Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!im4u!oakhill!davet
From: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: ESP and bridge(Re: PSI: lack of proof, and counter challange
Message-ID: <727@oakhill.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 19-Jul-86 07:00:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: oakhill.727
Posted: Sat Jul 19 07:00:06 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jul-86 05:43:43 EDT
References: <484@ulowell.UUCP> <529@hope.UUCP> <512@ulowell.UUCP> <715@oakhill.UUCP> <200@cci632.UUCP>
Reply-To: davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel)
Distribution: net
Organization: Motorola Inc. Austin, Tx
Lines: 17
Keywords: proof, countre proof.

In article <200@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:

>>...that at tournaments each individual had to sign a statement as to whether
>>they used ESP in their playing.  ...

>Did your friend tell you how many of the "psychics" won, and how often?

The forms requesting the information went to the organizers so the players
never did know who (if anyone) ever made any such claims.

If a correlation was found then one would think that today they would still
be asking the question.  (I don't know if they are or not.)  On the
other hand, if a player did think she/he had such an advantage why would they
risk labeling themselves in a tournament?  Indicating YES to the
question may lead to future discrimination whereas a NO would be quite safe.

 -- Dave Trissel {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet