I don't know what to make of your "claim". What are the "examples"
below?

More recent examples here, all replies to me on the same day, I said
the day
before I was doing a paranormal test in usenet.

Let's start off right. You claim to be able to guess someone's name,
right? What would you need in order to demonstrate this claim?

A usenet terminal and someone to analyse the responses, i.e. get
someone to guess the names.

How about this: You and I sit in a room together with a telephone
and a computer. Twenty-five people are randomly chosen, and of
those, a random ten are selected. Each calls our room on the phone,
and reads a block of text selected in advance, and approved by you to
you over the phone. Then you tell us the person's name. Then ten
people are again randomly selected from our twenty-five, and these
ten type a poem they select from a book provided to them for this
purpose. You tell us each person's name.

Got a better idea? Share it.

No the people have to volunteer without knowing their names are
controlling their actions.

I make a post to usenet from the test room.
The computer is removed.
I'm given all the replies without the names on them.
I tell you the name!

Will take a while until I get the name perfect, but if you give me a
list to choose from I'll pick it from 10 names every second go!

Enkidu wrote:

[...]

I don't know what to make of your "claim". What are the "examples"
below?

Let's start off right. You claim to be able to guess someone's
name, right? What would you need in order to demonstrate this
claim?

Enkidu, I applaud your helpful spirit. I'm not sure how familiar
you are with Herc, though. I suggest you check out his posting
history in Google. He seems to remain "|-|erc", as far as I can
tell.

His claim usually gets presented over a period of time, refined
with each new post, like an onion being peeled. I'm going to try
to speed up the process:

-- Herc guesses names.

-- He guesses authors' names from USEnet posts (and possibly
other media).

-- He guesses authors' names from USEnet posts, given the posts
and the names. Well, actually what he does a postdiction, coming
up with links between post content and authors, no matter how
strained. For example, My first name is James and I seem to be
obsessing about his mental health. William *James* was a great
*psychologist*. Ta daaa, obvious link. (He didn't make that one
up, but he's done others even more tenuous.) By the way, these
guesses are only between posting names and posts, not real names.

-- He could assign authors to posts, given both separately. His
claim is the names are evident in the content of the posts. Herc
doesn't do as well at this, so his claim is only statistical: he
can do it better than random...or maybe he can guess with
90% significance 10% of the time, 95% significance 5% of the time,
99% significance 1% of the time, and so on. I'm not sure here. I'm
thinking back to the things he's bragged about. Herc is welcome
to clarify and/or amplify, if he's reading.

-- The posts he can assign authors to are in response to Himself,
Herc. He has various startling theories as to why this may be the
case: He is The Truman, that is, a real-life version of the main
character of "The Truman Show" movie. (He will quote people
agreeing with him.) He is God. He is a progenitor-to-be of the new,
improved version of the human race, a New Adam, and he has a fixed
time-frame within which to find his Eve, and being recognized by
us as Truman/God/Adam is an essential part of the process.

-- The allegedly paranormal event (APE) that Herc wishes to have
tested is not his guessing the links between authors' names and
posts. It is the formation of these links that is the APE. Once
the posts in response to his post have been made, the links should
be evident to any unprejudiced eye. Guessing the link between
name and post just verifies (statistically) the occurence of an APE
that is already over by that time. Unfortunately, in the past, Herc
would conclude from someone guessing wrong that they did not have
an unprejudiced eye.

I do not wish to discourage you, Enkidu. I honestly think Herc needs
help of some kind beyond assistance in his paranormal project. It
may be working with you or someone else on that project is how he
will finally get that help.

But I do want you to understand what you're getting into.

All this information may be incomplete or old or just wrong. I
haven't checked my memories against Google. I am depending on Herc
to defend himself by telling us exactly where I went wrong.

Herc doesn't seem to believe in putting his remarks in any kind of
context. I hope I've given you enough context to understand most
of what he means. That's the main thing I wanted to accomplish.

I told you on the occasion you phoned me that if you seek to be tested by
the Skeptics you must write down, clearly and in detail, what it is you
claim to be able to do

You have made no testable claim to Australian Skeptics and there will be no
further communication from us.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/features/press/aca.htm