Talk:749: Study - Revision history

172.69.43.174 at 19:47, 8 June 2024

2024-06-08T19:47:26Z

172.70.90.162 at 16:36, 8 June 2024

2024-06-08T16:36:18Z

172.69.22.61 at 23:59, 5 April 2023

2023-04-05T23:59:26Z

172.71.174.237: Some get a kidney harvesting scam, some get a placebo

2023-04-05T19:06:29Z

Some get a kidney harvesting scam, some get a placebo

172.68.47.6 at 00:56, 17 November 2017

2017-11-17T00:56:09Z

172.68.110.4 at 14:26, 9 October 2017

2017-10-09T14:26:33Z

Davidy22 at 00:27, 11 May 2015

2015-05-11T00:27:08Z

108.162.215.58 at 00:41, 10 May 2015

2015-05-10T00:41:58Z

Davidy22 at 15:30, 17 October 2014

2014-10-17T15:30:48Z

103.31.5.88: Created page with "Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams."

2014-10-17T07:52:57Z

Created page with "Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams."

New page

Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:47, 8 June 2024
Line 10:		Line 10:

	I'm bothered by the description of paper as 'fibrous cellulose pulp'. To me that implies a liquid, whereas I'm fairly sure paper is a solid. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.162\|172.70.90.162]] 16:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)		I'm bothered by the description of paper as 'fibrous cellulose pulp'. To me that implies a liquid, whereas I'm fairly sure paper is a solid. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.162\|172.70.90.162]] 16:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
		+	:What part of that implies liquid? Fibrous: no. Cellulose: famously a fibre, if not compressed into a solid form. Pulp: squishy and damp, ''maybe'', but often substantially more tangible and strainable than an actual full on liquid, even at its squishiest and dampest. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.174\|172.69.43.174]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 8 June 2024
Line 8:		Line 8:

	I wonder how this would work. Maybe some people get a kidney harvesting scam and some get a sugar pill. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.237\|172.71.174.237]] 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)		I wonder how this would work. Maybe some people get a kidney harvesting scam and some get a sugar pill. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.237\|172.71.174.237]] 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
		+
		+	I'm bothered by the description of paper as 'fibrous cellulose pulp'. To me that implies a liquid, whereas I'm fairly sure paper is a solid. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.162\|172.70.90.162]] 16:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 5 April 2023
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

−	I wonder how this would work. Maybe some people get a kidney harvesting scam and some get a sugar pill. 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.237\|172.71.174.237]]	+	I wonder how this would work. Maybe some people get a kidney harvesting scam and some get a sugar pill. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.237\|172.71.174.237]] 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 5 April 2023
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
		+
		+	I wonder how this would work. Maybe some people get a kidney harvesting scam and some get a sugar pill. 19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)19:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[[Special:Contributions/172.71.174.237\|172.71.174.237]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:56, 17 November 2017
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Doesn't work though. Because of the paradox involved. If it is actually a study, it doesn't prove anything if people pick it, because it is not a kidney harvesting scam. And if it is a kidney harvesting scam, it is not a study and thus the result doesn't matter (Except for the people who lack kidneys now)		Doesn't work though. Because of the paradox involved. If it is actually a study, it doesn't prove anything if people pick it, because it is not a kidney harvesting scam. And if it is a kidney harvesting scam, it is not a study and thus the result doesn't matter (Except for the people who lack kidneys now)
		+
		+	Actually, it’s hinted at very strongly that it IS a kidney harvesting scam. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.6\|172.68.47.6]] 00:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

	Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:26, 9 October 2017
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams. {{unsigned ip\|‎103.31.5.88}}		Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams. {{unsigned ip\|‎103.31.5.88}}
		+
		+	Doesn't work though. Because of the paradox involved. If it is actually a study, it doesn't prove anything if people pick it, because it is not a kidney harvesting scam. And if it is a kidney harvesting scam, it is not a study and thus the result doesn't matter (Except for the people who lack kidneys now)

	Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:27, 11 May 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams. {{unsigned ip\|‎103.31.5.88}}		Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams. {{unsigned ip\|‎103.31.5.88}}
		+
	Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)		Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:41, 10 May 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams. {{unsigned ip\|‎103.31.5.88}}		Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams. {{unsigned ip\|‎103.31.5.88}}
		+	Yes, I thought it was supposed to be both when I read this one. --[[Special:Contributions/108.162.215.58\|108.162.215.58]] 00:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 17 October 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams.	+	Perhaps the flyer itself IS the study? If many people picks the number then the result would be that people cannot distinguish the scams. {{unsigned ip\|‎103.31.5.88}}