So would be of no value as a test. Ok, we won't use any social significance then, per your request.
We can certainly come up with a simple blinded method that would be clear and transparent. When do you think we could start?
It seems to me that my simple test:
is still acceptable (although I don't think I would repeat it).
I would say that the quality of arguments presented (or the lack of quality) matters more than the volume of aggressivity. I have actually received some support on this forum too:
I actually suspect that some members here would like to impose a bad protocol to me, with the secret hope that it will fail, and this is not something I can accept. Fortunately, there are other forums, in various languages. Even if I cannot get participation in my tests on this forum (which is something that I actually regret), it is not extremely hard for me to obtain some participation (i.e. answers) on other forums or sites.
The strange idea that my protocol is somehow "flawed" is essentially peculiar to this forum (you may have noticed there were many answers and no criticism on the French Yahoo, in the Parapsychology category which belongs to Science & Mathematics https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20170513192840AARBM6p . Also, somebody followed my question). Sadly, it is quite possible that my protocol is deemed "flawed" by skeptics, just because it is good and it works. Basically it just seems to boil down to that, nothing else.
Thank you, though it is possible that I present more tests on this forum as well, even if I get no answer. Sometimes, the reactions are interesting to read (with a big grain of salt).
No. We laughed at your hilarious flawed methodology, at the Skeptic Society forum. Can't you remember?
Well, I see that you are quoting yourself, and you are a member of this forum. In vain would I look for a single decent argument. This is the tragedy of this forum: a lot of noise, a lot of aggressivity, lots of lies, but about as much intelligence and honesty as there is water at midday in the middle of the summer in the Sahara desert.No. We laughed at your hilarious flawed methodology, at the Skeptic Society forum. Can't you remember?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27469&hilit=michel+H#p542233
Why wouldn't I? I was a member of the forum that laughed at your methodology. You denied other forums did that. You were lying.
You keep spamming your flawed methodology on numerous science based forums. What did you expect to happen?
I did not say that my methodology had never been criticized on other forums. What I said was:
In the skepticforum thread you mentioned http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27469&sid=5bb78454c477d31bce95b3cab883d3ff , everything was going well, I was getting answers to the test, until you, Matthew Ellard, a member of this forum (ISF), came by, and started attacking violently my work and my methodology. So, who is causing the trouble? I can perhaps assume that, if no member of this forum had ever showed up on skepticforum, the bizarre idea that my test is somehow flawed would not have been raised by anyone.
No. We immediately pointed out the flaws in your methodology and introduced you to the Belgium Skeptics, near your home, who could put you through a proper test. You refused, obviously because you know you are not telepathic and preferred to procrastinate to maintain your delusional framework.
The two forums were healthy and vibrant before you posted here and on there. You presented your nonsense to skeptics and they laughed at you. You consciously choose to keep coming back. When you are gone, the forums will still be healthy and vibrant. There are many mad people who demand that skeptics review their crazy thoughts. You are just one of them.
If the level of honesty and competence is about the same at SKEPP as on this forum, I am afraid my legs will never be fast enough to run away.
What does the quote above mean, do you think, Matthew Ellard?
There you go. You now have more evidence of your schizophrenia. You are making up facts to maintain your delusional framework. You don't actually know anything about SKEPP and its protocols to test your fraudulent claim of telepathy and are too frightened to contact them to actually find out.
It means a person on a forum is teasing you. Are you going to make another delusional claim and claim no person on a forum is ever sarcastic? That would be completely nuts.