• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

John Edward - psychic or what?

Therefore I think the universe is trying to tell me that it's actually Marky Mark that I'm destined to be with.

I hate to tell you this, but it's not the universe or spirits (at least not the ethereal kind of spirits). It's all in your head. Your mind wants you to be with Marky Mark.

-- Roger
 
I'm not implying that you are lying. I'm implying that your reasoning is faulty. I signed into the site by posting a comment and following the default prompts. I don't live in a place "covered" by patch.com. You have no idea where those 34 aliases came from. Someone could have left the web page on in a library; someone in Rivertowns could have linked it on their Facebook; Rivertowns could be the default place for new logins from a great big geographic area. Etc.
Carlitos, Your reasoning about the sign up for patch is wrong...you are signed in from whichever town (estimated 40 could be more didn't check every town) that ever featured my blog that you happen to link to and sign in to comment on. I gave you link to the Yorktown feature thus you signed in from there thus you signed in under yorktown. Also you could just sign in your name from anywhere on a different blog or story etc.and that becomes your original reference point of origin for other comments. As for the library if someone left my blog on at a computer terminal in the library then 33 other people would have to sit at the same terminal at different times and want to read my blog and comment and be nasty or lie...And that also assumes no one else will sit at that terminal and sign off and want to do one of a billion other things on the Internet. 34 people in a row sit down at the same terminal in that library all wanting to read my blog and comment on it and lie or be nasty. That explains it. or not. But even if you still don't believe any of that, the evidence that I was right about the fake also comes from the fake himself in the back and forth that follows. So you didn't need to think my computer interpretation was right to believe me at all. You simply choose not to.
And again I understand why some people will choose not to believe me. But that also would make any type of future discussions pointless.
 
And again I understand why some people will choose not to believe me. But that also would make any type of future discussions pointless.
Discussion is pointless unless the other party believes you? You seem to be misunderstanding what people are saying.
 
Last edited:
Carlitos, Your reasoning about the sign up for patch is wrong...you are signed in from whichever town (estimated 40 could be more didn't check every town) that ever featured my blog that you happen to link to and sign in to comment on. I gave you link to the Yorktown feature thus you signed in from there thus you signed in under yorktown. Also you could just sign in your name from anywhere on a different blog or story etc.and that becomes your original reference point of origin for other comments. As for the library if someone left my blog on at a computer terminal in the library then 33 other people would have to sit at the same terminal at different times and want to read my blog and comment and be nasty or lie...And that also assumes no one else will sit at that terminal and sign off and want to do one of a billion other things on the Internet. 34 people in a row sit down at the same terminal in that library all wanting to read my blog and comment on it and lie or be nasty. That explains it. or not. But even if you still don't believe any of that, the evidence that I was right about the fake also comes from the fake himself in the back and forth that follows. So you didn't need to think my computer interpretation was right to believe me at all. You simply choose not to.
Carlitos can speak for himself, of course, but you misunderstand his comments, too.

You said you knew the aliases were all the same person because you had done some electronic checking and discovered they originated in the same place. You described your method.

Carlitos said the results yielded by your method only appeared to demonstrate common origin while not necessarily doing so. He suggested you use the same method on him to demonstrate.

You used the same method and arrived at a conclusion which demonstrated that Carlitos was correct.

In other words, while it is possible that all the aliases were by the same person, the electronic method of checking you used to reach that conclusion were insufficient for the purpose.
 
Ask him to send me two Jack-in-the-Box tacos. That would be impressive, as the nearest one is 200 miles away.
Unfortunately in no way can I communicate at will with my Dad. I am no John Edward : )
But I do believe he hears me when I talk to him...it is me who has the trouble with the reception. But I am open to signs he tries to give me. And I can clearly see which signs are more convincing than others and why.
 
Unfortunately in no way can I communicate at will with my Dad. I am no John Edward : )
But I do believe he hears me when I talk to him...it is me who has the trouble with the reception. But I am open to signs he tries to give me. And I can clearly see which signs are more convincing than others and why.
So there are a numerous signs, only some of which make sense, and this does not in any way appear to be confirmation bias to you?

By that I mean intentionally lying.
Again, I think no one here has said that is what is happening, only that it is a possibility which cannot be ruled out, even though it is not necessary to determine that no paranormal explanation is required for what you have experienced. There is a significant difference, and asking us to drop that possibility from consideration in order to make the conversation not pointless is irrational.
 
To be fair...

...I think batvette gave the survey results not to give weight to the argument that psychic claims are true, but to put forth the statistical probability that the person "called back" was statistically likely to believe in psychic claims, so that such a proposition would not be an immediate "turn off", as some suggested.

Still waiting for an answer to my "angel" question, though!

Thank you for showing admirable objectivity and perception.

As for the angels, cant help you on that one. I'm agnostic.
 
And, the trailer for Ted used the song "Best Friend" which was written by ... Harry Nilsson!

(I forgot to mention, the actor wrote me because I was publishing a Harry Nilsson "fanzine.")

Oh, and the actor appeared in an episode of "That 70s Show" which starred ... Mila Kunis!

I'm beginning to see how all this fits together!

Now, if only someone would bring me a pizza.

-- Roger

Well now this IS extremely special. I must be the center of the universe!

I'd never even heard of the film Ted and just the other day I was at a friends house and they started talking about it and I pulled up the trailer from IMDB on my smartphone and watched it. And now we're talking about it now! To make it even more bizarre my friend just got a smart phone too!

:p
 
Well now this IS extremely special. I must be the center of the universe!

I'd never even heard of the film Ted and just the other day I was at a friends house and they started talking about it and I pulled up the trailer from IMDB on my smartphone and watched it. And now we're talking about it now! To make it even more bizarre my friend just got a smart phone too!

:p

I suppose that this thread was a comedy thread from the start.
 
Or maybe is doesn't. Considering the 43% that don't. Or maybe your friend just found it ubercreepy that you thought you had sooper-dooper powers. Or maybe like the rest of humanity you're misremembering things, filling in the blanks, you know, exhibiting the same cognitive biases/errors that are commonly observed in these anecdotes.


Do you really think over these arguments as rational before you post them? If all of this were a matter of my memory and cognitive bias filling in the blanks, why did this person agree right at that moment that was an event demonstrating telepathy?
 
Anyway, like I said it was just a story I shared...wasn't expecting any miracles with it.
 
Original post said in no way can i communicate AT WILL with my Dad. You seem to have cut that out. As did Garrette cut out the end of my post he quoted where I said it didn't matter if Carlitos believed my computer explanation 'cause you can see the truth about the fake through the posts. If you so choose.
 
Original post said in no way can i communicate AT WILL with my Dad. You seem to have cut that out. As did Garrette cut out the end of my post he quoted where I said it didn't matter if Carlitos believed my computer explanation 'cause you can see the truth about the fake through the posts. If you so choose.
Sorry Garrette, not cut out, you posted it. You just ignored that part.
 
Carlitos can speak for himself, of course, but you misunderstand his comments, too.

You said you knew the aliases were all the same person because you had done some electronic checking and discovered they originated in the same place. You described your method.

Carlitos said the results yielded by your method only appeared to demonstrate common origin while not necessarily doing so. He suggested you use the same method on him to demonstrate.

You used the same method and arrived at a conclusion which demonstrated that Carlitos was correct.

In other words, while it is possible that all the aliases were by the same person, the electronic method of checking you used to reach that conclusion were insufficient for the purpose.

That was exactly my point. This site is supposed to teach critical thinking. Just because you eventually get the right answer sometimes doesn't mean that you got to it via the right process. I'm a little frustrated that Robin doesn't get what I am saying, and seems to think I'm calling her a liar.

batvette said:
why did this person agree right at that moment that was an event demonstrating telepathy?
We don't have any evidence at all of this happening, so there's no need to even consider it. What we have here is your memory of your anecdote with your word that your recollection is accurate, years later, about what someone told you in a long-ago incident where you allegedly told them something through a door. In other words, bupkis.
 

Back
Top Bottom