New telepathy test, the sequel.

[Pixel42]

I don't find anything sarcastic in the post:

for example

You may not realise this if English if not your native language, but when an English speaking person says "it's almost as if" they mean "that's exactly what happened". Loss Leader was telling you he wrote down the number 4 and was looking at it as he wrote his post. It's obvious, blatant, sarcasm. He told you so himself when he realised you hadn't understood. Stop calling him a liar.

 

[Michel H]

You may not realise this if English if not your native language, but when an English speaking person says "it's almost as if" they mean "that's exactly what happened". Loss Leader was telling you he wrote down the number 4 and was looking at it as he wrote his post. It's obvious, blatant, sarcasm. He told you so himself when he realised you hadn't understood. Stop calling him a liar.

You may not realise this if English if not your native language, but when an English speaking person says "it's almost as if" they mean "that's exactly what happened".

I don't believe this: there is a difference between "it's almost as if", and "it's exactly as if" (which might perhaps be given an ironic interpretation, though it is known that Loss Leader gave the correct answer in his only participation, and he made it clear later he used telepathy).

Also, "English understatement" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_understatement) doesn't apply to Loss Leader, as he was an American lawyer, I believe, and not an Englishman.

Loss Leader was telling you he wrote down the number 4 and was looking at it as he wrote his post. It's obvious, blatant, sarcasm. He told you so himself when he realised you hadn't understood.

If this is true (but I don't think it is), then I invite you to post here the relevant post where he says this.

 

[JayUtah]

I have tried to be balanced...

No. You explicitly dismissed data because it did not fit your desired outcome.

When you read my posts, you see Loss Leader again as he really was (and not always approving).

We knew him better than you did. You are grossly misrepresenting him.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't believe this...

Too bad.

Also, "English understatement" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_understatement) doesn't apply to Loss Leader, as he was an American lawyer, I believe, and not an Englishman.

It's almost as if we Americans don't understand and employ English sarcasm.

 

[Michel H]

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited response to rule 12.

I couldn't force a distinguished (if imperfect) forum member like Loss Leader to write:

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

Yet he did, and his answer was correct.

 

[JayUtah]

Making such a statement without providing evidence won't be very good for your credibility.

I'm not worried about my credibility.

I couldn't force a distinguished (if imperfect) forum member like Loss Leader to write:

Yet he did, and his answer was correct.

And we can't force you to understand what he clearly meant by that. You have an entire chorus of native English-speakers who knew the person well telling you what his statement meant. But somehow only you can be correct. Tell us again how you're trying to be balanced.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't believe this: there is a difference between "it's almost as if", and "it's exactly as if" (which might perhaps be given an ironic interpretation, though it is known that Loss Leader gave the correct answer in his only participation, and he made it clear later he used telepathy).

Also, "English understatement" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_understatement) doesn't apply to Loss Leader, as he was an American lawyer, I believe, and not an Englishman.

This link gives examples of the uses of this phrase:

https://ludwig.guru/s/it+almost+as+if

Here's an example from the New York Times of it being used sarcastically by an American:

Professor Winkler said, "it shows the effect of Eric Holder's letter in shaping legal decisions that came after it, almost as if it's a precedent in the case".

He's clearly saying the letter was a precedent.

If this is true (but I don't think it is), then I invite you to post here the relevant post where he says this.

You've quoted one such post already.

Here's another: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10438878#post10438878

No, I was not serious. I was joking. This was before I realized how ill you were. I never would have posted if I knew the state of your health. I am very, very sorry for any role I played in aiding your delusion.

I had just written the number 4. I typed it right ther between "a" and "very." When I said it was like I had written it myself, I meant to refer to the fact that I had just written it myself.

That's sarcasm. It was a joke based on the word "seeing." I did see a 4 in that I was staring at it on my computer screen. I did not see it in my mind and choose to type it. I typed it quite randomly and then joked about having typed it.

 

[Michel H]

I'm not worried about my credibility.



And we can't force you to understand what he clearly meant by that. You have an entire chorus of native English-speakers who knew the person well telling you what his statement meant. But somehow only you can be correct. Tell us again how you're trying to be balanced.

I am not interested in a chorus of dishonest people, and I am also not much interested in one more show of gross dishonesty by pseudo-skeptics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism).

The meaning of the statements:

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

and

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your ... mind

are obvious (to me, at least).

 

[Pixel42]

The meaning of the statements:

and

are obvious (to me, at least).

Loss Leader told you exactly what he meant by them. Stop calling him a liar.

 

[Michel H]

This link gives examples of the uses of this phrase:

https://ludwig.guru/s/it+almost+as+if

Here's an example from the New York Times of it being used sarcastically by an American:


He's clearly saying the letter was a precedent.


You've quoted one such post already.

Here's another: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10438878#post10438878

OK.

So Loss Leader posted, on 24th January 2015

I certainly can. Note my post:

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

I had just written the number 4. I typed it right ther between "a" and "very." When I said it was like I had written it myself, I meant to refer to the fact that I had just written it myself.

That's sarcasm. It was a joke based on the word "seeing." I did see a 4 in that I was staring at it on my computer screen. I did not see it in my mind and choose to type it. I typed it quite randomly and then joked about having typed it.

This is not fundamentally different from what I have posted already (although this post is more violent in tone; perhaps he was in a bad mood on that day).

Here, he seemed to have made a probably intentional spelling mistake ("there" instead of "ther") to create ambiguity, this seemed to be a typical feature of Loss Leader, as I have already explained.

I have already pointed out that Loss Leader went through a period when he denied any scientific value to his remarkable post:

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

So, this is not fundamentally new.

The post:

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers to see into your weak and ordinary mind and pull out the number you were thinking of. You did not feel aggressively towards me back then so your thoughts were very easy to read and you did not change your answer when you knew I was right. ...

was made almost three years later (on 12th November 2017).

It is possible (though this really pure speculation on my part) that Loss Leader became more sincere at the end of his life, because he was somewhat concerned about his legacy.

It remains that, in spite of all your desperate efforts, the post:

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

is both almost perfect and paranormal on a skeptical forum with a high reputation (especially if made by a mod).

And I quote again:

... Early on, I used my telepathic powers ...

I understand your desperate attempts to decree that each post that you don't like is "sarcasm" that should not be taken seriously but so far I think you have achieved exactly nothing along that route.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not interested in a chorus of dishonest people...

You're clearly interested in this audience, judging from how vigorously you've tried to convince them that you're right over several years. But when you fail, all you have left is to call us all liars. Which is more likely? That a whole group of people is being collectively dishonest for no good reason, or that you are one person who has made an understandable mistake?

are obvious (to me, at least).

Yes, sarcasm sounds like a literal statement unless you pick up the context cues. That's how sarcasm works.

I understand your desperate attempts to decree that each post that you don't like is "sarcasm" that should not be taken seriously...

It's not desperate when the person you're quoting flat-out tells you he was being sarcastic and apologizes for misleading you. But that part does fit your desired outcome, so you just -- once again -- decide that that part was lying.

And we don't "decree" that every post we don't like is sarcasm: just the ones that are. And Loss Leader made it very easy to tell whether his was or not. For the rest, trust the people who speak the relevant language natively.

...but so far I think you have achieved exactly nothing along that route.

Really? How many people in the world have you convinced that your interpretation of Loss Leader's contribution is correct? Or is everyone but you dishonest?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Or is everyone but you dishonest?

Alas. That may be what Michel suspects.

The simple fact that the whole world's media and social media are not full of people discussing the strange phenomenon of being able to hear the thoughts of some man from Belgium surely means he can conclude that either we can't all hear him or that literally the whole world is conspiring to keep quiet about it.

It doesn't seem a stretch to imagine that a condition which makes one believe that literally everyone hears one's thoughts might also make one imagine it's possible for the entire human race to somehow agree to a deception about it.

 

[Pixel42]

Here are three more non sarcastic posts by Loss Leader:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10266217#post10266217

For the record, I was lying about having any indication of knowing what number you were thinking of. I lied because I thought it was funny. I lied to make you look foolish. I saw no number in my mind and did not even guess a number. I just hit a key.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9956258#post9956258

I can't believe I have to spell this out. I was kidding. I wasn't serious. I was lying about seeing any number very clearly. I was making fun of you. I saw no number. I heard no thought. I gave an answer only to highlight how silly I thought your methodology was.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11264888#post11264888

I cannot sense your thoughts. I never could.

 

[Michel H]

Here are three more non sarcastic posts by Loss Leader:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10266217#post10266217



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9956258#post9956258



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11264888#post11264888

What these posts actually show is that Loss Leader changed his mind for a while, as I have already pointed out myself.

But these posts do not show that his remarkable post:

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

had a sarcastic nature: there is nothing sarcastic in this near-perfect and simple post.

That people change their minds on the delicate issue of telepathy is nothing new or surprising.

I noticed it also with my mother (now deceased because of the coronavirus).

In 1991, right after meeting her father, who had always been benevolent to me (I was his only grandson), she phoned me and said:

Michel, there is something I should tell you. People can read your mind, but you should say to yourself "this thing annoys me, so I decide it does not exist".

But later she changed her mind and, while acknowledging she had told me this, she stated (my mother, not a doctor) than I am a schizophrenic person (and not telepathic) and that I should take some "new generation" medications for the brain, that I did not take because of past bad experiences (that she didn't care about) and lack of confidence.

After my second telepathy test, Ladewig commented:

Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.
...

but he also seemed to change his mind later.

However, once again, please don't make the mistake of believing that, because he "changed his mind", his congratulory post was of a "sarcastic nature". This would be very foolish. There is no reason to doubt that Ladewig was 100% sincere when he praised my work.

Similarly, in 1998, I asked the psychiatrist of the emergency departement of the large hospital near my home (I live near a large university hospital): "If I talked alone in my apartment, could you hear what I say (using telepathy) if you were driving your car on the large road nearby?".

He replied "Yes". But would he reply "yes" again today? I think there is no guarantee he would, he might behave like my mother.

I hear from time to time noises (some coming from the street) which seem "correlated" with what I say or even think (sometimes, people are getting emotional and want to react).

You should realize that some posts made on this forum, or on other forums (Yahoo Answers, doctissimo ...) in various languages are not my only source of information.

I have tried to travel to see if the voices in my head would change when I travel far away, but these plans have had to be mostly canceled because of the pandemic.

I am making these posts with goals of recognition, but also of "public education" (?).

 

[Pixel42]

What these posts actually show is that Loss Leader changed his mind for a while

What these posts show is that Loss Leader initially made sarcastic fun of what appeared at first sight to be a bog standard woo slinger, realised his mistake and tried to correct the damage he'd inadvertently done, finally understood that was impossible by the very nature of the mistake, and resumed making sarcastic fun.

 

[JayUtah]

That people change their minds on the delicate issue of telepathy is nothing new or surprising.

So you say, but you seem to cling tenaciously to this one example. Your approach simply presumes its conclusion: that people know telepathy is real but are for some reason motivated to declare otherwise. You simply interpret every objection or denial as lying. Compare that with how often people mistake sarcasm. Is it really the most likely explanation that you're the only one who properly understands what Loss Leader was doing, and that everyone else in the world is conspiring to deceive you?

I am making these posts with goals of recognition, but also of "public education" (?).

As far as I can tell, you have little if anything to impart. You claim to be telepathic, but you can't demonstrate it in a properly controlled trial. When all your would-be students draw the inevitable conclusion, you dismiss them all as liars. Not a very promising teaching strategy.

 

[gabeygoat]

Lol, I remember Michael He's bizarre test. He decided to disregard my number as my username must mean I'm not a serious person

 

[Michel H]

A simple telepathy test: which number did I write?

I have noted that there still seems to be a lot of skepticism on this forum towards my previous work on telepathy.

A little reminder might be useful:

... 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.

Hurray.

Congratulations on once again proving telepathy.
...

It seems that some members dismiss as pure sarcasm some posts that do not agree with their more conventional worldview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom).

The best evidence is probably the one you provide yourself.

This is why I invite you, once again, to unleash your extra-sensory talents.

I recently wrote (and circled) one of the following four numbers: "2", "3", "4" and "5" on a piece of paper near me.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me which one I wrote.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have noted that there still seems to be a lot of skepticism on this forum towards my previous work on telepathy.

A little reminder might be useful:




It seems that some members dismiss as pure sarcasm some posts that do not agree with their more conventional worldview (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom).

The best evidence is probably the one you provide yourself.

This is why I invite you, once again, to unleash your extra-sensory talents.

I recently wrote (and circled) one of the following four numbers: "2", "3", "4" and "5" on a piece of paper near me.

I would appreciate it if you could tell me which one I wrote.

Note to everyone: Michel H has a long and consistent history of blatant and explicit cherry-picking in these tests; he will assign a greater credibility to results that agree with his hypothesis and a lower one to those that disagree, then declare the test a success. There is nothing to be gained by anyone from engaging with the process in any way whatsoever.

Dave

 

[kali1137]

Also to note, please do not humor OP and use sarcasm. While we can pick up on it, OP will not. All the posts quoted are missing the follow up from said posters specifying that they were being sarcastic and those posts were ignored.