Yeah. Their bots still have rubber skin.
I am not a bot, nor do I have rubber skin, but I can make a g-shock run backwards with 3 months of wearing … I wear mechanical watches now. [I did it with 3 successive ones. I gave them to mrAru who pulls the batteries, lets them sit for about 6 months then pops a battery in and they work for him. I just decided that since they stopped making the wind up timex I had before it got stolen I would just go to a mechanical watch.]
Though I wish I could influence traffic lights 
Reported
Well, just to be contrarian, I’m going to make an on-topic post. I can make watches run wonky (except for good ol’ fashioned wind-up ones). And a standard part of any vacation where we’re staying in the same hotel for a week is me stopping by the front desk to get a replacement key card because “Umm, I broke this”. I’m learning to keep it in a coat or a bag, but if it’s in a pocket or right up against my body, it gets demagnetized.
Now, with a science background, I’m careful not to make a big deal out of this. Don’t want to dig my own rabbit hole, nor do I want to brag “Hey, I’ve got Sooper Electric-Tronic Powers!”. And I’ve got better things to do than to set up a multi-year large-sample-size double blind study.
Moderator Note
Thread was bumped by a spammer who has since been wished away to the cornfield.
Same thread bumped twice by spammers. Don’t know if I’d seen this here before.
You mean his watch stopped?
I’m allergic to wrist-watches and other electronics. I have broken too many to count. I don’t think I’m irrational. Alien, maybe. Not irrational though. Microwave ovens and remotes are my biggest victims.
Since this thread has been bumped, can someone recap the other threads? Can some people stop electrical devises or not?
Most devices have off buttons, so yes. Most electrical devices can be damaged by rough treatment, so yes. Can they be damaged by some unusual electrical field possessed by a small minority of people? Very unlikely, and where detailed information about “clock stoppers” are available, two plausible explanations arise:
a) the stopped watches aren’t numerous enough, and/or of high enough quality, to preclude random chance
b) the watch wearer is unusually rough on their watch
And there’s always a number of available excuses for not putting it to the test:
- I can’t afford to by more watches to kill and this mechanical one I bought has worked for years.
- I actually grew out of it.
- Why can’t you just take my word for me doing something that is scientifically implausible?!
Your suggested explanations/excuses are not applicable to my Wife’s circumstances.
Just because one doesn’t fit the criteria that you have set forth in the above description, doesn’t necessarily deem the phenomena “scientifically implausible”.
I am certainly not an advocate of woo, or any other superhuman “powers”, but the mere fact that you have set the limiting parameters in this quandary… is sufficient evidence that your conclusion must be dismissed as un-scientific nonsense… because your premise has restricted the outcome to fit your own notions.
All I know for a fact is: My Wife was completely unable to wear electronic devices (watches) during the mid-seventies through the mid-eighties, as compared to the norm… your excuses noted above, accounted for.
Is that the fact, or is that a conclusion from the facts? If, starting in 1975, she got a new digital watch every month, of a variety of different brands and styles, and it always failed within a month requiring a replacement, and this pattern continued until 1985, then that could be the set of facts behind your statement, and probably would be a sign of something unusual. On the other hand, the fact pattern behind your statement could also be that she had one watch in 1975 that failed quickly, after which she wore a mechanical watch or none at all, and then tried another digital watch in 1985 and it also failed quickly. This would not be remarkable at all, and would not be worthwhile evidence for anything.
IIRC, about ten watches over roughly a decade.
I make no conclusion one way or the other, it could be happenstance, (tho it seems unlikely) or, perhaps there is a scientific explanation. There’s not enough data here for me to publish a paper.
The one thing we have concluded is: there’ll be no more money spent on electronic watches for her.
To quote myself: “a) the stopped watches aren’t numerous enough, and/or of high enough quality, to preclude random chance”
You can’t have your cake and eat it to.
Your random assumptions aren’t very sci-en-tificky.
I previously stated my Wife’s situation didn’t fit into your box, and yet you persist in attempting to make her experience into some kind of failure to adhere to scientific procedure, when in fact, all that is going on is the failure of your assumptions to be correct.
SIGH… There were a few quality (Seiko) watches involved, that were replaced when they malfunctioned (replacements also failed) so the count is probably higher than ten. Also, the majority of these malfunctions occurred in bunches, early on in the up thread mentioned “decade”, so it wasn’t like clockwork, no pun intended, whereas exactly one timepiece was obtained every January first, for ten years. I became gun-shy early on in that decade and quickly reduced the frequency of my purchases of such. The last attempt was approximately 10 years (give or take a year or two) after the first.
Her care of fragile items is impeccable, so that can’t be the issue either. SIGH…
In my wildest dreams, if I had known 40 years ago that such trivial (to me) information would be challenged by one of the greatest scientific minds of our time, I would have taken better notes.
BTW: Unlike you, I make no claims, be it scientific proof OR woo… But from a scientific perspective, I’d say you’ve failed to make your point.
My cake remains uneaten.
How do you know your wife’s situation doesn’t fit? Based on what you’ve told us, it doesn’t appear that you even know what your wife’s situation is. You don’t even know how many watches it was.
Yep, ya got me there, man. I cannot attest to an exact number… approximately 10 is the best I can do. And now that you mention it, I probably don’t really know my Wife of 44 years… she no doubt was sneaking around under the cover of darkness and abusing those poor watches. Mystery solved and enlightenment prevails!
I literally wrote that in these situations there is never enough watches involved that you can rule out random chance. And you literally wrote “it could be happenstance”.
How you get from that to me making random assumptions I do not know, unless you have problems with the construct “and/or” and think I stated bad quality watches were the explanation in all cases.
Reported
Reported.