Supreme Court Rules 6-3 in Favor of Grand Unified Field Theory
Majority Cites “Superstring Clause” of Article I
No, In order to understand what happened with “Doc” and I you need to see the thread in a holistic way. Don’t worry about it, those who needed to understand did.
Love
Leroy
MEBuckner gets a banana. (and a superstring)
Who were the dissenters? Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist?
Wow!
We’ve gone from remote viewing to remote testing…
Remarkable.
Hi Doc,
Who are the psychics who have passed your test? And have you ever tested Ed Dames?
You are very funny, also you are very young and without experience. Love
CITE?
They’re still holding out for the “Four Elements Theory”.
Heh. Maybe we should do our own little Randi test and see how well you do, then? (And, going in Randi’s tradition, the rules of the test would be negotiable between the tester and testee, and only done when both sides agree its equal).
Because barring a good test, all we have is anecdotal evidence, which when confronted by solid physical and empirical evidence, is worthless (Just as with every single court of law, since you love bringing that example up).
If you’re wanting to prove psychics exist, it’d be a great start. I know you’re going to say no, but I figure it’d be worth a shot…
Okay, let’s see…I held up a pen…let go of it…and it moved in a downward motion until it came in contact with the desk…it bounced a bit then remained still. Hmmm. Gravity still seems to work. Okay, check that one off the list.
What we have is first-hand, eye-witness reporting, which is permissible in a court of law.
As for Randi, fair and equable?
You are a dreamer, he has been trounched many times on network television.
Love
Leroy
Psychics are by nature gentle, kind, and caring people. They really do what they claim to do, at least the majority of them. But they are not door mats or dart boards, if they are pushed hard enough they will defend themselves and they are very good at it.
We can now drop the constitution and court stuff, as long as some don’t think they are greater than God.
Love
Leroy
Once again, you’ve made an assertion. Once again, I’ll expect no details to support the assertion. When was Randi “trounched”? What network, what program, what year? Do you have any details so we can locate and examine the evidence that you found so convincing?
Permisable, yes. However, eye-witness reporting is also falible, and therefor, courts will disregard it if the witness describes a scene in direct conflict with the physical evidence. If you want to provide evidence, feel free. I’d be more than glad to test it.
The Randi test sure seems fair to me. Both the tester and testee agree on the rules of the test, before it is performed. It is not “judged” per se, but measured in terms of success or failure (IE, the guy does find what he is looking for X out of Y times (X and Y agreed to before hand), or he does not). And I don’t know where you get the idea that he doesn’t let spectators watch, I thought he’s done many of these tests on TV! Do you have a cite for him refusing to allow anyone to watch the test?
So come on. Would you be willing to try a simple test to prove your “powers”? Some test you think is fair…
Gee Lekatt. I coulda sworn my summary was taken direct from your explanation. But you say it was wrong. Oh well, I’m pretty dumb I guess.
But maybe, kind sir, you could down from your tremendously high horse, and if you had it in your heart to help us poor stoopid lil folks, you might try to give an answer to my question. Maybe if you used lil short words and easy to understand sentences, we could begin to get a hold on what you’re trying to say. Pleease?
Or maybe “those who needed to understand” could explain it to me, since Lekatt says that you understood. Are you out there, guys?
Or maybe, when faced with a hard question you don’t want to face up to, you resort to saying that you could answer but we wouldn’t understand? Hey, now that explanation has a pretty solid feel about it doesn’t it?
Oh, can we? Thanks. We’ve been dying to do so, but you just keep bringing up the same difficult questions, and it’s been bothering us that we can’t think of any suitable answers, so we sure are glad you’re allowing us to drop it.
OK, so sarcasm over, I’m not at all interested in “what happened with” Doc and you.
What I’d still like to know, though, is how you reconcile your position with what he has apparently measured?
No, I’m not going to drop it. No, I will not accept patronising suggestions that I need to see this thread in a particular way to understand (absent any cogent explanation of what that way is).
Hmmm…
I’m not sure if there would be any point Princhester. We obviously haven’t advanced ourselves to the correct degree of self-delu… er I mean spiritual enlightenment yet. We must become one with the thread and appreciate the profundities of its more “holistic” nature.
I… I… don’t know if I am ready.
[proud but quivering with fear]
I… I… I am ready. Please, Master. I am ready, Master Lekatt.
[/proud but quivering with fear]
But as far as I can see your answer to this actually was:
In other words, I dunno, but take my word for it. However, the reason I and others have, frankly, harped on about this issue is that it’s not a matter of personal belief and anecdote: Bess either did or did not believe that she’d received a message from her deceased husband. Evidence has been presented that she didn’t believe that she’d received the message. The answer may well depend “on which version you read”, but until you provide any contrary account at all, the rest of us will only have read the one version. And it won’t be our failing that we’ve not the foggiest idea what this other account is that you claim to have read. Don’t assume that we’re psychic. We’ve no idea what you might have read, but we still might want to read it for ourselves.
I thought you would never ask.
Please don’t take my word for anything.