Like it? Share it!

Sign up for news and updates!






Enter word seen below
Visually impaired? Click here to have an audio challenge played.  You will then need to enter the code that is spelled out.
Change image

CAPTCHA image
Please leave this field empty

Login Form



"False Documents" PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Jeff Wagg   

ringbellSteve from Australia sent this picture, which makes us ask the question... why? Shouldn't the door just open as you approach?

And this reminds me of a story. While doing some research in New Orleans, I visited a palm reader with a woman of my acquaintance. We sat down in a bead-festooned closet, and he felt our palms.

"Hmm" he said, and then "Oh... I see." And despite the fact that neither of us were wearing our wedding rings, the psychic told us with complete confidence that we were married. He said that though there will be some conflicts, we are always going to be married. You see, our "life lines" and "heart lines" showed him this, and there was no mistaking it.

Upon hearing his proclamation, we looked each other in the eye, and shared a wink. You see, the psychic was right. We were married. He could have just guessed... a couple walking in to see a psychic is usually indicative of some sort of relationship, but the fact that we didn't have wedding rings on should have suggested that we were just dating. Somehow, the psychic saw deeper and discovered the truth of our situation.

And yet, neither of us was particularly impressed with this demonstration.

The psychic missed one rather important piece of information. Yes, we were married... but not to each other. Not only that, we were both waiting for our divorce papers to finalize, which they did a couple of months after this encounter.

My conclusion: the young lady and I have defective palms. I'm not sure who to complain to about this.

Performance artist Laurie Anderson had a similar encounter, as related in her epic work, United States Live.

Here is Laurie's experience, in her own words:

False Documents by Laurie Anderson

A while ago, I went to see a palm reader
And the odd thing about the reading was that everything she told me was totally wrong

She said I loved airplanes
That my mother's name was "Hillary"
And that I'd been born in Seattle

But she seemed so sure of all of this information
That I began to feel like I'd been walking around with these false documents permanently tattooed to my hands

It was very noisy in the parlor
Members of her family kept running in and out
They were speaking a high, clicking kind of language
It sounded a lot Arabic
Lots of books and magazines in Arabic were strewn around

Suddenly it occurred to me that maybe it was a translation problem
Maybe she was reading my hand "right to left" instead of "left to right"

So thinking of mirrors,
I gave her my other hand

And then she put her hand out
And we sat there for a while
In what I thought was some kind of participatory ritual

Until finaly I realized that her hand was out...

Because she was waiting...

For money.

Trackback(0)
Comments (37)Add Comment
Get Fuzzy
written by sibtrag, June 05, 2009
I hope someone at JREF is reading "Get Fuzzy" (a minor syndicated comic strip). The human character has been acting very skeptically towards the psychic that his dog and his cat have brought into the house. Today's strip is a wonderful rendition (albeit in only 4 panels) of a cold reading & how they can be interrupted.

http://comics.com/get_fuzzy/2009-06-05/
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
Don't forget to block called ID!
written by Metatron, June 05, 2009
I called one of those psychic hotlines once to be a smartass. They asked me my name and any number of other questions, to which I asked them: "Why? Don't you know?"

Loads of fun.

Until I started getting all kinds of telemarketing calls because the "psychic" folk sold my telephone number, which they had obviously captured. This went on for months.

Of course, there are ways to deal with them. My favorite is to feign interest and then just place the phone on the table, keeping the line open. They'll go through much of their script before they realize you aren't answering. It's a civic duty you're doing, wasting their time, preventing them from calling someone else for that minute or so.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +13
...
written by sibtrag, June 05, 2009
Shouldn't the door just open as you approach?


If I take your joke seriously, I think you are expecting a bit much of the psychic. I can use my sense of sight to tell if someone is going to ring my doorbell, but only if I am looking at the button in that instant. That is, I can see things going on in the world, but I cannot see everything at once. Perhaps psychic vision is similar.

Continuing that analogy, if I were the only sighted person in a culture of blindness, my sight might be viewed as miraculous and supernatural. And their JREF would rightly be skeptical. I can even imagine that it would be difficult to reach an agreement with JREF on a protocol for proving my sight because it would be hard to explain the limitations of sight to someone who doesn't have the ability or even the cultural knowledge to understand it.

Of course, my scenario would end happily (for me) because my sight (unlike psychic vision) is real and I would easily collect the $1M.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
Random Analogy that just occured to me:
written by MJG, June 05, 2009
Watching a psychic ply their "trade" is rather like watching a mime who expects you to actually believe his is stuck in an invisible box.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +16
...
written by Divine Administration Office Helpdesk, June 05, 2009
My conclusion: the young lady and I have defective palms. I'm not sure who to complain to about this.

For all complaints about defects in Creation you can fill in and submit form EF1928d (available at any divinely accredited Church upon request).
However, in light of the infallibility of the Creator, and therefor the innate perfection of Creation, I should inform you that our arbitration commission is unlikely to rule in your favour. Nevertheless we do value full customer satisfaction and appreciate any and all feedback.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +15
Documentary
written by Sadhatter, June 05, 2009
With the psychic themed swift i would like to mention that me and a group of friends are currently working on a skeptical documentary. The main focus is going to be psychics and ghosts. ( with a second one coming out about CT's If this one is popular).

The main reason for this is that in the small town i live ( Sarnia Ontario) there is an absolute mountain of constant paranormal claims. Last time i looked up the data, we were at least tripling the average amount for a city of our size.

Now soon we are going to start interviewing the psychics ( and you would not believe how many there are here), our plan is to take the interview apart piece by piece, obviously explaining cold reading, as well as reviewing any credentials they choose to give us.

After seeing the sign and jokes about it, i am honestly thinking of cutting it down to a 30 second rebuttal " shouldn't they have known who we were?".

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by BillyJoe, June 05, 2009
If I take your joke seriously,

Mostly it is meant that way, although I have started taking the joke not too seriously efven though it is often clear that it is seriously meant.

I think you are expecting a bit much of the psychic. I can use my sense of sight to tell if someone is going to ring my doorbell, but only if I am looking at the button in that instant. That is, I can see things going on in the world, but I cannot see everything at once. Perhaps psychic vision is similar.
You will find that you quickly get sick of pointing out to certain sceptics that a person must be tested on what THEY say they can do, not on what YOU believe they should be able to do.

I can even imagine that it would be difficult to reach an agreement with JREF on a protocol for proving my sight because it would be hard to explain the limitations of sight to someone who doesn't have the ability or even the cultural knowledge to understand it.
The JREF requires only that you can explain clearly what you can do. They are not interested in the limits of what you can do. It would surely be a simple matter of locating an object on one of three tabletops whilst remaining at a distance from the tables at all times. If you say that your vision is no clear enough to distinguish shapes, it would be bizarre of them to test you on this.

Of course, my scenario would end happily (for me) because my sight (unlike psychic vision) is real and I would easily collect the $1M.
So why your previous reservation??

BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by nightoftheshape, June 06, 2009
Don’t you mean -shouldn’t the psychic know that you are coming and open the door before you ring the bell?-
To door itself does not claim to posses any supernatural powers.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
@sibtrag
written by tmac57, June 06, 2009
sibtrag said:"I can even imagine that it would be difficult to reach an agreement with JREF on a protocol for proving my sight because it would be hard to explain the limitations of sight to someone who doesn't have the ability or even the cultural knowledge to understand it."
It wouldn't be difficult at all in the scenario that you present. All you would have to do is have them show you an object in a setting that they would not be able to identify the object if they were in the same situation. Ex: You are seated 10 feet away from a person that holds up a broom. They (or any other unsighted person)would not be able to tell that it was a broom if they were in the same situation. Repeated demonstration of this with different objects recognizable at that distance would have to convince them that you had some sort of extrasensory ability (sight).
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 06, 2009
Ignore the cat.
I'm sending my friend Maxwell over to put it out of its misery.

Bang, bang Maxwell's siver hammer
Came down upon its head.
Bang, bang, Maxwell's siver hammer
Made sure that it was dead.

BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -2
...oops, Maxwell has done his job:
written by BillyJoe, June 06, 2009
The poster to whom I was referring has been eliminated. smilies/grin.gif

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by panamajoe, June 06, 2009
QUOTE:"Random Analogy that just occured to me:
written by MJG, June 05, 2009
Watching a psychic ply their "trade" is rather like watching a mime who expects you to actually believe his is stuck in an invisible box."

But that would have to be a seriously deluded mime.... oh... Great Analogy MJG! smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
the Mask of Nostradamus, Lowly rated comment [Show]
Dawkins and Randi kicked in the arse..., Lowly rated comment [Show]
...oops, he's back
written by BillyJoe, June 06, 2009
Go to it Maxwell.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by Kuroyume, June 06, 2009
First, I love The Beatles! (thanks, BillyJoe!)

Second, some person here should shrivel up and die. Stop posting non-related drivel to the comments. Instead of hawking here, why don't you PROVE US ALL WRONG? Go away you pathetic twit...

Third, psychics, as we all know, can only get fragmented information which makes them oh soooo useful. If they could actually provide useful information, there would be no discussion as to their existence. But since what they actually provide is vague guessing it all to well seems similar to other forms of fantasization.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
But Seriously Joking Now,
written by Liveliest Crib, June 06, 2009
sibtrag:

If I take your joke seriously,

If you take the joke seriously? If it were a serious statement, it would not be a joke. While it is cliche to note, "It's funny because it's true," even the jokes to which the cliche applies need not literally be "true" to be funny; they need only to tickle our sense of something that is.

Consider the old standby, "If con is the opposite of pro, then Congress must be the opposite of progress." Its logic, of course, is faulty, but who cares? It is not a serious critique of either linguistics or politics. It just jokingly captures the (often true) perception that Congress is often its own obstacle to political accomplishment.

Likewise, when President Lincoln retorted to General Grant's critics' concern about the military leader's alcoholism, "I'm going to find out what brand he drinks and send a case of it to all my other generals," he was not seriously implying the literal implication of his words. He was jokingly noting that Grant was his best general, despite any drinking problems.

Certainly, the pure irony of a psychic's inability to predict his own caller's arrival is enough to induce laughter. That's why the headline that Psychic Hit by Train (featured by Jay Leno on The Tonight Show is funny on its own. But this joke touches on something more. To wit, your words:

I think you are expecting a bit much of the psychic. I can use my sense of sight to tell if someone is going to ring my doorbell, but only if I am looking at the button in that instant. That is, I can see things going on in the world, but I cannot see everything at once. Perhaps psychic vision is similar.

Heh, of course that's what a psychic would argue in his defense. That's why it's funny. Not only cannot we take the joke literally, we should not.

The joke does not literally argue that the psychic must necessarily be able to predict the precise time a caller would ring his bell. It tickles our sense that psychics can never articulate their powers with precision, a profound reason to be skeptical of their claims. Why they can "see" some facts and not others is rarely explained beyond, "It doesn't work that way."

When it is further "explained," it is often with conceptual or semantic techniques that render their powers unfalsifiable -- just as your critique of the joke would. They can't see what they can't see, but they can see what they can. Under the proferred paradigm "hits" evidence psychic power, but "misses" do not evidence lack thereof.

Charlatan extraordinaire Jon Edward once argued on Larry King's silly show that he often gets information about people wrong because the ghosts with whom he converses lie to him. That's awfully convenient. It's also why its funny to joke that the dead people to whom the self proclaimed medium speaks are either stupid or sadistic if they choose to reveal only their own initials instead of their actual, full names and the names and outfits of the audience member to whom they're related. Hey, maybe it really doesn't work that way, but frauds like Edward can never articulate the way it does work, thus leaving himself legitimately vulnerable to jokes.

But to take the joke "seriously" (or "literally," which is what I think you mean) is to miss the point.

Continuing that analogy, if I were the only sighted person in a culture of blindness, my sight might be viewed as miraculous and supernatural. And their JREF would rightly be skeptical. I can even imagine that it would be difficult to reach an agreement with JREF on a protocol for proving my sight because it would be hard to explain the limitations of sight to someone who doesn't have the ability or even the cultural knowledge to understand it.

It might be difficult if the sighted person were so vague and ambiguous about her own powers that they became unfalsifiable, but it would not be inherently difficult to arrange a protocol. Once it is understood that light waves allowed a seer to gain knowledge about, or gauge the positions of, objects within a certain vicinity without hearing, smelling or touching them, the blind could probably arrange an obstacle course for the seer to surmount while deprived of her other senses. If the seer bumps into the obstacles (which could, say, beep when touched), she'd fail. Or something like that.

If the seer were then to argue that while she did "see" the objects, she can't use her sight at the same time her other senses are blocked, the skeptic's sense of humor would shortly come out to play.

Of course, my scenario would end happily (for me) because my sight (unlike psychic vision) is real and I would easily collect the $1M.

That's a curious way to end your comment. I have to ask . . . how do you know?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by BillyJoe, June 06, 2009
Livliest Crib,

Steve: "Shouldn't the door just open as you approach?"
Sibtrag: "If I take the joke seriously"
Livliest Crib: If you take the joke seriously? If it were a serious statement, it would not be a joke.
Hey?

It can be a joke, or serious, or both serious and a joke. Regardless of whether or not Steve's intended it as a joke, it is read by some as a serious statement. You might think it's a joke to say that but, seriously, it's true. On the other hand, some read is as a serious statement about what a psychic should be able to do, but think it's a great joke that they obviously cannot do so. On the third hand, others read it simply as a joke, no seriousness intended. Sibtrag, then, was addressing the first group who takes what he himself takes to be a joke, seriously. He then discusses seriously the implications of taking the joke seriously.

Hope that's clearer now.

Certainly, the pure irony of a psychic's inability to predict his own caller's arrival is enough to induce laughter.
But, jokes aside, you don't seriously expect him to be able to do so do you?

That's why the headline that Psychic Hit by Train is funny on its own. But this joke touches on something more.
Yes. Something very serious.


But seriously serious now...

The joke does not literally argue that the psychic must necessarily be able to predict the precise time a caller would ring his bell. It tickles our sense that psychics can never articulate their powers with precision, a profound reason to be skeptical of their claims.
You are wrong of course. Some can articulate clearly what they can do. Evidence? Some have been tested by the JREF and the JREF will only test psychics who are able to clearly state what they can do. The problem is that some sceptics jump to a conclusion about what they think a psychic should be able to do and then, in all seriousness, think it's a great joke when they can't do it.

But to take the joke "seriously" (or "literally," which is what I think you mean) is to miss the point.
No, he does mean "seriously" (which, of course, implies "literally") and he didn't miss the point, that was his point.

It might be difficult if the sighted person were so vague and ambiguous about her own powers that they became unfalsifiable...
Now you're getting there. It's going to be difficult for a mole to prove it can see. So, don't expect him to open the door before you get there.

regards,
BillyJoe



report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by BillyJoe, June 06, 2009
...$#!+, the first bit should have been in quotes.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Liveliest Crib, June 07, 2009
BillyJoe:

Hope that's clearer now.


Not really, no. . . .

It can be a joke, or serious, or both serious and a joke.


I concede that jokes can have touch upon serious matters and even have serious points. To the extent that my comment suggested that jokes and seriousness were mutually exclusive, I apologize.

Nevertheless, to interpret the statement only as a serious one, and thus to discuss the conclusions that follow from its literal meaning is folly.

Regardless of whether or not Steve's intended it as a joke, it is read by some as a serious statement. You might think it's a joke to say that but, seriously, it's true. On the other hand, some read is as a serious statement about what a psychic should be able to do, but think it's a great joke that they obviously cannot do so. On the third hand, others read it simply as a joke, no seriousness intended.


I suppose as well that some people thought, at the time, that President Lincoln seriously suggested that the rest of his generals ought to follow Grant's example, and drink copious amounts of his favorite liquor. Others likely understood the humor.

Sibtrag, then, was addressing the first group who takes what he himself takes to be a joke, seriously. He then discusses seriously the implications of taking the joke seriously.


Indeed. Now, imagine his/her nineteenth century counterpart, who understands the humor, but who seriously addresses those who do not. The counterpart discusses the implications of taking Lincoln's joke seriously, and explains the potentially devastating ramifications of encouraging top military commanders to become alcoholics. Would that not merit a response that taking the joke seriously misses the point?

Certainly, the pure irony of a psychic's inability to predict his own caller's arrival is enough to induce laughter.


But, jokes aside, you don't seriously expect him to be able to do so do you?


Of course not. Because I don't take the joke seriously. I also recognize the inherent irony in his inability to do so.

You are wrong of course. Some can articulate clearly what they can do. Evidence? Some have been tested by the JREF and the JREF will only test psychics who are able to clearly state what they can do.


Heh, fair enough. I'll never say "never" again. It tickles our senses that psychics all too often cannot, or refuse to, articulate their powers with precision.

The problem is that some sceptics jump to a conclusion about what they think a psychic should be able to do and then, in all seriousness, think it's a great joke when they can't do it.


That's the problem? That's the problem? I do notice that at least one person might have jumped to at least one conclusion about how some skeptics behave.

To be fair, I imagine that there are some skeptics who behave that way, though you'll likely not find them at the JREF. The attitude betrays the very spirit of skepticism. As a skeptic myself, and one who will dare to speak for many others now, I do not presume to dictate what a psychic should be able to do.

However, in order to adopt a belief in someone else's claim that s/he has psychic powers, I do require that s/he articulate what those powers actually are in order to provide observable, measurable evidence of them. If s/he responds with semantic contortions that render her claims unfalsifiable, jokes about his/her inability to predict the next time I will come to his/her door become funny, if not literally true or fair to the psychic.

Since people at the JREF not only encounter such semantic contortions with frequency, but often find them coupled with insults and wild claims about how JREF's tests are unfair, I find the humor more than understandable.

No, he does mean "seriously" (which, of course, implies "literally") and he didn't miss the point, that was his point.


What was the point? That some people will take the joke literally, and that there are implications that follow from taking it literally?

It's going to be difficult for a mole to prove it can see. So, don't expect him to open the door before you get there.


Oh, but I do. I really, really do. I really do expect a mole to open the door to his home before I get there. Right before I get there, actually. I mean, the mole invited me for dinner, so I expect common courtesy, sheesh.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 07, 2009
Livliest Crib,

My post was only half serious...
...which is to say I was only half joking smilies/smiley.gif

Yes, like the Lincoln joke, I'm sure if you put it to the test, you would get a sizeable percentage who seriously believe that psychics should be able to achieve this feat and, therefore, the fact that they cannot do so proves that they are not psychic.
Sibtrag's post was directed at them.

I don't take the joke seriously. I also recognize the inherent irony in his inability to do so.
Steve said, "Shouldn't the door just open as you approach?"
He obviously doesn't actually expect the door to open. But, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether or not his question is ironic:

He might sincerely mean: "If he truely is a psychic he should be able to predict my arrival and therefore open the door before I ring the bell. But I know that door is not going to open (because I don't believe in psychics), and that will prove that he really is not psychic (and back up my opinion that psychics don't exist)".

Or he might realise that the above is not really a conclusion he can come to about someone who claims to be a psychic (ie test them for what they say they can do, not what you think they should be able to do) and, therefore, his question would be both ironic and jokingly meant.

I do notice that at least one person might have jumped to at least one conclusion about how some skeptics behave.
I think you haven't been around much. smilies/wink.gif

To be fair, I imagine that there are some skeptics who behave that way, though you'll likely not find them at the JREF.
Imagine no more, they're out there. And in here as well. They are not even particularly rare.

As a skeptic myself, and one who will dare to speak for many others now, I do not presume to dictate what a psychic should be able to do.
James Randi would be proud. smilies/smiley.gif
(No, that's a compliment)

Since people at the JREF not only encounter such semantic contortions with frequency, but often find them coupled with insults and wild claims about how JREF's tests are unfair, I find the humor more than understandable.
Well, if they cannot clearly state what they can do and come to some agreement about how they can be tested then (obviously) they cannot be tested. The contortions also come after the test when they have all sorts of reasons "why the test failed them".

What was the point? That some people will take the joke literally, and that there are implications that follow from taking it literally?
Yes, the implication is that they are jumping to conclusions about what the psychic should be able to do rather than attending to what the psychic says he can do.

Oh, but I do. I really, really do. I really do expect a mole to open the door to his home before I get there. Right before I get there, actually. I mean, the mole invited me for dinner, so I expect common courtesy, sheesh.
smilies/grin.gif
(And she'd better have a pair of spectacles to ensure she doesn't let the wolf in before you get there, or there'll be a big surprise waiting for you, little red riding hood)

smilies/grin.gif

regards,
BillyJoe
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Cross Purposes
written by Liveliest Crib, June 07, 2009
BillyJoe,

Oh, wait! I think we've been talking at cross purposes.
Steve said, "Shouldn't the door just open as you approach?"
It was my understanding that Jeff Wagg, in his capacity as a JREF representative, was the one making the joke, not so much Steve from Australia, who sent in the picture. The first line reads:
Steve from Australia sent this picture, which makes us ask the question... why? Shouldn't the door just open as you approach? (my emphasis)
I can see why you felt the joke could evince a serious mindset of Steve's that the inability to predict a caller's arrival itself constitutes all the proof one needs to debunk the psychic powers. I was interpreting the joke as the JREF's, and I hardly think the JREF or Jeff Wagg requires sibtrag's retort. Moreover, if Steve from Australia had explicitly argued that the psychic had genuinely, necessarily undermined herself, I imagine that the JREF would have pointed out the flaw in his reasoning.

So, yes, we can't necessarily know what Steve was thinking, but I'm pretty sure I understood the JREF's humor. smilies/smiley.gif
I think you haven't been around much.
Heh, I would say you're jumping to conclusions again, but now that I get where you were coming from, I'll just say that you've reached an inappropriate conclusion. smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 07, 2009
Fair enough, LC, but why do you think Steve sent in that picture...

smilies/wink.gif

BJ
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Dunno
written by Liveliest Crib, June 07, 2009
why do you think Steve sent in that picture
I'll have to answer with the skeptic's ultimate statement: I don't know. smilies/tongue.gif

Maybe he really did believe he'd successfully disproved the psychic's claim to her powers.

But I think it's entirely plausible that Steve understood why he had not, but found the notion funny anyway. Without the text of his e-mail, we can't know. (And the text might not be revealing anyway.)

In any case, I tend to react with hostility when I encounter an argument like sibtrag's. It's not that his/her words were wrong (there's nothing wrong with what s/he said). It's that, in my experience, such arguments are typically invoked to subvert skepticism, not to teach it. That is, the arguments are not usually designed to explain the nature and burden of proof. Instead, they're variants of, "Prove me wrong!" or "But you haven't proven that that this lady is not a psychic," which wrongly shifts the burden of proof.

I concede that my hostility can be a knee-jerk reaction, and not always fair.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by BillyJoe, June 07, 2009
My point was that the analysis I gave, for what I thought was Steve's question, but which turned out to be Jeff's question, would probably apply equally well to Steve's thoughts when he saw that sign and was prompted to send a picture of it to the JREF.

In other words...
Steve sent a picture of a sign that reads "Please ring bell for psychic" to a sceptic website. So I think we can fairly confidentally say that, when he read that sign, the thought ocurred to him, "They're psychics, why do they need that sign?" or, as Jeff said, "Why? Shouldn't the door just open as you approach?"

I tend to react with hostility when I encounter an argument like sibtrag's ... in my experience, such arguments are typically invoked to subvert skepticism, not to teach it. That is, the arguments are not usually designed to explain the nature and burden of proof. Instead, they're variants of, "Prove me wrong!" or "But you haven't proven that that this lady is not a psychic," which wrongly shifts the burden of proof.
I can see how you might have thought that.
But I don't think that was what he was doing.

For example, his first post refers to a comic strip which takes strips off Mediums. In fact, I think his post was about reminding sceptics to be better sceptics - attack psychics on what they say they can do, not on what you think they should be able to do.

It's like his example of a sighted person going into a sightless world. That person may be able to tell you that the test object is on table three, but his vision may not be good enough to tell whether it's a smooth sphere like a balloon or rough sphere like crumpled aluminium foil.

BJ

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Steel Rat, June 09, 2009
Wow, you guys are really over thinking this...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 09, 2009
Yeah, but kinda fun don't you think?
...I've been thinking thoughts I'd never have thought I'd be thinking. smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
I am Steve from Australia ...and so is my wife !
written by Turd, June 14, 2009
When I sent this photo to the Jref the only text I added was

"Mentally depressed?"


Thanks to all
Steve
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 15, 2009
Explain yourself turd!
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Turd, June 15, 2009
Explain yourself turd!

In what regard ?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 15, 2009
Hey, you uttered only two words.
I was certainly not referring to only one of them.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Turd, June 15, 2009
OK I'll bite

Having to explain a joke allways makes me sad , but here goes.

Can you depress the button using the power of your mind ?



sob,

Steve smilies/cry.gif
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 16, 2009
Well, it sort of works, but only sort of.
The tense is sort of wrong.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Turd, June 16, 2009
minimalist me
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 16, 2009
m

(It tells me my comment is too short smilies/sad.gif )
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Turd, June 17, 2009
.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by BillyJoe, June 18, 2009
What less can I say?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy