New telepathy test, the sequel.

[RoboTimbo]

I think there is. When a statement "The design was flawless." becomes "sarcasm", and when "Congratulations on once again proving telepathy." becomes an insult, this means (to me, at least) that you have collectively reached an accute level of dishonesty and of bad faith in this forum.

How about when there are dozens if not hundreds of voices saying your "tests" are a joke with detailed explanations as to why?

The dishonesty is all on your part and is positively breathtaking.

 

[calebprime]

The problem is apparently consistent with your posts which consistently show a very poor understanding of human motivation. What seems like dishonesty to you is just ordinary noise/ambiguity that other people deal with more or less effortlessly. It's much harder for you than it is for other people that way, at least on a fair reading of your posts overall.

It's not us being dishonest. It's you misunderstanding the world because of mental illness. Sorry.

 

[Michel H]

Perhaps greener pastures are in order?
...

Yes, that makes sense, I think. I should perhaps add that a number of good posts (including good answers in my tests - it's not really up to me to say whether they (the tests) are good or not) have been made on this forum, but the evolution that I see is unfortunately not good. About two years ago, I could still read posts like:

... please note that I am not questioning the validity of your beliefs ... I really do not think that there is a reason to question your beliefs on this forum, and that perhaps is the point that I was trying to make.
...

But now such posts would become almost inconceivable.

 

[John Jones]

Yes, that makes sense, I think. I should perhaps add that a number of good posts (including good answers in my tests - it's not really up to me to say whether they (the tests) are good or not) have been made on this forum, but the evolution that I see is unfortunately not good. About two years ago, I could still read posts like:

But now such posts would become almost inconceivable.

You're witnessing the results of years of exasperation dealing with your faulty thought processes.

 

[Michel H]

You're witnessing the results of years of exasperation dealing with your faulty thought processes.

In my opinion, the real reason is more that you apparently cannot stand the idea that I am involuntarily projecting my thoughts into other people's minds, apparently with no distance limitation. Most (if not all) "objections" to my work have been in my opinion dishonest, childish, ignorant and frankly ridiculous.

 

[RoboTimbo]

In my opinion, the real reason is more that you apparently cannot stand the idea that I am involuntarily projecting my thoughts into other people's minds, apparently with no distance limitation. Most (if not all) "objections" to my work have been in my opinion dishonest, childish, ignorant and frankly ridiculous.

Ah good, them you should have no problem projecting your thoughts to King of the Americas in a proper test. You have a chance to be honest for a change.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

From your first post, you said we could all read your mind, but were lying about it. Given that, I don't know why you would want to use us in your idiotic tests in the first place.

That is a clear point. Michel H stated we are all liars but keeps coming back here to test people "he knows" are lying.

Is he going to write this in his abstract, describing his experiment?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Perhaps there is a very serious and very alarming problem of lack of honesty on this forum.

No-one is forcing you to post here.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

In my opinion, the real reason is more that you apparently cannot stand the idea that I am involuntarily projecting my thoughts into other people's minds.... Most (if not all) "objections" to my work have been in my opinion dishonest, childish, ignorant and frankly ridiculous.

No. We know you are lying. We offered you simple tests to perform using animals, as animals don't lie. You ran away because you knew you wouldn't pass any such test. You'd then have to see a psychiatrist and admit you wasted seven years of your life self-justifying your, ever changing, schizophrenic delusions.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

...... you apparently cannot stand the idea that I am involuntarily projecting my thoughts into other people's minds,

Why bother posting at all then?

You just shot yourself in the foot again.

 

[Michel H]

That is a clear point. Michel H stated we are all liars but keeps coming back here to test people "he knows" are lying.

Is he going to write this in his abstract, describing his experiment?

Well, unfortunately, there is only one "International Skeptics Forum" (name sounds impressive, doesn't it?), and, like I said, some good posts have actually be made here (which may justify my coming back - I compare with other forums). But I agree with the idea that it would be unwise for me to come back here often either if the post quality is constantly very low, or if I face great hostility, combined with pretty light moral principles.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Well, unfortunately, there is only one "International Skeptics Forum" (name sounds impressive, doesn't it?), and, like I said, some good posts have actually be made here (which may justify my coming back - I compare with other forums). But I agree with the idea that it would be unwise for me to come back here often either if the post quality is constantly very low, or if I face great hostility, combined with pretty light moral principles.

You can't project your thoughts but projection does seem to be your super power.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Well, unfortunately, there is only one "International Skeptics Forum"

You posted your flawed test on the Skeptics Society Forum which is also international. Stop lying.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=27469&hilit=michel+H#p542205

 

[sackett]

Michael H me boy, your posts consist of

I ME MINE MYSELF

almost entirely. How on earth can you imagine that a little lone unimpressive soul like you could possibly be interesting?

 

[Reality Check]

And perhaps....

Going on about spelling and your imagination does not make a post a compliment. No imagined or otherwise compliments on Internet forums will make your work valid as someone who claims to have a PhD in physics knows. What makes science valid is publishing it.

An indicator that separates cranks from scientists is the confidence and courage to expose their work to the criticism of their peers. So where in the last 4 years (22 October 2013) have you tried to publish your work?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You don't really believe you are telepathic. We already know this.

I am involuntarily projecting my thoughts into other people's minds.

Here, he claims we can all read his thoughts

However when I used Michel's full name in an earlier post, he wrote......

For privacy reasons, it is perhaps better that you call me "Michel H", or just "Michel".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11596581&postcount=288

So he knows we can't read his thoughts. We can only read posted words. He making up these stories as he goes and the stories keep changing depending on his audience.

 

[Pixel42]

I think there is. When a statement "The design was flawless." becomes "sarcasm", and when "Congratulations on once again proving telepathy." becomes an insult, this means (to me, at least) that you have collectively reached an acute level of dishonesty and of bad faith in this forum.

It is perfectly obvious to everyone else here that the posts you are quoting as complimentary were sarcastic. One of them even ends with lol, FFS. [You do know that's internet speak for laughing out loud, right?].

Well meaning sceptics with every sympathy for you and the mental problems with which you are struggling tried to help you for years before reluctantly accepting that we could not do so, and the best course was to stop participating in your "tests". Applying words like "dishonest" and "bad faith" to people who are genuinely trying to help you is deeply hurtful.

I say this with no great hope, but please try to take a step back and ask yourself if what everyone else here is trying to get you to understand might not be the simple truth.

 

[Kid Eager]

In my opinion, the real reason is more that you apparently cannot stand the idea that I am involuntarily projecting my thoughts into other people's minds, apparently with no distance limitation. Most (if not all) "objections" to my work have been in my opinion dishonest, childish, ignorant and frankly ridiculous.

Utter nonsense. You’ve avoided every impartial telepathy test technique like the plague. The only ones that, to you only, give an affirmative result are the ones that you control and insert your biases.

I recognise there are some people with conditions that prevent them from detecting social cues for sarcasm and irony. I just wish you would recognise the same thing and ponder the implications.

 

[Pixel42]

when "Congratulations on once again proving telepathy." becomes an insult

I'm going to make one final attempt to explain to Michel why Ladewig's post should be understood as sarcasm.

Here's the full post, with the comments to which Ladewig is replying included:

In the previous test ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com...40#post8607740 ), I found a {correct answer} rate equal to 100% for credible answers.

Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.

I won't complain about my low credibility rating. After all such complaints would be prima facie evidence of my low credibility.

Secondly, I believe that, like high dilution homeopathy, "remote viewing" and precognition are probably impossible because

there is no possible physical mechanism for them.

Bravo. I salute you.
Very few people trying to prove the existence of ESP would have the fortitude to come right out and say that. You are the vanguard of the next Golden Age of psychic testing.

If you are ever invited to speak at a conference for psychic powers and phenomena, will you post the dates on this board? I really want to be there when you say, "OK, all you remote viewing folks and precognition folks - I want to say that you've got nothing; so quit wasting our time with something that has no possible mechanism. Now, I'd like to speak about my unimpeachable ESP evidence."

One last question about credibility ratings. If a subject provides a number in a very credible-sounding post, but several days later says uncredible things about the procedure, does that person get a high or low credibility score?

OK, one more question. If you ever run the test again, will you take note of all the posters who pointed out that asking people to choose a number from 1 to 4 is quite possibly the absolutely worst way of testing this type of phenomena?
Once, again. Congratulations.

After sarcastically congratulating Michel (the "hurray" is particularly pointed), Ladewig points out that Michel's "credibility ratings" are designed to be self-confirming and are therefore worthless.

Next Ladewig marvels that someone can dismiss certain ESP phenomena because "there is no possible physical mechanism for them" whilst arguing for the reality of another for which there is also no possible physical mechanism. He imagines Michel presenting this argument at a conference, indicating that he would like to be there to see the response. I, too, would enjoy seeing the response of people to whom Michel would essentially be saying "95% of what you believe is obviously nonsense, but I agree with the other 5% despite having no better reason to do so than you do for the 95%".

He then takes another dig at the concept of "credibility ratings" by asking a very good question.

Finally he makes it clear that the rest of the post should be read as sarcasm by including the hilighted question.

It's very hard for me to understand how anyone could read this post and come away with the impression that Ladewig genuinely believes Michel deserves to be congratulated for anything except the skill with which he has managed to fool himself so comprehensively.

 

[calebprime]

I'm going to make one final attempt to explain to Michel why Ladewig's post should be understood as sarcasm.

Here's the full post, with the comments to which Ladewig is replying included:



After sarcastically congratulating Michel (the "hurray" is particularly pointed), Ladewig points out that Michel's "credibility ratings" are designed to be self-confirming and are therefore worthless.

Next Ladewig marvels that someone can dismiss certain ESP phenomena because "there is no possible physical mechanism for them" whilst arguing for the reality of another for which there is also no possible physical mechanism. He imagines Michel presenting this argument at a conference, indicating that he would like to be there to see the response. I, too, would enjoy seeing the response of people to whom Michel would essentially be saying "95% of what you believe is obviously nonsense, but I agree with the other 5% despite having no better reason to do so than you do for the 95%".

He then takes another dig at the concept of "credibility ratings" by asking a very good question.

Finally he makes it clear that the rest of the post should be read as sarcasm by including the hilighted question.

It's very hard for me to understand how anyone could read this post and come away with the impression that Ladewig genuinely believes Michel deserves to be congratulated for anything except the skill with which he has managed to fool himself so comprehensively.

Madness is like that.