Daylightstar
Philosopher
Which was the strong part of the post?
Merged New telepathy test: which number did I write ?
- Thread starter Michel H
- Start date
-
- Tags
- telepathy telepathy test
- Status
Which was the strong part of the post?
This (in my opinion):
(I have tried to extract the good part of your post). Of course, even so, your (modified by removal of some parts) post is not perfect, but I don't demand perfection from contributors in this thread (I am far from perfect myself).
I insist that I am probably telepathic in a global fashion, this is not a joke.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
I know you're not joking but it has been shown to you in various way why you are incorrect.
I will make this very clear, I have never ever received any thoughts you have transmitted and neither has anyone in this thread.
"never ever" or "never ever", Mister Nay? ("details" may be important here). And I wonder how you can speak for other members.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
So, the only 'information' concerning the claimed content of your thoughts, which could show reception of such to be accurate is wrong, but everything else which doesn't contain such information is right?
That's a really weak position to take, one that has no merit whatsoever
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Thought broadcasting is a known indication of a serious problem, as you know:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_broadcasting
Thought broadcasting is not known (or knowable) as an actual occurrence, only as a psychotic disorder.
Unfortunately, such is reality.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
That you insist such is quite apparent, that you would be telepathic is not apparent at all.
No hint of such exists.
Yes, this is known.
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
Never, Period.
Nill, Nada, Not Now, Not before, Not anytime in the future.
No, Nein, Nyet.
I have not now, Not Before, Not ever, received your thoughts. Period.
I can speak for them by simply reading the thread, No one has expressed any notion they got your thoughts, Some originally answered with jokes and sarcasm before it became clear you cannot tell the difference between sincerity and and jest.
However I open the door for any member her who has genuinely heard your thoughts.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
I suspect there was no beast at all.
Do you sometimes see a cat (or cats) coming through the walls (or doors) of your apartment?
?
No, I don't take hallucinogenic drugs.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Does "No" refer to use of hallucinogenic drugs (which I did not ask about) or does it refer to what I did ask about cat(s) possibly coming through the walls and doors in your apartment?
Last edited:
The "No" was an answer to your strange question.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
He can speak for me. I have never received any modicum of your thoughts at any time. Ever. Nobody has on this thread. Or on the other sites upon which you inflict yourself. Nobody. None. Never. What part of this does not sink in?
Oh, I know. It's the part where you bizarrely claim that we all do without exception and proceed to lie about it. Were that remotely true, your lame 1 in 4 nonsense would be guaranteed to fail. If only you could get people to pick one, right? Well, all of us know that it matters not a whit whatever response is given. You will inevitably construe it as agreement. Doesn't matter what the answer given might be. Thus nobody cares anymore to participate in such nonsense.
At this point, if I illustrate the point I will have to write some numbers. I am not going to do it. Whatever number I might write regardless of what it might be, you will go "AHA!" and claim a super magical hit.
This, of course, renders any attempt at rational conversation moot. You simply wont allow that.
So where is it, exactly, that you want to take this? I really don't have any idea. Any critique or discussion of your numerical methods is verbotten, as is discussion of your beliefs, as is any discussion of your affliction, as is any any discussion of what your mother may or may not have said.
Frankly, you have painted yourself into a corner. You have intentionally created a scenario where nobody can be honest with you. I may indeed get a honking great yellow card for simply posting this.
The bottom line is that like it or not, there are actually people who care. And some of them are here.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
In that we've all said the same thing to you at one time or another, there is nothing special about Nay Sayer reiterating our position. No-one on the planet has ever, ever received any telepathic communication from you, or from anyone else. You have no special powers, and none of us are lying when we say "no, I (we) can't read your thoughts".
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Am I then understanding correctly that you do not see cats coming through the doors or walls in your apartment?
It's not a strange question. You have already presented auditory hallucinations with the 'violent noises' in your apartment, now you have presented an animal unusually 'responding' to your arm gestures.
It is likely the animal wasn't actually there.
Other, bizarre visual hallucinations such as I mentioned may actually occur.
p0lka
Illuminator
Is there any test you could think of that would make you question that?
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 23,404
I too can confirm that I have never ever received any psychic message from you, nor from anyone else, and since I am entirely persuaded that the evidence shows telepathy doesn't exist I'm quite sure nobody else has heard such a message either.
Can you explain what you mean about details possibly being important? This response reminds me of when you picked up on a grammatical error in one of my own posts. It seemed to me that you were implying that errors in the posts might somehow invalidate the points they were making.
Are you familiar with 'confirmation bias'? Do you feel you might be inclined to see what you want to see and ignore the rest?
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Nub of the problem. It is Michels claim that you do, you are simply lying about it.
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Most likely to simply perpetuate the belief-crutch.
If it is talked about in whatever way and his non-tests continue (to receive responses), it 'exists'. If conversation about it or his non-tests cease, it dies down and stops existing.
Like most irrational beliefs.
- Status