Discuss General Topics.
I've been turned down by 20 skeptics organisations with their $$$$$ prizes.
I have a 683KB text file of formatted paranormal data.
1200 experiments with names and addresses of over 1000 participants.
Who wants to review it?
Why do you think you're worthy / capable?
I have a degree in computer science and 2nd years stats up my sleeve.
I haven't met a skeptic yet who knows how to calculate the odds broken in an experiment by using a binomial table.
Cheers! Don't expect me to last long here
I only joined because I read Arouet posting "show me the experiment data".
Are you saying you make this challenge and claim to verify experiments without any basic stats?
Apart from being banned from JREF, I had a discussion there back in 2005, they have much better aptitude than usenet skeptics but still won't put any effort into checking out a claim.
I applied for the JREF $1,000,000 in 2000 before the 'media clause' and they tossed my application without giving a reason to this day.
I've never claimed to be a stats expert. Quite the opposite. But I ask questions and am learning as I go.
Why did they ban you? Were you belligerent?
Looks like they think you were harassing and hurling abuse at the Australian skeptics to the point where they had a restraining order against you. It also looks like they think you had proposed a test that was not verifiable. Both sound like pretty good reasons.
I'm not a fan of Randi's style often. He's often much more crude than I like. I won't defend that, even if he did feel that you were pestering him. He should have been more polite in asking you not to email him anymore.
If you want to post your stuff, I'm sure the people on this board will look at it though. Provided you keep your temper under control.
love it !!
in related news.. does anybody watch Mad Men on tv?
You don't need to verify the emails from JR.
Just email him yourself with a paranormal claim and see how far you get.
1st reply - 'whatever, read the rules, stop being deluded'
2nd reply - ##$#$##@$ ###@$$$# YOU ARE FILTERED FROM EMAILING HERE AGAIN!
Considering this has already turned into "YOU THREATENED THEM" so no wonder they didn't acknowledge your claim!
I think we are done! There are 1000s of skeptics who argue semantics with me, I've made 10,000 posts to them over 10 years and nothing ever happens except 1000s of excuses why not to bother testing claims.
Don't think I used all-caps, nor did I actually accuse you of it. I don't think I said theatened either, but harrassed. Did you threaten them? Thing is, you don't see restraining orders every day and the court doesn't order them just because you ask nicely. Presumably you did something that alarmed the people there.
Stick around if you want, or don't. Your claim seems to involve you turning on a TV and having it relate to something you should do that day. Not sure what we're supposed to do with that.
One thing that you should reflect on is that - whether intentional or not - you alarm people. Perhaps you should take steps not to do that anymore and maybe you will get a better reception.
so what you are is a Couch Potato Psychic?
you watch tv and tv tells you the future or the answer to your questions?
that´s imaginative dude.. that´s gotta be like the worst x-men power ever but i give it to you that you have imagination
ask the tv this...
WILL PEOPLE EVER TAKE ME SERIOUSLY?
Ok... I've done Readings since the late 1970s and I've never heard of Tv Readings... I really hope someone hasn't put a little TV inside a crystal Ball just to yank someone's chain
I honestly can't imagine trying to "Read" Tv images -- NONE OF IT MAKES ANY SENSE AS IT IS.... ESPECIALLY when it comes to Commercial Television!
For the original poster... unless you have several Pile Higher & Deeper diplomas, or else you're a major public hemorrhoid in the manner everyone favorite old grumps like Randi, Shermer & Nichol tend to be you can't hope to be seen as a Skeptic (or the UK spelling "sceptic" which is quite interesting since it comes so close to "waste" matter by definition... can't be a coincidence ) This being the case, why on earth would you want to have any type of association with them? They tend to be bitter, deluded egos that strut about thinking their stuff don't stink and everyone else is beneath them... kind of like Tv Evangelists.
Of course, I am referring to those that have the audacity to put up a few bucks as part of a "challenge" (a.k.a. publicity stunt). The cold hard truth being that no matter how much data you have and by how many pedigreed researchers, these jack asses will slam it down calling you a fool and making every single scientist & researcher involved in those studies out as being "cracked", a "Buffoon", or "Nut Job" (just a few of the colorful terms these educated elitists love to use... like signing a letter "blank off, you bore me..." Yea... a real sign of intellectual superiority vs. a bitter and cold-hearted old man that simply don't enjoy life and wishes the same for everyone. . . (I speaking of Joe Nichol of course, not Randi )
Joe Nichol!? What is your problem with him!?
I greatly admire him and it was his teachings that convinced a newly skeptical Canis that believers were not crazy stupid or liars, but normal folk that deserved to be treated and spoken to with respect when it comes to discussing theor beliefs. When you see me in here speaking about paranormal topics in a polite fashion and defending believers from personal attacks, you have him to thank for that.
What gives you the impression he is a "a bitter and cold-hearted old man that simply don't enjoy life and wishes the same for everyone"? I don't see it.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests