Can Telepathy aid belief in a god?

[Ophiolite]

@ Moontanman,

 

 

Why do I care if you believe or not? I must admit I do feel sorry for those who lack experience in PSI fields because they must only believe what they read in Nature Magazine.

 

However...

 

A person professing radio waves existed 1000 years ago would have faced the exact same burden of proof, and in my position the opinions would alter as much.

 

Without physical tools to measure psychic phenomenon there can be no proof other than percentages and odds which are normally dismissed by anyone familiar with the Scientific method which assumes results must be replicable.

 

So. As happy as I am to have the Burden of Proof shifted to me, I could care less. Believe what you want, there is no skin off my nose.

 

Instead I think the burden of proof is upon anyone who wants to understand our reality. I think there are good reasons to want to know if death is the end or a beginning. But I am curious that way. Your scientific curiosity has obviously brought you somewhere else.

 

Telepathic subjects have already been deemed by a moderator here to be unrelated to mass consciousness or god so I cannot express my views again without going off topic, but if you accept the later then the former becomes a higher probability.

This is an astonishing array of non sequiturs and illogical statements. (Excuse me if others have already pointed out some, or all of these, but my astonishment will not be eased till I have addressed this nonsense.)

 

1. Your assertion that those who "have no experience in psi fields must only believe what they read in Nature" is illogical. You are conflating two independent sets as thought they mapped onto each other identically.

 

2. We do not refer, as you have done, to "Nature magazine". Anyone with an interest and experience of science knows that it is sufficient to call it Nature. Moreover, it is assuredly not a magazine, but a journal.

 

3. A person who professed radio waves existed 1000 years ago would have done so for one of two reasons. Perhaps they had some evidence for such waves, in which case, as John Cuthber had pointed out they could have demonstrated this evidence in a repeatable manner.

 

Or, they had simply dreamed up the idea. If I had postulated the existence of many sulphur spewing volcanoes on Io in 1970 without any sound reason for the claim, it would not have made me a brilliant scientist when such volcanoes were subsequently discovered. It would have confirmed me as an unscientific nutter who made an unfounded guess that turned out to be right. The first is science, the second is not.

 

4. Did anyone ask for proof of psychic phenomena? I don't think so. We have asked for evidence that supports the hypothesis that such phenomena exist. There are plenty of viable statistical techniques to assess things like clairvoyance and telepathy. You suggest this is not the case. You are wrong.

 

5. The correct expression is "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". Your writing is strewn with such ineptitude, suggesting lack of clarity in your thought processes.

 

6. The existence of psi phenomena does not increase the probability of life after death. Just as the existence of a god does not increase such a probability. Nor is there any reason to think that the existence of psi would increase the likelihood of a god. psi, life after death and gods are all independent phenomena. If we discover Big Foot tomorrow it does not increase the probability that the Loch Ness Monster is real. Your logic would maintain that it does.

 

In short, your argument is a logic free zone and your post is thoroughly deserving of the negative rep it has received so far.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

barfbag,

1. You know the appropriate channels for raising concerns about moderator action. This thread is not one of them.

2. You posted in Speculations, which demands evidence as one of the rules of posting, and made claims about the existence of telepathy. If you don't like that, I am more than happy to close the thread now.

3. Insults will not be tolerated here - another thing you have been warned about previously. It stops and it stops now.

[ydoaPs]

Without physical tools to measure psychic phenomenon there can be no proof other than percentages and odds which are normally dismissed by anyone familiar with the Scientific method

....because the percentages don't support psychic phenomena.

 

It really doesn't take any fancy tools at all. Really, all it takes is three people, some chairs and tables,a couple of pens, and some paper.

 

Get your two supposed psychics together. Have the chairs back to back. The sender sits at a table in one chair and the receiver at the other facing in opposite directions. Give the receiver some paper and a pen.

 

The experimenter will then prepare think of some statements and write them on separate pieces of paper without letting either of the test subjects see. The experimenter then folds the paper in half and hands it to the sender.

 

The sender then unfolds the paper and silently reads the statement. The sender then sends the statement telepathically to the receiver.

 

The receiver then receives the statement telepathically and writes it down.

 

The experimenter writes down whether or not the receiver's statement matches the statement given to the sender.

 

Repeat a few dozen times, switch sender and receiver, and do it a few dozen more times.

 

Send the sender and receiver home and get a new pair for a new round. Repeat the entire process. Repeat the whole shebang a few dozen times.

 

 

Anybody who makes legitimate attempts at telepathy with a friend or associate will soon realize it is possible. It is not hard to do despite whatever anyone can say otherwise. I think that if James Randi himself was willing to really try telepathy with someone on a regular basis he too would be convinced, but his living has been parodying PSI topics, so I doubt that will happen.

Anecdotes aren't evidence. Do exactly what I described above and get back to us.

[Ten oz]

....because the percentages don't support psychic phenomena.It really doesn't take any fancy tools at all. Really, all it takes is three people, some chairs and tables,a couple of pens, and some paper.Get your two supposed psychics together. Have the chairs back to back. The sender sits at a table in one chair and the receiver at the other facing in opposite directions. Give the receiver some paper and a pen.The experimenter will then prepare think of some statements and write them on separate pieces of paper without letting either of the test subjects see. The experimenter then folds the paper in half and hands it to the sender.The sender then unfolds the paper and silently reads the statement. The sender then sends the statement telepathically to the receiver.The receiver then receives the statement telepathically and writes it down.The experimenter writes down whether or not the receiver's statement matches the statement given to the sender.Repeat a few dozen times, switch sender and receiver, and do it a few dozen more times.Send the sender and receiver home and get a new pair for a new round. Repeat the entire process. Repeat the whole shebang a few dozen times.Anecdotes aren't evidence. Do exactly what I described above and get back to us.

Problem with the expirement you outlined is many people would accept a variety of outcomes as proof. If the expirement took 20 attempts and eventually produced statements with different words but about the say subject people would point to it and as evidence. People would agrue the results were inconclusive and thus lend suppurt to the possibility. This is why faith can never be disproven. The faithful do not have a standard measurement for success to messure against. Doubt is treated as evidence, randomness as odd defying events, chance as meaningful, and luck as proof.

[swansont]

Problem with the expirement you outlined is many people would accept a variety of outcomes as proof. If the expirement took 20 attempts and eventually produced statements with different words but about the say subject people would point to it and as evidence. People would agrue the results were inconclusive and thus lend suppurt to the possibility. This is why faith can never be disproven. The faithful do not have a standard measurement for success to messure against. Doubt is treated as evidence, randomness as odd defying events, chance as meaningful, and luck as proof.

 

That's why this is often done with e.g. a limited number of shapes, so you can do a statistical analysis on it. Then you test to see if the subjects do better than chance would allow.

[Phi for All]

This is why faith can never be disproven.

 

It can if you treat it rationally. If your cancer is cured, you could take all the reality-based things your doctor did to help as supportive evidence that modern medical practice was responsible. Or you could use your faith in God's curative powers, which you freely admit you know nothing about, and imagine that was responsible. Faith wouldn't need to be disproven if you could show that another explanation was more trustworthy, less born from imagination.

[MonDie]

So if a telepathy experiment were arranged that defeated the odds that would be ample proof ?

It wouldn't be proof, but it would be consistent with the hypothesis. Further investigation could still rule out the hypothesis.

 

What if I set up several tests and just showed you the results of the group that got luckiest hits?

Another scientist would have to repeat the test on that subject to see whether the result is replicated.

 

A human can not be used as a measurement device using The Scientific Method.

Psychologists experiment on human subjects all the time. The human is not the measuring device, but what's being measured.

Edited July 9, 2014 by MonDie

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Psychologists experiment on human subjects all the time. The human is not the measuring device, but what's being measured.

I'm not sure why I'm contributing to this bizarre thread but the psychologist is the measuring instrument and a human.

Psychology often has humans measuring human interaction with humans paid for by other humans.

So (as pointed out elsewhere) barfbag is simply wrong to say "A human can not be used as a measurement device using The Scientific Method."

 

Perhaps I should start a thread about whether Harry potter can aid a belief in Unicorns or whether Narnia can aid a belief in Atlantis.

[MonDie]

I wouldn't call the human itself a measuring instrument, but their sensory organs sure.

Edited July 9, 2014 by MonDie

[iNow]

^A distinction without a difference, perhaps?

[Ten oz]

@ Barfbag, you described expirements that had outcomes that were inconclusive but consistently so which you believe means something anomalous is occurring. I have two questions and apologize in advance if they're difficult to understand:

 

- All humans, less disabled, are able to run at some point in their life. Only an extordinary few can run a sub 4 minute mile, sub 2:30hr marathon, and so on. As such many tests could be conducted to find a sub 4 minute mile human runner utilizing only top athletes and fail to produce any. Are you implying something akin to this in regards to extra sensor perception (ESP) experiments? That it is something humans are capable of but there are great differences amongst individuals which isn't properly factored into expirements?

 

- Can you think of an experiment that might disprove rather than prove?

 

While I do not believe in ESP my two questions are not challanges to your belief. I am just trying to ensure I fully understand what you saying you believe.

[barfbag]

@ Ten oz,

 

it is something humans are capable of but there are great differences amongst individuals which isn't properly factored into expirements?

 

 

 

No. This is far from what I believe. I think everyone is equally capable of ESP.

 

I don't however think everyone is equally qualified to run ESP experiments. If for example James Randi was hired to verify or copy an alleged ESP method I do not think he would try very hard because he starts out with a skeptic Bias. If he confirmed the experiment it might have even influenced his very livelihood in a negative fashion.

 

It is my belief that anyone reading this could with a minimum effort prove this to themselves.

 

I will try to say my stance better,

"I believe we are all connected somehow, and that we can communicate psychically at great distances. This means that at some level we are all connected, and through these constant subconscious and conscious communications form a mass consciousness. I think that this method of communication (IF IT EXISTS) is on a level of vibrational wavelengths that prayers would work upon in this mass consciousness.

 

Therefore if telepathy/mass consciousness could exist (IF it could), then prayers and god could operate upon the same frequencies.

 

AT THE VERY LEAST - If you were able to alter your beliefs to accept telepathy and believed it strongly enough, then perhaps you would also consider another entity (god) could access our minds and actions in the same format. It seems fairly logical IF TELEPATHY WERE REAL ( I am saying IF in this thread).

 

That concept seems like a valid speculation argument for "proof of God". I certainly think it is better than suggesting bar codes prove god as in the OP from the other thread.

 

Why is this lost on moderation here.

 

I received two warnings and a ban in a thread entitled "Proof of God" all for expressing this simple to understand concept. The moderator claims no bias in this, so I am assuming there is a lack of understanding or intelligence being applied by them.

 

Imagine trying to discuss The Theory of Relativity, but if you mention Einstein it was considered Thread hijacking. I must abort that thread because a moderator has deemed my argument so invalid as to be considered a thread hijack, although I honestly think it is a pretty simple case of Bias. I do not think this concept is beyond the moderation intelligence, so I believe it is unfair.

 

I make no apologies for being gruff, and if you want to drive me from your forums by cheating then I understand, but it is still cheating.

 

I mean; if you pray to god or send a chum a psychic message to wake up at 4am it would seem logical that they are using the same mode of operation (IF TELEPATHY AND PRAYERS WERE REAL).

 

I personally feel it was bias because of my gruff nature. So three infractions (third was ban) for saying practicing telepathy would aid belief in god if repetitively successful.

 

This thread may be my only speculative topic on religion or telepathy because the telepathy argument has been deemed hijacking.

 

 

.@ Phi For All,

 

Ten oz, on 08 Jul 2014 - 09:29 AM, said:

This is why faith can never be disproven - BarfBag.

 

It can if you treat it rationally. If your cancer is cured, you could take all the reality-based things your doctor did to help as supportive evidence that modern medical practice was responsible. Or you could use your faith in God's curative powers, which you freely admit you know nothing about, and imagine that was responsible. Faith wouldn't need to be disproven if you could show that another explanation was more trustworthy, less born from imagination.

 

 

Okay. This is simple enough to counter..

(see link) (Up to here I have not yet searched for a link but I know they will be abundant)

 

Just because you feel something is not likely to be true does not make it a fact. I admit that one could argue for the existence of Unicorns and Fairies based on this, but it is true that you cannot prove they exist or do not exist without more information.

 

James Randi is a king skeptic and he says you are wrong, so I will settle for that.

 

(watch video)

 

@ Inow,

A distinction without a difference, perhaps?

 

 

Exactly... Maybe when you become a mod I can comment more freely about religion or other speculation topics. It seems to be above some peoples ability to grasp.

 

@ JohnC,

 

So (as pointed out elsewhere) barfbag is simply wrong to say "A human can not be used as a measurement device using The Scientific Method."

 

 

If this is true then you are suggesting telepathy can become fact merely by beating the odds consistently. I disagree. Psychology is all about human nature and cannot be measured accurately enough to form facts.

 

Instead of arguing your use of psychology in this regard (I'll also shoot down statistical analysis if you wish to further say probabilities could be proof which would be the case if humans were a decent measuring device for it)

 

So is psychology even a science?

 

Psychology is not a Science! That's what THEY say.

Many people think that Psychology is not a scientific discipline. They claim that case histories and therapeutic techniques used in Psychology are not valid ways of studying and treating mental disorders. Some even go beyond criticizing research methods and claim that Statistics, a commonly used technique for data analysis, is not a valid way of establishing scientific truths.

 

http://general-psychology.weebly.com/what-makes-psychology-a-science.html

 

I agree with the above but would alter it to say that Statistics (probabilities) simply do not have enough repetitive qualities to make something fact. Of course Psychology is science though, because everything is science (even telepathy in my opinion).

 

So .... Umm.... (cough)

 

Perhaps I should start a thread about whether Harry potter can aid a belief in Unicorns or whether Narnia can aid a belief in Atlantis.

 

 

Exactly. This is indeed part of what I am saying (only a part). If you were to prove that Harry Potter or Narnia existed with 100% certainty (in real life), then you would first think yourself insane, and then realize that if they exist then maybe Unicorns and Atlantis might also possibly exist. Good point. Cheers..

 

@ Mondie,

 

It wouldn't be proof, but it would be consistent with the hypothesis. Further investigation could still rule out the hypothesis.

 

 

Yes. The first telepath (if real) to be distracted or die during a test (or simply fail) would turn 100% repeatability into a probability involving odds. I was being facetious, and you stated my point. Thanks.

 

This also applies to your next statement in post 32.

 

Psychologists experiment on human subjects all the time. The human is not the measuring device, but what's being measured.

 

 

Again.. While I accept the idea psychology is a science I reject the notion they can prove anything, and take a quote from my answer to John C,

claim that Statistics, a commonly used technique for data analysis, is not a valid way of establishing scientific truths.

 

 

http://general-psychology.weebly.com/what-makes-psychology-a-science.html

 

NOTE: I am talking about psychology testing using people as the measuring devices or to provide statistical information, the drug aspects of psychology most certainly have science involved as body chemicals reacting to drugs can be measured quantitatively.

 

I reject the notion any fact can be 100% if based on statistical probabilities, as does most everyone.

 

@ Swansont, (and ydoaPs should also read this part)

 

That's why this is often done with e.g. a limited number of shapes, so you can do a statistical analysis on it. Then you test to see if the subjects do better than chance would allow.

 

 

Dang! Here I am saying I have worked professionally in psychic experimentation and you are outlining psychic experiments. I personally have never seen the idea of using shapes give positive results. Perhaps there may be instances, but if you were a lab assistant would you really try (being you're a skeptic), or would you just say any shape that you want without trying to perceive?

 

Creating a failed psychic experiment would be easier than making toast.

 

Statistics are easy to manipulate when using human subjects.

 

@ ydoaPs,

all it takes is three people, some chairs and tables,a couple of pens, and some paper.
Get your two supposed psychics together. Have the chairs back to back. The sender sits at a table in one chair and the receiver at the other facing in opposite directions. Give the receiver some paper and a pen.
The experimenter will then prepare think of some statements and write them on separate pieces of paper without letting either of the test subjects see. The experimenter then folds the paper in half and hands it to the sender.
The sender then unfolds the paper and silently reads the statement. The sender then sends the statement telepathically to the receiver.
The receiver then receives the statement telepathically and writes it down.
The experimenter writes down whether or not the receiver's statement matches the statement given to the sender.
Repeat a few dozen times, switch sender and receiver, and do it a few dozen more times.
Send the sender and receiver home and get a new pair for a new round. Repeat the entire process. Repeat the whole shebang a few dozen times.

 

 

 

 

 

Nice! That sounds like a psychic experiment that has never been tried before. Personally I would not expect good results from a test like the one you suggest, but this is your experiment.

 

Notice above where I told Swansont,

"Creating a failed psychic experiment would be easier than making toast."

 

If I conducted this experiment at your University and you were a paid student would you really try to read the other persons mind, or would just say "Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce cheese all on a sesame seed bun", and collect your paycheque. The tester has no clue whether you are trying.

 

Is the sender trying or is he trying to look down the receptionists top? How do you know?

 

FURTHERMORE!!!!

 

What possesses you to think even two people trying to send a phrase to one another could work EVEN if they were both trying?

 

(actually I think this might work somewhat if both parties were trying, but statistically how many tries would be weighed in where one or both parties only claimed to be trying.)

 

I think if you wanted to have this test then it would be better if you had two motivated subjects. Why would you need to constantly replace them? If they are in a double blind setting then the same people could be used, and even used again in a replication by someone else controlling the double blinds.

 

FURTHERMORE!!!!

 

One of the best and reliable methods for transferring ideas/thoughts is Dream Telepathy where the receiving party is in REM sleep.

such as the heavily successful .....

http://www.espresearch.com/dreamtelepathy/

 

but the idea is common....

wikipedia...

speculation of communication via dreaming was first mooted in psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud in 1921.^[5] He produced a model to express his ideas about telepathic dreaming.^[2]

 

 

 

When I was only 17 I tried this from a book entitled "How to make ESP work for you" by Harold Sherman. I sat up till 2 am and visualized a long lost friend who had mysteriously vanished from our social group months before. I said, " (Their name), (My name) misses you, get in touch" for a full hour.

5 days later I received a cryptic letter ("you probably won't guess who this is from... etc...") from another country. At the bottom of the first page was the words, "last night I had a dream about you that prompted me to write."

 

Now the above story really garnered my interest. I mean what were the odds a person would have a dream that prompted them to write, when the mail taking 4-5 days was likely the mail time from that city. The city is not far across the border and is only 30 miles away as the crow flies.

 

I know. It is just a random chance according to you all (or a lie), but I have never once in my life received a letter from anyone where they said they had a dream that prompted them to write. I know the odds are beyond calculation (want to try), but the psychic message worked well as far as I was concerned. That might have been enough to convince me for life, but I have repeated this type of thing many times since and I am no longer 17. That was merely a first try and it seemed UBER successful.

 

Interesting is that the receiver was not even aware of the experiment, and still responded.

 

If you believe my above story then how would you explain it? I suppose a good explanation would be if that night held a documentary about letter writing or pen pals or even a common experience televised (like Toga Party we both attended) that made us think of each other. That might explain the timing. It does not really explain why they would say ," I had a dream last night that prompted me to write", but according to you guys that again would be chance mutterings that just happened to fit my nocturnal broadcast.

 

There is no skin off my nose if you remain skeptic, but I highly advise at least some of you to actually try telepathy for a few months (at least a few hours some night to get your kid/dad/friend to cal)l. Don't try to make Oprah Winfrey call you on the first time out as I doubt she has your number, and Telepathy seems to work best among friends (as is my experience).

 

So as nifty as your experiment is, I have no need of it. I know the reality of it. I merely feel sorry for you skeptics because I would be in your shoes (I was atheist), if I was not so successful on my very first try.

 

I feel no burden of proof because I am in speculations for starters and have conveyed strong beliefs that people cannot be used as measuring devices (OMG someone else will argue that they can.... reread this post.).

 

now...

 

@ ophiolite,

 

1. Your assertion that those who "have no experience in psi fields must only believe what they read in Nature" is illogical. You are conflating two independent sets as thought they mapped onto each other identically.

 

 

 

I cannot see how you cannot grasp this. I was using Nature Magazine as a metaphor. It might be confusing for some I suppose. The point I was making is that Mainstream Science is what many believe in, and yet telepathy is not a part of mainstream science so it is unlikely you have every been taught telepathy is real. I can try to simplify this more if it causes further confusion.

 

2. We do not refer, as you have done, to "Nature magazine". Anyone with an interest and experience of science knows that it is sufficient to call it Nature. Moreover, it is assuredly not a magazine, but a journal.

 

 

I think it would create some confusion if I had said,"must only believe what they read in Nature" as anyone unfamiliar with them would think I am talking about in the wild or something to be found in nature. I see no harm in saying Magazine, but I suppose I could say "Nature Journal" if it satisfies your aesthetics.

 

 

3. A person who professed radio waves existed 1000 years ago would have done so for one of two reasons. Perhaps they had some evidence for such waves, in which case, as John Cuthber had pointed out they could have demonstrated this evidence in a repeatable manner.

 

 

Yes. I am 100% convinced you could easily prove radio waves in the year 1014 (cough). I had not thought anyone would try to argue that point, and should have offered another metaphor. Your points (also from JohnC,) are interesting but I assume you have the intelligence to realize that it was a metaphor with valid implications and it would seem you are just wanting to be argumentative.

 

Was there any proof of the Higgs Boson 1000 years ago? Does that satisfy your Aesthetics? My point is that perhaps science does not yet know it all just yet, and proof of telepathy in another 1000 years might exist.

 

4. Did anyone ask for proof of psychic phenomena? I don't think so. We have asked for evidence that supports the hypothesis that such phenomena exist. There are plenty of viable statistical techniques to assess things like clairvoyance and telepathy. You suggest this is not the case. You are wrong.

 

 

“Believers in psychic phenomena … appear to have won a decisive victory and virtually silenced opposition. … This victory is the result of careful experimentation and intelligent argumentation. Dozens of experimenters have obtained positive results in ESP experiments, and the mathematical procedures have been approved by leading statisticians. … Against all this evidence, almost the only defense remaining to the skeptical scientist is ignorance.” -George Price (well known skeptic)

 

psychologist Donald Hebb wrote this:

“Why do we not accept ESP [extrasensory perception] as a psychological fact? [The Rhine Research Center] has offered enough evidence to have convinced us on almost any other issue … Personally, I do not accept ESP for a moment, because it does not make sense. My external criteria, both of physics and of physiology, say that ESP is not a fact despite the behavioral evidence that has been reported. I cannot see what other basis my colleagues have for rejecting it … Rhine may still turn out to be right, improbable as I think that is, and my own rejection of his view is—in the literal sense—prejudice.”

 

leading skeptical psychologist Richard Wiseman has admitted that the evidence for telepathy is so good that “by the standards of any other area of science, [telepathy] is proven.”

 

These leading skeptics seem to think perhaps you are not looking for statistics or you might find them.

 

Feel free to fact check... I wouldn't want to mislead you. (cough)

 

5. The correct expression is "I couldn't care less", not "I could care less". Your writing is strewn with such ineptitude, suggesting lack of clarity in your thought processes.

 

 

Okay.. out come the Grammar and spelling police. I will agree your version is the one I intended however both versions are common and accepted.

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-does-i-could-care-less-mean.htm#didyouknowout

(click above link or actually learn about it before dishing out insults)

 

6. The existence of psi phenomena does not increase the probability of life after death. Just as the existence of a god does not increase such a probability. Nor is there any reason to think that the existence of psi would increase the likelihood of a god. psi, life after death and gods are all independent phenomena. If we discover Big Foot tomorrow it does not increase the probability that the Loch Ness Monster is real. Your logic would maintain that it does.

 

 

 

No. The question would be "If we discover Big foot tomorrow, would it increase your belief (not probabilty) that Nessy was also real. It might seem somewhat logical that if one mythical being was discovered more mythical beings might exist.

 

However your logic is amiss in my opinion. What would distinguish telepathy to Prayer? If they both reach out to a mass consciousness.... (PAUSE)

 

I think some here do not grasp this concept. IF TELEPATHY WERE REAL then it is also possible and almost likely that we were all communicating, organizing, and creating on a metaphysical plane (vibrational level? I don't know until they discover mechanism). This would indeed be a mass consciousness. (continue)

 

So if we are all connected, and a mass consciousness did exist which would seem logical IF we are all able to communicate subconsciously, then adding a god onto the same plane level might not be stretching it that far.

 

However the moderators here are in full agreement that telepathy/mass consciousness are less valid a reason to believe in god than the OP of the proof of God thread who offer barcodes as proof. Seriously? Bar codes as proof of god?

 

So it appears it is a matter of opinion. I think you will not change your opinion no matter what is said, so I will stop here on this.

 

your post is thoroughly deserving of the negative rep

 

 

I have not been here long, but I have seen some really ignorant posts with positive rep. So many that it is obvious a popularity contest more than a valid judgement.

 

I do not wish to look for 100 examples so if you wish to contend all positive rep posts are wrote, then I suppose you must be right.

 

(cough, hack, cough)

Edited July 15, 2014 by barfbag

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

You're really just not getting this.

1. Comments on moderation do not belong in threads. This is considered derailment and is a violation of the forum rules. Being as you've already been suspended once, if this keeps up the next step is to ban you permanently.

2. You were asked to provide evidence. You cannot and will not continue to go on about your idea when your idea is based on a premise that you cannot show to be based in reality. I am closing this thread and you are not to bring up the topic again.