FARK.com: (6373679) I'm sensing this will be greenlit

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		I'm sensing this will be greenlit (cracked.com)		292
		More: Fail, news presenters, missing children, Casey Anthony

• • •

40162 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jul 2011 at 3:21 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/6373679

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

292 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 09:06:31 PM

AbbeySomeone: You're an idiot. The military does use people for remote viewing among other things. They have no regard for the effects on the person being experimented with either.

I'm familiar with project gondola wish. I'm also familiar how quick they scrapped it when it didn't farking work. And I'm very familiar with the fact that James Randi's million is still comfortably within his control. Find one of you "gifted" people and have them win the million. If they don't want it, they can donate it to a charity.

C'mon. Put up or shut up. Prove us wrong. Shove our faces in it! But you won't. You won't because you can't, nobody can. I predict you will either say nothing or come up with another feeble excuse. No psychic in the history of the world has ever been shown to have any merit beyond unverifiable anecdotes. I predict this will never change.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass		2011-07-11 09:07:27 PM

AbbeySomeone: You're an idiot.

And now all evidence is hidden by the government and if I don't believe in every little thing I'm a government dupe.

Magic!

Jim_Callahan		2011-07-11 09:10:02 PM

littleman77: meh...: Subby here. I think this is also the best argument about god (which ever one you subscribe to) is not real. If God exists and is love, etc, etc. then why wasn't this prevented?

I guess God has different ideas than you do about what's best, you know what with being omniscient and all. But you go on and tell Him that He messed up.

So your argument is that god is not omnipotent (he can't create a solution without being a douche), or that he's not benevolent (he's intentionally being a douche). Guess that rules out the Christian version, then, eh?

inspeyere: My wife was actually checked out by the military.

OK, Mr. "No, obviously I can't show any powers, but this other person I know is totally legit" urban legend spreader man, link the study.

... you do realize that military research is published, right?

//Of course you don't, that would require you to be doing something other than trollin'.

jaylectricity		2011-07-11 09:11:33 PM

AlanSmithee: I predict this will be the last post in this thread.

Don't make me call the crew. They'll last post you so hard you'll be like, "Why you have to last post me so hard?"

Jim_Callahan		2011-07-11 09:16:44 PM

AbbeySomeone:
You're an idiot. The military does use people for remote viewing among other things. They have no regard for the effects on the person being experimented with either.

Cool, tell us the specific subdivision of the military and we'll even file the open records requests for you to help confirm your bullshiat.

No?

What I thought.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass		2011-07-11 09:23:29 PM

Jim_Callahan: inspeyere: My wife was actually checked out by the military.

OK, Mr. "No, obviously I can't show any powers, but this other person I know is totally legit" urban legend spreader man, link the study.

I'd hate to be the guy whose marriage may depend on his continued belief in psychic powers.

ziponwheels		2011-07-11 09:24:20 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: inspeyere: My wife was actually checked out by the military.

Fleet week?

Srsly, dude. She's a liar.

DId she tell the army where to look for WMDs in Iraq?

Given some of the stupid ways our military has invented to spend money, I wouldn't put a program like that past them. There's a famous story about a company that defrauded the reconstituted Iraqi army by selling them bomb detectors that were nothing more than dowsing rods. To our credit, the U.S. military saw through that particular scam.

Snapper Carr		2011-07-11 09:37:36 PM

Cpl.D: I'm familiar with project gondola wish. I'm also familiar how quick they scrapped it when it didn't farking work

Actually, Gondola Wish was only one of many remote viewing programs (and they didn't so much scrap it as much as change its name several times over 8 years) that existed between '78 and '95. Despite some interesting results and some "better than chance" stats in many instances, the conclusions reached were that the hits were not conclusively the result of any type of psychic phenomena.

Link to a summary of the various RV projects by FAS (which is about as objective as one can get) (new window)

vlion		2011-07-11 09:42:45 PM

Wow, zero to anti-religious and Iraq war in 5 pages.

Nice, fark, nice.

I can always sense the hate in you.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 09:51:59 PM

believing in psychics is foolish. everyone knows the only proven outlet in times like that is to trust in the well-documented success of Faith. your priest will tell you the truth.

Gyrfalcon		2011-07-11 09:52:02 PM

Kill the mentally ill: Also, any police department that uses psychics during a murder investigation for any reason other than janitorial work, should be sued into forced retirement by the family of the victims.

I've never yet heard of a case where the cops looked up a psychic. Always--ALWAYS--if you look carefully, you'll find that it was the so-called psychic who contacted the cops first, and either pestered them into giving their amazing sure-to-succeed murderer-finding gimmick a try; or else by some freak of chance they "predicted" the killer's next victim, and the cops were so desperate by then they were willing to try anything.

Meerlar		2011-07-11 09:54:21 PM

Maybe someone should study the effects of negative reinforcement on Psychic ability?

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 09:55:02 PM

Snapper Carr: Cpl.D: I'm familiar with project gondola wish. I'm also familiar how quick they scrapped it when it didn't farking work

Actually, Gondola Wish was only one of many remote viewing programs (and they didn't so much scrap it as much as change its name several times over 8 years) that existed between '78 and '95. Despite some interesting results and some "better than chance" stats in many instances, the conclusions reached were that the hits were not conclusively the result of any type of psychic phenomena.

Link to a summary of the various RV projects by FAS (which is about as objective as one can get) (new window)

Yes, yes. I doubt severely any claims of "better than chance". The only reason we mucked around in such things is because the soviets were at the time, and the cold war was still going strong. RV has never been proven to work. No members of gondola wish, or its successors, have ever applied to and won James Randi's million. Even more importantly, no remote viewer has ever successfully passed scientific double blind testing.

And for that reason, I have no problems whatsoever in discarding the entirety of it.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 09:56:03 PM

oh, and in serious, being fairly up-to-date in the investigation into quantum consciousness, it's thoroughly expectable that pseudo-pyschic phenomena will be true. and i have no pity for the poor sod who has to prove that the mind is capable of things akin to magic, but i understand what he has to prove

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 10:00:25 PM

There is no such thing as "Quantum consciousness". It's just another nonsense thing with "quantum" tacked on the front of it to try to lend it some validity. It doesn't.

chu2dogg		2011-07-11 10:00:32 PM

inspeyere:My wife was actually checked out by the military.

Did they give her a million dollars?

chu2dogg		2011-07-11 10:02:50 PM

ziponwheels: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: inspeyere: My wife was actually checked out by the military.

Fleet week?

Srsly, dude. She's a liar.

DId she tell the army where to look for WMDs in Iraq?

Given some of the stupid ways our military has invented to spend money, I wouldn't put a program like that past them. There's a famous story about a company that defrauded the reconstituted Iraqi army by selling them bomb detectors that were nothing more than dowsing rods. To our credit, the U.S. military saw through that particular scam.

I spent 8 years in the military. I have no doubt he's actually telling the truth about that one.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass		2011-07-11 10:03:32 PM

minitrue noram: quantum consciousness

Is that anything like cosmic awareness?

BakaDono		2011-07-11 10:03:57 PM

Fun thing to try for your amusement:

Go to a "psychic" and get a reading...and then try to react in such a way as to get the "psychic" to give you exactly the predictions you want.

This would've been my hobby, were it not for the fact that they charge $20 a throw.

"Your wife will find out about your other wife before the month is out...she'll be okay with it, but eight of your twelve children will disown you."

Millennium		2011-07-11 10:05:35 PM

Jim_Callahan: So your argument is that god is not omnipotent (he can't create a solution without being a douche), or that he's not benevolent (he's intentionally being a douche). Guess that rules out the Christian version, then, eh?

I have a yappy little papillon: sweetest dog ever under most circumstances, but his barking annoys me to no end. I could have him debarked, but that would be cruel. So instead I continue to work on training him: a much slower process (I've been at it for years), and there are times when it doesn't seem to stick. But it's better than the alternative.

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 10:08:26 PM

BakaDono: Fun thing to try for your amusement:

Here's one. Read up on cold reading techniques, which is what psychics actually do. Then, go to a reading. Do not respond to any questions other than "Is that all?" You will frustrate them to madness.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 10:11:38 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: minitrue noram: quantum consciousness

Is that anything like cosmic awareness?

in a funny way, yeah. a little more relativistic than hippie-dippie though

ziponwheels		2011-07-11 10:16:29 PM

minitrue noram: oh, and in serious, being fairly up-to-date in the investigation into quantum consciousness, it's thoroughly expectable that pseudo-pyschic phenomena will be true. and i have no pity for the poor sod who has to prove that the mind is capable of things akin to magic, but i understand what he has to prove

"investigation into quantum consciousness?" I guess even Hogwart's Academy of Witchcraft and Wizardry needs to use buzzwords in their research grant applications.

A scientist who studies quantum consciousness has about as much credibility as a unicorn biologist or a flying saucer mechanic.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass		2011-07-11 10:16:41 PM

minitrue noram: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: minitrue noram: quantum consciousness

Is that anything like cosmic awareness?

in a funny way, yeah. a little more relativistic than hippie-dippie though

You realize it's helpful to have something to explain before you start explaining it?

Lachwen		2011-07-11 10:20:28 PM

inspeyere: If you dont have clairvoyance....Dont make it sound like noone else does.

WE'RE not "making it sound like" nobody has psychic powers. THE COMPLETE LACK OF ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE is.

C'mon. Show me proof that psychic powers exist - and when I say proof, I mean documented, tested, verifiable proof, not "well this guy I know" anecdotal hearsay bullshiat - and I will publicly grovel at your feet for doubting you. This is a dead serious offer. I will pay my own way to California, bust out a video camera, record myself begging your forgiveness on my knees in front of you and then post it here on Fark for all to see.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 10:21:03 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: You realize it's helpful to have something to explain before you start explaining it?

yeah, i've been studying it for the last seventeen years. there are things to explain. theories to explore, and nothing in the published corpus of scientific consensus which disproves the possibility of overlap between consciousness and the quantum world. plus, scads of little details about how the mind works that we don't actually have worked out.

someone can say there's no credibility to the field, but what the fark can they offer as empirical research or testable predictable reality regarding consciousness? God? 'cause that's a long worn-out bullshiat line that makes my research look positively meticulous compared to how much religion can prove.

A Famous Mortimer Production		2011-07-11 10:22:00 PM

Wow. I never expected to see so many people defending/believing in/claiming to be/claiming to know pyschics on Fark.
Seriously? Farking pyschics? I expected them to have fewer supporters than Scientology and North Korea.
I mean, talk about obvious BS...

Gyrfalcon		2011-07-11 10:25:57 PM

Cpl.D: Snapper Carr: Cpl.D: I'm familiar with project gondola wish. I'm also familiar how quick they scrapped it when it didn't farking work

Actually, Gondola Wish was only one of many remote viewing programs (and they didn't so much scrap it as much as change its name several times over 8 years) that existed between '78 and '95. Despite some interesting results and some "better than chance" stats in many instances, the conclusions reached were that the hits were not conclusively the result of any type of psychic phenomena.

Link to a summary of the various RV projects by FAS (which is about as objective as one can get) (new window)

Yes, yes. I doubt severely any claims of "better than chance". The only reason we mucked around in such things is because the soviets were at the time, and the cold war was still going strong. RV has never been proven to work. No members of gondola wish, or its successors, have ever applied to and won James Randi's million. Even more importantly, no remote viewer has ever successfully passed scientific double blind testing.

And for that reason, I have no problems whatsoever in discarding the entirety of it.

Remote viewing, like the predictions of Nostradamus, have been "proven" insofar as detailed descriptions of "views" can be read to be practically anything. Quite some time back, when I was into that stuff, I read about some remote-viewing experiments where some viewers were allowed to make vague, detailed descriptions of their "targets," photos sealed in envelopes. The experiment was as double-blind as it could be, since neither the viewer nor the reader knew what the photo was. Sounds good, right?

Except the descriptions were so long and vague, that the reader was able to interpret them to fit the "target", much like a Nostradamus prediction. The one I recall was a photo of a nuclear explosion. The description was something like: "red, feelings of heat and cold, despair, anger, yellow and black..." You get the idea. I've seen those "results" quoted as "successes" or "partial successes" from time to time, because they were double-blinded. But they weren't hits in any sense of the word.

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 10:29:44 PM

minitrue noram: yeah, i've been studying it for the last seventeen years. there are things to explain. theories to explore, and nothing in the published corpus of scientific consensus which disproves the possibility of overlap between consciousness and the quantum world. plus, scads of little details about how the mind works that we don't actually have worked out.

someone can say there's no credibility to the field, but what the fark can they offer as empirical research or testable predictable reality regarding consciousness? God? 'cause that's a long worn-out bullshiat line that makes my research look positively meticulous compared to how much religion can prove.

I have no problem with throwing out the whole field carte blanche. When your field adheres to the scientific method, comes up with a testable hypothesis, tests it in a scientifically rigorous method, and successfully publishes their findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, maybe THEN I'd pay attention to it.

Until then, it's just more meaningless noise trying to pretend it has the same merit as actual science.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass		2011-07-11 10:30:23 PM

minitrue noram: nothing in the published corpus of scientific consensus which disproves the possibility of overlap between consciousness and the quantum world.

This is not evidence of ESP.

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 10:32:14 PM

Gyrfalcon: Remote viewing, like the predictions of Nostradamus, have been "proven" insofar as detailed descriptions of "views" can be read to be practically anything. Quite some time back, when I was into that stuff, I read about some remote-viewing experiments where some viewers were allowed to make vague, detailed descriptions of their "targets," photos sealed in envelopes. The experiment was as double-blind as it could be, since neither the viewer nor the reader knew what the photo was. Sounds good, right?

Except the descriptions were so long and vague, that the reader was able to interpret them to fit the "target", much like a Nostradamus prediction. The one I recall was a photo of a nuclear explosion. The description was something like: "red, feelings of heat and cold, despair, anger, yellow and black..." You get the idea. I've seen those "results" quoted as "successes" or "partial successes" from time to time, because they were double-blinded. But they weren't hits in any sense of the word.

Bingo.

"I'm getting the number four. You have four kids, right? No? Pets? You've owned four cars? No? ... your street address has a four. Zip code? Phone number! ...No? Really? ... You were four years old at one point, right? HA!"

mongbiohazard		2011-07-11 10:35:25 PM

AbbeySomeone: Crist on a cracker, some of you are so reactionary. I can imagine you with pitchforks and torches prepared to hunt down a witch because you feel threatened by something you can't comprehend or control.
Some of you remind me of the right wing fundies who are rapidly concerned with another person's sexual preference or proclivities.
BTW, I believe nothing unless it is proven to me.
You may notice that I made no claims, merely stated that there are people with true gifts and they like to be left alone. The outrage and hostility here are among the reasons why.
Well, that and the knowing that some people flip out with a fear that stuff they try to hide can be seen.

lolwut? Claiming that "there are people with true gifts"... yeah, that's a claim. And there are people with many true gifts, but none of them are of the psychic variety. Psychics are, in every circumstance, one of three things: deluded, insane or fraudulent. This is not conjecture, it is proven and has been proven in every circumstance it's been put to the test. There are many tests which have disproven psychic abilities but the world has yet to see a single shred of evidence of actual psychic phenomenon that doesn't get shredded like wet tissue paper the moment the claims are investigated. Saying that fact is telling is an understatement.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 10:35:35 PM

Cpl.D: I have no problem with throwing out the whole field carte blanche. When your field adheres to the scientific method, comes up with a testable hypothesis, tests it in a scientifically rigorous method, and successfully publishes their findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, maybe THEN I'd pay attention to it.

Until then, it's just more meaningless noise trying to pretend it has the same merit as actual science.

fair enough. i understand what the burden of proof entails. but i also know what some of the experiments are, and i rather do expect them to turn out predictable results soon enough, because they look quite promising. of course, the standard of proof is going to be a bit strange to live up to, since the audience suffers from the same subjectivity of perception as the experimenters. but i feel pretty safe in saying it looks provable, yes. for whatever that is worth to you subjectively.

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 10:37:28 PM

minitrue noram: fair enough. i understand what the burden of proof entails. but i also know what some of the experiments are, and i rather do expect them to turn out predictable results soon enough, because they look quite promising. of course, the standard of proof is going to be a bit strange to live up to, since the audience suffers from the same subjectivity of perception as the experimenters. but i feel pretty safe in saying it looks provable, yes. for whatever that is worth to you subjectively.

Real science is not subjective. Real science also has real results. Not taking a personal swipe at you specifically, here, but pseudoscience is a waste of time. Your efforts would net better results elsewhere.

ziponwheels		2011-07-11 10:38:49 PM

inspeyere: If you dont have clairvoyance....Dont make it sound like noone else does. Cuz some Farkers discridet anything they hear.

Do you have clairvoyance? If not, what would make you think anyone else does? There's no objective, evidence based reason to believe in psychic powers. That just leaves your own subjective experience. If you do not believe that your own intuition is based on more than experience, luck, and nonverbal clues, what other possible reason is there to believe in clairvoyance?

mongbiohazard		2011-07-11 10:44:10 PM

minitrue noram: Cpl.D: I have no problem with throwing out the whole field carte blanche. When your field adheres to the scientific method, comes up with a testable hypothesis, tests it in a scientifically rigorous method, and successfully publishes their findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, maybe THEN I'd pay attention to it.

Until then, it's just more meaningless noise trying to pretend it has the same merit as actual science.

fair enough. i understand what the burden of proof entails. but i also know what some of the experiments are, and i rather do expect them to turn out predictable results soon enough, because they look quite promising. of course, the standard of proof is going to be a bit strange to live up to, since the audience suffers from the same subjectivity of perception as the experimenters. but i feel pretty safe in saying it looks provable, yes. for whatever that is worth to you subjectively.

You have a talent for using terms you clearly don't understand. Quantum for one. Proof now seems to be another. Proof is not subjective, that's why it's called proof and not opinion.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 10:46:59 PM

Cpl.D: Real science is not subjective. Real science also has real results. Not taking a personal swipe at you specifically, here, but pseudoscience is a waste of time. Your efforts would net better results elsewhere.

i ain't trying to convince you. but your blanket dismissal with no argument supporting your point-of-view at least tells me your opinion and i can appreciate where you're coming from. so i won't try to explain it to you; no big deal. i don't sit around on Fark.com to have intelligent discussions either.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 10:49:54 PM

mongbiohazard: You have a talent for using terms you clearly don't understand. Quantum for one. Proof now seems to be another. Proof is not subjective, that's why it's called proof and not opinion.

prove that you feel the way you do to me. if you can do that - and i don't think you actually can without me just calling it your opinion - then you've already lost the sort of first-step philosophical argument that it takes to get into a real discussion of the scientific nature of consciousness.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass		2011-07-11 10:51:14 PM

minitrue noram: blanket dismissal with no argument

It's perfectly reasonable to dismiss a thesis which has no credible evidence to support it.

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 10:54:57 PM

minitrue noram: Cpl.D: Real science is not subjective. Real science also has real results. Not taking a personal swipe at you specifically, here, but pseudoscience is a waste of time. Your efforts would net better results elsewhere.

i ain't trying to convince you. but your blanket dismissal with no argument supporting your point-of-view at least tells me your opinion and i can appreciate where you're coming from. so i won't try to explain it to you; no big deal. i don't sit around on Fark.com to have intelligent discussions either.

Science works. It's the reason you can read this message. And yes, I can blanket-dismiss pseudoscience, simply because it fails under scientific scrutiny. If and when someone tests it using actual scientific testing, gets a positive result, and publishes successfully to a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then I'll take notice. Until then I can safely declare it bunk.

Where you went wrong was thinking something unproven demands the same expectation of reliability as actual science. It does not.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 10:57:32 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: It's perfectly reasonable to dismiss a thesis which has no credible evidence to support it.

it's almost exactly the same reason i came in to this thread to make cracks about how religions should be dismissed for having no credible evidence to support it. oh wait. it was the Weeners i made in this thread.

but whatever. i know my thesis, i work on it day after day. and i know the evidence is pretty damn compelling but not yet up to 5-sigma absolutely-predictable either. but what, i'm supposed to bring it up with someone like you? in a place like this?

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 10:59:05 PM

Cpl.D: Where you went wrong was thinking something unproven demands the same expectation of reliability as actual science. It does not.

you misperceive me. i understand precisely that what you say there is primal truth. again, i came in here mocking religions for the very reason you accuse me of not understanding

mongbiohazard		2011-07-11 11:00:13 PM

minitrue noram: mongbiohazard: You have a talent for using terms you clearly don't understand. Quantum for one. Proof now seems to be another. Proof is not subjective, that's why it's called proof and not opinion.

prove that you feel the way you do to me. if you can do that - and i don't think you actually can without me just calling it your opinion - then you've already lost the sort of first-step philosophical argument that it takes to get into a real discussion of the scientific nature of consciousness.

Do you really think that I'm going to allow you to change the subject like that in order for you to attempt to claim victory with a logical fallacy?

mongbiohazard		2011-07-11 11:04:04 PM

minitrue noram: Cpl.D: Where you went wrong was thinking something unproven demands the same expectation of reliability as actual science. It does not.

you misperceive me. i understand precisely that what you say there is primal truth. again, i came in here mocking religions for the very reason you accuse me of not understanding

Oh no, he understand you just fine. You're just spewing out a bunch of words as you see fit, without actually bothering to make sense with them. He isn't. Therein lies the difference.

And you keep trying to change the subject, a sign of how paper-thin your on-the-fly creative word use really is. Hint: a lot of us don't believe in religion either.

sseye		2011-07-11 11:05:22 PM

Jackpot777: The_Sponge: the worst poker face in the world.

What the worst Poker Face in the world might look like...

[perfectionistgal.files.wordpress.com image 540x405]

So true. That dog on the left is SO farking bluffing.

chu2dogg		2011-07-11 11:07:38 PM

minitrue noram: mongbiohazard: You have a talent for using terms you clearly don't understand. Quantum for one. Proof now seems to be another. Proof is not subjective, that's why it's called proof and not opinion.

prove that you feel the way you do to me. if you can do that - and i don't think you actually can without me just calling it your opinion - .

Whats funny is they can actually test for that now in a scientific setting. Sure, we dont have the tools on fark.com, but it is testable.

Science wins again.

Oh oh you really have to step your Bushiat game up. A good con artist dives really deep in convuluted language and bullshiat terms. You're an amatuer at this. I bet that dudes wife that has the police chief and the U.S military chasing her tail could probably run circles around you while getting half this thread to lick her chops.

minitrue noram		2011-07-11 11:08:07 PM

mongbiohazard: Do you really think that I'm going to allow you to change the subject like that in order for you to attempt to claim victory with a logical fallacy?

well, i know i'm having three distinct arguments with people who are all convinced it's impossible. maybe i don't understand the word quantum or proof. but if i had something which i would willingly explain to you, offer to let you try the experiment yourself, what do you think the odds are i would start by trying to convince people who've decided it's impossible before even hearing how it might be possible. would it be worth the hissy fits trying to explain difficult scientific concepts (which they likely don't have mastery of), ideas which challenge their normal self-imagined story?

all you've offered is that i'm too dumb to use the word quantum in a sentence. so i'll accept that as invalidating years of research and study. obviously it can't be possible. you're right. i give up i'm leaving this thread and quitting my job. this time tomorrow, i'll be flipping burgers and trying to marry some dim bulb who'll squeeze out babies.

sseye		2011-07-11 11:11:21 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Jim_Callahan: inspeyere: My wife was actually checked out by the military.

OK, Mr. "No, obviously I can't show any powers, but this other person I know is totally legit" urban legend spreader man, link the study.

I'd hate to be the guy whose marriage may depend on his continued belief in psychic powers.

You know if she'd believe that my cock is a fountain of psychic energy that can fuel predictions, I'd think about it.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass		2011-07-11 11:14:41 PM

minitrue noram: years of research and study.

Apparently without an English or logic class.

Cpl.D		2011-07-11 11:25:42 PM

minitrue noram: well, i know i'm having three distinct arguments with people who are all convinced it's impossible. maybe i don't understand the word quantum or proof. but if i had something which i would willingly explain to you, offer to let you try the experiment yourself, what do you think the odds are i would start by trying to convince people who've decided it's impossible before even hearing how it might be possible. would it be worth the hissy fits trying to explain difficult scientific concepts (which they likely don't have mastery of), ideas which challenge their normal self-imagined story?

all you've offered is that i'm too dumb to use the word quantum in a sentence. so i'll accept that as invalidating years of research and study. obviously it can't be possible. you're right. i give up i'm leaving this thread and quitting my job. this time tomorrow, i'll be flipping burgers and trying to marry some dim bulb who'll squeeze out babies.

You still don't get it, do you? You're not what we're debating. We're not saying you're stupid. You are not the point of this discussion. What we were discussing is this pseudoscience you proscribe to. But let me give you the benefit of a doubt for a moment.

Please tell us in detail what "years of research and study" consist of, as well as the experiment you suggested we try, but didn't include the details of it for some reason.

Displayed 50 of 292 comments