|
 Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
 Re: Shroomism vs. Reality  [Re: infidelGOD]
#612211 - 04/18/02 06:31 PM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I can prove this with deductive logic but it would only be real to those who believe
If you can only "prove" to a selective audience, then that fails the definition of proof.
My 4 year-old niece thinks that I am the best magician in the world. Amazing the praise and acceptance one can get if you select your audience.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
 WeirdShroomer
journeyman
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 78
Loc: Sebia
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
|
 Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: Sclorch]
#612695 - 04/19/02 07:00 AM (22 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
hmmmmmm Can somebody actually prove that quarks exist?
Nobody can see them..... I can say : Give me hard evidence that quarks exist and I will believe . Did you saw them? Did anybody saw them? Did you saw atom? Not pictures.. but did YOU saw atom. If you didn't then you cant say they exist.
Don't get me wrong I didn't say that they don't exist but all this look like that to me.
When I was kid I saw some strange flying object. Big, with different colored lights.
It fly with NO sound and in very odd angles. My mother was with me and she saw it too. We both saw same thing. Ok I don't say that that was alien ship..but what was that?
We saw it from very close distance ( some 100 meters ).
Can anybody give me some logic explanation?
On the other hand, more then few people I know experience astral projection. How many people here experience it? More then few is my guess.
I read somewhere that Russian scientist proved existence of bioelectric field around people (aura?).
If you experience telepathy would you believe?
But you want believe till you experience it for yourself.
And after that experience someone say prove it. I cant ( nobody can prove it over internet). But why I should? Believe in what you want..thats called freedom.
Just don't force that on others.
---------weird-------
--------------------
----weird-----
Smoking dynamite can seriously blow your mind
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
Nobody can see them..... I can say : Give me hard evidence that quarks exist and I will believe .
The computer that you are using is partially based on quantuum physics.
after that experience someone say prove it. I cant ( nobody can prove it over internet).
Of course they "could" if they had such a gift. I did an experiment in February that could have easily convinced me over the internet. Eveybody failed - no one was even close.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
|
weirdshroomer-
You really need to work on your grammar/spelling skills. My head started to throb halfway through your post. I hope that English is your second language... a fifth grader wouldn't make mistakes like "Did anybody saw them?".
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: Sclorch]
#613129 - 04/19/02 05:47 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
English is his second language.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: ]
#613130 - 04/19/02 05:49 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Well then, I withdraw my dissent.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: Sclorch]
#613138 - 04/19/02 06:00 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
wow, sclorch you're so skilled !
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
 Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: raytrace]
#613152 - 04/19/02 06:20 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Thank you?
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
WeirdShroomer
journeyman
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 78
Loc: Sebia
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
|
 Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: Swami]
#613158 - 04/19/02 06:25 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Nobody can see them..... I can say : Give me hard evidence that quarks exist and I will believe .
The computer that you are using is partially based on quantuum physics.
I still cant see quarks. You didn't prove anything.
Anyway that wasn't point.
Please give me explanation for "flying object".
Logical one. ( just don't say that I'm laying cause I don't...see, I cant prove anything....but ok, I'm not asking you to believe me. Just assume that's true )
after that experience someone say prove it. I cant ( nobody can prove it over internet).
Of course they "could" if they had such a gift. I did an experiment in February that could have easily convinced me over the internet. Everybody failed - no one was even close.
Telepathy need contact. How can anyone contact you?
First you don't even believe in telepathy.
You don't know personally people who tried ( If they tried ) to contact you.
My opinion?
You didn't prove anything
Scorch It is second language. I learned alone. But I still learn.
( Forums/chat are best places to learn language...books too )
Oh yes.....
"Did anybody saw them?" and right is?
------weird-------
--------------------
----weird-----
Smoking dynamite can seriously blow your mind
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
|
Give me hard evidence that quarks exist and I will believe .
The computer that you are using is partially based on quantuum physics.
You didn't prove anything.
You received and responded to my reply using a deviced based on transistors which are based on quantuum theory of which quarks are an integral part. Sorry if this straight-line logic is beyond you.
Anyway that wasn't point.
Now the backstepping begins...
Please give me explanation for "flying object".
There is insufficient information to form a hypothesis. Even if it was unusual, you described nothing that would be indicative of an alien pilot.
Telepathy need contact. How can anyone contact you?
According to popular definitions, telepathy may occur over great distances.
First you don't even believe in telepathy.
What is your point? That I must believe BEFORE I believe?
You don't know personally people who tried ( If they tried ) to contact you.
ESP proponents on this board said they tried to.
My opinion? You didn't prove anything
I demonstrated that during that one month, every participant espousing telepathy, clairvoyance or remote-viewing failed to describe the object.
--------------------
The proof is in the pudding.
|
WeirdShroomer
journeyman
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 78
Loc: Sebia
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
|
Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: Swami]
#613210 - 04/19/02 07:21 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
You received and responded to my reply using a deviced based on transistors which are based on quantuum theory of which quarks are an integral part. Sorry if this straight-line logic is beyond you
BUT I STILL CANT SEE QUARKS
And of course I believe in quarks. I said that in my first post.
"Don't get me wrong I didn't say that they don't exist but all this look like that to me."
You did get me wrong?
Telepathy need contact. How can anyone contact you?
First you don't even believe in telepathy.
You don't know personally people who tried to contact you.
My opinion?
You didn't prove anything
You really love to take things out of context.
Telepathy need contact. That mean mental contact.
You are not open to contact. THAT'S MY POINT
-----weird-------
And Im talking about telepathy only.
--------------------
----weird-----
Smoking dynamite can seriously blow your mind
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: Swami]
#613227 - 04/19/02 07:42 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Ok.... logic.
Your cutting and dissecting of a group of sentences that build on each other destroys the integrity of the message. Each of the questions were part of a whole, yet you cut them up into pieces and responded as if they were seperate. Cutting messages up into little pieces and responding to them individually is good in some cases, but not when it is a complete paragraph and you cut it up and respond to a sentence that relies on a previous sentence for support, as if it were standing alone.
Example:
Telepathy need contact. How can anyone contact you?
First you don't even believe in telepathy.
You don't know personally people who tried ( If they tried ) to contact you.
My opinion? You didn't prove anything
This is obviously a complete statement, not a group of sentences that are standing alone without support. The first two sentences are quite obviously dependant on the next two questions/statements.
But, you cut them up like this
Telepathy need contact. How can anyone contact you?
According to popular definitions, telepathy may occur over great distances.
First you don't even believe in telepathy.
What is your point? That I must believe BEFORE I believe?
You don't know personally people who tried( If they tried ) to contact you.
ESP proponents on this board said they tried to.
My opinion? You didn't prove anything
I demonstrated that during that one month, every participant espousing telepathy, clairvoyance or remote-viewing failed to describe the object.
Need I describe the illogical nature of this type of response?
Also,
Please give me explanation for "flying object".
There is insufficient information to form a hypothesis. Even if it was unusual, you described nothing that would be indicative of an alien pilot.
Nor did he say he thought it might have an alien pilot. This is called jumping to conclusions.
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: Sclorch]
#613229 - 04/19/02 07:42 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
lol, i see... and in which grade am i supposed to learn this?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: ]
#613234 - 04/19/02 07:45 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Let's say I have a tent that is supported by four poles, and I say, look at what a great tent this is! And then some guy comes along and says, well let me see here.. and takes one of the poles out and says "Hey this pole has a ding in it", and then takes another one out and says "Hey this one is kind of crooked", and then takes a third one out and says "This pole is miscolored", and then he looks at me and says.. "Your tent sucks... it doesn't even stand up"
.... You see what I'm getting at here?
|
WeirdShroomer
journeyman
Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 78
Loc: Sebia
Last seen: 21 years, 11 months
|
 Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: ]
#613245 - 04/19/02 08:05 PM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
lol
I think that my tent is still holding...I think
-------weird--------
But Im ilogical creature, right?
--------------------
----weird-----
Smoking dynamite can seriously blow your mind
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: raytrace]
#613396 - 04/20/02 12:10 AM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
raytrace-
Look... you started the sarcasm shite (ie. personal attack). I really am sorry that you kAnT Typp pRoperlee. Christ, get over it. So I made a mistake (I'll admit it, I didn't know English was WS's second language)... I corrected myself (I could have just deleted my post, but I don't do that), and what did you do? You attacked me. Why? Probably because you didn't agree with my prior posts... I really don't know though. So then we continue with the polarization (which I am not condoning) of the forum.
I wouldn't throw out a tent unless it completely useless. Sure, I pointed out the leaky roof... I was the one getting wet. Even though I didn't put the hole there, I still told you how to fix it.
--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
raytrace
Stranger
Registered: 01/15/02
Posts: 720
|
Re: Shroomism vs. Reality [Re: Sclorch]
#613568 - 04/20/02 05:47 AM (22 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
1. i am not a "believer" (though, i don't base all my life on logic, i still am human)
2. i don't "not agree with your prior posts". by the way i find them very interesting!
3. i was particularly disturbed by the specific post (to which i pressed "reply" before you corrected it, but i might made the comment anyway)
3. if i kAnT Typp pRoperlee, is because
a. english is my second language
b. i am mainly concerned of expressing something, not being linguisticly correct.
4. if you feel yourself superior to others because of your grammar/spelling skills, Christ, get over it.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Xlea321
MAGnum
Galvie_Flu
Spokesman
Swami
Joshua
Droz