Re: homosexuality in the hands - test :)

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 2:22 pm

Martijn,

I'm sorry, but I really don't have the time and motivation to iterate with you on the color of your font.

Thanks

**Ramann** Sat May 26, 2012 3:09 pm

With 1202 posts (Including mine) is the record highest in the number of posts in a single month since last year... rolling on the floor

......On a serious note excluding the ongoing discussion the forum is getting some attention at least.Martijn can tell the exact number of unique visitors this month..Should be higher..than previous months... day dreaming

Nobis

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 3:19 pm

Haha not sure the attention is so positive for someone here. Thumbs up!

Patti has a huge fan base here, and she has been mistreated for a long while. Nearly the sole reason I post here is in hope of receiving a feedback from her. It is due time for someone to experience the taste of his own medicine.

**anand_palm** Sat May 26, 2012 4:18 pm

Martijn

First of all i will ask you question, how many people who have an academic (sceintific) background are truly scientific. To the extent of what i have interacted with patti and i can strongly say she is very good researcher and she has excellent research skills. Science has evolved out of research. Tell me how many so called people with PHd and Masters degree are truly researchers, innovators scientist ect. My mother does not have a degree but she has excellent skills in aspect where she knows what she is doing, does that mean which should discount saying you dont have scientiifc backgound and say you are not good. Patti might not have learnt statsitics or probablity but given an oppurtunity she can compete with lot of people in that front.

I dont think agree with your comments

"It's always easy to criticise any part of society - especially when one has never been involved in that part of society at all (not sure about Boaz's background, but I know that Patti has no scientific background at all). But let's not forget that our opportunity to communicate here with eachother around the world... is a gift that can be attributed to the work of scientists."

For your infomation, probability is more of a intuitive apporach whereas first order statistics is more logical part.

Thanks
Anand

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 4:35 pm

I received a PhD in a scientific discipline and yet fully agree with Anand's comment. Touche!

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 5:05 pm

zaobhand wrote:Haha not sure the attention is so positive for someone here.

Patti has a huge fan base here, and she has been mistreated for a long while. Nearly the sole reason I post here is in hope of receiving a feedback from her. It is due time for someone to experience the taste of his own medicine.

Boaz, sounds like according your opinion I have been abusing Patti somehow in many discussions over the past 2 years.

Do you really think that Patti would accept such a situation to continue? I don't think so.

You made a telltale comment shortly after Patti posted her expression of annoyance; then you started your sequence with the following words:

zaobhand wrote:
Employers often, when they wish to extract more information from their employees, dismiss their ideas. It is a well known tactic. The employee, in an attempt to overcome their immense frustration, work twice as hard to explain and convince, creating more data and evidence. I wonder whether this is what's going on here?

Boaz, from my point of view your efforts became quite ridiculous from that moment: because Patti is not my employee at all... and I have never told her to do anything (I even hardly ever ask Patti or Lynn for anything). I am not using any 'tactics', you only presumed that I am.

Basically, our (only sometimes) tough developing discussions even became about one year to ago the motive for me and Lynn to ask Patti to join our moderation team. So, the three of us are very aware that in our discussions Patti and me sometimes have completely different perceptions.

But this is actually relatively normal in the field of hand reading, since opinions are often for a large part based on (subjective) perceptions & observations. And the three of us are also aware of likewise processes at earlier forums (especially the HandReading Cyber Cafe - which was the first forum where we sort of met eachother about 15 years ago).

Boaz, you have been taking my input in this discussion on a personal level over and over again... for over two days now.

I hope my words above, about the how our moderation team got together, will become helpful for you to recognize how you have been projecting you perceptions (about science and how business related relationships work) to me.... and you tried to suggest as if this is a black/white conflict situation (with only one person to blame - even while others have shown considerable understanding for my input in this discussion).

You spoke about 'narrow mindedness' and 'insensitivity'. But afterwards your statements became even provocative... and I assume that you are aware of this very well.

I have said enough. Because for me it is quite obvious that you have posted during the past 2 days in this topic quite a few posts that ONLY related to a personal level... filled with merely arbitrary statements.

But maybe you can't help it all, because you revealed today that my brown font color somehow appears to you as a 'bloody forumwall'. Since you started talking about 'tactics', I am sure that you have quite a few available.

Alternatively, I just prefer to communicate simple and directly - though I (unconsciously) often use quite a few words to make my point(s).

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 5:15 pm

Martijn, You have been trying to drag Patti into your muddy waters but this time it us who are fighting the battle for her. She has made her position very clear. My St. Andrews crosses are starting to show up, wow only two days, amazing!

**anand_palm** Sat May 26, 2012 5:35 pm

Boaz

Even mine too, i looked at it it started off. happy yel

Anand

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 5:38 pm

Thank you Anand, Thumbs up!

Boaz

**Kiran.Katawa** Sat May 26, 2012 6:24 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
I can't say anything on why was the response so.

It can be the other way round as - why did you treat the numbers part(statistics) seriously?

Apart from seeing the statistics part, you could have also seen the logic and a nice description from Patti. I can't understand - "So far for me it is even quite hard for me to understand why exactly you chose #3". Again the condition applies - "Given one of the 3 pairs...".

Sorry Kiran, while Patti picked #3 ... she clearly was clearly in doubt about #2 and #3. Patti, did not suggest explicitely that she used a clear ideal about the psychology of homosexuals. And Patti even wrote for #2: "Last night I was all for this one being the one."

By the way, one could even argue... because of the poor quality of #2, maybe it was even unlikely that this should be the one. Because Kiwihands had shared that she had sort of 'selected' the hands. Maybe this made Patti jump from #2 to #3.

For me, I think it was just an intuitive guess, with not much logic involved. That was my idea from the start after studying Patti's readings for those hands carefully.

The truth behind the results of this test might be hidden in the small details.

Hi Martijn,
even Patti also wrote -
I wondered why you added this poor quality image. It throws the test a little.
I don't really think there are markings in the palm that identify a person's sexual preferences.

But, if you think, it is just an intuitive guess - Ok, fine.

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 6:28 pm

zaobhand wrote:Martijn, You have been trying to drag Patti into your muddy waters but this time it us who are fighting the battle for her. She has made her position very clear. My St. Andrews crosses are starting to show up, wow only two days, amazing!

That is apparently your perception. But you appear to continue to simply ignore that 3 people (including Kiwihands) have outspoken at least some support regarding my early contributions in this discussion.

I don't know what 'position' you have in mind, but for sure... you have managed to take the battle far, far, far away from Kiwihands test. You managed to bring it to a personal level.

By the way, your words sound quite like you are ready to crucify me. But do you think it's worth to take such dramatic actions in a topic about where most of us agreed that homosexuality can (probably) not be read from the hand anyway?

Boaz, are you still interested to talk about hands and Kiwihands' test?

(Otherwise your effort will continue to run off topic on a personal level, and there would be not much of a sensible reason for me to keep responding to your input)

lol!

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 6:32 pm

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Hi Martijn,
even Patti also wrote -
I wondered why you added this poor quality image. It throws the test a little.
I don't really think there are markings in the palm that identify a person's sexual preferences.

But, if you think, it is just an intuitive guess - Ok, fine.

Kiran, I think that Patti described there her opinion about whether there are signs of homosexuality in the palm in general. It should not be read as a comment only in the perspective of #2.... because then it would no longer make sense why she would even have considerd #2 as an option.

However, I think we agree about this. Correct?

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 6:55 pm

Martijn,

Before establishing a dialog I believe a basis of trust and common understanding is required. I don't know to what extent you are aware of it, but I tend to find that you often distort and manipulate things. This is my perception and you will not be able to drag me into specifics unless I see that your posts acquire a different taste. Definitely as an administrator of this forum, I often feel like you haven't graduated the school of subtlety. For example in your latest reply to Roosi,
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1867-a-patented-anthropological-method-for-determining-the-type-of-temperament-using-the-index-finger-dermatoglyphics#19250 you go about first to refute her and then thank her for her efforts, why not go the other way around? Why always this belligerent attitude?

**Kiran.Katawa** Sat May 26, 2012 7:02 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Hi Martijn,
even Patti also wrote -
I wondered why you added this poor quality image. It throws the test a little.
I don't really think there are markings in the palm that identify a person's sexual preferences.

But, if you think, it is just an intuitive guess - Ok, fine.

Kiran, I think that Patti described there her opinion about whether there are signs of homosexuality in the palm in general. It should not be read as a comment only in the perspective of #2.... because then it would no longer make sense why she would even have considerd #2 as an option.

However, I think we agree about this. Correct?

From "wrong statistics", you moved on to to "her lucky choice" to the "general signs of homo sexuality in the hands", which I have been holding onto from the beginning of this conversation between us.

You should tell me - whether do you agree with me on this finally? Smile

**Kiran.Katawa** Sat May 26, 2012 7:04 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:

Why not? Patti's observation and approach is really incredible. Many of us are learners here and we never thought in that way.

I repeat again that - "We knew one of the hand-pairs was that of a gay's. These can't be applied in general as gay's hand features".

Kiran, you appear to exclude the possiblity that Patti's choice was just (lucky) coincidence... please be aware of the fact that Patti revealed that the night before she made her final choise, she still assumed that #2 should be the one.

Sorry, Kiran... don't you think that this revelation by Patti could actually confirm my hypothesis that it was probably just a lucky guess?

Because, Patti did not use a straightforward approach at all... again, she was even about to chose for #2. But the next day she changed her mind. Unfortunately, she did not explain why exactly she chanced her mind (I think that this is a strong signal that her choice was at the end likely just a lucky guess)

Kiran, don't you want to know why Patti changed her mind next day?

(I would love to know... but I know that some questions are hard to answer )

It is clearly not a matter of "luck".
Infact, I see it as
- knowledge: 'coz, she could identify some of the markings on both the hands.
- honesty: by acknowledging about the possibility of either choices

She has given a nice description for her choice # 3. This seems hard to understand and not considered also! And now, you're calling me to show interest in the other choice Smile

And I don't understand what is humorous about that?!

**Ramann** Sat May 26, 2012 7:20 pm

Ensuing discussion stretched further. I do not understand what is wrong with Intuition or Intuitive guess.Every method is igneous so long it results at the correct conclusion specially in sciences like this.

Simple one liner humble acceptance could have stopped the discussion stretched so long and ofto

.

A recent post by me had Nonas Insight comment that

It helps always for me to have the person's hands in mine to make more accurate reading. Then I am able to "pick up" things that aren't necessarily in hand. Sorry I couldn't help more

Post below.

https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1650p15-can-any-one-find-anything-interesting-in-this-pair-of-hands

Doesnt it sound wacky.But still no one questioned Nonas as it may be so that that is how Nonas works apart from regular analysis of hands.Ingenous and unique .I read something new.

The point I wanted to make is everyone has his her own methods.If some one accepts that he can not explain why or how it works it may not mean always that he/she is trying to impress.One example is the hand on Intuition I had posted and the recent one by Kiran.

Above may be offbeat ..But just could not resist commenting.

Nobis

**Ramann** Sat May 26, 2012 7:44 pm

- knowledge: 'coz, she could identify some of the markings on both the hands.

I can not agree to this.I can only assume that Patti had gained enough of experience to make out (may be unknowingly) to the correct pair of hands.A life time of experience is worth much.Reliability of making the correct pairs every time is a real challenge.I have not seen any gay hands before.Nor I do have that much of expertise to even remotely make out gay hands.Only quoting what Mr Altman has written in his book.One can not make our sexual preferences seeing the hands.

- honesty: by acknowledging about the possibility of either choices .

This is what stands apart.Honesty.Patti dont seem to have commented that she can make out every time with conviction the correct pair of hands.She acknowledged that fully that her thoughts hovered around 2 and 3 with humility.Speculation further raised by Martijn as to why the option was not done at the last moment and there was a wait for another day.(Assumption may be some more clues to get the correct answer beforehand and impress the audience).

But I don't think that was the case that Patti had to wait for one more day to get the clues having admitted that its was just a fun test and nothing more.Dissecting someone to that extent may have been too much for anyone to carry.

Nobis

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 8:48 pm

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Hi Martijn,
even Patti also wrote -
I wondered why you added this poor quality image. It throws the test a little.
I don't really think there are markings in the palm that identify a person's sexual preferences.

But, if you think, it is just an intuitive guess - Ok, fine.

Kiran, I think that Patti described there her opinion about whether there are signs of homosexuality in the palm in general. It should not be read as a comment only in the perspective of #2.... because then it would no longer make sense why she would even have considerd #2 as an option.

However, I think we agree about this. Correct?
From "wrong statistics", you moved on to to "her lucky choice" to the "general signs of homo sexuality in the hands", which I have been holding onto from the beginning of this conversation between us.

You should tell me - whether do you agree with me on this finally?

Kiran, in my comment above I only talked about Patti's words. But in your response you do not appear to talk about Patti's words at all. Is that correct?

Appearantly you still belief that homosexuality can be read from the hand?

Even after Patti wrote...?:

"I don't really think there are markings in the palm that identify a person's sexual preferences."

Kiran, from the words 'a person' in Patti's sentence... I think one should conclude that Patti was talking about hands & people in general (just like Lynn did), and not just about case #2.

But maybe you did assumed that Patti said those words only in the perspective of #2?

Therefore... if you believe that homosexuality can be read from the hand (and that Patti was only talking about #2 when she wrote those words), then I would think that you and I obviously disagree about boths issues.

Maybe then we should we agree about our disagreement?

(Sorry Kiran, your last response was a bit confusing for me. In this response of mine I am only guess what you exactly had in mind when writing your response above - again, since I don't understand how your words related to my words that you quoted. I hope this makes sense)

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 9:00 pm

Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:

Why not? Patti's observation and approach is really incredible. Many of us are learners here and we never thought in that way.

I repeat again that - "We knew one of the hand-pairs was that of a gay's. These can't be applied in general as gay's hand features".

Kiran, you appear to exclude the possiblity that Patti's choice was just (lucky) coincidence... please be aware of the fact that Patti revealed that the night before she made her final choise, she still assumed that #2 should be the one.

Sorry, Kiran... don't you think that this revelation by Patti could actually confirm my hypothesis that it was probably just a lucky guess?

Because, Patti did not use a straightforward approach at all... again, she was even about to chose for #2. But the next day she changed her mind. Unfortunately, she did not explain why exactly she chanced her mind (I think that this is a strong signal that her choice was at the end likely just a lucky guess)

Kiran, don't you want to know why Patti changed her mind next day?

(I would love to know... but I know that some questions are hard to answer )
It is clearly not a matter of "luck".
Infact, I see it as
- knowledge: 'coz, she could identify some of the markings on both the hands.
- honesty: by acknowledging about the possibility of either choices

She has given a nice description for her choice # 3. This seems hard to understand and not considered also! And now, you're calling me to show interest in the other choice

And I don't understand what is humorous about that?!

Sorry Kiran, let me explain the humor that I had in mind:

I think my question for Patti could possibly turn out to be very hard for her to answer. Because when people need to make difficult choices, people sometimes tend to change their mind after a good night of sleep. But then it is usually very hard to describe exactly why they changed their opinion - only after a good night of sleep. Often there is no real rational behind a difficult choice... only a gut feeling or intuition.

So, I used the lol!

emoticon because I think it would not be easy for Patti to answer my question - for the reasons that I have just described.

Afterall, dear Kiran... are you able to understand why Patti decided to change her choice? (My own most likely answer would be that she could have changed her analysis, but that is not what she described... she only described that the night before Patti thought that case #2 should represent the homosexual male among the three cases that Patti presented.

Do you now understand my point: Patti's change of choice raises some questions about what exactly made her chose for #3? (But only after a night of sleep)

**Martijn (admin)** Sat May 26, 2012 9:15 pm

zaobhand wrote:Martijn,

Before establishing a dialog I believe a basis of trust and common understanding is required. I don't know to what extent you are aware of it, but I tend to find that you often distort and manipulate things. This is my perception and you will not be able to drag me into specifics unless I see that your posts acquire a different taste. Definitely as an administrator of this forum, I often feel like you haven't graduated the school of subtlety. For example in your latest reply to Roosi,
https://www.modernhandreadingforum.com/t1867-a-patented-anthropological-method-for-determining-the-type-of-temperament-using-the-index-finger-dermatoglyphics#19250 you go about first to refute her and then thank her for her efforts, why not go the other way around? Why always this belligerent attitude?

Boaz,

Regarding Roosi's topic, you appear to read things that I have not written. Because my first comments only related to the content of the Russian study. So, I have not refuted Roosi about anything.

By the way, Roosi only shared a few links... but I am not sure that she read/studied all details. She did not really share her thoughts. So, there was not much that I could respond to her personally.

But you are assuming that I have, etc etc.... and the you continue your personal 'battle' against your forum host.

Have fun Boaz... but from my point of view you've lost contact with reality, since you show not much willingness at all to consider my arguments seriously, and to try to understand the intention behind my words.

Instead, you appear to read my words as if any critical comment about anything becomes an attempt of mine to attack people personally. Your efforts are going nowhere if you continue like this.

(So far I had the impression that you had only manifested yourself as an educated, enjoyable, spiritually oriented man... but I would not be surprized when others now perceive you as a person with two faces after your began your mission - by talking about your battle, martial colors, tactics, a long lasting personal attack on the forum host + a forceful request to how the host should outline the color of his posts. Suspect

)

**zaobhand** Sat May 26, 2012 9:37 pm

I'd like to offer all members, who may feel like me, that they have been banging their heads against a wall for the past few days, a solace, an inspiring and transforming song.

Here it is MUL MANTRA by Snatam Kaur
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3zUYK4YU8M

**kiwihands** Sat May 26, 2012 10:04 pm

Martijn (admin) wrote:That is apparently your perception. But you appear to continue to simply ignore that 3 people (including Kiwihands) have outspoken at least some support regarding my early contributions in this discussion.

Oh my ... I really didn't want to post again, as it appears that we are just talking past each other and wasting our time. But I have to make it clear that I never intentionally showed support for your argument, Martijn. I continue to support Patti and I still don't agree with the way you used an off-hand, half-joking remark by her to try and portray her as unscientific.

I feel a bit silly having to spell it out, but my post with the line "it's possible that we are all taking it the wrong way" had three objectives quite different from what you perceived. 1) By acknowledging the possibility that we may have misinterpreted your intentions, allow you to react in a non-defensive way. 2) Give you the opportunity to apply that same principle to your own reading of Patti's comment and consider the possibility that you may have her distorted/ misunderstood her words. 3) Irony. Maybe I should have put the "all" in italics to make that a bit clearer. While I was serious about the postmodern principle of the reader creating the text, I feel that the probability of author intent = reader interpretation is directly proportional to the number of readers interpreting the text in the same way.

I personally appreciate it if people point out where they think I've made a mistake in judgment or hurt their feelings. As these are usually my blind spots, I could never find out about them myself and hence value the opportunity for growth. I rarely try to reciprocate since I have learned that this usually only creates a lot of strife and not much else. In this instance I felt bound to say something, mainly to help Patti. I think everyone on here (in their own way) has been trying to do the same in an effort to make this forum a bit more of a peaceful place, not to indulge some whim to make you feel attacked.

Hope we can let this rest now ...

**Martijn (admin)** Sun May 27, 2012 12:49 am

Dear Kiwihands,

Sorry to hear that I apparently misinterpretated those words completely.

I can understand & respect your wish that this discussion will end any time soon. Sorry that my input on Patti's data sheet en her related conclusion (featured with a question mark) made this topic about your test look like it is right now.

(I think we are confronted here with the fact that the field of hand reading has always been a matter of observation, perception and interpretation. And one can endlessly discuss and disagree about the details of anything related... unless the field gets a solid basis that is build on credible objective research.)

As a final thought I would like to share this final observation about what you said yourself about your test:

I think you described yourself in your first post that you had serious considerations on your mind why you designed this test. However, somehow you decided that you only wanted to present your test as a 'fun' experience (I guess, you basically did that only to avoid sensitive reactions - because of the fact that homosexuality is known to be a sensitive topic for many people).

But I only now recognize how this polarity (serious considerations vs. the intention to present a 'fun' test) sort of explains why this topic did not end with much 'fun' at all.

You asked people for 'happy guessiing', but you obviously also had serious underlying intentions... since I think it is obvious that you were very interested to see how people would respond and process this task.

Now, after describing this context... can you understand that I am now feeling a bit disappointed?:

Because my straightforward input to ask more attention for the (underlying) serious aspect(s) of your test, simply got rejected by some participants with the argument that this test was only meant to be for fun. And when I continued to share my arguments I got sort accused for making a personal attack on Patti... even after Anand had started making explicit comments about the learning process and the chance probabilities involved... Patti had at that stage no problems to respond and discuss those topics.

(At that stage Boaz freely acknowledged that his successful choice was 'sheer luck'; but how differently his responses became after I had described that the success of the other participants could very well also be a matter of 'plain luck'. However, I needed to start a conversation with Patti about her arguments to understand exactly why she made the choice that she had made. But then I got confronted with her response: she responded that she perceived my approach as annoying, and then other began to perceive my attempt to sort things out as a personal attack, etc.)

Kiwihands, despite this dobservation about how your presented your test... I want you to know that I do fully understand and respect your choices and efforts. So, you should not take my observation as criticism.

Thanks!

+

Okay, I'll accept how this situation ended right now. These were my final words about this topic, and I will not talk about it again in other topics.

**Kiran.Katawa** Sun May 27, 2012 4:56 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Hi Martijn,
even Patti also wrote -
I wondered why you added this poor quality image. It throws the test a little.
I don't really think there are markings in the palm that identify a person's sexual preferences.

But, if you think, it is just an intuitive guess - Ok, fine.

Kiran, I think that Patti described there her opinion about whether there are signs of homosexuality in the palm in general. It should not be read as a comment only in the perspective of #2.... because then it would no longer make sense why she would even have considerd #2 as an option.

However, I think we agree about this. Correct?
From "wrong statistics", you moved on to to "her lucky choice" to the "general signs of homo sexuality in the hands", which I have been holding onto from the beginning of this conversation between us.

You should tell me - whether do you agree with me on this finally?

Kiran, in my comment above I only talked about Patti's words. But in your response you do not appear to talk about Patti's words at all. Is that correct?

Appearantly you still belief that homosexuality can be read from the hand?

Even after Patti wrote...?:

"I don't really think there are markings in the palm that identify a person's sexual preferences."

Kiran, from the words 'a person' in Patti's sentence... I think one should conclude that Patti was talking about hands & people in general (just like Lynn did), and not just about case #2.

But maybe you did assumed that Patti said those words only in the perspective of #2?

Therefore... if you believe that homosexuality can be read from the hand (and that Patti was only talking about #2 when she wrote those words), then I would think that you and I obviously disagree about boths issues.

Maybe then we should we agree about our disagreement?

(Sorry Kiran, your last response was a bit confusing for me. In this response of mine I am only guess what you exactly had in mind when writing your response above - again, since I don't understand how your words related to my words that you quoted. I hope this makes sense)

I am also talking about Patti's comments at generic level and not specific to hand # 2 or 3.
I almost wrote it in the beginning: "Had this been not told to us that one of the 3 pairs of hands is that of a gay, I don't think any of us would have pointed out this. "

I don't know why is it taken specific. And this was the point from the beginning and there was no need to get into statistics or her lucky choice.

I am glad that you agree on this then.

**Kiran.Katawa** Sun May 27, 2012 4:58 am

Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:
Martijn (admin) wrote:
Kiran.Katawa wrote:

Why not? Patti's observation and approach is really incredible. Many of us are learners here and we never thought in that way.

I repeat again that - "We knew one of the hand-pairs was that of a gay's. These can't be applied in general as gay's hand features".

Kiran, you appear to exclude the possiblity that Patti's choice was just (lucky) coincidence... please be aware of the fact that Patti revealed that the night before she made her final choise, she still assumed that #2 should be the one.

Sorry, Kiran... don't you think that this revelation by Patti could actually confirm my hypothesis that it was probably just a lucky guess?

Because, Patti did not use a straightforward approach at all... again, she was even about to chose for #2. But the next day she changed her mind. Unfortunately, she did not explain why exactly she chanced her mind (I think that this is a strong signal that her choice was at the end likely just a lucky guess)

Kiran, don't you want to know why Patti changed her mind next day?

(I would love to know... but I know that some questions are hard to answer )
It is clearly not a matter of "luck".
Infact, I see it as
- knowledge: 'coz, she could identify some of the markings on both the hands.
- honesty: by acknowledging about the possibility of either choices

She has given a nice description for her choice # 3. This seems hard to understand and not considered also! And now, you're calling me to show interest in the other choice

And I don't understand what is humorous about that?!

Sorry Kiran, let me explain the humor that I had in mind:

I think my question for Patti could possibly turn out to be very hard for her to answer. Because when people need to make difficult choices, people sometimes tend to change their mind after a good night of sleep. But then it is usually very hard to describe exactly why they changed their opinion - only after a good night of sleep. Often there is no real rational behind a difficult choice... only a gut feeling or intuition.

So, I used the emoticon because I think it would not be easy for Patti to answer my question - for the reasons that I have just described.

Afterall, dear Kiran... are you able to understand why Patti decided to change her choice? (My own most likely answer would be that she could have changed her analysis, but that is not what she described... she only described that the night before Patti thought that case #2 should represent the homosexual male among the three cases that Patti presented.

Do you now understand my point: Patti's change of choice raises some questions about what exactly made her chose for #3? (But only after a night of sleep)

Okay, got it Martijn.
And if you're thinking in this way then fine.