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