'Hybrids: Genetic Couriers'

Phlogistician,
I know from your pinnacle seat upon your vaste column to which you bear the weight of a superiority complex for all the inadequecies of mankind, you've probably had a rough day and want to unwind by pushing us mear mortal fools around that are *so* beneath you.

To cut this all short, Phlogistician. We could go on hammer for tongs and enter into a phase of a climactic Forum relationship where we try to better each other with our sparring word for word. The likely outcome is probably hours of painstakingly constructing repartee's for each side to belittle the opponent or (perhaps in your case just be significantly rude enough to feel that you've "Got up his nose".)

However I feel that since this is so plain to see through that of simulation, theory and conjecture, perhaps we could halt all of this and try something a little different to cheat from fate the inevitable.

So do me a favour, if your a man that drinks and has beer in his fridge, Go seek that metal clad chilled exterior and crack it open. Sit down and attempt to lower your bloodpressure and temperament through just acknowledging what a waste of energy any forms of arguement actually is.
 
thank you, phlogistician! your first comment made my day. I emailed it to a few friends and my sis together with the first post.
the most remarkable thing about your hybrid speciment is that he hasn't showed and not even tried to show any evidence to his words at all.
and it's not even good fiction
I was reading and said aloud -> what a pile of bollox
just tells a story
I could make a more believable one in a few minutes
so an advice to Jocariah -> read a few sci-fi books, train a little and maybe you'll come up with something better
though
a hybrid rose is still a rose
Click to expand...
is a killer laughriser
 
Phlogistician, the Dictionary is built from words that find themselves used within the language. The dictionary does not define the language but mearly attempts to act as a definitive guide, and therefore on occasion lacks some words and phrases that are used in context. This is notible in regards to different regional dilects.

For instance:
Look at the tall guy with the short girlfriend
"Look at that great long chap with that little totee mo-fer."

Regional dilects do not just alter the shape and verbal output of words but also allow for some words that are defined as something else to be used within dilect.

For instance you are insisting that "Tactile" can not be used to describe that you need to be "More sensative" with your postings. Tactile as you profoundly acknowledge does reference to Touch and sensation of touching, however to suggest it can't be used to suggest "being more sensative" is picky at best.

Now note this down: This point has been explained, there is no room for arguement, since there is no right or wrong answer to "how" it was used. You will probably say there is, but the fact is a year down the road Oxford could admit it into the Dictionary proving just how pointless discussion of how one word being used truly is.
Also note there "Are no references", this is purely explained through the use of "Region" and "Language". Since you've declared your English, you should understand the difference in location through the country upon dilected.

As mentioned with the Cryogenics, "What bonds Cells?"
Now I know I've stated that "Cells are made up from molecules" however there is the factor that Cellular bonding is "Molecular".
Stipulation would suggest that on freezing those cells can contort and therefore break their "Molecular bonds", ergo "Molecular Damage".

Note: This is stated and doesn't have any pointable reference for evidence, because its assumed that evidence is not necessary because anyone contesting this suggestion should either consult a "Molecular" biologist or go do a bit more homework.

Pushing water up hill... I need not cover this again but mearly defer to the previous post bar one, which apparently you skipped.

Now thats all cleaned up, (which I know full well it is from this end).
Can we allow the thread to move back to its original content on the supposed "Infiltration of manipulated Hybrid crossbreeding" rather than impose our petty quibbles?
 
It’s interesting how these threads can take such unimaginable twists and turns.

My rose remark was simply responding to the point, raised in a prior post, that I am not human – I am of course human.

Basically, I have been saying that human evolution has been and continues to be shepherded. Evolution alone (in and of itself), does not lead to vastly greater intellect in those creatures that have been around long enough to experience it.

The mechanism used, in part, to shepherd human evolution has been and continues to be human hybrids introduced into the general populace – in a timely and continual fashion. Those cultural and religious influences, which were established for us, simply foudationalize those genetic changes introduced into this human biological system of ours.

Enlightening the human race can only be accomplished in a gradual manner.

Those performing this task have a vested interest in doing so – it is not for our benefit alone.

...
 
This is not a chruch to preach in, this is Sciforums and any theory or assumption (in your case) requires factual backing, evidence. Pseudoscience is still science. So please, either post some evidence or go to religion section which requires only faith as you require from this story.
 
Stryderunknown said:
Phlogistician, the Dictionary is built from words that find themselves used within the language. The dictionary does not define the language but mearly attempts to act as a definitive guide, and therefore on occasion lacks some words and phrases that are used in context. This is notible in regards to different regional dilects.
Click to expand...

What don't you grasp Stryder? IF the dictionary records the usage of a word, and your usage is correct, it will be included in the dictionary! So show me a link, or stand down on this one!!! I's subtle, I admit, 'tact' means touch, 'tactful' and 'tactile', despite being from the same stem, have different meanings though. Go look them up.

As mentioned with the Cryogenics, "What bonds Cells?"
Now I know I've stated that "Cells are made up from molecules" however there is the factor that Cellular bonding is "Molecular".
Click to expand...

Jesus, how many times, NO IT IS NOT! Do you know the difference between INTRA and INTER molecular bonds? Obviously not. Go read some chemistry books.

Stipulation would suggest that on freezing those cells can contort and therefore break their "Molecular bonds", ergo "Molecular Damage".
Click to expand...

No Stryder, this is yet another case where you are twisting a well accepted defintion out of shape to fit your incorrect use.

Note: This is stated and doesn't have any pointable reference for evidence, because its assumed that evidence is not necessary because anyone contesting this suggestion should either consult a "Molecular" biologist or go do a bit more homework.
Click to expand...

Stryder, it's you who doesn't understand the subtlety here. It's you who needs to do some homework. 'evidence is not necessary' evidence of your claims is _exactly_ what I want. Don't be lazy, prove your point or back down.

Pushing water up hill... I need not cover this again but mearly defer to the previous post bar one, which apparently you skipped.
Click to expand...

Nope, I read it, and it didn't excuse the fact that you FAILED to use an arrangement of hoses to push water uphill. You did manage to make a static system, so the first thing you plumbed had an airlock in it. What does that prove? That you can make water go nowhere. Big deal, that wasn't the point of your experiment, and you failed. You have a problem admitting you're wrong, don't you?

Now thats all cleaned up, (which I know full well it is from this end).
Click to expand...

It's not 'cleaned up' until you provide proof. I told you I wanted proof, and not to waste words, but that's what you've done. Stop preaching, and get proving!

This thread is pretty much on track, btw, Jocariah makes statements and doesn't back them up, and so do you. This thread has turned into a thread about the need to offer something other than the poster's 'say so'.
 
Phlogistician,
I've said my piece, you've said yours. Thats that, there is no more, although I'm sure you'll be pulling at words in the future but I'll let you endulge on occasion since thats the only way to keep your attention directed and away from insulting everyone else.

Just out of interest Plogistician, Do you have any conspiracy notions that go against that of the consensus? I'm sure if you did you wouldn't mention them here, or would you.
 
Stryder, you still haven't offered PROOF. If you can't offer any proof, do the decent thing, and admit you can't, and were wrong. All you have to do is find an online dictionary which shares your view of the meaning of the word 'tactile'.

I guess you've already tried, and already know that;

http://www.dictionary.com.
http://www.m-w.com
http://www.yourdictionary.com
http://encarta.msn.com/
http://www.wordsmyth.net

ALL disagree with you. Need I go on, or are you, going to admit, that simply, you used the wrong word? You never back down, even when _proven_ wrong, you just keep digging yourself into a hole and making yourself look increasingly more foolish.
 
Avatar said:
This is not a chruch to preach in, this is Sciforums and any theory or assumption (in your case) requires factual backing, evidence. Pseudoscience is still science. So please, either post some evidence or go to religion section which requires only faith as you require from this story.
Click to expand...

The proof I have, I have lived out through my life experiences, as well as what I have been taught at the hands of my teachers - whether human or not.

We all know what we have lived out through the course of our life and what we have learned at the hands of our teachers and instructors.

If there is another way, I am unaware, at this time.

What I have learned is no less real to me, than what you have learned. My teachers may have a different perspective than yours, and more information with which to rely.

Either way it is all the same.

Again I repeat: "We all know what we have lived out through the course of our life and what we have learned at the hands of our teachers and instructors."

All of my teachers and instructors were not human - I assume all of yours were.

Therein lies the difference.

Cheers

...
 
Jocariah

You didn't answer my question. What is point of all that? Why would aliens do such a thing?

The whole story makes absolutely no sense at all.
 
What I see are people oftentimes not wanting to embrace the differences in others that they may encounter.

Rather they seem to look to label these differences as being right or wrong – good or bad – true or false - classification upon classification, so that they might assure their place within their worldview.

This is not said to be critical, but rather observational.

...
 
So, you assume that differences between people are reason to suggest some are aliens?

What differences, exactly?
 
(Q) said:
So, you assume that differences between people are reason to suggest some are aliens?

What differences, exactly?
Click to expand...

I assume no such thing.

Humans are humans - aliens are aliens.

Cheers
 
So, what are the differences and what is the point to all of this?
 
We are all the product of a higher order - serving their purpose and not our own.

Who among us created themselves - chose this time in which to live their lives, or the language that they speak?

Self-awareness is not an either or proposition - rather it's a matter of degrees I imagine.

...
 
Last edited:
some think they are Napoleons, some think they are Hitlers, some prefer to be goldfish, but this one is human-alien hybrid
way go sanity
 
Avatar said:
some think they are Napoleons, some think they are Hitlers, some prefer to be goldfish, but this one is human-alien hybrid
way go sanity
Click to expand...

… and some lacking self-awareness, allow for no other possibilities than those which they personally have experienced, or society has sanctioned.

It would seem then, in their mind at least, that the universe is subject to (or limited by) their personal experiences and societal doctrine. So that, the universe exists only as they and society says it exists.

They have limited the universe - nothing exists outside of this common think of theirs.

What a novel way to approach the mysteries of the universe… Bravo.

...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top