Prediction - August 4th 2004

[Drooper]

One of the key points is what your ability allows you to do. You need to state as much as possible before the event what constitutes a 'hit'. (Afterwards is not helpful.)

I accept that you are predicting over 100 casualties. You therefore agree that 99 would be a miss?

In case you missed it, what I consider 'vague' is, for example, your definition of 'a Western target'.
Is Belize 'a Western target'?
Is Australia 'a Western target'?
Is Israel 'a Western target'?

And thankfully attacks with over 100 casualties are not a daily occurrence. But they do happen. If one happens on Aug 3 (GMT), will you claim that as a hit? If Aug 3 (GMT) is Aug 4 (local time elsewhere), is that a hit?
If there is a rail crash in the UK, and there are unproven allegations of sabotage, is that a hit?

I beg to differ.

"casualties" is extremely vague.

Say it plainly Luci. 100 dead? 100 dead or injured? 100 dead, injured or emotionally effected (e.g. relative)?

vague, vague, wishy, washy.

 

[glee]

"casualties" is extremely vague.

Say it plainly Luci. 100 dead? 100 dead or injured? 100 dead, injured or emotionally effected (e.g. relative)?

vague, vague, wishy, washy.

You're right to ask for a clear definition beforehand of 'casualties'.
Here it is:

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
The 'awful' aspect of the perception seemed to project over 100 casualties (death or serious injury).

So presumably nobody dead, but 100 people taken to hospital counts as a 'hit'.

I do worry about the use of the phrase '...the perception seemed to project...'.
If there are less than 100 casualties, then it seems to me that the prediction will still be claimed as a 'hit'.

 

[Drooper]

You're right to ask for a clear definition beforehand of 'casualties'.
Here it is:



So presumably nobody dead, but 100 people taken to hospital counts as a 'hit'.

I do worry about the use of the phrase '...the perception seemed to project...'.
If there are less than 100 casualties, then it seems to me that the prediction will still be claimed as a 'hit'.

It's still provides loads of wriggle room to fit different events.

what does "serious" injuries mean??? At present it will mean anything Luci claims it means ex post.

 

[Lucianarchy]

One of the key points is what your ability allows you to do. You need to state as much as possible before the event what constitutes a 'hit'. (Afterwards is not helpful.)

I have not talked about 'hits', I talk about significance

I accept that you are predicting over 100 casualties. You therefore agree that 99 would be a miss?

It would decrease in self evident significance.

In case you missed it, what I consider 'vague' is, for example, your definition of 'a Western target'.
Is Belize 'a Western target'?
Is Australia 'a Western target'?
Is Israel 'a Western target'?

I perceive a Western target as one controlled / operated / symbolic of the Western forces of power - armed / industrial / social.

And thankfully attacks with over 100 casualties are not a daily occurrence. But they do happen. If one happens on Aug 3 (GMT), will you claim that as a hit? If Aug 3 (GMT) is Aug 4 (local time elsewhere), is that a hit?

You would have to decide whether the it was significant or not.

If there is a rail crash in the UK, and there are unproven allegations of sabotage, is that a hit?

It would only be significant if the allegations were proven and the attack was from terrorists and you thought the target could reasonably be described as above.

 

[glee]

Originally posted by glee
One of the key points is what your ability allows you to do. You need to state as much as possible before the event what constitutes a 'hit'. (Afterwards is not helpful.)

Originally posted by lucianarchy
I have not talked about 'hits', I talk about significance

OK, by all means use significance. But do please explain what you mean by it.

Originally posted by glee
I accept that you are predicting over 100 casualties. You therefore agree that 99 would be a miss?

Originally posted by lucianarchy
It would decrease in self evident significance.

Here for example I need clarification. You state that your prediction is for over 100 casualties. If there are only 99, are you going to say your prediction was:

- correct?
- pretty good?
- significant?
- reasonably significant?
- not very significant?
- insignificant?
- wrong?

Originally posted by glee
In case you missed it, what I consider 'vague' is, for example, your definition of 'a Western target'.
Is Belize 'a Western target'?
Is Australia 'a Western target'?
Is Israel 'a Western target'?

Originally posted by lucianarchy
I perceive a Western target as one controlled / operated / symbolic of the Western forces of power - armed / industrial / social.

Well that is a very vague definition.
What do you mean by 'Western'?
What do you mean by 'controlled / operated / symbolic of the Western forces of power'?

I have already asked you if Belize, the Falklands or Bermuda qualify under your definition. Please answer yes or no.
Since Israel receives billions of dollars annually from the US, I assume you include Israel and all territories under Israeli control in your definition. DO you agree?
Since McDonalds and Coca-Cola are clearly symbolic of the 'West', I assume an attack on such premises anywhere in the world comes under your definition.
Could you give an example of an attack that would not be significant to you. (Perhaps we could then find a link to the West...)

Originally posted by glee
And thankfully attacks with over 100 casualties are not a daily occurrence. But they do happen. If one happens on Aug 3 (GMT), will you claim that as a hit? If Aug 3 (GMT) is Aug 4 (local time elsewhere), is that a hit?

Originally posted by lucianarchy
You would have to decide whether the it was significant or not.

Are you going to claim it's significant?
How accurate is your prediction?

Originally posted by glee
If there is a rail crash in the UK, and there are unproven allegations of sabotage, is that a hit?

Originally posted by lucianarchy
It would only be significant if the allegations were proven and the attack was from terrorists and you thought the target could reasonably be described as above.

The problem I have with your prediction is knowing whether an incident is going to be claimed as significant.
I'm afraid it is not satisfactory for you to say after the event "oh, I think that target is reasonably significant."
Please specify clearly exactly what your prediction covers.

Here's an example of an exact prediction:

"the next two US Presidential elections will be won by a white, Christian, straight, rich male - who has previous experience as a Senator, Congressman or Governer. He will represent an established political party, and will run with a Vice-President who comes from a different background. The campaign will rely heavily on TV coverage."

 

[Lucianarchy]

Glee, you seem to miss the point. The significance needs to be self-evident. The 14th Feb was, to use your own language up there, for me, "reasonably significant".

 

[glee]

Glee, you seem to miss the point. The significance needs to be self-evident. The 14th Feb was, to use your own language up there, for me, "reasonably significant".

I'm afraid you're definitely missing my point.

I want to know what you will consider 'significant'. (I don't know if your definition of 'self-evident' is the same as mine, or indeed any other poster.)
Take the number of casualties that you foresee.
Your 'prediction' says over 100. This is notable as one of only two clear points (the other being the date - though you haven't yet said if you're using GMT for that).
Please tell us what numbers will fall into these categories:

- correct?
- pretty good?
- significant?
- reasonably significant?
- not very significant?
- insignificant?
- wrong?

(For example, you could state:

- correct? 100+
- pretty good? 80-99
- significant? 60-79
- reasonably significant? 40-59
- not very significant? 20-39
- insignificant? 10-19
- wrong? less than 10)

I want to know what countries and targets are covered by your prediction.
Please state if, according to you, the following countries are 'a Western target as one controlled / operated / symbolic of the Western forces of power - armed / industrial / social':

Algeria
Australia
Belize
Bermuda
Canada
Cyprus
Falkland Islands
Hong Kong
Iraq
Israel
Oman
New Zealand
Philippines

Here is my 'prediction' again:

"the next two US Presidential elections will be won by a white, Christian, straight, rich male - who has previous experience as a Senator, Congressman or Governer. He will represent an established political party, and will run with a Vice-President who comes from a different background. The campaign will rely heavily on TV coverage."

What do you think of it?
Is it more detailed than yours?
Is it self-evident whether it happens?
(I don't live in the US, but I think this is an extremely good prediction.)

 

[Drooper]

You might as well give up. Luci is perfectly aware of the game he is playing.

Your time would be more productively spent trying to nail some jelly to the wall than trying to nail luci to specifics.

 

[Lucianarchy]

I'm afraid you're definitely missing my point.

No, not at all. I have given you both the perception and the example of finding significance for a self-evident result.

I do not have the time or inclination to go through every single example / possibility you care to cite.

Make of the results what you will. It's not a problem for me.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Self-evident, in Luci's case, is defined as that which is evident, only to himself.

 

[glee]

You might as well give up. Luci is perfectly aware of the game he is playing.

Your time would be more productively spent trying to nail some jelly to the wall than trying to nail luci to specifics.

Yes, of course you're right.
I did have hopes of a reasonable discussion when the prediction was first made.
But since Luci won't define where the 'target' is, how many 'casualties' would be 'significant', or even when it will happen...

 

[glee]

I have given you both the perception and the example of finding significance for a self-evident result.

I doubt even you understand what this means!
Is 99 casualties 'significant'?
If yes, then why does your prediction specify 100?

I do not have the time or inclination to go through every single example / possibility you care to cite.

And of course no-one asked you to.
What you actually mean is
"I am embarrassed by my own vagueness, so will not even answer one example."

Make of the results what you will. It's not a problem for me.

Well suppose that on Aug 3, 27 people in Belize go to hospital (mainly with shock) after an explosive device ruptures a gas pipe.
You will claim this is 'self-evidently' 'significant' and proves you can predict.
The rest of us will not accept it. (It won't be a problem for us!)

 

[alfaniner]

What are the specifications for proving this "prediction" did NOT happen?

In the Million Dollar Challenge, the claimant must describe what constitutes both a positive and negative result.


Many, many, many possibilities could be interpreted as a positive result (at least, by Luci).

What would constitute a negative result here?

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Luci's not entering the challenge. That way HE can make the rules of his little game.

By the way, Luci. What, exactly, do you claim to be able to do?

 

[Belgian thought]

This is the sound of silence - do bee do bee doo!

I perceive that on this forum it will contiune.

 

[Doctor X]

Man, I really thought the first post was suppose to be comic and ironic.

Wow.

--J.D.

 

[Timble]

Given LA's record on prophecy so far, August 4 should be the safest day of the year.

 

[Z]

Who cares about Luci? I just wanna see how many of my predictions come true.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Is anyone able to get more specific than: An attack on a Western target (UK, USA, Europe)?

 

[Lothian]

Is anyone able to get more specific than: An attack on a Western target (UK, USA, Europe)?

Ooooo prediction poker. I will see your

An attack on a Western target (UK, USA, Europe)

and raise to

An attack on a Western target (UK, USA, Europe) excluding Liechtenstein.