| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor | Start A New Topic | CLOSED |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 15, 2005 Views: 795 | Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor It seems to me that you are joking about this whole thing and not taking a darn thing seriously. Partly why is because instead of attacking my argument, you spew personal attacks. This does not help your position, Keith. Maybe let's try and combine the threads into this one and dedicate this to this 'argument.' 01>To summarise: 02>You claim my logic is flawed. 03>You base this claim on the fact that I have a 04>page showing fake TK. Your reason for calling 05>this flawed logic is, in your own 06>words....purposefully faking examples does 07>not scientifically do anything. I have just 08>shown what was wrong with your "science." 09>Is that it then? That is why my logic is 10>flawed? Good grief! 11>The page Nick, is headed Silly Stuff (I 12>Think there is a clue there somewhere that 13>indicates that this is not scientific. Is this 14>getting too hard for you to follow Nick?) 15>The Silly Stuff page is there for one reason 16>only and that is to demonstrate that videos 17>that claim to show genuine TK are worthless 18>as they are so easy to fake. 19>My own videos showing how to rotate a psi 20>wheel and straw by natural means are not proof 21>If anything, they are only there to clarify my 22>instructions on how to do it. Notice the 23>important words there Nick? MY INSTRUCTIONS on 24>how to do it. Get it yet? Somehow I very much 25>doubt it. This is the Holy Grail of Keith's comments. Not only does he prove his daft ability to miscomprehend basic principles, but he shows how easy it is to slide into the realm of utter irrational behaviour. I've numbered the lines for easy reference. Line 2 is true. Line 3 is not. Line 5 is not. Line 20 is a lie. 21 and 22 are a lie. Here is a quote from your site: >What I have been able to demonstrate is that you >do not need TK for the two most common tests, >the psi wheel and rotating straw. You will be >able to see this proof for yourself. And yes, it >is proof, not because of my videos, they are >just there for clarification, but because I give >you step by step instructions on how to do it >yourself. I believe this is why you say that I don't comprehend you correctly. Yes, this is something you say, but you have other things on your site that go further. Like this: >Having established that absolutely anyone can >move a psi wheel and rotate a straw does not >rule out TK existing, there are lots of other >stunts that TKers claim they can do, but it does >tend to bring these other claims into question. What exactly do they bring into question, and how? Logically now, your videos do not bring anything into question, because you yourself said they do not prove anything, right? If they were used to bring something to question, that would mean they are used to prove a point. The point being the question asked. And, as in line 20 and 21 above, this seems to directly contradict itself. That is illogical. I have labored to find logical fault #1. ///////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////// More from your site: >I have proven that TK is not what is making >these objects move but instead it is just warm >air or static. You now are saying on your site that you have proved that TK is not what is making them move. How have you proven this? Your videos? It seems that is what you are trying to say because right before that (two sentences back) you say: >Okay, I have made my point, videos cannot be >accepted as any sort of proof. Alright...so later you say: >Here are my reasons for believing that TK does >not exist: > >1) The two main TK stunts are not TK. Umm, so why are they not TK? I see no logical arguement that says why the two main stunts aren't TK. You just say they are. All this points to Logical Fault #2. ////////////////////////////////////////////// ////////////////////////////////////////////// Okay, I dare you to respond intellegently, without illogical Ad Hominem attacks. Let's see how big your comment is without them. |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 785 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor This is a partial repeat of the other thread, but you requested that we keep this particular argument in here. So here goes my take on it: Keith's words: 1. 'The two main TK stunts are not TK' ...in contrast to ... 2. 'I have therefore proved [..] that the two most popular TK stunts do not REQUIRE any TK' 3. 'My own videos showing how to rotate a psi wheel and straw by natural means are not proof' In (1) You state that those TK stunts are all false, without exception. Based on your 'experiences' with natural means. I have heard how a lightning bolt can cause a forest fire. But not all forest fires are caused by lightning as I understand it. Looking at (2), you state that the stunts do not 'REQUIRE' TK. Fair enough, but how does non-requirement of TK result in complete non-existence of TK at ALL, in even controlled examples? A controlled environment? (as stated by (1)) Well, in (2) and (3) you also attempt to cover your arse, by stating that in fact you have not disproved them at all A blatant contradiction that you cannot seem to see - and you call us stupid? Your fake videos CANNOT mean that all videos that look similar are in the same vein, however that is exactly what you state as fact You state that eg. all straw TK videos are a result of static. No exception. Static is actually incredibly easy to detect - it certainly isn't rocket science, as interesting as it may look. It cannot be ENTIRELY eliminated. Thankfully that is not a requirement to determine it's relative effect / lack of effect in a particular situation. In addition, we can almost eliminate it. If we could not control the effects of static, you would not have a computer at your fingertips - the PC board market would never have survived. The only bit you get credit for is showing us the added care required in their execution Plus looking a right fool for implying that you disproved the TK stunts based on your arguments ('The two main TK stunts are not TK') Why are you wasting time to disprove something that you feel is so laughably and obviously false? If it is so obvious, then why bother? Placebo |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 774 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor I guess this indeed shows how big your comment would be without Ad Hominem attacks, since there is no comment. I guess when you extract all of them from your posts they just evaporate... haha. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 762 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor Nick, You 'dare' me to respond intelligently? What is there to be afraid off? Your wit? First however, it is necessary that you raise an intelligent statment that demonstrates a fault in my logic. Reading through your posting I can't see where you have demonstrated any fault in my logic, you are in fact arguing with yourself about your own wrong interpreations of what I have said. It's quite sad actually. I have already answered the same questions three times. All you do is reword the question a little and ask it again. As I said some time ago, trying to explain anything to you is pointless. If it makes you happy to believe that you have demonstrated a fault in my logic, then bully for you! So you can just toddle off now and rotate a straw and thus give your life some meaning. Thanks for the entertainment, it's been a right laugh reading your comments and ETs together. Brilliant stuff! It coudn't be made up, such madness only happens in real life. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 759 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor Placebo, Yes, you're right. The claims for TK are all so stupid it is not worth bothering. But reading all your daft comments and rants is very amusing. That alone makes it worthwhile. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 756 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor >Reading through your posting I can't see where >you have demonstrated any fault in my logic, So you deny contradicting yourself? You said: >My own videos showing how to rotate a psi >wheel and straw by natural means are not proof >If anything, they are only there to clarify >my instructions on how to do it. Then you say: >Here are my reasons for believing that TK does >not exist: > >1) The two main TK stunts are not TK. Where have you shown that the two main stunts are not TK? This is a statement, it's either true or false, and you my friend say it's true. Where's your backup for this statement? Obviously not the videos, right? Because you said yourself they are there to prove nothing... |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 750 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor By the way, just incase I have to spell it out for you, that question about if you deny contradicting yourself was rhetorical. I mean, either your statement about the two TK stunts not being TK is unsubstantiated, or you're using something to prove it. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 737 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor Already answered under the thread "Keith's logic debunked' BTW how many threads do you want to start up and keep repeating yourself on? |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 735 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor I did not start the one above this, as you were the one that brought up the subject in that thread, not me. I guess to answer that question, you would have to ask yourself in how many threads to you want to attack my credibility? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 16, 2005 Views: 729 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor I will 'attack your cedibility' in every thread you post a daft comment. Why you reply to my comment from a different thread in this thread only goes to show what a confused idiot you are. If you want to reply to this comment, try posting it in this thread. I know this is hard for you to follow, being logical, but do try. |
| Posted By: Nick Posted On: Feb 17, 2005 Views: 726 | RE: Keith's Awesome Sense of Humor All right. I'll reply to that comment, in this thread. I guess that is what I'm doing now. Thank you Keith for helping me understand this, as I would never have known. |