Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.physics Subject: Re: Paranormal crapola [Results of Precognition Experiment] Message-ID: <968@mhuxt.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 10:43:30 EDT Article-I.D.: mhuxt.968 Posted: Wed Jun 26 10:43:30 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 06:48:59 EDT References: <217@unccvax.UUCP> <460@oakhill.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 28 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:1988 net.physics:2684 > I agree with much of the rest of the posting I'm replying to in that subtle > behavioural mechanisms can be used to explain away a lot of so-called > paranormal experiences. If I had not had the few spectacular (in my view) > occasions where paranormal events had seemingly occured I would be much more > skeptical of the whole subject. > --Dave Trissel Then perhaps you understand why most of the rest of us, who have never witnessed *any* paranormal events, spectacular or not, are so skeptical of the whole subject. Until I witness just one, I think I'll just continue to assume that people like you, Dave, are either: 1.) very easily amazed by the occasional low probability event which occurs. 2.) unconsciously coloring your memory of such events to make them seem more amazing than they really were. 3.) lying 4.) one brick shy of a load But what do you expect when you claim that these amazing phenomena, which break the laws of physics, happen now and then (at apparently random intervals), BUT NEVER WHEN I'M AROUND? Or NEVER TO ME. Or NEVER WHEN ALL POSSIBILITIES OF FAKERY OR RANDOM CHANCE ARE REMOVED. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Well I've been burned before, and I know the score, so you won't hear me complain. Are you willing to risk it all, or is your love in vain?"-Dylan