New telepathy test, the sequel.

Impatience and sarcasm from the knowledgeable and sceptical, encouragement from the ignorant and gullible, with more of the former on a sceptical forum and more of the latter on other forums - yep, exactly what i would expect.
This not the Forum of the Smart People (and not even (no longer) the Forum of an Educational Foundation), it is the International Skeptics Forum, so you might expect that posts here might be somewhat biased towards skepticism.
 
This not the Forum of the Smart People (and not even (no longer) the Forum of an Educational Foundation), it is the International Skeptics Forum, so you might expect that posts here might be somewhat biased towards skepticism.
Let me get this straight. A forum that is called the International Skeptics forum surprises you by being skeptical. That is all manner of messed up.
 
Can you not see the problem with that? Let alone that you are unable to spell "Iraq"?
...
According to wiktionary.com: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Irak , "Irak" is a rare spelling of "Iraq" in English. Nevertheless, it is not common, and if I did this test again, I would probably use the spelling "Iraq". Feel free to point out possible improvements like this, I think this might help me improve my tests.
 
Michel, I am sure that has been asked at least once in the many years you have been on this forum but please indulge me. It seems pretty simple that you could put all of us in our place on this board by simply using one of the suggested tests from this forum. Simple, no? It would convince all us skeptics. Isn't that your goal here? Because why else post on an international skeptics forum?
 
According to wiktionary.com: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Irak , "Irak" is a rare spelling of "Iraq" in English. Nevertheless, it is not common, and if I did this test again, I would probably use the spelling "Iraq". Feel free to point out possible improvements like this, I think this might help me improve my tests.

Improve your tests? You have yet to perform a valid test.
 
No, I disagree. You have no reason to believe that he would be consciously aware of receiving a message telepathically. Indeed I am pretty sure I recall in previous tests you have asked people to answer whether or not they were aware of receiving a message. So his claim not to have used telepathy is no reason at all to reject his answer.

What do you wish to achieve with your tests? Plainly not to convince yourself, since you began from a position of total conviction. To convince us, then? You can see perfectly well that nobody here accepts your method and, as a physicist yourself, I'm sure you would similarly reject any experiment so open to bias and cheating were it not an experiment testing your particular idée fixe. So why do you persist with this useless method?
John said "I did not use telepathy." (he seemed to know it). If no telepathy is used, his number is of no interest for me in my telepathy test, and it is normal that I reject it as non-credible.

In this thread, you are invited to give freely your opinions on evidence for telepathy I have gathered in my tests (or, on what seems to be evidence to me). You don't have to be "yes people", but I think you try to be fair. I read carefully each post, of course.
 
This not the Forum of the Smart People (and not even (no longer) the Forum of an Educational Foundation), it is the International Skeptics Forum, so you might expect that posts here might be somewhat biased towards skepticism.

It is the ISF, and forum of People Smarter Than Most.

There are a handful of self-selected schizophrenics here. They all have problems dealing with rational thoughts. and distorted visions of reality.

Maybe the schizophrenics can establish a support group sub-forum here. You'll get my support!
 
It is the ISF, and forum of People Smarter Than Most.

There are a handful of self-selected schizophrenics here. They all have problems dealing with rational thoughts. and distorted visions of reality.

Maybe the schizophrenics can establish a support group sub-forum here. You'll get my support!

Not the worst idea, but I cannot see it being blessed by the mods.

Face it, we have at least three claiming to be schiz-para as we speak. Chucking them in a thread together would be a recipe for some sort of meltdown.
 
Michel, I am sure that has been asked at least once in the many years you have been on this forum but please indulge me. It seems pretty simple that you could put all of us in our place on this board by simply using one of the suggested tests from this forum. Simple, no? It would convince all us skeptics. Isn't that your goal here? Because why else post on an international skeptics forum?
I have already modified my tests in the past to take member suggestions into account, but I generally found that these suggestions did not lead to an improvement. In particular, evaluating in a "fair" way credibilities of the answers (making a distinction between friendly answers of people who cooperate and less friendly ones) has turned out to be an essential tool. There is no reason why I should go back to the Middle Ages because of a bunch of excited, hostile people.
 
I have already modified my tests in the past to take member suggestions into account, but I generally found that these suggestions did not lead to an improvement. In particular, evaluating in a "fair" way credibilities of the answers (making a distinction between friendly answers of people who cooperate and less friendly ones) has turned out to be an essential tool. There is no reason why I should go back to the Middle Ages because of a bunch of excited, hostile people.
Yet right here you have a fellow "telepath" with whom you could actually demonstrate your ability right now. Yet you come up with excuses to avoid that at all costs.

Why is that?
 
edited- decided to not post. Nothing useful for me to say.
 
Last edited:
Michel -

You have previously stated that hostile answers indicate a lack of credibility. I observed you write this:


I believe, however, that this forum may have a certain role to play, not sure it is doing it well. There is a difference between being "an enlighted skeptic" on the one hand, and an "ayatollah of skepticism", afraid of any change, on the other hand.


This is a very hostile post. You say you are not sure that this forum is fulfilling its mission. You used the letters "enlighted" even though "enlighted" is not a word. You compare people here to ayatollahs, which english speakers know as being historically unyielding people who encourage violence.

By your own rules, your posts lack credibility. By your own rules, you are lying and your observations should be disregarded. By your own rules, you do not deserve to have your ideas counted as equal to friendlier people.

Following your rules, I have used the scientific method to determine that you are not credible. Using science, I have determined that you are lying. It is absolutely mandatory that I believe the exact opposite of everything you say.

Perhaps you are receiving my thoughts in your head and refuse to accept that I am such a powerful telepath while you are a fraud. This is why you lie.
 
As a fairly normal person in this regard and a long time member of the forum, I know Loss Leader's posts pretty well.

I know in what way he's serious there and in what way he's playing a game.

That's just normal, because I think like other people.

You're not doing that. You're searching posts for clues and simulating having an understanding of other people. That's much, much harder for you, because you do it so poorly.

It's almost the opposite of telepathy.
 
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/enlighted

It would probably have been better that I use "enlightened" (but I think it was still understandable). Feel free to point out less-than-ideal English language.

Posts have to be understood in context. Isn't this what you say in your moderator work?

LL is probably one of the most tolerant mods here, but somehow you want to project your ideas. That is sick.
 
Michel, Loss Leader and Abaddon and every other poster are all from different walks of life and different parts of the world and we wouldn't agree about much if you got us in the same room. Loss Leader doesn't even like music and I'm a musician. I think the U.S. laws are screwed up and LL has the deepest respect for law, bless him.

We're not all on the same side except we do agree that no one can read your mind, and vice versa.
 
It would probably have been better that I use "enlightened" (but I think my post was still understandable).


Because of your hostility, your credibility indicates that you are lying. Therefore, you do not think that your post was still understandable.

Is it because you are angry that I am a telepath while you are not?
 
Michel, Loss Leader and Abaddon and every other poster are all from different walks of life and different parts of the world and we wouldn't agree about much if you got us in the same room. Loss Leader doesn't even like music and I'm a musician. I think the U.S. laws are screwed up and LL has the deepest respect for law, bless him.

We're not all on the same side except we do agree that no one can read your mind, and vice versa.
Oh yes.
I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.
(Loss Leader's favorite post ;))
 
Because of your hostility, your credibility indicates that you are lying. Therefore, you do not think that your post was still understandable.

Interesting. If one applies the claimed criteria to Michel's posts, one would perforce have no option but to conclude that Michel himself was lying his butt off.

What may we conclude from that?
 

Back
Top Bottom