As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself.
Though unpaid, my work in the spiritual realm is
both productive and rewarding. Every time I
think of all the celebrities, CEOs, community
leaders & national politicians that I've been able
to guide towards success through the use of my
gifts, I can't help but feel a sense of pride of such
an extant that I dare call it "sinful."
I know we all should be humbled by a power greater
than ourselves, and in my case doubly so, as
through my gifts I am in touch with that power on
a daily basis. And I assure you, as unvirtuous as
my expressed pride might seem, that despite my
powers I remain as human as the rest of you, with all
those same human faults & human frailties that
plague the rest of mankind. I would be less virtuous,
not more so, should I lie or otherwise conceal the
pride I feel towards my undeserved role in shaping
world events.
Now, as I said, I do not get paid for my work. However,
I do accept donations from those seeking guidance.
And, yes, more often than a perfect world would allow,
I am forced by circumstances to defer to those who
make a donation over those who do not. But I am not
in it for the money, and I will prove this to all of you
now.
What do you want to know? What secrets would you
like revealed?
The world is open to you, the sky your limit with but
one caveat: Ask me a question to gain information
and nothing else.
If, for example, you asked me tomorrow's Lotto
number I would ignore you. For the information itself
is not an end, but a means toward an end, with that
end being great wealth.
The same applies to stocks, commodities or any other
investment item. It can even apply towards seemingly
innocuous facts, like the fate of an ancient ancestor.
Your motives define it's validity.
Any question asked out of curiousity, or to satisfy an
entirely personal desire, is entirely valid. This is because
the information itself is the goal. If, on the other hand,
you are looking for a little insight so that you might
write the next Dan Brown style blockbuster novel, the
information is not the goal but a means towards an
end. It would be invalid.
This is important. There is a real danger here. If you
ask a question when in fact it is not the answer you
seek, but merely intend to use the answer to secure
some other goal, you risk disater. For, although I
can gaurantee you that all responses I present will be
technically true & technically accurate, the spirits will
respond to impure questions with ambiguity, often
times even to the point of being deliberately misleading.
I myself do not see the future. I myself do not know
any great secrets, or have the power to peer into the
hearts of men. I channel the spirits, and the spirit of
Nostradamus in particular, and I report back what they
have revealed to me. Unless it is something obvious,
like a lottery number, I may not recognize your question
as invalid, I may not know to not ask it. In short, I
may not be able to protect you from the potential
ruin of a "technically" true & accurate answer that
is deliberately vague and likely booby trapped with
misleading language that will steer you towards ruin.
Enlightment is yours for the asking! Go on, Skeptics,
you are hereby challenged to experience the solace
that only those of us exposed to the truth and in
touch with a power greater than ourselves have known.
Ask away! You have nothing to lose but your own skepticism.
.
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 07:04:04 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"You don't judge me by what I claim. You judge me by your fantasies."
That just has to be the funniest statement I have seen here for a long
time.
Are you so stupid, so foolish, as to believe that people are going to
defer to your confidence trickery?
You 'claim' many things. A reader of your drivel can easily see just
who you are. There is no 'fantasy' by which to judge you...other than
the fantasies you propound.
Frankly, I'm bored with reading your grafitti. Like an errant child,
you are in need of a sound thrashing.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 07:33:39 AM |
|
|
Werewolfy wrote:
That just has to be the funniest statement I
have seen here for a long time.
Given your reading comprehension, how would you
know?
Are you so stupid, so foolish, as to believe that
people are going to defer to your confidence trickery?
Ironically, there was no trickery.
I said "present form of government" and I was judged
on the fantasy that I said "present government" or
even "present government officials."
The fact that you see this as "trickery" only serves to
further condemn you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 07:27:46 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 04:43:05 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
Leaving aside the fact that I have no way of verifying that the
predictions were made before the fact.
http://www.predictions.tv/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=62&highlight=
#1) A nuclear device will be used. (Note: But I think it more likely
that we'll see a test detonation than the use of a nuclear weapon on an
enemy)
A nuclear test? Really? I'm *stunned*. Why not predict that the sun
will rise and gravity will continue to operate?
Hmm....
The US conducted a sub-critial nuclear test in February.
If you mean "Divine Strake," it did not involve a nuclear weapon, and did
not take place in February.
Perhaps he meant this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1577409.htm
"The Energy Department has confirmed the United States has carried out a
subcritical nuclear experiment at an underground test site in Nevada on
Thursday (local time)."
But wasn't a test detonation of a nuclear weapon, per se, as "no critical
mass is formed and no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction can occur,
thus, there is no nuclear explosion"
Doesn't really fit the tone of "Unthinkable arrives, and we testify the
use of the device.", does it.
After all, something which is "fully consistent with the nuclear test
moratorium it has maintained since 1992." is hardly "Unthinkable"
#2) Oil hits a high of $100 a barrel in 2006.
At this point, I can't see this happening. It would require U.S.
participation in a major event, and that seems unlikely so close to an
election.
#3) "King Kong" wins at least three Oscars (Note: King Kong won
exactly three Oscars)
After the fact prediction and not exactly a big surprise.
"His majesty will rescue three golden men or more."
That's how it was typed out on December 22, 2005.
Yeah; but a prediction you don't _interpret_ until after the fact is
pretty useless. (If you disagree, here's one I just made up: "The
shouting man finds comfort in the words of other." I'll tell you what it
means when it's happened)
#6) A high profile UFO "event" will occur in 2006. It will involve
Bush in some way -- he'll at the minimum comment on it. (Note: This
"event" is as likely to be invented by the Whitehouse as capitalized by
it) Also, it doesn't necessarily need to be a UFO. Any major "Space"
discovery would fit the bill.
So.... if anything happens in space and the White House comments on it
this would be considered a hit?
Well, to give you an example, I thought this was going to be a "Hit" when
I started to see a few headlines discussing the possibility of life on
Mars.
In fact, you said "However, I am pretty certain -- 80% certain -- that
Nostradamus is telling us that Bush is genetically part alien, and will
reveal this fact to the public in 2006"
Hardly "any major space discovery", is it?
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 07:48:30 AM |
|
|
David Mitchell wrote:
Yeah; but a prediction you don't _interpret_ until after
the fact is pretty useless.
Maybe. On the other hand, are you going to cherry
pick from my interpretations, or are you going to
accept them all (judge them all) at face value?
Because, I'm interpreting EVERYTHING here. One is
no more valid than any of the others. So you either
accept them all, or dismiss them all.
If I can make a "prediction" here: You'll dismiss any
that I claim are accurate, and cling to any obvious
misses as "proof" that I'm no good.
It's called "cherry picking."
Well, to give you an example, I thought this was
going to be a "Hit" when I started to see a few
headlines discussing the possibility of life on
Mars.
More of that "Cherry Picking"...
In fact, you said "However, I am pretty certain -- 80%
certain -- that Nostradamus is telling us that Bush is
genetically part alien, and will reveal this fact to the
public in 2006"
Which is why I thought the "life on Mars" talk was going
to be a hit. You do know that there are people who
theorize that life came to Earth from Mars in the first
place, right? Still others claim it originated in space.
But, like I said, you are "cherry picking." For, though
I did state the above, I went on to say:
| Our natural inclination is to find the "biggest" or most
| "exciting" interpretation. As an example I offer the
| Bush/Alien vision that Nostradamus revealed to me
| recently. In hind sight, I must admit that "Alien" springs
| to mind the traditional grey flying around Area 51, but it
| just as easily & accurately could be bacterial life, or
| even the fossil remains of long extinct bacterial life.
|
| Whatever the case, if headlines read of UFOs, intelligent
| life or bacteria I will claim that Nostradamus was 100%
| accurate, and you will say he was not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 09:57:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:48:30 -0700, JTEM wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
Yeah; but a prediction you don't _interpret_ until after the fact is
pretty useless.
Maybe. On the other hand, are you going to cherry pick from my
interpretations, or are you going to accept them all (judge them all) at
face value?
I'm going to take what you say on your web-site, at face value.
You didn't say what the prediction meant, until after it had happened;
which makes it not a prediction at all; but a postdiction (if there is
such a word), and useless.
Because, I'm interpreting EVERYTHING here. One is no more valid than any
of the others. So you either accept them all, or dismiss them all.
If I can make a "prediction" here: You'll dismiss any that I claim are
accurate, and cling to any obvious misses as "proof" that I'm no good.
Perhaps. Any fool can make predictions (especially about things which are
inherently predictable); and there will be a certain rate of success which
is entirely due to chance.
What we're looking for, is above-chance performance.
It's called "cherry picking."
It's called "examining each prediction in turn".
Well, to give you an example, I thought this was going to be a "Hit"
when I started to see a few headlines discussing the possibility of
life on Mars.
More of that "Cherry Picking"...
In fact, you said "However, I am pretty certain -- 80% certain -- that
Nostradamus is telling us that Bush is genetically part alien, and will
reveal this fact to the public in 2006"
Which is why I thought the "life on Mars" talk was going to be a hit. You
do know that there are people who theorize that life came to Earth from
Mars in the first place, right? Still others claim it originated in space.
Yes, I'm aware of both theories, and I'm also aware that Bush claiming to
be part alien is a far cry from anything to do with either.
But, like I said, you are "cherry picking." For, though I did state the
above, I went on to say:
No you didn't. What you actually said is posted below.
| Our natural inclination is to find the "biggest" or most "exciting"
| interpretation. As an example I offer the Bush/Alien vision that
| Nostradamus revealed to me recently. In hind sight, I must admit that
| "Alien" springs to mind the traditional grey flying around Area 51, but
| it just as easily & accurately could be bacterial life, or even the
| fossil remains of long extinct bacterial life.
|
| Whatever the case, if headlines read of UFOs, intelligent life or
| bacteria I will claim that Nostradamus was 100% accurate, and you will
| say he was not.
To claim that the possibility of common origins of life on earth and Mars
somehow makes Bush "part alien" is nonsense.
To try to make this, much weaker, prediction match what you said on your
web-site is pathetic.
This is what you said on your web-site:
"According to Nostrdamus, Bush is involved in some way with UFOs/aliens.
Seriously. And if I'm reading things right (no promises there), Bush is
going to reveal that he himself is part alien! I'm about 80% certain on
this, Nostradamus is telling me that Bush is genetically part alien, and
will reveal this fact to the public in 2006!
I'll give it a 20% that I'm exaggerating things here, and that Bush will
merely anounce that he has been in contact with aliens.
Maybe I should explain.
In my mind's eye Nostradamus showed me the image of a Christian
newspaper. I could just make out one of the headlines, and it appeared to
be one of the many stories written about President Bush & how he is
descended from the biblical King David. Many of you have no doubt read
similar stories before, and if you haven't then try google for more
information on this subject.
Anyhow, just as my eyes began to focus on the story, and I could start to
make out individual words, the whole image VANISHED, only to be replaced
by the photo of an alien. "Bush is descended from an alien" I thought, and
Nostradamus nodded.
Wow. You could have bowled me over with a gumball!
Next, Nostradamus revealed an image of Bush giving a press conference.
Only the picture kept changing. First it was Bush standing up to the
microphones, next it was an alien... then back to Bush... then the
alien... it suddenly dawned on me that both pictures were depicting the
same person. It was Bush standing in front of the microphones & cameras...
it was an alien standing before the microphones & cameras... It was Bush
revealing his alien heritage!
The moment I thought this Nostradamus smiled and vanished.
Bush is part alien!
At least that's the way any reasonable person would have to see it. But,
as we all know, Nostradamus can often be hard to read. Maybe headlines
concerning aliens will push Bush & politics off of the front pages? Or
maybe Bush supporters/detractors will come to be seen as similar, in their
credibility, as UFO researchers?
However, I am pretty certain -- 80% certain -- that Nostradamus is telling
us that Bush is genetically part alien, and will reveal this fact to the
public in 2006."
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 10:16:46 AM |
|
|
David Mitchell wrote:
I'm going to take what you say on your web-site,
at face value. You didn't say what the prediction
meant, until after it had happened;
It's not my website, I did not wait until after the
Oscars before voicing the prediction, I simply
neglected to place a translation on the internet.
You seem to be aguing that the internet makes
reality.
It's called "cherry picking."
It's called "examining each prediction in turn".
No. Your criteria changes from prediction to prediction.
But, like I said, you are "cherry picking." For, though I did state the
above, I went on to say:
No you didn't. What you actually said is posted below.
Oh YES I DID!
Now you've reduced yourself to lying. Worse, much worse,
people need look for themselves to see that you are lying.
I did go on to state the following:
| Our natural inclination is to find the "biggest" or most
| "exciting" interpretation. As an example I offer the
| Bush/Alien vision that Nostradamus revealed to me
| recently. In hind sight, I must admit that "Alien" springs
| to mind the traditional grey flying around Area 51, but
| it just as easily & accurately could be bacterial life, or
| even the fossil remains of long extinct bacterial life.
|
| Whatever the case, if headlines read of UFOs,
| intelligent life or bacteria I will claim that Nostradamus
| was 100% accurate, and you will say he was not.
Sorry, liar, but I really did say this. It's just a few postings
down from the one you quoted from.
You're not only "Cherry picking," you're doing it so badly
you have to lie about it.
To claim that the possibility of common origins of life on earth
and Mars somehow makes Bush "part alien" is nonsense.
Not at all. If life on Earth originated on Mars, then Bush is
part Martian. You can bring up the fact that the rest of us
would be too, but that wouldn't change the fact that Bush
would be at least part Martian -- and certainly descended
from Martian life.
To try to make this, much weaker, prediction match what
you said on your web-site is pathetic.
It's not a "weaker" prediction at all. It's a literal interpretation.
But, it's not the prediction you want.
You're not being "Skeptical," you're being childish!
This is what you said on your web-site:
| Our natural inclination is to find the "biggest" or most
| "exciting" interpretation. As an example I offer the
| Bush/Alien vision that Nostradamus revealed to me
| recently. In hind sight, I must admit that "Alien" springs
| to mind the traditional grey flying around Area 51, but
| it just as easily & accurately could be bacterial life, or
| even the fossil remains of long extinct bacterial life.
|
| Whatever the case, if headlines read of UFOs,
| intelligent life or bacteria I will claim that Nostradamus
| was 100% accurate, and you will say he was not.
And, yeah, I stand by the above 100%. We -- all of us --
really are inclined to chase after the "Biggest" or most
"Exciting" interpretation. My original Bush/Alien
interpretation was the example I gave of myself doing
this, and the many fantasy claims attributed to me
(my you and others) would be further examples.
We, all of us, humans in general tend to leap on the
extremes, always quick to find the most "exciting"
interpretations.
But, hey, thanks for cherry picking!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 06:09:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:16:46 -0700, JTEM wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
I'm going to take what you say on your web-site, at face value. You
didn't say what the prediction meant, until after it had happened;
It's not my website, I did not wait until after the Oscars before voicing
the prediction, I simply neglected to place a translation on the internet.
Of course you did.
How convenient.
Also, I forgot to remind you: I have asked you three times to provide what
is possibly the most easily testable and impossible to fake prediction
you will ever be asked to make: the orbital parameters of hitherto
unknown trans-plutonian planets.
Yet, somehow, you keep forgetting to respond to it, even to the extent of
removing it from posts you reply to.
Why could that be, I wonder.
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 07:31:21 PM |
|
|
David Mitchell wrote:
Also, I forgot to remind you: I have asked you three
times to provide what is possibly the most easily
testable and impossible to fake prediction you will
ever be asked to make:
Oh, I'm sorry, but just because you were too stupid
to understand the criteria I laid down doesn't mean
that I'm required to cut you any slack.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 01:32:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:16:46 -0700, JTEM wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
I'm going to take what you say on your web-site, at face value. You
didn't say what the prediction meant, until after it had happened;
It's not my website, I did not wait until after the Oscars before voicing
the prediction, I simply neglected to place a translation on the internet.
So what if it's not _your_ website, I didn't bother chasing up who owned
it.
What's important here is that you posted on it.
Are you saying the quoted post is incorrect?
You seem to be aguing that the internet makes reality.
Not really. Are you saying that you posted a translation elsewhere
before the event?
If so, where.
It's called "examining each prediction in turn".
No. Your criteria changes from prediction to prediction.
I don't think so. As far as I'm aware my criteria are simply that the
predictions are translated before the event, and that they actually happen.
No you didn't. What you actually said is posted below.
Oh YES I DID!
Now you've reduced yourself to lying. Worse, much worse, people need look
for themselves to see that you are lying.
What you say it _now_ means, is hardly relevant; that's why I ignored it.
I did go on to state the following:
| Our natural inclination is to find the "biggest" or most "exciting"
| interpretation. As an example I offer the Bush/Alien vision that
| Nostradamus revealed to me recently. In hind sight, I must admit
| that "Alien" springs to mind the traditional grey flying around Area
| 51, but it just as easily & accurately could be bacterial life, or
| even the fossil remains of long extinct bacterial life.
|
| Whatever the case, if headlines read of UFOs, intelligent life or
| bacteria I will claim that Nostradamus was 100% accurate, and you
| will say he was not.
Sorry, liar, but I really did say this. It's just a few postings down from
the one you quoted from.
If you're saying now, that what you meant, when you originally wrote the
text which appeared on the web-site, is something which is _very_
different to what you originally posted; that's a trick we can all pull.
I'd also prefer it if you'd moderate your language, if you are able to.
To claim that the possibility of common origins of life on earth and
Mars somehow makes Bush "part alien" is nonsense.
Not at all. If life on Earth originated on Mars, then Bush is part
Martian. You can bring up the fact that the rest of us would be too, but
that wouldn't change the fact that Bush would be at least part Martian --
and certainly descended from Martian life.
And you are _really_ claiming that what is, essentially, trivial; since it
applies to everyone, is so significant that Bush would make an
announcement about it
To try to make this, much weaker, prediction match what you said on your
web-site is pathetic.
It's not a "weaker" prediction at all. It's a literal interpretation. But,
it's not the prediction you want.
It's as weak as comparing "Bush in bed with own mother: naked." to "Bush
was born like everyone else."
The first is unusual and noteworthy, the second trivial.
You're not being "Skeptical," you're being childish!
You're the one who's resorted to name-calling, rather than rational debate.
This is what you said on your web-site:
| Our natural inclination is to find the "biggest" or most "exciting"
| interpretation. As an example I offer the Bush/Alien vision that
| Nostradamus revealed to me recently. In hind sight, I must admit that
| "Alien" springs to mind the traditional grey flying around Area 51, but
| it just as easily & accurately could be bacterial life, or even the
| fossil remains of long extinct bacterial life.
|
| Whatever the case, if headlines read of UFOs, intelligent life or
| bacteria I will claim that Nostradamus was 100% accurate, and you will
| say he was not.
And, yeah, I stand by the above 100%. We -- all of us -- really are
inclined to chase after the "Biggest" or most "Exciting" interpretation.
My original Bush/Alien interpretation was the example I gave of myself
doing this, and the many fantasy claims attributed to me (my you and
others) would be further examples.
We, all of us, humans in general tend to leap on the extremes, always
quick to find the most "exciting" interpretations.
But, hey, thanks for cherry picking!
I note that you still haven't provided any prediction about the next
trans-plutonian planet to be discovered.
What, too verifiable for you?
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 02:50:17 PM |
|
|
David Mitchell wrote:
You seem to be aguing that the internet makes reality.
Not really. Are you saying that you posted a translation
elsewhere before the event?
What I DID SAY was that I neglected to post a translation
on the internet, and that you seem to be arguing that the
internet makes reality.
Your criteria changes from prediction to prediction.
I don't think so.
Irrelevant. It does change.
As far as I'm aware my criteria are simply that the
predictions are translated before the event, and that
they actually happen.
Or so you claim now...
| Our natural inclination is to find the "biggest" or most "exciting"
| interpretation. As an example I offer the Bush/Alien vision that
| Nostradamus revealed to me recently. In hind sight, I must admit
| that "Alien" springs to mind the traditional grey flying around Area
| 51, but it just as easily & accurately could be bacterial life, or
| even the fossil remains of long extinct bacterial life.
|
| Whatever the case, if headlines read of UFOs, intelligent life or
| bacteria I will claim that Nostradamus was 100% accurate, and you
| will say he was not.
Sorry, liar, but I really did say this. It's just a few postings down from
the one you quoted from.
If you're saying now, that what you meant, when you originally wrote the
text which appeared on the web-site,
It's on the EXACT SAME website, just a few posts down.
And while you're at it, Sherlock, notice that I can & did edit some of
the posts. That was an option for me. If I was trying to hide something
I could have simply made it go away.
Heck, failing that, I could have not offered the link in the first
place!
Didn't ANY of this occur to you?
is something which is _very_ different to what you originally
posted; that's a trick we can all pull.
Not at all, Sherlock. In fact, it references what I originally
posted!
Damn! You're frigging ignorant...
Not at all. If life on Earth originated on Mars, then Bush is part
Martian. You can bring up the fact that the rest of us would be
too, but that wouldn't change the fact that Bush would be at
least part Martian -- and certainly descended from Martian life.
And you are _really_ claiming that what is, essentially, trivial;
If you think any of the above is "Trivial," you're an even bigger
retard then you at first let on...
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 05:56:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 12:50:17 -0700, JTEM wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
You seem to be aguing that the internet makes reality.
Not really. Are you saying that you posted a translation elsewhere
before the event?
What I DID SAY was that I neglected to post a translation on the internet,
and that you seem to be arguing that the internet makes reality.
No, just that I don't believe anything you say; without proof.
Not an unreasonable position, IMO.
And still a hurdle you have to surmount.
Your criteria changes from prediction to prediction.
I don't think so.
Irrelevant. It does change.
Cite.
As far as I'm aware my criteria are simply that the predictions are
translated before the event, and that they actually happen.
Or so you claim now...
It was always implicit. I was granting you a certain degree of common
sense.
If you're saying now, that what you meant, when you originally wrote the
text which appeared on the web-site,
It's on the EXACT SAME website, just a few posts down.
Yep, you're right. Sorry.
My only excuse is that I find your nonsense unutterably tedious.
Didn't ANY of this occur to you?
To be honest, I'm almost completely certain that you're either loon or a
charlatan; but, frankly, I don't really care which.
FWIW, I incline towards loon; although your combative attitude suggests to
me that you know you're a fraud, which is why you always come out fighting.
Damn! You're frigging ignorant...
No, I just don't think you're worth bothering with.
If you think any of the above is "Trivial," you're an even bigger retard
then you at first let on...
Well, (insults aside), if everyone has the same genetic components, it
really _is_ trivial.
So Earth and Mars exchanged genetic material. Yawn. Meteorites happen.
Who came first? Who cares? (Although the smart money's on Earth)
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 07:29:20 PM |
|
|
David Mitchell wrote:
No, just that I don't believe anything you say; without
proof. Not an unrnreasonable position, IMO.
It is according to the so-called "Skeptics" around here.
In fact, it's extremely unreasonable according to them.
Just go through this thread, looking at the many
exchanges on the topic of James Randi and his
imaginary "Prize."
If you're saying now, that what you meant, when you
originally wrote the text which appeared on the
web-site,
It's on the EXACT SAME website, just a few posts down.
Yep, you're right. Sorry.
My only excuse is that I find your nonsense unutterably tedious.
Like I said, you're not a "skeptic," you're just arrogant. There
is a difference. (Hint: The real skeptics have some brains
behind their comments)
If & when you grow up & stop being a twat, you let me know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
17 Aug 2006 01:14:15 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:29:20 -0700, JTEM wrote:
David Mitchell wrote:
No, just that I don't believe anything you say; without proof. Not an
unrnreasonable position, IMO.
It is according to the so-called "Skeptics" around here. In fact, it's
extremely unreasonable according to them.
Which part of 'IMO' eludes you?
Just go through this thread, looking at the many exchanges on the topic of
James Randi and his imaginary "Prize."
If you're saying now, that what you meant, when you originally wrote
the text which appeared on the web-site,
It's on the EXACT SAME website, just a few posts down.
Yep, you're right. Sorry.
My only excuse is that I find your nonsense unutterably tedious.
Like I said, you're not a "skeptic," you're just arrogant. There is a
difference. (Hint: The real skeptics have some brains behind their
comments)
If & when you grow up & stop being a twat, you let me know.
Such maturity.
Welcome to my killfile. *plonk*
--
=======================================================================
= David --- No, not that one.
= Mitchell ---
=======================================================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
17 Aug 2006 09:53:22 AM |
|
|
David Mitchell wrote:
Which part of 'IMO' eludes you?
It's the parts you leave out -- your stupidity in failing to
grasp what does and does not constitute skepticism,
the hypocrisy in your cherry picking and your cowardice
fleeing from your abundant mistakes made here.
You're not interested in the truth. You're running from it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Morgan" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 11:10:11 AM |
|
|
In article <pan.2006.08.16.12.27.42.220210@edenroad.demon.co.uk>,
David Mitchell <david@edenroad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 04:43:05 -0700, JTEM wrote:
Alan Morgan wrote:
Leaving aside the fact that I have no way of verifying that the
predictions were made before the fact.
http://www.predictions.tv/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=62&highlight=
#1) A nuclear device will be used. (Note: But I think it more likely
that we'll see a test detonation than the use of a nuclear weapon on an
enemy)
A nuclear test? Really? I'm *stunned*. Why not predict that the sun
will rise and gravity will continue to operate?
Hmm....
The US conducted a sub-critial nuclear test in February.
If you mean "Divine Strake," it did not involve a nuclear weapon, and did
not take place in February.
Perhaps he meant this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200602/s1577409.htm
"The Energy Department has confirmed the United States has carried out a
subcritical nuclear experiment at an underground test site in Nevada on
Thursday (local time)."
That is exactly what I meant.
But wasn't a test detonation of a nuclear weapon, per se, as "no critical
mass is formed and no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction can occur,
thus, there is no nuclear explosion"
Doesn't really fit the tone of "Unthinkable arrives, and we testify the
use of the device.", does it.
To be fair, he didn't claim it did. However, it does fit the nicely
vague "A nuclear device will be used" (which, I'm sure unintentionally,
could apply to a nuclear power plant) although it doesn't match the
note.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 03:49:06 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
The rules are very straightforward. You demonstrate
your powers in a pre-agreed manner. You win a
million dollars.
Okay. Great. So describe for us (without skimping
on the details) how such a test might work.
I already told you dolt. If your certificate can ward off bad luck,
demonstrate that you experience good luck in a test where you should do
no better than chance.
So it's no wonder that you start making the usual
feeble excuses.
Speaking of which, this makes, what, a half-dozen
or more times I've asked you nitwits to explain how
this "test" would work.
Don't you know? Are you advocating something out
of ignorance?
What's the deal here? How many MORE time do I
have to ask you to describe what you call a simple
test?
I told you cretin. Let's see you pick 5 out of 6 cups which cover
something from 60 cups in total most of which do not. Adjust the odds as
you see fit to demonstrate powers that are better than chance.
Randi & the JREF provide more than adequate ways
to verify that the money is there.
Really? We're accepting people at their word here?
I need only say something and you will accept it as
gospel?
No? You're a ***** hypocrite?
BINGO!
No moron, you're accepting the word of Goldman Sachs, as well as JREF &
Randi's word on an official tax declaration. I have no reason to believe
that a bank would lie for a million dollars, or that the JREF would lie
(and Randi end up in jail) for the same.
It's entirely, kookily unreasonable to doubt the money does not exist.
Since the JREF is a non-charitable organisation it
must even file a tax return which declares the
money. If you think they don't have the money, I
suggest you contact the IRS.
I'm not the one making the claim, you drooling imbecile.
The burden is on you.
You're the one claiming the money doesn't exist, not me.
When did I claim the certificate would bring on supernatural
powers? I'll help you out on this one: I didn't say it. In fact,
what I did say is that it would ward off supernatural beings.
Duh, perhaps when you said "Each certificate has been
personally blessed by me, and is guaranteed to ward of
demons and evil spirits". Are you saying that demons and
evil spirits are not supernatural beings?
Are you dense or what?
They don't have reading comprehension where you come from,
do they?
I corrected myself immediately as you well know.
Because, if they did, you would have taken one look at
"In fact, what I did say is that it would ward off supernatural
beings" and know what a fucking idiot you are.
The quote continues "which can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck".
Does it or does it not take the appearance of "bad luck"?
So in what passes for your mind, "Warding off demons &
evil spirits" means "Perforrming way better chance at
some game."
How on earth do you justify this?
Duh, "guaranteed to ward of demons and evil spirits -- which
can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck" -- for a
radius of 40 feet or more"
Do these certificates ward off bad luck or not? Bad luck is
as easy to test for as good luck.
Yeah. So? Is it in, in the throws of your stupidity, you were
thinking that the absence of something which can be mistaken
for bad luck means the absence of bad luck?
That would be stupid.
No what would be stupid is anyone buying your worthless certificates and
thinking they do anything at all.
And were you also thinking that the absence of bad luck
means good luck to such an extent that it qualifies as
evidence of the supernatural?
Absence of bad luck means you will score better than average. That can
be measured.
That would be retarded.
Only to a delusional fraud.
And, oh, as retarded as it would be, it is precisely what
your "test" is based on.
You propose a better test. So far your paranormal claims are
indistinguishable from a garden variety nutter spouting nonsense.
Are you going to take the challenge, or do you have
some more stock excuses lined up?
Sure! No problem!
Now describe for me a real challenge, and show me the
money. As I stated -- you fled from -- I don't believe there
is any money. Show it to me. "Prove" it's there.
You are the one who claims it does not exist.
You don't honestly expect me to accept less than you
yourself demand, do you?
Even a retard like you couldn't be THAT stupid... could you?
The burden of proof is on you and your fantastic claims. Otherwise
people will assume you to be a delusional nutcase.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 06:09:12 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Okay. Great. So describe for us (without skimping
on the details) how such a test might work.
I already told you dolt.
No, retard, you invented some claim, attributed it to me,
then suggested a test that conformed to your fantasy.
If your certificate can ward off bad luck,
Something I never claimed...
demonstrate that you experience good luck in a test
where you should do no better than chance.
....and this isn't what you suggested.
What you actually suggested was:
| I suggest that one simple way is to perform better than
| chance in some randomized test, e.g. picking 5 out of
| 6 cups that cover an object. There would be something
| like 60 cups in total with the rest empty to make the
| chances of winning by chance virtually impossible.
Message-ID: <ebqb0q0257m@news1.newsguy.com>
Congratulations. You're reduced to lying.
You're not a "skeptic," you're not interested in the truth.
You're a lying sack of ***** who's trying to prop up his
ego.
Get over yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 05:35:36 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Okay. Great. So describe for us (without skimping
on the details) how such a test might work.
I already told you dolt.
No, retard, you invented some claim, attributed it to me,
then suggested a test that conformed to your fantasy.
Wrong cretin, I pasted your words verbatim not once, not twice but three
times. It's your claim which you're now trying to weasel out of.
If your certificate can ward off bad luck,
Something I never claimed...
Yes you did.
demonstrate that you experience good luck in a test
where you should do no better than chance.
....and this isn't what you suggested.
Yes it was and I continued:
"I told you cretin. Let's see you pick 5 out of 6 cups which cover
something from 60 cups in total most of which do not. Adjust the odds as
you see fit to demonstrate powers that are better than chance. "
What you actually suggested was:
| I suggest that one simple way is to perform better than
| chance in some randomized test, e.g. picking 5 out of
| 6 cups that cover an object. There would be something
| like 60 cups in total with the rest empty to make the
| chances of winning by chance virtually impossible.
Message-ID: <ebqb0q0257m@news1.newsguy.com>
Congratulations. You're reduced to lying.
Congratulations on ignoring the paraphrase (which I helpfully reinstated
for you), against the original.
For someone who accuses others of reading comprehension you sure have
issues yourself. Are you wilfully stupid or does it come with the territory?
You're not a "skeptic," you're not interested in the truth.
You're a lying sack of ***** who's trying to prop up his
ego.
Get over yourself.
Actually what I am is a kookologist toying with a prime specimen.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 06:53:59 AM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
No, retard, you invented some claim, attributed it to me,
then suggested a test that conformed to your fantasy.
Wrong cretin, I pasted your words verbatim not once, not
twice but three times.
Nope, retarded, you've got to pay attention. I'm not saying
that you can't cut & paste. I didn't even say that you didn't
cut & paste. What I'm pointing out is that you made up
some ***** and attributed it to me.
You pretended that I said I could ward off bad luck, when
I never made any such claim.
If your certificate can ward off bad luck,
Something I never claimed...
Yes you did.
Nope, sorry, loser. If you feel it necessary to lie this way
then you know you haven't a leg to stand on.
If you had paid better attention in your ESL classes you
would know this...
If I say "[A] can appear as [B]" I am NOT say that [A] is
[B].
What's more: Pretend that this obvious fact was never
brought up. What would that change for a "truth seeker"
such as yourself?
NOTHING!
Because even if you had reading comprehension, and
the "mistake" was somehow on my end, it wouldn't
change a ***** thing. I'm telling you... I've told you
a number of times that you're not reading it the way I
intended. So even if the problem hadn't been your
knuckle-dragging stupidity, if you really wanted to get
to the truth you would have accepted what I said and
moved on.
Moron.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 02:31:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
When did I claim the certificate would bring on supernatural
powers? I'll help you out on this one: I didn't say it. In fact,
what I did say is that it would ward off supernatural beings.
Correction to my original response. The quote continues "which can often
take on the appearance of "Bad Luck"", so are you saying these
certificates don't ward off "bad luck" at all?
If they don't ward of "bad luck" what exactly does this "blessed"
certificate do which a normal one doesn't?
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 03:14:00 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Correction to my original response. The quote continues
"which can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck"",
so are you saying these certificates don't ward off "bad
luck" at all?
What I'm pointing out the the bleeding obvious. Which is to
say, the fact that I never claimed to ward off bad luck.
If they don't ward of "bad luck" what exactly does this
"blessed" certificate do which a normal one doesn't?
Well I suggest you travel to a different trailer park in
search of someone with reading comprehension. When
you find them, to back and read THE EXACT SAME
paragraph you quoted from... in particular, the part you
edited out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 03:53:28 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Correction to my original response. The quote continues
"which can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck"",
so are you saying these certificates don't ward off "bad
luck" at all?
What I'm pointing out the the bleeding obvious. Which is to
say, the fact that I never claimed to ward off bad luck.
Yes you did. "which can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck""
You said it very, very clearly.
If they don't ward of "bad luck" what exactly does this
"blessed" certificate do which a normal one doesn't?
Well I suggest you travel to a different trailer park in
search of someone with reading comprehension. When
you find them, to back and read THE EXACT SAME
paragraph you quoted from... in particular, the part you
edited out.
I didn't edit it out. I've quoted both parts of your inane claim twice
now. If you want it one piece, let me quote it again:
"Each certificate has been personally blessed by me, and
is guaranteed to ward of demons and evil spirits -- which
can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck" -- for a
radius of 40 feet or more."
It's something that can be tested. But as you seem to be a fraud,
delusional and / or a nut, we just get the usual kook excuses. The
"money doesn't exist", shifting the burden of proof etc.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
15 Aug 2006 06:01:06 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
What I'm pointing out the the bleeding obvious. Which is to
say, the fact that I never claimed to ward off bad luck.
Yes you did. "which can often take on the appearance of "Bad
Luck""
What does the word "appearance" mean in your native tongue?
You said it very, very clearly.
Yes. I very clearly said that something can appear as something
it is not.
Duh.
Look. If you have to stoop to this ***** just to make a point,
you don't have a point.
I didn't edit it out. I've quoted both parts of your inane claim
twice now. If you want it one piece, let me quote it again:
"Each certificate has been personally blessed by me, and
is guaranteed to ward of demons and evil spirits -- which
can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck" -- for a
radius of 40 feet or more."
Great, moron, so why did you ask this:
} If they don't ward of "bad luck" what exactly does this
} "blessed" certificate do which a normal one doesn't?
It's something that can be tested.
Okay, once again, how?
Why don't you stop pissing all over yourself and answer
my question?
Can you do that, retard?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 05:54:10 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
What I'm pointing out the the bleeding obvious. Which is to
say, the fact that I never claimed to ward off bad luck.
Yes you did. "which can often take on the appearance of "Bad
Luck""
What does the word "appearance" mean in your native tongue?
It means you're now trying to weasel out of a claim that you made most
emphatically.
You said it very, very clearly.
Yes. I very clearly said that something can appear as something
it is not.
How can genuine bad luck be separated from something that merely
"appears" to be bad luck?
I ask because you're clearly backtracking as fast as you can.
Duh.
Look. If you have to stoop to this ***** just to make a point,
you don't have a point.
The point is that you made a testable claim and then ran away when
someone suggested a way to test it. Not just on this but on your
channelling claim.
It's pretty clear you don't want to be tested. You're backtracking so
fast from any testable demonstration that your claims are
indistinguishable from some nutcase spouting gibberish. You might even
say they "appear" to come from a nutcase spouting gibberish.
I didn't edit it out. I've quoted both parts of your inane claim
twice now. If you want it one piece, let me quote it again:
"Each certificate has been personally blessed by me, and
is guaranteed to ward of demons and evil spirits -- which
can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck" -- for a
radius of 40 feet or more."
Great, moron, so why did you ask this:
} If they don't ward of "bad luck" what exactly does this
} "blessed" certificate do which a normal one doesn't?
It's something that can be tested.
Okay, once again, how?
First explain how this blessed certificate differs from an unblessed
one. You claim it "is guaranteed to ward of demons and evil spirits --
which can often take on the appearance of "Bad Luck" ".
If it doesn't mean bad luck, enlighten us on what it does mean. At this
point all your backtracking makes it appear that anyone stupid enough to
have bought a certificate has wasted $20.
Good going.
Why don't you stop pissing all over yourself and answer
my question?
Can you do that, retard?
I've already told you how. Other people have suggested how you might
test your separate channelling claim. You pissed your pants and made
excuses every time, attacking the test, attacking people who suggested
tests, running away from your own claims.
At this point it's safe to say you are a kook with no powers of any
kind. If you disagree with this, come back when you have some paranormal
power that you can actually demonstrate. Otherwise be prepared to be
laughed at or ignored as appropriate.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
16 Aug 2006 06:59:55 AM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
What does the word "appearance" mean in your native
tongue?
It means you're now trying to weasel out of a claim that
you made most emphatically.
Look. I'm going to make this simple. Anyone with an IQ
above 80 can read "[A] can take on the appearance of [B]"
and understand that I am NOT saying "[A] can become
[B]."
As a consequence, anyone with an IQ above 80 knows
that you're spewing ***** here.
Yeah, sure, plenty of jackasses who think that they are
"Skeptics," who mistakenly believe that their world
view is grounded in fact, will agree and even support you.
But that's because they agree with you on an emotional
level -- agreeing with your sentiments if not your words --
and they're too frigging stupid to distinguish between the
two.
Congratulations, you damn wannabe!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
17 Aug 2006 04:29:10 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
What does the word "appearance" mean in your native
tongue?
It means you're now trying to weasel out of a claim that
you made most emphatically.
Look. I'm going to make this simple. Anyone with an IQ
above 80 can read "[A] can take on the appearance of [B]"
and understand that I am NOT saying "[A] can become
[B]."
Then what are you saying? If it doesn't protect you from bad luck, what
does this expensive scrap of paper actually do? Anything?
As a consequence, anyone with an IQ above 80 knows
that you're spewing ***** here.
No, what anyone with an IQ above 80 can see is you said it to imply it
protects you from bad luck and then promptly began squirming as soon as
you were picked up on it. You clearly don't want to be tested since that
implies having paranormal abilities to begin with.
Yeah, sure, plenty of jackasses who think that they are
"Skeptics," who mistakenly believe that their world
view is grounded in fact, will agree and even support you.
But that's because they agree with you on an emotional
level -- agreeing with your sentiments if not your words --
and they're too frigging stupid to distinguish between the
two.
Congratulations, you damn wannabe!
Nice rant. Sadly for you, my world view is firmly grounded in reality.
And as such your claims still have the "appearance" of coming from a
delusional kook.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
17 Aug 2006 09:47:52 AM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Look. I'm going to make this simple. Anyone with an IQ
above 80 can read "[A] can take on the appearance of [B]"
and understand that I am NOT saying "[A] can become
[B]."
Then what are you saying? If it doesn't protect you from bad
luck, what does this expensive scrap of paper actually do?
Anything?
I'll waste my time yet again:
I'm saying "It will protect you from [A], and [A] can often take
on the appearance of [B]."
Does the claim that if you don't have [A] then you won't have
[B]?
No.
Does the above claim that if you don't have [B] then you
can't have [A]?
No.
Does it in any way, shape or form imply that you will have
such remarkable luck that it would fully qualify as proof of
a supernatural influence?
No.
Is having to be told this a sign of great intelligence?
No.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
18 Aug 2006 06:48:51 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Look. I'm going to make this simple. Anyone with an IQ
above 80 can read "[A] can take on the appearance of [B]"
and understand that I am NOT saying "[A] can become
[B]."
Then what are you saying? If it doesn't protect you from bad
luck, what does this expensive scrap of paper actually do?
Anything?
I'll waste my time yet again:
I'm saying "It will protect you from [A], and [A] can often take
on the appearance of [B]."
Does the claim that if you don't have [A] then you won't have
[B]?
No.
Does the above claim that if you don't have [B] then you
can't have [A]?
No.
Actually yes when you stated it the way you did. You clearly implied
that it would ward off bad luck (the cause of which is irrelevant so
long as it may often cause it). But when called up on it you *****
yourself and run away.
But now after weaselling out of that, you're left with what exactly?
What does this cert do? Anything?
Does it in any way, shape or form imply that you will have
such remarkable luck that it would fully qualify as proof of
a supernatural influence?
No.
So what does it do? I ask merely because you won't say.
The most likely reason you won't say is because your certificate does
nothing at all. You'll *claim* it does something (up to 40ft away no
less) but won't say what. Except for enriching you to the tune of $20
and putting some fellow idiot out of pocket.
Is having to be told this a sign of great intelligence?
No.
Is "channelling" Nostradamus (but weaselling out of any and all tests of
that claim) and flogging blessed bits of paper (but weaselling out of
any and all tests of that claim) a sign of intelligence?
No. It's a sign of a psychotic or a fraud though.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
18 Aug 2006 12:02:34 PM |
|
|
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Actually yes when you stated it the way you did.
You clearly implied that it would ward off bad luck
Pretending for a moment that this were somehow
true (which it isn't), your mistake was cleared up
almost immediately.
Your inability to accept reality & move on is NOT the
sure sign of cleverness that you believe.
Let me know when you grow up. Thanks in advance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cardinal Chunder" |
|
| Title: Re: Skeptics Invited: Channeling Nostradamus |
18 Aug 2006 12:56:39 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Cardinal Chunder wrote:
Actually yes when you stated it the way you did.
You clearly implied that it would ward off bad luck
Pretending for a moment that this were somehow
true (which it isn't), your mistake was cleared up
almost immediately.
My "mistake" was that your statement clearly implied one thing and you
weaselled out of any test of your claim by claiming it meant something
different.
Except you haven't actually stated what that something different is. But
you appear to guarantee it does something up to 40ft away, whatever it
is. So if it doesn't ward off bad luck what does it do? Your continued
refusal to answer this is noted.
Your inability to accept reality & move on is NOT the
sure sign of cleverness that you believe.
If you think you can channel Nostradamus you clearly don't know where
reality stops and your delusions begin.
Let me know when you grow up. Thanks in advance.
If your narcissism does not allow for criticism, I suggest you stop
bragging of magic powerz and then throw a hissy fit when people bother
to question you about them.
--
"Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is
true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining
lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
