Tarot cards, they are AMAZING! - Page 4

Prometheus · 5th November 2009, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Major Arcana #0 the card without a number

http://www.ethanhein.com/memebase/mu...use_jester.jpg

any body know where I can find the rest of this deck I have been looking for years

Looks like that image was published on the cover of a book of sheet music:

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0897242408

I wonder if it ever was a complete Tarot deck?

Egg · 5th November 2009, 01:40 AM

Might it not be a good idea for the test subjects to answer the questions in advance of the readings from their own point of view and supply those answers to a trusted third party?

That way we can all judge the results for ourselves rather than the subjects adapting their view of the situation to either confirm or deny the readings based on a predisposition to tarot readings.

Pixel42 · 5th November 2009, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Egg

Might it not be a good idea for the test subjects to answer the questions in advance of the readings from their own point of view and supply those answers to a trusted third party?

That way we can all judge the results for ourselves rather than the subjects adapting their view of the situation to either confirm or deny the readings based on a predisposition to tarot readings.

Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best.

Egg · 5th November 2009, 02:44 AM

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best.

Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment?

MikeSun5 · 5th November 2009, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by Egg

Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment?

Yep. Choose 10 skeptics off the JREF forum. We don't believe.

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best.

Awww... throwing the tarot crowd a bone, are we? You're really too kind.

Pixel42 · 5th November 2009, 02:58 AM

Originally Posted by Egg

Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment?

In previous similar experiments subjects had so much trouble picking a reading that described them any better than any other that they asked their significant others to help select one. That might be a good way to eliminate any tendancy to simply pick the most flattering reading, if they are so vague that selection on the basis of facts which are either obviously correct or incorrect proves difficult.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Mike Sun5

Awww... throwing the tarot crowd a bone, are we? You're really too kind.

Huh?

arthwollipot · 5th November 2009, 03:16 AM

Okay, I have all of the volunteers compiled, and I'm ready to provide their first names to MrErisian whenever he is ready. Oddly enough, I managed to get no volunteers who shared the same first name!

Okay, we're just waiting for MrErisian.

MikeSun5 · 5th November 2009, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by Pixel42

Huh?

Letting the sitters pick makes it too easy on the reader. But this is for fun and not science, so machts nichts.

arthwollipot · 5th November 2009, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Letting the sitters pick makes it too easy on the reader. But this is for fun and not science, so machts nichts.

More fun than science, quite frankly. I can't see how the test we're doing could possibly be considered scientifically rigorous.

Pixel42 · 5th November 2009, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Letting the sitters pick makes it too easy on the reader. But this is for fun and not science, so machts nichts.

I think you have missed the point of the test. Have you read the whole thread?

Giving each subject just their reading and letting them subjectively validate it -which is what normally happens - makes it easy on the reader. Giving the subjects 10 readings, one of which is theirs, and seeing if they can pick it out makes it much harder on the reader. The subjects will subjectively validate all the readings, so if that's all that's going on they will correctly identify their own reading no more often than would be expected by chance. Only if there really is more going on than The Forer Effect will we get a success rate better than chance.

I agree that what we're doing is far from scientifically rigorous, but it will still produce results which are significantly more meaningful than the "evidence" upon which tarot card readers usually base their conviction that their readings are accurate.

MrErisian · 5th November 2009, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

My understanding was that MrErisian was going to do a reading for each of the ten volunteers, addressing each of the questions proposed:

But it depends on what MrErisian says he is willing to do/capable of doing.

I thought we were picking a question from the 6. Otherwise I'll be writing out 60 readings!

I thought there were 6 because we were picking one with the roll of a dice or something?

Would rather pick one question and stick to ten readings, which will take a while as it is.

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

Yep. Choose 10 skeptics off the JREF forum. We don't believe.

Mmm - I think a true skeptic always holds open the possibility.

I always thought Robert Anton Wilson's response to the million dollar prize nailed that sort of reverse dogma pretty well. I'll give a million dollars to anyone who can prove the world is as we think it is.

arthwollipot · 5th November 2009, 04:26 AM

Originally Posted by MrErisian

I thought we were picking a question from the 6. Otherwise I'll be writing out 60 readings!

I thought there were 6 because we were picking one with the roll of a dice or something?

Would rather pick one question and stick to ten readings, which will take a while as it is.

Sure, we can do that. One question per querent?

MrErisian · 5th November 2009, 04:26 AM

PS - Soon as we've picked a question PM me the names and I'll get to it. I estimate it'll take about a week or so to write them all. I'm very new to reading etc. Furthermore I'm going to try and make these readings as specific/accurate as I know how.

MrErisian · 5th November 2009, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Sure, we can do that. One question per querent?

Yeah. But surely the question should be a standard question for all of them or it'll be too easy to spot the correct answer.

arthwollipot · 5th November 2009, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by MrErisian

PS - Soon as we've picked a question PM me the names and I'll get to it. I estimate it'll take about a week or so to write them all. I'm very new to reading etc. Furthermore I'm going to try and make these readings as specific/accurate as I know how.

Do you want to do a different question for each, or just ten readings all on the same question?

arthwollipot · 5th November 2009, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by MrErisian

Yeah. But surely the question should be a standard question for all of them or it'll be too easy to spot the correct answer.

Okay, we're cross-posting here.

I'll pick one question randomly from the six, and PM you the question and the ten first names. Cool?

MrErisian · 5th November 2009, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay, we're cross-posting here.

I'll pick one question randomly from the six, and PM you the question and the ten first names. Cool?

Yup. PM inbox has been cleared out. Soon as I get them I'll start work on them next week.

arthwollipot · 5th November 2009, 04:41 AM

Okay. I have chosen the question randomly, by the roll of a 6-sided die. The question is no. 4: "What is the current situation in relation to place of abode?"

I have sent the list of names to MrErisian, who will now perform one tarot reading for each person on the question provided, and send them back to me individually. MrErisian, please remember to PM them to me and not post them direct to the list, as the order in which you do them may give away who each one was for.

I will then randomise them and send all of them to each of the ten participants, who will then attempt to pick the one from the list that most accurately describes their house, apartment, shack or cave on the beach.

My understanding is that more than 1 hit out of the 10 constitutes "better than chance", am I correct?

Robert Oz · 5th November 2009, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Okay. I have chosen the question randomly, by the roll of a 6-sided die. The question is no. 4: "What is the current situation in relation to place of abode?"

I have sent the list of names to MrErisian, who will now perform one tarot reading for each person on the question provided, and send them back to me individually. MrErisian, please remember to PM them to me and not post them direct to the list, as the order in which you do them may give away who each one was for.

I will then randomise them and send all of them to each of the ten participants, who will then attempt to pick the one from the list that most accurately describes their house, apartment, shack or cave on the beach.

My understanding is that more than 1 hit out of the 10 constitutes "better than chance", am I correct?

This is very exciting. It isn't often that these informal tests get to this stage on the JREF forums and I commend everyone involved including MrErisian, the volunteers, arthwollipot and everyone who made suggestions in the thread.

1 out of 10 is what can be expected by chance alone. MrErisian agreed to a success of 7 out of 10, but expects better. Although 7 out of 10 is the agreed success rate, anything above 5 out of 10 would raise an eye-brow, for me, personally.

In terms of the question regarding place of abode, I think MrErisian should try to include information about the place of abode itself (e.g. large, open-area house), but also the surrounding area (e.g. middle-class, high-density, city-living). Of course, the reading could even include number of people living in the place of abode. I'm sure there is lots of room for detail that will make the sitters' jobs easier in picking their readings out.

Good luck, MrErisian.

politas · 5th November 2009, 08:23 PM

Additional sorts of information could be owned/mortgaged/renting/boarding, cleanliness/tidiness (or lack thereof), building condition (new/aging/well-maintained/almost-condemned/historic), existence of garden and condition thereof, number of indoor plants, colours of wall/curtains/flooring/furniture, decoration style, heating/cooling systems installed or used...

I could go on all day. Basically, the more precise the readings are, the more information provided, the better chance the volunteers have of successfully choosing a correct reading, assuming that the cards do give correct information.

If MrE can come up with at least 10 identifying features for each sitter, the different readings could be given a percentage correctness by each volunteer, and the best result chosen fairly easily.

If there's only two or three features for each reading, there would probably be too much overlap to decide easily.

Robert Oz · 16th November 2009, 02:32 PM

Just bumping this thread so it isn't forgotten.

How are the readings going? Hopefully, MrErisian hasn't disappeared.

arthwollipot · 16th November 2009, 07:05 PM

I haven't heard from him since I sent him the list of names.

fromdownunder · Yesterday, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I haven't heard from him since I sent him the list of names.

Brave Sir Robin ran away...
bravely ran away away...
When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat.
A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.

5th November 2009, 12:02 AM	#121
Prometheus Liver Donor Emeritus Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: North of Reality Posts: 24,757	Originally Posted by JollyRoger Major Arcana #0 the card without a number http://www.ethanhein.com/memebase/mu...use_jester.jpg any body know where I can find the rest of this deck I have been looking for years Looks like that image was published on the cover of a book of sheet music: http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0897242408 I wonder if it ever was a complete Tarot deck?
	__________________ "But then, I'm not a big one for signatures anyway. I can't think of many things that are so clever that they bear repeating in every single post I make." -- Tricky

5th November 2009, 01:40 AM	#122
Egg Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 652	Might it not be a good idea for the test subjects to answer the questions in advance of the readings from their own point of view and supply those answers to a trusted third party? That way we can all judge the results for ourselves rather than the subjects adapting their view of the situation to either confirm or deny the readings based on a predisposition to tarot readings.
Egg Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 652	__________________ _{"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel} _{"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler} _{“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb} _{“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer}

5th November 2009, 02:44 AM	#124
Egg Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 652	Originally Posted by Pixel42 Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best. Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment?
Egg Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 652	__________________ _{"That's the thing with eggs: It's all about chicks and getting laid." - Wuschel} _{"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg" - Samuel Butler} _{“When arguing with a stone an egg is always wrong” - African proverb} _{“A true friend is someone who thinks that you are a good egg even though he knows that you are slightly cracked” - Bernard Meltzer}

5th November 2009, 02:56 AM	#125
MikeSun5 Trigger Happy Pacifist, Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 827	Originally Posted by Egg Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment? Yep. Choose 10 skeptics off the JREF forum. We don't believe. Originally Posted by Pixel42 Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best. Awww... throwing the tarot crowd a bone, are we? You're really too kind.
	__________________ I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell. --Daniel Tosh

5th November 2009, 02:58 AM	#126
Pixel42 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 1,251	Originally Posted by Egg Is there some way we can eliminate or at least reduce the possibility of a subject being dishonest in their assessment? In previous similar experiments subjects had so much trouble picking a reading that described them any better than any other that they asked their significant others to help select one. That might be a good way to eliminate any tendancy to simply pick the most flattering reading, if they are so vague that selection on the basis of facts which are either obviously correct or incorrect proves difficult. ETA: Originally Posted by Mike Sun5 Awww... throwing the tarot crowd a bone, are we? You're really too kind. Huh?
	Last edited by Pixel42; 5th November 2009 at 03:01 AM.

5th November 2009, 02:09 AM	#123
Pixel42 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 1,251	Originally Posted by Egg Might it not be a good idea for the test subjects to answer the questions in advance of the readings from their own point of view and supply those answers to a trusted third party? That way we can all judge the results for ourselves rather than the subjects adapting their view of the situation to either confirm or deny the readings based on a predisposition to tarot readings. Something like that would be necessary if the subjects were being shown their own reading only and asked to assess its accuracy, but they are going to be shown all the readings and asked to pick out the one that describes them best.

5th November 2009, 03:16 AM	#127
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	Okay, I have all of the volunteers compiled, and I'm ready to provide their first names to MrErisian whenever he is ready. Oddly enough, I managed to get no volunteers who shared the same first name! Okay, we're just waiting for MrErisian.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

5th November 2009, 03:28 AM	#128
MikeSun5 Trigger Happy Pacifist, Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 827	Originally Posted by Pixel42 Huh? Letting the sitters pick makes it too easy on the reader. But this is for fun and not science, so machts nichts.
	__________________ I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell. --Daniel Tosh

5th November 2009, 03:32 AM	#129
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Letting the sitters pick makes it too easy on the reader. But this is for fun and not science, so machts nichts. More fun than science, quite frankly. I can't see how the test we're doing could possibly be considered scientifically rigorous.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

5th November 2009, 04:15 AM	#130
Pixel42 Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 1,251	Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Letting the sitters pick makes it too easy on the reader. But this is for fun and not science, so machts nichts. I think you have missed the point of the test. Have you read the whole thread? Giving each subject just their reading and letting them subjectively validate it -which is what normally happens - makes it easy on the reader. Giving the subjects 10 readings, one of which is theirs, and seeing if they can pick it out makes it much harder on the reader. The subjects will subjectively validate all the readings, so if that's all that's going on they will correctly identify their own reading no more often than would be expected by chance. Only if there really is more going on than The Forer Effect will we get a success rate better than chance. I agree that what we're doing is far from scientifically rigorous, but it will still produce results which are significantly more meaningful than the "evidence" upon which tarot card readers usually base their conviction that their readings are accurate.

5th November 2009, 04:25 AM	#131
MrErisian Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 28	Originally Posted by arthwollipot My understanding was that MrErisian was going to do a reading for each of the ten volunteers, addressing each of the questions proposed: But it depends on what MrErisian says he is willing to do/capable of doing. I thought we were picking a question from the 6. Otherwise I'll be writing out 60 readings! I thought there were 6 because we were picking one with the roll of a dice or something? Would rather pick one question and stick to ten readings, which will take a while as it is. Originally Posted by MikeSun5 Yep. Choose 10 skeptics off the JREF forum. We don't believe. Mmm - I think a true skeptic always holds open the possibility. I always thought Robert Anton Wilson's response to the million dollar prize nailed that sort of reverse dogma pretty well. I'll give a million dollars to anyone who can prove the world is as we think it is.
MrErisian Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 28

5th November 2009, 04:26 AM	#132
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	Originally Posted by MrErisian I thought we were picking a question from the 6. Otherwise I'll be writing out 60 readings! I thought there were 6 because we were picking one with the roll of a dice or something? Would rather pick one question and stick to ten readings, which will take a while as it is. Sure, we can do that. One question per querent?
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

5th November 2009, 04:26 AM	#133
MrErisian Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 28	PS - Soon as we've picked a question PM me the names and I'll get to it. I estimate it'll take about a week or so to write them all. I'm very new to reading etc. Furthermore I'm going to try and make these readings as specific/accurate as I know how.
MrErisian Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 28

5th November 2009, 04:27 AM	#134
MrErisian Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 28	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Sure, we can do that. One question per querent? Yeah. But surely the question should be a standard question for all of them or it'll be too easy to spot the correct answer.
MrErisian Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 28

5th November 2009, 04:27 AM	#135
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	Originally Posted by MrErisian PS - Soon as we've picked a question PM me the names and I'll get to it. I estimate it'll take about a week or so to write them all. I'm very new to reading etc. Furthermore I'm going to try and make these readings as specific/accurate as I know how. Do you want to do a different question for each, or just ten readings all on the same question?
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

5th November 2009, 04:28 AM	#136
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	Originally Posted by MrErisian Yeah. But surely the question should be a standard question for all of them or it'll be too easy to spot the correct answer. Okay, we're cross-posting here. I'll pick one question randomly from the six, and PM you the question and the ten first names. Cool?
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

5th November 2009, 04:30 AM	#137
MrErisian Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 28	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Okay, we're cross-posting here. I'll pick one question randomly from the six, and PM you the question and the ten first names. Cool? Yup. PM inbox has been cleared out. Soon as I get them I'll start work on them next week.
MrErisian Student Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 28

5th November 2009, 04:41 AM	#138
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	Okay. I have chosen the question randomly, by the roll of a 6-sided die. The question is no. 4: "What is the current situation in relation to place of abode?" I have sent the list of names to MrErisian, who will now perform one tarot reading for each person on the question provided, and send them back to me individually. MrErisian, please remember to PM them to me and not post them direct to the list, as the order in which you do them may give away who each one was for. I will then randomise them and send all of them to each of the ten participants, who will then attempt to pick the one from the list that most accurately describes their house, apartment, shack or cave on the beach. My understanding is that more than 1 hit out of the 10 constitutes "better than chance", am I correct?
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

5th November 2009, 07:17 AM	#139
Robert Oz Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 668	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Okay. I have chosen the question randomly, by the roll of a 6-sided die. The question is no. 4: "What is the current situation in relation to place of abode?" I have sent the list of names to MrErisian, who will now perform one tarot reading for each person on the question provided, and send them back to me individually. MrErisian, please remember to PM them to me and not post them direct to the list, as the order in which you do them may give away who each one was for. I will then randomise them and send all of them to each of the ten participants, who will then attempt to pick the one from the list that most accurately describes their house, apartment, shack or cave on the beach. My understanding is that more than 1 hit out of the 10 constitutes "better than chance", am I correct? This is very exciting. It isn't often that these informal tests get to this stage on the JREF forums and I commend everyone involved including MrErisian, the volunteers, arthwollipot and everyone who made suggestions in the thread. 1 out of 10 is what can be expected by chance alone. MrErisian agreed to a success of 7 out of 10, but expects better. Although 7 out of 10 is the agreed success rate, anything above 5 out of 10 would raise an eye-brow, for me, personally. In terms of the question regarding place of abode, I think MrErisian should try to include information about the place of abode itself (e.g. large, open-area house), but also the surrounding area (e.g. middle-class, high-density, city-living). Of course, the reading could even include number of people living in the place of abode. I'm sure there is lots of room for detail that will make the sitters' jobs easier in picking their readings out. Good luck, MrErisian.
	__________________ “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!” – Homer Simpson Last edited by Robert Oz; 5th November 2009 at 07:20 AM.

5th November 2009, 08:23 PM	#140
politas Evil Atheist Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 871	Additional sorts of information could be owned/mortgaged/renting/boarding, cleanliness/tidiness (or lack thereof), building condition (new/aging/well-maintained/almost-condemned/historic), existence of garden and condition thereof, number of indoor plants, colours of wall/curtains/flooring/furniture, decoration style, heating/cooling systems installed or used... I could go on all day. Basically, the more precise the readings are, the more information provided, the better chance the volunteers have of successfully choosing a correct reading, assuming that the cards do give correct information. If MrE can come up with at least 10 identifying features for each sitter, the different readings could be given a percentage correctness by each volunteer, and the best result chosen fairly easily. If there's only two or three features for each reading, there would probably be too much overlap to decide easily.
	__________________ Myk GENERATION X: The first time you see this, add something vaguely similar to your sig on any forum. So-called experiment.

16th November 2009, 02:32 PM	#141
Robert Oz Muse Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 668	Just bumping this thread so it isn't forgotten. How are the readings going? Hopefully, MrErisian hasn't disappeared.
	__________________ “Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!” – Homer Simpson

16th November 2009, 07:05 PM	#142
arthwollipot The Accidental Podcaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the other side of your screen. Posts: 25,287	I haven't heard from him since I sent him the list of names.
	__________________ The Nonsense Podcast Features the LHC and multi-dimensional portals, The wonder herb Tribulus, the Catholic church and homosexuals, John Edward visits, some information on Wilhelm Reich and Orgone, we get to know Dave the Happy Singer plus more! What's an "arthwollipot"?

Yesterday, 08:21 PM	#143
fromdownunder Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 1,239	Originally Posted by arthwollipot I haven't heard from him since I sent him the list of names. Brave Sir Robin ran away... bravely ran away away... When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about, and valiantly, he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, he beat a very brave retreat. A brave retreat by brave Sir Robin.
	Last edited by fromdownunder; Yesterday at 08:24 PM.