New telepathy test, the sequel.

calebprime said:
Madness is like that.
Click to expand...
I guess so. It's just so frustrating when you're dealing with someone whose intelligence and capacity for rational thought are clearly more than adequate for them to understand, but who is being prevented from doing so by something which is so far outside my own experience and understanding.

Incidentally I accessed Ladewig's user profile, thinking I might PM him to draw his attention to this thread so he could clarify his meaning (yes, I know Michel has taken no notice when other quoted posters have confirmed they intended sarcasm, but it's worth a try, right?) only to find that he has not visited the forum for four months. Now I have someone else to worry about. :(
 
calebprime said:
Why do your posts seem like the responses of a machine in that they exhibit accurate lower-level logic but a complete misunderstanding of the human situation, over and over and over and over?
Click to expand...

Because:

Michel H said:
I am still hearing voices in my head..
Click to expand...

This thread needs a cyclic compassion reset. Michel is not well. We should not engage, I feel. There is no way in.
 
Pixel42 said:
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?].
...
Click to expand...
According to wikipedia,
LOL, or lol, is an acronym for laugh(ing) out loud[1][2][3] or lots of laughs,[4][5][6] and a popular element of Internet slang.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL.

I am trying to evaluate all statements and sentences in a neutral and objective way (and it is not hard for me to find posts which are really aggressive, for example on this forum, when people seem to be struggling putting decent arguments together and replace arguments by violence ("he's mad" and so on)).

Many of the posts on this forum are so strange that they are actually far more paranormal than me (with my claims of apparent thought broadcasting).

When I see a post that says:
I changed my mind. The design was flawless. Great study lol.
Click to expand...
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/telepathy-test-which-number-did-i-write.4026/#post-120055,

I don't try to clutch at straws, and focus exclusively on the "lol" part, like you do, I try to understand the post and the spirit of the post without prejudices, preconceived ideas. The reason was Wormwood said "lol" is very simple and easy to understand: in the third post of the thread, he had expressed some mild reservations about my test, and then seemed to change his mind when it appeared that his answer was correct. Nothing extraordinary or unexpected here, I believe that the complimentary nature of his post remains true, and it is significant that his complimentary post towards me was liked by two members who did not give a correct answer.

I am finding frequently some degree of success in my serious ESP tests. For example, in another recent test, on Spiritual Forums (link: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=117649 ), whose target was simply number 2, Olivia13 said:
4 initially jumped out at me several times, but then I questioned it and wanted to go with 2.

Curious to see how this goes.
Click to expand...
I then replied:
Thank you to all, the correct answer (2) was given by Dan_SF and Olivia13 ... Olivia's answer is perhaps particularly interesting, because I actually used "4" as my target in my previous test (in French): https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/questio...8081943AA8UU8y .
Click to expand...
Then, Olivia13 again:
Haha...Interesting. When deciding on a number I also sensed you commenting on my selection somehow. In addition, I felt that that 4 was a ...previous choice somehow, and that 2 was more relevant to 'now' or the current question.
Fun stuff!
Click to expand...
Then, Hoppy7 came (who had not participated in the test) and said:
I got 2 and I was right! I was also initially getting 4 strongly, but after hearing and hearing, I got the number 2.
Click to expand...
To me, because I am neutral and objective, I am not clutching at straws, and I rely carefully on human testimonies, this is (once again) clear evidence that I am a "special" (which does not mean "better") and "telepathic". I usually find a general pattern of success and interest like this, on non-skeptical forums.

Skeptics, on the other hand, seem to have singular difficulty adjusting to this unusual reality (not reported by the media), they often get very upset and furious. It is possible that some of them are facing some minor mental health difficulties, perhaps consulting a good professional could be useful (it is not forbidden to say a word or two about Michel H's claims, I suppose).

It is, however, not my priority to report this ("my telepathy") in the scholarly literature at this point, I don't want "bad publicity".
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I think it is important to remember that Michel is not posting these tests to test himself. He is posting these tests because that act of posting them helps him with his problems. Posting rigorous tests does not help him feel better, nor does accurate assessment of the results he gets.

That said, I too feel, and often act on, the frustration Pixel has expressed. It is terribly sad when an illness prevents a person from seeing they are ill.
 
Pixel42 said:
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?].
...
Click to expand...
According to wikipedia,
LOL, or lol, is an acronym for laugh(ing) out loud[1][2][3] or lots of laughs,[4][5][6] and a popular element of Internet slang.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOL.

I am trying to evaluate all statements and sentences in a neutral and objective way (and it is not hard for me to find posts which are really aggressive, for example on this forum, when people seem to be struggling putting decent arguments together and replace arguments by violence ("he's mad" and so on)).

Many of the posts on this forum are so strange that they are actually far more paranormal than me (with my claims of apparent thought broadcasting).

When I see a post that says:
I changed my mind. The design was flawless. Great study lol.
Click to expand...
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/telepathy-test-which-number-did-i-write.4026/#post-120055,

I don't try to clutch at straws, and focus exclusively on the "lol" part, like you do, I try to understand the post and the spirit of the post without prejudices, preconceived ideas. The reason why Wormwood said "lol" is very simple and easy to understand: in the third post of the thread, he had expressed some mild reservations about my test, and then seemed to change his mind when it appeared that his answer was correct. Nothing extraordinary or unexpected here, I believe that the complimentary nature of his post remains true, and it is significant that his complimentary post towards me was liked by two members who did not give a correct answer.

I am finding frequently some degree of success in my serious ESP tests. For example, in another recent test, on Spiritual Forums (link: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=117649 ), whose target was simply number 2, Olivia13 said:
4 initially jumped out at me several times, but then I questioned it and wanted to go with 2.

Curious to see how this goes.
Click to expand...
I then replied:
Thank you to all, the correct answer (2) was given by Dan_SF and Olivia13 ... Olivia's answer is perhaps particularly interesting, because I actually used "4" as my target in my previous test (in French): https://fr.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171008081943AA8UU8y .
Click to expand...
Then, Olivia13 again:
Haha...Interesting. When deciding on a number I also sensed you commenting on my selection somehow. In addition, I felt that that 4 was a ...previous choice somehow, and that 2 was more relevant to 'now' or the current question.
Fun stuff!
Click to expand...
Then, Hoppy7 came (who had not participated in the test) and said:
I got 2 and I was right! I was also initially getting 4 strongly, but after hearing and hearing, I got the number 2.
Click to expand...
To me, because I am neutral and objective, I am not clutching at straws, and I rely carefully on human testimonies, this is (once again) clear evidence that I am a "special" (which does not mean "better") and "telepathic" person. I usually find a general pattern of success and interest like this, on non-skeptical forums.

Skeptics, on the other hand, seem to have singular difficulty adjusting to this unusual reality (not reported by the media), they often get very upset and furious.

It is, however, not my priority to report this ("my telepathy") in the scholarly literature at this point, I don't want "bad publicity".

(corrected three errors)
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
No, that's the exact thing you take great pains not to do. But it isn't your fault, you can't help it.
Click to expand...
Did you even bother to read what Olivia13 said, in the long post above, or did you just rely on the golden rule of skepticism: "I don't like it, so I skip it"?
 
Michel H said:
Did you even bother to read what Olivia13 said, in the long post above, or did you just rely on the golden rule of skepticism: "I don't like it, so I skip it"?
Click to expand...
Nope we all evaluated the evidence presented and found it to have no merit.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
 
abaddon said:
Nope we all evaluated the evidence presented and found it to have no merit.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is easy to say, of course (you don't even have to adapt such a stereotyped response to the nature of the evidence provided). But, assume you do a telepathy test on Yahoo Answers, Skeptiko or Spiritual Forums. Would you expect to get replies and comments similar to those I am getting?
 
Michel H said:
Did you even bother to read what Olivia13 said, in the long post above, or did you just rely on the golden rule of skepticism: "I don't like it, so I skip it"?
Click to expand...

Yes, I read the entire diatribe. Did you read any of the posts here refuting your claims and destroying your "tests"?
 
RoboTimbo said:
Did you read any of the posts here refuting your claims and destroying your "tests"?
Click to expand...
Michel H said:
I read all posts carefully without a single exception (I did not see any "refutation").
Click to expand...
That was funny. MichelH? Set out for us, the structure of your "scientific paper" that uses all your "tests".

You can't do it can you? :)

Your first paragraph would have to declare that everyone else in the world is lying except you, and yet you use those same defined liar's answers as your only evidence.

Michels H's scientific Paper and Evidence for Michel H's telepathy
Set it our Michel.....set it out....
 
Matthew Ellard said:
That was funny. MichelH? Set out for us, the structure of your "scientific paper" that uses all your "tests".

You can't do it can you? :)

Your first paragraph would have to declare that everyone else in the world is lying except you, and yet you use those same defined liar's answers as your only evidence.

Michels H's scientific Paper and Evidence for Michel H's telepathy
Set it our Michel.....set it out....
Click to expand...
I think that you should not confuse a serious situation, which is specific to this forum, and the kind of reception that I am getting for my tests and my questions elsewhere (where people often seem to be vastly more open-minded). 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.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Ellard said:
That was funny. MichelH? Set out for us, the structure of your "scientific paper" that uses all your "tests". You can't do it can you?

Your first paragraph would have to declare that everyone else in the world is lying except you, and yet you use those same defined liar's answers as your only evidence.

Michels H's scientific Paper and Evidence for Michel H's telepathy....starts now....
Click to expand...
Michel H said:
I think that you should not confuse a serious situation, which is specific to this forum,
Click to expand...
It is not a serious situation. Firstly, this forum has hundreds of people making false claims using flawed experiments. Secondly you posted exactly the same flawed experiments on other skeptic forums, so it is not unique to this forum.

Do you agree you are unable to write any form of scientific paper as your "tests" are all flawed and you call all your sample groups liars as they don't admit to hearing your telepathy?
 
Michel H said:
I think that you should not confuse a serious situation, which is specific to this forum, and the kind of reception that I am getting for my tests and my questions elsewhere (where people often seem to be vastly more open-minded). 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.
Click to expand...

King of the Americas has an open mind. He believes he can read minds. You refuse to do a proper test with him. Don't you believe a proper test with him would prove your ability to project your thoughts and his ability to receive them?
 
Michel H said:
I think that you should not confuse a serious situation, which is specific to this forum, and the kind of reception that I am getting for my tests and my questions elsewhere (where people often seem to be vastly more open-minded). [...].
Click to expand...

There is no confusion. Your claim stands as this: Everyone in the world can read your thoughts, but lie about doing so.

Is this a correct interpretation of your claim? Yes or No?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom