• 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.

Next Major Terrorist Attack Predicted

When I saw 6/6/2004, I figured it was the 60th anniversary of D-Day. But that is obviously less significant than the sum of the numbers of the date format you choose.
 
What if it doesn't happen, love? What will you think then? Would that be any kind of evidence to you that it's silly nonsense, or would you seamlessly flick to the next "auspicious" date like you did last time?
 
Nucular said:
What if it doesn't happen, love? What will you think then? Would that be any kind of evidence to you that it's silly nonsense, or would you seamlessly flick to the next "auspicious" date like you did last time?
Click to expand...

I'll make a prediction here. I'm going to sit down and chant a mantra, and emanate a huge wave of purple healing energy at the Sears Tower. I predict that this exercise will protect the Sears Tower from terrorist attacks on the sixth of June forthcoming. Stay tuned. Don't let Randi spend that million before then.
 
Roadtoad said:
positive8.jpg
Click to expand...
:big:

Yeah, thanks, love. Oh, and don't forget 8th June (668, neighbour of the beast!)
 
bruto said:
I'll make a prediction here. I'm going to sit down and chant a mantra, and emanate a huge wave of purple healing energy at the Sears Tower. I predict that this exercise will protect the Sears Tower from terrorist attacks on the sixth of June forthcoming. Stay tuned. Don't let Randi spend that million before then.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Your actions could save thousands! :)
 
Roadtoad said:
SWEET SCREAMING GOD, YOU ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST DOPES I HAVE EVER MET!

My God, Love, are you BRAIN DAMAGED or something?
Click to expand...
Actually, that's a sensitive topic. Yes, I am brain damaged.

Cripes! What kind of an idiot are you!?!?
Click to expand...
I am an idiot of the third kind.

The only thing I can think is at some point, you overdosed on Drano, you kept snorting it until your brain matter corroded into lime Jell-O.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that drinking Drano is harmful.
 
Hang on, my first, middle and last name all have 6 letters in them 6-6-6,
my name is Thomas, named after doubting Thomas, the Original Skeptictm, so that implies that James Randi is under threat, doesn't it? Or does that mean I'm in danger? Or Randi's in danger from me? Or I'm in danger from Randi? Maybe my forum membership could be revoked? Or could it mean that I'm going to win the $1 million. Cripes, I'd better go hide in the cellar just in case.
 
love said:
Sorry, that's just anecdotal evidence. Come back to me when you've got a proper double-blind placebo-controlled trial!
Click to expand...
Well, given that the suggestion is that this stuff is highly toxic; and given that it's well-established that powerful alkaline substances are corrosive, not least to organic matter; and given that we're made of organic matter; and given that there are many such case studies you'll find if you type 'drano' into pubmed; and that such cases are not uncommon; I'd simply respond that a DBPC trial is neither appropriate, nor ethical, nor necessary.

Or would you volunteer for one? ;)

Edited due to pedantic compulsions
 
Last edited:
Jesus! I want proof not some ad hoc explanation.

Vaccines have poisons in them and they are 100% safe!

Food has toxic chemicals added to stop it going off. You wouldn't argue that food is bad for you, would you?
 
love said:
It only matters what date it is accepted to be, not what date you think it ought to be.
...
Yeah, it only needs to be 6 June in Chicago. Satanists seem to be more practically minded than you seem to think.
Click to expand...

You ignore all of the interesting points made by gtc,
and then reply with some more nonsense.

The facts of date usage and representation should cause you to ponder.
Why don't you just THINK about it for just a small moment?
 
Vaccines are not 100% safe.

Some food is, of course, bad for you.

As a general rule of thumb, the more synthetic chemicals it contains, the worse for you.

The chemicals added to food and chemical components of a vaccine are poisonous when ingested in anything other than minute quantities.

My explanation was not ad hoc: given the things I stated in my last post, I point out that it is you who contradicts established principles - it would indeed be extraordinary, would it not, if any significant quantity of a substance of ph≈13 did not cause harm upon ingestion?

So, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pay up. What makes you think Drano is safe?
 
Nucular said:
Vaccines are not 100% safe.

Some food is, of course, bad for you.

As a general rule of thumb, the more synthetic chemicals it contains, the worse for you.

The chemicals added to food and chemical components of a vaccine are poisonous when ingested in anything other than minute quantities.

My explanation was not ad hoc: given the things I stated in my last post, I point out that it is you who contradicts established principles - it would indeed be extraordinary, would it not, if any significant quantity of a substance of ph≈13 did not cause harm upon ingestion?

So, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Pay up. What makes you think Drano is safe?
Click to expand...

You won't get a straight answer from her, Nucular. What you'll get is more meandering pseudointellectualism.

My third son, an EMT, read through this and just about choked. His response was, "Then chugalug it, sweetheart. See you in hell. When God was handing out brains, she thought he said 'trains,' so she asked for a small one.'"

Seriously, this is not someone to be regarded with any degree of respect. Love has demonstrated a remarkable lack of even basic intellectual honesty. If she'd had any, she first of all would not have posted the hateful and cowardly replies to Fowlsound that she did, nor would she have continued on this brainless crusade to "prove" science is wrong.
 
Nucular said:
As a general rule of thumb, the more synthetic chemicals it contains, the worse for you.
Click to expand...
Ahem. Beg to differ.
A chemical is a chemical is a chemical.
... regardless of how it is synthesized or otherwise produced.
The myth of 'natural ingedients' is very common but also very wrong.
 
Roadtoad said:
You won't get a straight answer from her, Nucular. What you'll get is more meandering pseudointellectualism.

My third son, an EMT, read through this and just about choked. His response was, "Then chugalug it, sweetheart. See you in hell. When God was handing out brains, she thought he said 'trains,' so she asked for a small one.'"
Click to expand...
:D

Don't worry Roadtoad, I'm not expecting a straight answer - just a flippant correction seems to have turned into a bedtime procrastination exercise. But I'm off now ;)
 
Flange Desire said:
Ahem. Beg to differ.
A chemical is a chemical is a chemical.
... regardless of how it is synthesized or otherwise produced.
The myth of 'natural ingedients' is very common but also very wrong.
Click to expand...
Okay, okay, I acknowledge my inaccuracy with no contest, in true sceptical manner.

But how can I correctly convey, avoiding this terminological inexactitude, what I was trying to say: that I tend to avoid food with additives?

Oh, I should have said 'additives'. No, but then ANYTHING added, is an 'additive'.

I'm thinking of the supermarket rule of thumb - two identical sandwiches, one contains bread, butter and ham, then other contains bread butter, ham and umpteen gazillion E-numbers.

Which to choose, and how to explain why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom