ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags telepathy , telepathy test

Reply
Old 20th February 2017, 10:39 AM   #601
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
No, whe wrote -27 That is, NEGATIVE 27.
Which is NEGATIVE 3 cubed.

Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
She also wrote 25
Nope. She didn't.

I am not in any way endorsing the lunatic idea that everyone hears anyone else's...brain. The fact remains that -3x -3x -3 = -27. To that extent Michel H is correct. The attempt to purloin that into telepathy is at best dishonest.

Michel H is reduced from his claim that all of us hear his thoughts clearly to the claim that somebody somewhere vaguely gets an impression of his thoughts, maybe, perhaps on planet X, to perhaps any numerical answer can be bodged into agreement is, IMHO, a tactical error. It matters not one whit what one might reply. If said reply contains in any way any form of numerical reference, then clearly, Michel H will warp it by any means possible into support for his obvious crankery about the very concept of telepathy.

Do not forget that the claim at hand is that all of us hear his thoughts clear as a bell, yet somehow conspire to lie about it. All 7 billion of us. Somehow, in a vague test of no meaning, we reveal our true intent by answering in any way that contains a number of any sort.

It is no different to Drosnin and his crackpot bible codes. At base, it is outright numerology nonsense.

Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Both numbers have 2 in it, so therefore she must be subconciously receiving
"2", which is incorrect. So, you lose.
Ah, this is how Michel bends any response as support for his useless contention. This is also why I am careful to put nothing in my replies anymore that can possibly be misconstrued as support in any way for Michel H's contentions.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2017, 10:58 AM   #602
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,536
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Which is NEGATIVE 3 cubed.

Nope. She didn't.

I am not in any way endorsing the lunatic idea that everyone hears anyone else's...brain. The fact remains that -3x -3x -3 = -27. To that extent Michel H is correct. The attempt to purloin that into telepathy is at best dishonest.

Michel H is reduced from his claim that all of us hear his thoughts clearly to the claim that somebody somewhere vaguely gets an impression of his thoughts, maybe, perhaps on planet X, to perhaps any numerical answer can be bodged into agreement is, IMHO, a tactical error. It matters not one whit what one might reply. If said reply contains in any way any form of numerical reference, then clearly, Michel H will warp it by any means possible into support for his obvious crankery about the very concept of telepathy.

Do not forget that the claim at hand is that all of us hear his thoughts clear as a bell, yet somehow conspire to lie about it. All 7 billion of us. Somehow, in a vague test of no meaning, we reveal our true intent by answering in any way that contains a number of any sort.

It is no different to Drosnin and his crackpot bible codes. At base, it is outright numerology nonsense.

Ah, this is how Michel bends any response as support for his useless contention. This is also why I am careful to put nothing in my replies anymore that can possibly be misconstrued as support in any way for Michel H's contentions.
But look at all the three letter words that your Post contained. You even had three in a row at one point in your post. That makes it obvious (to Michel) that you heard his third word, and are just in denial mode. Responding at all can be confirmation that you heard his thoughts in his mind.

I could post 42 as a response and Michel would not even understand the reference. (ETA Actually I think that I and several others have already done this in past tests)

Norm
__________________
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain



Last edited by fromdownunder; 20th February 2017 at 11:01 AM.
fromdownunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2017, 11:23 AM   #603
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 13,990
Originally Posted by fromdownunder View Post
I could post 42 as a response and Michel would not even understand the reference. (ETA Actually I think that I and several others have already done this in past tests)

Norm
Yup. And 42 is divisible by 3 and is therefore a hit in Michel H world.

Can I explain that? Nope. Can Michel H explain that? Nope.

Where does that leave us?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2017, 12:27 PM   #604
P.J. Denyer
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,356
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Ah, this is how Michel bends any response as support for his useless contention. This is also why I am careful to put nothing in my replies anymore that can possibly be misconstrued as support in any way for Michel H's contentions.
Having had one of my own posts twisted in this way (which incidentally annoyed the hell out of me), I don't think there is a post that can be written that Michel H can't twist to support whichever answer he wants it to support. When you're not constrained by anything remotely approaching reality, no mental leap is too far.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2017, 01:13 AM   #605
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,068
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Nope. She didn't.

Well, yeah. I did write 25 in the post Michel H twisted, while avoiding the issue of his sexism. I first stated I had 25+ years of experience, but of course, he ignored this miss and glommed on to the -27.

The innumeracy must be a guy thing.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.