|
|
Post by nathan12345 on Feb 19, 2007 1:00:31 GMT -5
hey everyone i was just about to try and start programming constructs and was just wondering if anyone here has any proof to them selves of contruct programming. I am not a sceptic i was just wanting to find out if anyone had done it and proved it thanx heaps  |
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author 
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Feb 19, 2007 15:30:56 GMT -5
Um, Anyone who's ever made a shield has programed a construct. I'm not entirely sure what you're actually asking for. What kind of proof do you want. To make a construct DO anything you must program it. My constructs have done many, many things; therefore, they have been programed. I currently fail to see why, if you don't need proof of the construct you would need proof of programing.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
SubIgnition
New Member
Now with 70% more cornucopia
Posts: 19
|
Post by SubIgnition on Feb 20, 2007 3:29:33 GMT -5
Definitive proof of pretty much anything involving psi is hard to come by.
To use an analogy tentatively, I suppose it's a bit like religious beliefs: other people can tell you it's true, but in the end your proof is what you believe.
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Feb 20, 2007 16:09:11 GMT -5
Subignition, believing in psiballs without believing in programing, is rather like believing in wind without believing in air. It just doesn't follow.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Mar 5, 2007 15:41:25 GMT -5
Nathan: The majority at this site have discussed things regarding the programming of constructs and had some of their constructs analyzed by others or done analysis for someone else. To me this is adequate proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan12345 on Mar 6, 2007 2:18:17 GMT -5
Yeah cool thanks wolfdancer i couldnt do programing when i started the thread but the other day i proved it to myself i made a psi cone and made it bounce of the wall and come back to me and it did so thank you anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by wolfdancer on Mar 6, 2007 14:58:32 GMT -5
I'm glad to hear that. |
|
|
|
Post by nathan12345 on Mar 7, 2007 4:39:35 GMT -5
While this tread is fresh and on the topic of programming, i thought i might ask do you have to have any extra psionic skills to program a psi ball to get some ones attention like a tap on the shoulder, i mean actual feeling thanx
ps i have tryed to do this many many times and have had no sucess
|
|
The Devil's Advocate
Author
Respected Member I will deflate your theories and claims with ye olde pointy stick of logic.
Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis.
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by The Devil's Advocate on Mar 7, 2007 10:54:59 GMT -5
If you want to program telepathic messages into a construct you have to be able to use telepathy, the same goes for empathy or any other skill you want the psiball to use. If you can't. It can't. The psiball 'tap on the shoulder' can be effective without it IF they are sensitive to the energy AND they are not already shielded. It's not a guarantee by any stretch of the message.
~The Devil's Advocate
|
|
|
|
Post by Stony1205 on Mar 23, 2007 15:14:28 GMT -5
There is no such thing as "proof". Just logic, and believability. You can provide all the evidence you want, but if nobody will logically look at it, it is for not.
Why do you think we still have a Flat-Earth Society?
~ Stony
|
|
TC
Respected Member
Formerly known as Yokusa
Posts: 338
|
Post by TC on Mar 27, 2007 18:54:21 GMT -5
I was going to comment on something awhile back, but forgot. Now I remember.
A better way of getting someone's attention telepathically is just a short ping. It's a fairly easy telepathic skill and can be more effective than a construct, because you can make more mistakes programming a construct than a ping.
|
|
|
|
Post by ultimarage on May 2, 2007 21:32:03 GMT -5
I guess you could program a psi ball to give a tingle or goosebumps and send it to their shoulder, and then ask them if they felt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by nathan12345 on May 3, 2007 0:44:47 GMT -5
Thats a good idea ultimarage, i will have to try that thanks.
|
|
