Unlogically.Logical Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) Edited July 5, 2015 by Unlogically.Logical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) I count 12 question marks in your post. That's too many question to start one post so which one do you want answered? Edited July 5, 2015 by studiot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unlogically.Logical Posted July 5, 2015 Author Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) i just edited it again. changed the whole thing lol ,well not changed but made this easier to understand my point Edited July 5, 2015 by Unlogically.Logical -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 The following is the uneducated, sloppily organized and scatterbrained thoughts which I am always proud of in a shameless type of way Ugh. You're shamelessly proud of presenting your ideas in a scatterbrained, sloppily organized way to me and others?! I'm unmotivated to read them. Your presentation tells me you're either more interested in sounding a certain way than you are at supporting your explanation, or you're used to wishful thinking as opposed to rational thinking. You come to a science site for science discussion, but instead of precision, you flit from one bit to another like a pinball and hope we're following along. We like evidence with our assertions, and we like our ideas to be as focused as possible. If we were playing darts, I'd ask you to throw them one at a time instead of ten at once. Since you put this in the Lounge instead of Speculations, are you hoping for a more casual approach? We just don't do that with scientific questions. You can't make a statement about "the inexplicable aura felt by all living things" without citing the study that offers evidence such an aura exists, even in the Lounge. And most of the sources you do cite are hardly credible (I love Morgan too, but his producers are selling sensationalism, like most pop-sci panderers). Can you try again, lose the buzzwords, lose the tangents, and try to treat this like a case you're presenting to a jury in a court? We're not asking you to prove anything (proof is for maths), just that when you make an assertion that goes against mainstream science, you provide some evidence that leads you to believe so. Assertion -> Evidence, stick to that pattern with each concept before introducing something new. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 (edited) If we were playing darts, I'd ask you to throw them one at a time instead of ten at once. Phi for all you need to do is stick a pin in your screen to chose one of them. I tried here but missed the my screen and got my foot instead. Edited July 5, 2015 by studiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Phi for all you need to do is stick a pin in your screen to chose one of them. I tried here but missed the my screen and got my foot instead. Nobody understands the point better than you, my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts