So, according to your logic, I should have not told you that I was a skeptic? And, BTW, still am in most matters of the paranormal and metaphysical.
As far as ludicrous nonsense: you need to read my posts better. Her details of my brother were to the “t”. If you don’t want to believe me, fine, that’s your problem and not mine. But you would do well not to denigrate as nonsense perfect and detailed descriptions of events happening to somebody she had no knowledge of. To do so is to convey to me the fact that your comprehension skills are left wanting.
Here’s an idea. Get Robyn to talk to the dead lady.
What? Your awesome persuasive and debating skills wouldn’t’ve convinced the fuzz? Color me shocked. Anyway, wouldn’t the ethical thing to have tried to convince the police. Without even an attempt to do so, that shows that both you and Robyn do not think she has the “gift”.
I just saw a bunch of childish and imbecilic insults from you–in more than one post, more than one thread. And you still aren’t even attempting to answer one question. Maybe your ex can discern that question for you.
Look, your ex isn’t going to call you put of the blue and thank you for carrying water for her. Call the woman and let her know, then ask her the questions. But, of course, you won’t do that. And it doesn’t take a psychic to know why you won’t.
[ul][li]Here’s the Occam’s Razor explanation:[/li][list][li]Your ex had a stomachache and you two left.[/li][li]Something horrible happened.[/li][li]You both conveniently recalled a warning she likely didn’t utter in the first place. After all, there’s a reason so-called recovered memories are not considered reliable.[/ul][/li][*]See my earlier posts listing likely sources for “to the ‘t’” “predictions”.[/list]
*"A paper…published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology…is further confirmation of something skeptics of the paranormal and alt med treatments have noticed for a long time. It’s called the “avowal of prior skepticism”. This is a narrative device used by a person telling a story in which they will announce their previous skepticism (“I used to be skeptical”) before relating a conversion story about a product or event. I see this all the time regarding paranormal investigators and in infomercials for products.
The ploy of stating prior skepticism makes the narrator look more credible and is intended to make the story more believable. That is, what I’m about to tell you even convinced ME so it must be true, believe me!"*
LinkedIn-y Spliff - Did Robyn drive the next SO bonkers too?
Maybe my comprehension skills are left wanting, but I can’t help but conflate Robyn with one of those sexy totally NSA Jewish Hieresses (who’s also good enough in the sack to earn a second charity).
I could be off on that one.
I’ll take the enormous leap in logic and assume everything happened the way you said. It is impossible to determine the odds because I doubt she accurately tracked every time she had a premonition and every time it didn’t come true. How many times did she forget about a feeling that didn’t come true? How many times did she shake off a feeling by deciding it wasn’t a real premonition therefore didn’t count? How many times did she shoehorn an event into a vague feeling and decide it was a true psychic event? In other words how do we know it’s just not random chance and confirmation bias?
I am so stealing that.