Well, if a member of this forum claims that he was joking or being sarcastic in a telepathy thread, what value exactly does this have?
It doesn't matter that it's "in a telepathy thread." If someone says something that was intended as a joke, but others don't perceive it as such, then his only recourse is to announce matter-of-factly that it's a joke. You seem to be pleading the special case that if it's in a thread on a controversial subject, then it should be decided in favor of the controversial proposition, not in favor of the person attempting the correction. In your approach, any hint of ambiguity is resolved in your favor. That's neither fair nor scientific.
The explanation might simply be that they no longer want to admit that I am a "telepathic person", so they may say "what I said was a joke".
And it might more simply be that people naturally want to be understood accurately regardless of the question at hand.
Adding "a joke that you cannot understand because of your condition" makes the comment significantly more vicious...
Facts exist, whether they distress you or not. The people here have taken ample opportunity to test your ability to understand the nuances of expression in English statements, and have drawn their conclusion out of the evident facts, not out of some deep-seated hatred or fear of you. If that makes this forum a hostile environment for you, then you should question the wisdom of returning here year after year to repeat the same unproductive exercise.
...but it would seems that "thought projectors" are an "unprotected minority".
Your inability to prove to others any part of this is your problem. The other posters here have told you what it would take to convince them, and have offered you their assistance in accumulating that proof. Instead you simply want to foist your beliefs upon them on your own terms only, and thereby demand acceptance. Nearly everyone, including myself, has given up hope that you will ever see why your present proposal is objectively unconvincing.
The example that comes to mind is, of course, Loss Leader once again.
That appears to be all you have. You're just subjecting us to page after page of your attempt to dictate to everyone else what a man meant who has expressed himself very clearly -- in fact, was trained to do so -- and who is no longer here to defend himself against your supposition. You interpret your inability to convince anyone that you know best what he intended as their dishonesty rather than your error. You will make very little headway with that approach, here or elsewhere.
Loss Leader, a fully reliable poster? (some doubts about that)
If you believe Loss Leader to be unreliable then you should exclude his data from your study. But you don't, because you interpret that he gave you an answer that's favorable to your claim, and your aim appears to be to amass evidence that you're right, not test objectively
whether you're right. Your ever-changing subjective rules purporting to govern the reliability of your data have the observable outcome of filtering them so that they are favorable to the desired conclusion. That's what makes your results unscientific, not some plot to discredit you.
If you continue to argue that Loss Leader was unreliable, then you owe everyone a better justification for why you continue to claim he confirms your abilities. Either his contribution is reliable, or it's not, regardless of whether it favors you. Either you're talking his contribution on the whole, or you're cherry-picking out of it what you want and dismissing the rest as "unreliable."
If you can manage a substantive reply to this that isn't just more accusations of others' dishonesty, then perhaps I may continue this dialogue with you. Otherwise I, like others, have said my piece and will allow you to flounder in paranoid ramblings without further interference.
