New telepathy test, the sequel.

[arthwollipot]

I know this expression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taking_the_piss) but I don't think this is actually what Loss Leader was doing. Such a behavior would not be typical of his style, with an attention for the people, especially those who are often attacked.

It was absolutely what he was doing, and it was absolutely typical of his style.

 

[Jim_MDP]

It was absolutely what he was doing, and it was absolutely typical of his style.

Seconded.
It was a bit of silly sarcasm he later regretted once we saw the depth of your delusion Michael.

Or you're trolling.
Either way... being here can't be good for you, I'd boot you from the board, for everyone's sake.

 

[Michel H]

It was absolutely what he was doing, and it was absolutely typical of his style.

That's not how I remember him.

A quote about Loss Leader:

First, I'm going to miss Loss Leader. He was an amazing poster, and in life was probably just as amazing a person. He knew he'd been living on borrowed time for quite some time now, and it's nice to see he managed this long, then went out gentle into that good night.

 

[Michel H]

Seconded.
It was a bit of silly sarcasm he later regretted once we saw the depth of your delusion Michael.

Or you're trolling.
Either way... being here can't be good for you, I'd boot you from the board, for everyone's sake.

You can be booted too.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Nothing to be gained unless one thinks something is to be gained from mocking the afflicted.

We are being incredibly restrained.
Probably why he keeps returning, he gets such an easy ride here.
I can imagine the treatment he'd receive at ANY of the other boards I frequent... it ain't pretty.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Where do you see "delusion"? Is it because this is not what you were taught at school, or saw on TV?

TV is full to the brim with pseudoscience claims and un-evidenced "proofs" of all things paranormal.
I don't watch any of it, thank you very much.

And I attended parochial schooling the first 10 years... but that's a different flavor of "paranormal".

 

[Jim_MDP]

You can be booted too.

Sure, if I break enough rules (or make an effort to break any at all, I had a brief exchange with LL near the end... begging him to give me my first suspension. He declined, though I suspect he would have if he could, it would have been funny).
I don't say you've broken the rules, you're just annoying in your obstinency.
I'd boot you for your own mental well being (and our relief).

 

[Michel H]

Sure, if I break enough rules (or make an effort to break any at all, I had a brief exchange with LL near the end... begging him to give me my first suspension. He declined, though I suspect he would have if he could, it would have been funny).
I don't say you've broken the rules, you're just annoying in your obstinency.
I'd boot you for your own mental well being (and our relief).

Perhaps you are a person who doesn't like the truth, and feels more comfortable living in a universe of lies.

As for me, like my mother was saying, "I need to understand".

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is it because you are scared of the possibility that my test might yield some good results that you try so hard to sabotage it with your empty personal attacks, void of any (detailed) argument, Dave Rogers?

And this is the reason why engagement is futile; any contrary opinion or information is immediately integrated into the delusion that there is a world-wide conspiracy to deny to Michel H the existence of the telepathy that's used to attack him, and the person offering that opinion or information is assumed to be part of the conspiracy and can therefore be ignored.

Dave

 

[P.J. Denyer]

As for me, like my mother was saying, "I need to understand".

Yes you do, but you don't want to. You're here seeking support for something that isn't real to avoid the actual problem & participating in that does no-one any good, least of all you.

 

[kali1137]

Besides, everybody still does of course have a full right to disagree with my personal conclusions, but there is no right to be dishonest.

You are correct, there is no excuse to be dishonest. Why don't you also bring over the posts from Loss Leader where he flat out tells you he was being sarcastic?

 

[Michel H]

You are correct, there is no excuse to be dishonest. Why don't you also bring over the posts from Loss Leader where he flat out tells you he was being sarcastic?

I have already done so (see post #1793).

It seems that people often lie about my apparent "telepathic property", and extracting the truth can be challenging (I still have myself some doubts).

Even if Loss Leader claimed he was being "sarcastic" (sic),

Geed gravy, one sentence I wrote sarcastically in 2013 is going to follow me for the rest of my life. They'll probably put it on my tombstone.

this does not really mean at all that he really was: it could have been one more lie:

All of my responses to any of your tests have been lies.

If I were you, I would discard all my responses as not being credible.

 

[JayUtah]

It seems that people often lie about my apparent "telepathic property"...

"It seems...," or "I can prove...?" What you believe is irrelevant. What you can show with evidence is all that matters.

...and extracting the truth can be challenging...

Especially when you appear to have no objective way of distinguishing truth from falsehood in your responses. This is what makes your method irreproducible and therefore scientifically invalid.

I still have myself some doubts.

Then you can make no claim that your method is more reliable than methods that subsume insincerity and sabotage into the null hypothesis and eliminate the bias altogether. It's not a matter of your experiment being perfect or not. You've deliberately introduced a source of bias. That's not acceptable anywhere in science.

...this does not really mean at all that he really was: it could have been one more lie:

Or it might not have been. Your inability to determine that as a fact means you should discard his data. You keep it not because you can pretend to know when he was being serious and when he was being sarcastic, but because it favors your desired outcome.

 

[turingtest]

"It seems...," or "I can prove...?" What you believe is irrelevant. What you can show with evidence is all that matters.



Especially when you appear to have no objective way of distinguishing truth from falsehood in your responses. This is what makes your method irreproducible and therefore scientifically invalid.



Then you can make no claim that your method is more reliable than methods that subsume insincerity and sabotage into the null hypothesis and eliminate the bias altogether. It's not a matter of your experiment being perfect or not. You've deliberately introduced a source of bias. That's not acceptable anywhere in science.



Or it might not have been. Your inability to determine that as a fact means you should discard his data. You keep it not because you can pretend to know when he was being serious and when he was being sarcastic, but because it favors your desired outcome.

Odd, isn't it? Michel's need for a "credibility rating" as a tool to weigh answers has led him to treat as absolutely credible an answer from someone he now says might have been lying. It's almost as if Michel is...what's the term I need here? Oh, yeah- "cherry picking."

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I see Michel has come out of hibernation again, lets have a refresher, shall we?

• Michel created a test to prove his psychic¹ abilities
• Michels test failed and so he created a new one based on picking 1 of 4 numbers. A lengthy secure method was used for this despite its faults and he failed again
• Michel then went through every reply and began claiming all the misses as hits and joke replies such as 'Bacon' as a hit based on a variety of absurd reasonings.
• Michel started making new tests with a 'Credibility rating' caveat in which he decides which replies are credible or not
• Michel, seemingly, has an inability to understand or recognize sarcasm and views most replies to him as genuine

¹ He claims that others can hear his thoughts.

I'll simply repaste this:

-Michel H, The following statement is without sarcasm, vitriol or malice.

Numerous people over the course of many years have tried to have rational conversations with you about your claims of having ESP, However, You are unable or unwilling to use proper testing to verify this.

You have taken incorrect and sarcastic guesses to your tests and have made them fit to your liking.

You have shown no progress since your first post in understanding the inherent flaws in your thinking and tests.

It is abundantly clear no amount of further discussion with you will yield a different result, thusly it is a waste of our time and your time. I earnestly wish you well in this endeavor but will no longer engage in it. -

 

[Michel H]

Michel then went through every reply and began claiming all the misses as hits and joke replies such as 'Bacon' as a hit based on a variety of absurd reasonings.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Did you have too much bacon this morning?

Instead of making vague and nonsensical accusations, you are free, if desired, to quote one of my (real) analyses, and point out the aspect you disagree with.

... I do indeed have ESP, and know for a fact that he wrote 2!

I am seeing a 4 very clearly. It's almost as though I had written it myself.

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind and pull out the number you were thinking of ... your thoughts were very easy to read ...

 

[abaddon]

It was definitely 42...HHGTG

 

[Jim_MDP]

I don't know what you are talking about.



Did you have too much bacon this morning?



Instead of making vague and nonsensical accusations, you are free, if desired, to quote one of my (real) analyses, and point out the aspect you disagree with.

You claim you don't "cherry pick".?
Love what you've done with that last LL quote.

(BTW... that's me being sarcastic.)

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I don't know what you are talking about.

Did you have too much bacon this morning?

Instead of making vague and nonsensical accusations, you are free, if desired, to quote one of my (real) analyses, and point out the aspect you disagree with.

It was a nonspecific example.

You once took a reply to your 1-4 test of 'B' to mean the number 2 and ergo a hit.

 

[p0lka]

I pick 3,2,5 and 4, after all 'one' of them is correct.