone? Call a cab? Buy a drink?

Herc