|
 TheShroomHermit
Divine Hermit of the Everything
Registered: 02/19/02
Posts: 7,575
Loc: border of Canada and Mexi...
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
 Re: Feeling of being watched....  [Re: cHeMiCaLbLuE]
#622602 - 04/29/02 08:39 PM (23 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Eyes are very important to animals...
I know i can tell if a person is lying, in a good or bad mood, or sick by looking into there eyes....
and apes in captivity have been known to finger-paint eyes as a subject...
maybe it's just built into us.
|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JPAtanat]
#622741 - 04/30/02 12:09 AM (23 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
1. Defining fool added nothing to this discussion.
As opposed to your calling me a fool which added deep content to the conversation.
2. We are both trying to evaluate an event,
So far, so good...
but your are trying to evaluate an event in a controlled environment,
Gee, whatever was I thinking? Let's add as many factors as possible, so that is nearly impossible to sort out cause and effect.
and take the evidence collected from that as your own view.
That is the beauty of independent observation and controlled experiments. They stand OUTSIDE of anyone's view as they can be repeated by others! I think that you can understand this concept.
I wish to do the research in real life situations, and I will be the judge of whether I think it exists or not,
The lord JPA has spoken!
since ultimately no one else can be.
Yes, you are the supreme arbiter...
You probably knew that already too, but are too in the habit of calling people on semantics.
Sloppy writing is indicative of sloppy experimentation and/or thinking. Do you honor poor quality autmobiles? Or do you like precision? Did the Challenger blow up because the designers were "too anal" or because they they were too "loose"?
Apparently you condemn emotion. Perhaps because it is not rooted in any 'facts.'
I do not condemn emotion, but it adds nothing to the veracity of your viewpoint.
I though it was probably made up of many many subtle percptions...
Cool! Nows let's find out what they are.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622862 - 04/30/02 02:49 AM (23 years, 18 days ago) |
|
|
Let's add as many factors as possible, so that is nearly impossible to sort out cause and effect.
I think this phenomena depents on many factors. Maybe a combination of pheremones, interaction of the brain's electrical fields, or some other "energy"
But maybe trying this out in a lab is bound to failure so a lab isn't the best place to perform a "controlled" experiment. Maybe the glass blocks the pheremones, maybe the equipment in the lab disturbs the body's electrical/magnetic field, maybe the experimenters suppress the "psychic energy" or whatever.
My point is that a lab, while trying to isolate cause and effect can add it's own influences to an experiment. So just because something doesn't work in a lab doesn't mean that it's not true.
|
JustFootsteps
newbie
Registered: 02/10/01
Posts: 31
Loc: a hill
Last seen: 22 years, 9 months
|
 Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622895 - 04/30/02 03:57 AM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
swami
the bit with the numbers really is good old fashioned sophism. i'm actually glad there's someone still playing the logic game on here (although your refusal to respond to posts, by myself and others, that offer legitimate challenges to the fundamental assumptions of your logic shows an embarrassing lack of skepticism-skepticism on your part  )... but you can't be playing around with statistics like this, it doesn't further your cause.
the stat that 90% of people claim to have personal experience, and the stat that only 60% can demonstrate it in the lab, are unrelated and unrelatable. a false correlation is a basic fallacy. why couldn't all 90% of us be correct, but only 60% adept enough to demonstrate it in the lab? why couldn't the small sample account for the lower score? maybe they got 50 people just like you, who would be so freaking worried about taking good note of what's going on that you totally miss it? any number of possibilities. you can't just slam two stats into one another. it's like saying that there are more violent video games out, and more murders in schools; therefore the one causes the other. doesn't follow; you haven't ruled out the other possibilities. BAD SCIENTIST!
90% say they've experienced it; this is an interesting stat on its own. the appeal to majority is also a fallacy, BUT in cases where 90% are reporting a CONTRARY phenomenon - one that the prevailing dogma does not allow for - it reveals a *possibility worth exploring*. better than 50% in the lab demonstrate this; also interesting, though not related, because it shows a better than chance percentage that this is going on. a *possibility worth exploring*. better tests that rule out more possibilities and better simulate the conditions where this phenom is reported might generate better results. it's *worth exploring*.
okay, as an aside, while i am typing this, my right ear has turned off and my left ear seems to have tuned in to the murmur, an eerie, uplifting, quiet music, which reminds me of the times when i have calmed down in the company of a girl i liked, or relaxed while devil sticking, and suddenly the wind picks up and stirs the trees or a bird flys like two feet in front of me or a little girl smiles at me... IT COULD BE A COINCIDENCE (so could the sun rising each day) but it happens too often and its correlation to positive decisions on my part is almost total, so I believe it's happening; call me crazy.
--------------------
in peace,
just footsteps
http://www.whyvegan.org
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JustFootsteps]
#622953 - 04/30/02 07:19 AM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
although your refusal to respond to posts, by myself and others
Yes, with my shroomery record-breaking 1300 posts/responses on every subject possible, I am ducking issues. OK. I will quit my job and take amphetamines so as to stay glued to my computer 24 * 7 to make you happy. The several hundred times where I have done research and shown posts to be clearly incorrect (to both sides), not one person has ever said, "Nice job there Swami." Or thank you for sharing your wide range of experience with us. But, if I posted some wild-ass quackery, then I am a knighted into the alien brotherhood or whatever nonsensical flavor-of-the-month.
90% say they've experienced it; this is an interesting stat on its own.
Not very. In studies done in the '70s and '80s where the exact same "psychic" or astrological reading was given to random people "in the real world" - a mall; showed that the respondents rated the readings as 90% accurate.
This just shows that people are either easy to fool or not very aware and was NOT indicative of any external phenomenon whatsoever.
the appeal to majority is also a fallacy
Agreed, so why even bring it up, then take up the opposite stance?
it's like saying that there are more violent video games out, and more murders in schools; therefore the one causes the other.
I would not say cause and effect, but they are both reflective of a serious societal pathology.
why couldn't...why couldn't ... maybe...
*sigh* Why is it some people never tire of hearing the same thing over and over again? People that want to believe in something have all the excuses in the world as to why their favorite paranormal ability won't stand up to scrutiny.
Psychic prowess yields the exact same results as no psychic prowess. *Gag!* Even I am getting tired of saying it - a DIFFERENCE THAT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
If a believer cannot design a valid test then on what grounds should I accept their claims?
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
JustFootsteps
newbie
Registered: 02/10/01
Posts: 31
Loc: a hill
Last seen: 22 years, 9 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#622998 - 04/30/02 08:25 AM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Yes, with my shroomery record-breaking 1300 posts/responses on every subject possible, I am ducking issues.
ohp. it doesn't follow that because you have a lot of posts you are not ducking issues. i have seen several posts, and posted a couple myself, trying to explain the whole 20th century rejection of transcendent logic thing you seem to have missed and, despite your having replied to any number of quacks, boobs, and sundry intellectual welterweights, you never, ever reply to these posts. at least, that's my observation
the 90% stat isn't interesting because it proves anything, it is interesting because it presents an interesting possibility that requires further study. if the further study turns up nothing, then maybe it was nothing, or maybe the study was designed wrong. in this case, the further study turned up yet ANOTHER interesting result, the >50% result. neither proves anything, but they suggest together that the odds are good, rather than bad, that some phenomenon is taking place which could be studied and accounted for more accurately, if you're into that sort of thing.
This just shows that people are either easy to fool or not very aware
does it follow that our instincts are easy to fool? those same people who couldn't distinguish a bunko astrology reading were once infants and successfully rooted their mother's breast, and they probably pull their hands away from hot things, sense sexual chemistry, breathe regularly, and the other things our unconscious mind takes care of for us. perhaps this eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head thing is similar?
the appeal to majority is also a fallacy
Agreed, so why even bring it up, then take up the opposite stance?
because recognizing a fallacy allows you to argue in its favor. if i make an appeal to authority, but recognize this, and point out that the authority is the world's leading expert on the subject and has a good track record of objectivity, than my appeal to authority, while still a fallacy (just because all the world's scientists insist we evolved from monkeys doesn't PROVE that this is true), does carry some weight. similarly, an appeal to majority doesn't prove anything, but it does powerfully suggest a possible solution. it may be that it proves nothing, that they're all fools, etc, but the further data DOESN'T suggest that (a better than 50% chance is a positive result, and that's what happened in this test). if the majority of people have a belief that is NOT part of their programming, some explanation must exist, and experience of the phenom seems like the best explanation. ocham's razor etc.
why couldn't...why couldn't ... maybe...
*sigh* Why is it some people never tire of hearing the same thing over and over again?
are you suggesting that exploring other possible explanations for a result is bad science? are you suggesting that scientists are infallible despite your already having criticized the sample size? is it impossible for you to imagine that the right kind of test is necessary to see some phenomenon take place? we new about the existence of black holes mathematically a long time before observations could be made; the technology and the language of science hadn't caught up with what was already a necessary part of the picture.
Psychic prowess yields the exact same results as no psychic prowess.
60% and 50% are not the same result. and the people in the study weren't psychic pros. don't go around conflating, it's just not rigorous. we're not talking about esp, we're talking about the stare in the back of the head, and in this case the tests definitely did show a positive result. it could be accounted for by error, but that doesn't mean it IS an error; it may be an error on the low end of the true value, too.
If a believer cannot design a valid test then on what grounds should I accept their claims?
do you believe in the existence of quarks? are you capable of designing a 'valid' test that would demonstrate their existence to me? or would you rather leave that to scientists with some understanding of the mathematics and equipment involved? i don't know what kind of test would demonstrate this phenom better, but i do recognize unflattering conditions when i see them. these uncanny things don't really happen on cue, they pop up randomly when it's important for them to. that's what makes it uncanny. i'd love to see good science supporting what i know to be the case from experience, because it would help people like you past that stumbling block of doubt and we could work together (we are anyway, this only seems like an argument, everything is part of the path, waves have crests and troughs). but i won't be dismissed out of my beliefs just because i lack the training to put together a test myself. it's not my business, it's not what i do.
i do think more of us SHOULD be trying to do good science; i agree with you on this point. we will only get better at working with these various abilities or whatever once we don't have to be scared of proving their existence to the Doubters. that would be cool. but you can't really expect an internet messaging board to poop out the revolutionary science of a new theory of mind. we're mostly liberal arts people with too much free time and drug habits. :P
okay, i have to go pretend i know something for a while. that will be fun.
--------------------
in peace,
just footsteps
http://www.whyvegan.org
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JustFootsteps]
#623022 - 04/30/02 09:10 AM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
ohp. it doesn't follow that because you have a lot of posts you are not ducking issues...and sundry intellectual welterweights, you never, ever reply to these posts
"Me Swami! Oh, Oh, reply to me, Swami!" So many to please...
There is no one I fear to take on in a debate. Maybe you will be THE ONE to show me the error of my malformed thought processes.
perhaps this eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head thing is similar?
The hand-on-the-hot-stove test works in a lab 100% of the time. The eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head phenomena; if it exists, is slippery and clearly in another catagory.
if the majority of people have a belief that is NOT part of their programming
I would agree with this if true, but believe the programming is part of human culture myth and therefore does not fit your assumption. This one would be too difficult to argue strongly for/or against, as a researcher would have to review the entire life experience (every contact, book, movie, story, meeting) of these people which is clearly impossible.
60% and 50% are not the same result. and the people in the study weren't psychic pros. don't go around conflating, it's just not rigorous.
Fine, but don't overlook 4 MAJOR points.
1. Small sample size.
2. No verification by other researchers.
3. 60% was the max; 56% was the average. This could easily be attributable to random fluctuation/ bias.
4. The "not being looked at" results were WORSE than chance. Average that in with the results of "being looked at" and it is very close to a random result.
do you believe in the existence of quarks?
Irrelevant.
these uncanny things don't really happen on cue, they pop up randomly
Sometime they are correct and sometime not. Just like guessing. I don't see the DIFFERENCE.
we don't have to be scared of proving their existence
Real phenomenon exist independant of emotional state.
you can't really expect an internet messaging board to poop out the revolutionary science of a new theory of mind
We have never got close to the theory part because we first need observable phenomenon on which to base it.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
JustFootsteps
newbie
Registered: 02/10/01
Posts: 31
Loc: a hill
Last seen: 22 years, 9 months
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#623100 - 04/30/02 10:39 AM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
"Me Swami! Oh, Oh, reply to me, Swami!" So many to please...
i think this is the fallacy known as downplaying :P if you don't want to respond to the posts that offer up real challenges to your way of thinking and arguing, then say so and don't try to belittle me for asking you to. if you don't mind responding to that kind of challenge, then get on it and stop picking on people who lack your particular ability. there are several people on this board who are, at least, your mental/logical equal, and who will happily assert and argue that your insistence on logic *alone* is hooey. respond to them, not Joe 14-year-old and his space alien dreams.
(that is such an awesome band name)
The hand-on-the-hot-stove test works in a lab 100% of the time. The eyes-in-the-back-of-the-head phenomena; if it exists, is slippery and clearly in another catagory.
this gets into an interesting notion. the instincts i mentioned are all very direct and involve primitive lizard and mammal parts of our brain, and they have clear survival value. the third brain, what Tom Robbins called the flower brain, is the neocortex, a large and 'unnecessary' (from a survival POV) section the is dense with neurons and stores memories and connections. could this part of the brain house its own kind of instinct, a growth instinct, a spiritual instinct? or perhaps we have simply 'forgotten' some of our instincts - i, for one, am capable of ignoring a heat that i know is not hot enough to damage my hand. perhaps we just 'lost track' of our other instincts because they weren't as obviously useful as reason, somewhere along the line. *shrug*
anyway, as to being clearly in another category - when this works for me, there is a marked similarity to pulling my hand off of a stove. my (three) eyes focus on them before i think about it; it's something my mind or my godchild or whatever wants to do. the resonance sets in without any effort on my part; i just acknowledge it and don't start doing something else with my mind. maybe it sounds like hooey; it's just me observing myself, i could be wrong. but it feels like a natural movement of the consciousness, unplanned, instinctual, 'genuine.'
I would agree with this if true, but believe the programming is part of human culture myth and therefore does not fit your assumption.
could you elaborate on this? i'm not sure what you mean by 'human culture myth.'
4. The "not being looked at" results were WORSE than chance. Average that in with the results of "being looked at" and it is very close to a random result.
why would you average those two figures? they're the results of two different tests. half of my apples rotted in 6 days; half of my oranges rotted in 14. the average time for my apples to rot is therefore 10 days. nope. the negative result in the not-looking test could result because the being-looked-at had no stimulus to respond to and was just guessing, while the positive result in the looking test resulted from their being a stimulus to respond to. in fact i think the two results go together pretty well.
do you believe in the existence of quarks?
Irrelevant.
just saying 'irrelevant' doesn't prove it was. if you believe in the existence of quarks, it is because of an experience you've had (reading about it in a book or hearing about it from someone, i wager). i have had experiences of 'paranormal' phenomena and abilities. however, if i held you to the same standard you are trying to hold us to, i would not accept your assertion that quarks exist unless you (personally) could provide me with a test i could perform to prove it to myself. but you can't, because you know beans about quantum mechanics. which is fine. i believe you when you say quarks exist because i've heard it myself more than once. in lieu of the personal resources to test a phenomenon scientifically, we ALL accept its existence based on bald assertion and belief in the authority of others who claim direct experience. you believe in quarks, i believe in quarks and esp.
we don't have to be scared of proving their existence
Real phenomenon exist independant of emotional state.
oh? are you saying love isn't real? are you asserting that fear isn't real? i contend that they are much more real to me than quarks or my car's pistons.
anyway, i would rather have said that we don't need to busy ourselves trying to prove the existence of blah to doubters. i'm not scared of doubt; i think it's a lot better than blind acceptance, but not half so good as genuine faith forged in the fire of the Real. what i meant was that, rather than try to explain this to you a million different ways even though you can never legalize shrooms or fund a center for practice or radically reshape society so children can start practicing before they get rigid, i could be sitting in a practice center working on it with my Siblings in the Sun and making the world freaky and cool. my lifeforce will end up going towards assuaging the perpetual doubts of perpetual doubters, one at a time, which is less interesting but currently more important.
We have never got close to the theory part because we first need observable phenomenon on which to base it.
*ehhhhhhhhhhh* <- buzzer
that's old-fashioned, Baconian inductivism. Science hasn't worked that way for 100 years and change. scientists FREQUENTLY have a theory they are trying to find data to support. most breakthroughs happen because scientists know something must be happening based on other phenomenon, but struggle to invent a test or equipment that can demonstrate it absolutely. the theory often precedes the proof. read some about the philosophy of science; it's a trip. most good science gets done by egomaniacs hell-bent on getting a reputation for themselves, who devote their whole careers to proving something they know is true but can't prove fnord.
dinner time! feed your mind, or your chest will hollow.
farfiegnugen
--------------------
in peace,
just footsteps
http://www.whyvegan.org
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/30/02 11:28 AM)
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: JustFootsteps]
#623149 - 04/30/02 11:24 AM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
there are several people on this board who are, at least, your mental/logical equal, ...respond to them, not Joe 14-year-old and his space alien dreams.
Are you denigrating the people with space-alien dreams? Did I miss the part where age is displayed? Do younger people have nothing to offer in your view? I am fairly equanimous in my replies.
argue that your insistence on logic *alone* is hooey
Please do not do that. My posts on this thread have argued, not about logic, but about the lack of a demonstration.
this gets into an interesting notion...
I am uninterested in theory until the phenomeon can be demonstrated. Should we wax poetic about why aliens come into my room at night and discuss their motivation in depth? Or would you be more interested in "Do they actually appear at night?
could you elaborate on this? i'm not sure what you mean by 'human culture myth.'
I left out the slash. I was referring to the fact that people believe that they can sense another viewing them was part of our culture / myth.
why would you average those two figures? they're the results of two different tests.
Ok, let's just toss the results that do not support one's hypothesis. This is called BIAS. Can you not tell when someone stops touching you?
just saying 'irrelevant' doesn't prove it was.
It means that I want to stay on the subject, not go off on tangentials. PLease explain how quarks are related to the feeling of being watched?
oh? are you saying love isn't real?
Where did I say that? (more tangential stuff!) But as an anecdote (which means little), a woman that I am not interested in just invited me to fly to her city on her nickel. Apparently she is unable to sense my complete lack of interest. I love my ex dearly, yet she cannot feel that.
*ehhhhhhhhhhh* <- buzzer
This is your brain on drugs, with eggs and two strips of Baconian Induction...
More anecdotes, but I find this to be a highly relevant (albeit unethical) type of real-world test: I knew two guys who would drag women home for one-nighters. They made some 40-50 videos of each other fucking women. The camera was behind a one-way mirror, manned by the roommate. Not one woman alluded to the fact that she was being observed. You may toss this story by saying that the women were likely to be alcohol-laden and distracted by sexual stimulus; which is true. But the fact remains that none noticed and it was a real-world test.
Of course, this is why I argue for controlled testing.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#623190 - 04/30/02 12:06 PM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
HAHAHAHHAHA!!
Swami-
Your anecdotes fucking kill me!
I'd quit responding to this guy... he is obviously missing the point...
{{{DEMONSTRATION PLEASE}}}
And he takes your argument personally- probably because he has misperceived your intentions (which is only to come up with an unbiased test to demonstrate the phenomenon).
1. It's not pheromones. Since the phenomenon is allegedly controllable, I don't think it would be pheromones as we don't have voluntary control of them. ALSO, pheromones do not code for information, so the person would not know to LOOK anywhere in particular.
2. It could be sound, but we all agree that sound should obviously not be a part of the phenomenon (hence the soundproof glass).
I have a suggestion: DISTANCE. Or do they have to be within three feet of you? I didn't think distance would matter.
Okay, we can get past the sound thing with distance (and quiet participants). So, let's do this somewhere (NOT in a lab, because something with the sterility somehow *fucks up* the phenomenon...
How about an airport, mall, bus terminal, subway? Lots of people, a little background noise (would this matter), NOT STERILE (we'll leave the lab coats at the lab), and there are usually long hallways or open areas (good for creating distance in the experiment). Oh yeah, we'll probably need a time limit for this sort of thing, and the non-lookers will have to pick out (randomly) the turners, and we'll pick out a good sample size (Swami- is 200 different people okay?), and would video taping the whole thing *fuck up* the phenomenon?
Does this sound like a good experiment?
(Swami- there are other factors, I know, but I think this could easily debunk this "phenomenon")
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Sclorch]
#623255 - 04/30/02 01:04 PM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Those are some good ideas/observations. Shifting from your public place for a moment, I will do several "experiments" (that word has evil connotations to believers!) at an upcoming shroomery camping gathering.
One difficulty in your experiment would be in defining a "hit". I frequently eye-sweep through a crowd and will notice if someone is looking at me. Not through any mysterious sense, but just by scanning. Someone in a public place may be looking for someone and spot a group of shroomed-out geeks in tie-dyed shirts and aluminum foil hats staring at them and become startled. You will need the equivalent of a duck-blind. Someone will have to hide in a trash can or mailbox like in the old "Get Smart" TV series.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#623333 - 04/30/02 02:55 PM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Swami, I've noticed that when I look at and concentrate on a woman's ass, the woman will only randomly notice that I'm staring at her. However, when I concentrate on her breasts, the woman will almost invariably notice! Explain that, mister 'observable phenomena' smarty pants.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: ]
#623360 - 04/30/02 03:40 PM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
if you combine the results, you get a 75% hit. this, combined with the fact that 80% of people are being self-deceived, gives a 15% correct hit. now, taking under consideration your bias and that your sample size was selective (I don?t think you do that for EVERY woman you see + you concentrate longer on breasts), then almost 0% notice it. stare freely my friend...
Edited by raytrace (04/30/02 04:19 PM)
|
Insomniac
Stranger
Registered: 03/17/02
Posts: 35
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
 Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Swami]
#623385 - 04/30/02 04:21 PM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
that's old-fashioned, Baconian inductivism. Science hasn't worked that way for 100 years and change. scientists FREQUENTLY have a theory they are trying to find data to support. most breakthroughs happen because scientists know something must be happening based on other phenomenon, but struggle to invent a test or equipment that can demonstrate it absolutely. the theory often precedes the proof. read some about the philosophy of science; it's a trip. most good science gets done by egomaniacs hell-bent on getting a reputation for themselves, who devote their whole careers to proving something they know is true but can't prove fnord.
Umm... is there a reason why you didn't make a comment about this Swami? I may not be up to par with your level of intelligence but I think he made a pretty good point here.
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: raytrace]
#623390 - 04/30/02 04:25 PM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
We need some experiential data on right vs. left breast staring. I have observed that young, large breasted women are more cognizant of your stare. Any explanation for their increased acuity?
A few years back at a secluded public beach in northern California, there was a hot little mama suntanning topless. Every guy on the beach hurt himself trying NOT to stare. The Swami, aka Mr. Smooth, sauntered up and cleverly said, "Hey babe, how ya doin' ?" She gave me her best smile and politely replied, "Get the FUCK away from me, you freak!" Yes folks, I have a way with the ladies...
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/30/02 05:28 PM)
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Insomniac]
#623414 - 04/30/02 04:53 PM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
The theory precedes the proof, yes, but EVIDENCE precedes the theory.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Feeling of being watched.... [Re: Insomniac]
#623450 - 04/30/02 05:35 PM (23 years, 17 days ago) |
|
|
Umm... is there a reason why you didn't make a comment about this Swami?
Schlorch already answered for me, but I guess you did not read this line from my post:
I am uninterested in theory until the phenomenon can be demonstrated.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
Edited by Swami (04/30/02 05:38 PM)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Swami
Anonymous
Kurt
lucid
Grav
Fliquid