Scalar waves on other ways to control the weather???

[duendy]

o dear OPH, have i made you puke and sulk? oh dear. get better soon wont you?

Phlo...'a scientist tusismore well rounded'...hah....the AROOGANCE....
like isaid, theperfect ad for smigness personified. tis is how a religion works. remember at the beginnings of Christian religion te pople didn't have bibles and couldn't read Latin.....the reading was for an elite only. power. you lot--tose wit your attitude, hide behind your ever-so-superior concepts GOT from you INTERPRETATIOn and APPLICATIONof science.......you you scientific worshipper you are as evangelical as te next mssonary, rooting out the demon-posseessed wretches on 'YOUR' turf, le grande pseudoscientific forum. sheeeit we don even got freedom in the psedoscience fo we is threatened with the many tortures lined up....like bad mouth, taunts of insanity, patronization, condescension, ..........alright..of corse i can see the game. it aint likely you'll will lie down and accept alternative worldviews. but i see your approach as dogmatic, and an assault on individual integrity, ....and a toal ignore-nce of the CONTEXT we are actually living in, how it ties in wit what your attitude reveals. it is much more complex than your strutting .....presumption can open up to explore ....more generalist?

 

[phlogistician]

Duendy, I gave my reasons for why a scientist is more rounded than an artist. Debate those reasons, rather than judge them, if you can. Like I said, scientists indulge in the arts for pleasure in their spare time. The converse, however, is not true, therefore 'artists' like yourself, are often incredibly ignorant of basic science.

Also, as I wrote, but you failed to comprehend, science is the antithesis of religion. Science is not some cabal for the elite. Anyone can learn it, even you. But it seems you are so scared to have your world view challenged by a few facts, you'd rather live on with your mysteries.

Why do you think people become scientists? Is it a natural curiosity to find out how the world works? Is it about exploration? Discovery? Because for me, that's exactly the case, and I also enjoy exploring history a little in my spare time, and travel, to explore the world. My mind is quite open to new things, thank you, just not so open my brains fell out.

 

[Oli]

Originally Posted by duendy
listen Olly, how come your not EInstein 2, the amount you claim to know?

What makes you think I'm not? I have a 163 IQ, several patents to my name, was the main designer/ technical expert at my last "real job" and am widely quoted or used as "an authoritative source" (to quote one magazine) by a number of people in various fields.
PS It's Oli, Olly is the way my brother spells his nickname
But the main reason I DO know a lot is because I read and research a great deal, I don't take anyone's word for anything - that's the good part about science, the results are subject to check by anyone.

 

[phlogistician]

I have a 163 IQ.

Darn, you beat me by 15 points. Still, we're both frikking geniuses.

 

[duendy]

Duendy, I gave my reasons for why a scientist is more rounded than an artist. Debate those reasons, rather than judge them, if you can.

me:::but that is just too simplistic. what scientist? what artist? we are all different. do you mean EVERY scientist is more rounded than EVERY artist?...are you saying that all scientists are good parents, are not currupt, not inept, and vice versa?...hope not cuase that would be absurd

Like I said, scientists indulge in the arts for pleasure in their spare time. The converse, however, is not true, therefore 'artists' like yourself, are often incredibly ignorant of basic science.

me:::so you underestimate art right.....?ar is your spare time, as tough 'art' is someting what potters about doing. for many teir art is central to teir life and informs teir whole xperience, like science dos for othes who are passionate about it. it is different ways of inquiry about this here.....LIFE and DEATH. you tend to assume that your way is THEonly intelligent way. that is smallminded in my opinion and doesn't impress me. in fact it reveals things to me about your character that you obviously are unaware of.

Also, as I wrote, but you failed to comprehend, science is the antithesis of religion. Science is not some cabal for the elite. Anyone can learn it, even you. But it seems you are so scared to have your world view challenged by a few facts, you'd rather live on with your mysteries.

me:::sheeesh the naiveity you show says it all about your 'science'. first i am NOT anti-science as i have said before. what i am anti is when science becomes te religion--which it has. Thomas Szasz very much reveals ti to be te case in his book The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement

I.e, tis is what i meant before when i said you dont seem to understand the context from where you expound your pro-sceincism views, which is te paradgm we ae in. Which oppresses people if tey dont abide by what science says is normal behaviour. this oppression is based on pseudoscience masqueading as real science. so it is with your views. tey are not based on real science but on unreolved fears you my have regarding alternative worldviews......wheter these worldviews are right are wrong, you tend to dismiss them outright. ALL alterntive experienc you explain away. and tat is to silly from where i'm standing. it smacks of religious dogma.

Why do you think people become scientists? Is it a natural curiosity to find out how the world works? Is it about exploration? Discovery? Because for me, that's exactly the case, and I also enjoy exploring history a little in my spare time, and travel, to explore the world. My mind is quite open to new things, thank you, just not so open my brains fell out.

i wish you would examine that mantra of yours you end with. it may keep you from actually beingopen. there are othe ways than math and books to explore this universe you know.......art and creativity aren't just galleries, messin with paint, and sculpture etc

 

[phlogistician]

but that is just too simplistic. what scientist? what artist? we are all different. do you mean EVERY scientist is more rounded than EVERY artist?...are you saying that all scientists are good parents, are not currupt, not inept, and vice versa?...hope not cuase that would be absurd

No, I'm not saying anything about scientists as parents. That would be an abstraction, a straw man, and an absurdity.

I was making a general point, that scientists appreciate art more than artists understand science. This much is generally true, for the reasons I stated. Scientists indulge in the arts for pleasure, the converse does not hold. Debate that, and stop weaving straw men.

:so you underestimate art right.....?ar is your spare time, as tough 'art' is someting what potters about doing. for many teir art is central to teir life and informs teir whole xperience,

Ah, this is where YOU become the elitist, and art becomes your religion! Because I only do art in my spare time, I cannot understand it! I'm not in your artists cabal! I don't dedicate my life to it, so will never be able to have the open mind you do!

Wel, that is just wrong. If you understood art at all, you'd know that you don't explore a subject through art, but merely our perception of it. This is fundamental to why different artists have different styles. I'd have thought you of all people would understand that.

Science on the other explores both sides. Firstly, we explore the subject, from a detached point of view, learn what we can and can't do, and how to do it, and this is Universal. Once the method is confirmed, anybody will get the same results, if they follow the procedure (see how this differs from art yet?). Secondly, science debates the ethics of the subject, which is when we allow our personalities to explore the subject. Just because we have the capability to do something, doesn't mean we should. Artists never have such dilemmas. In fact, many seem to revel in shock value, and do things deliberately to try and cause controversy. In my mind this is petty, childish and attention seeking. It's not real controversy.

like science dos for othes who are passionate about it. it is different ways of inquiry about this here.....LIFE and DEATH.

Science actually deals with life and death, from test tube babies, to the ethics if euthanasia, and defining the medical condition of death. These are the real issues, the real dilemmas, the real struggles, and scientists are making those decisions. Art merely deals with your personal perception of these subjects, from your own limited, subjective viewpoint. This is why scientists indulge in the arts in their spare time, because they are light relief after doing real work all day!

you tend to assume that your way is THEonly intelligent way. that is smallminded in my opinion and doesn't impress me. in fact it reveals things to me about your character that you obviously are unaware of.

It is. There are right answers in science, and plenty of wrong ones. You can be tested, and you can fail at science. It measures you, impassionately. You can either get the right answers, or you can't. This is why science is not for everyone. Self realisation about the possibility of failure is fundamental to every scientist. Artists just supplant this with ego. If their work is disliked, the ego saves the artist by saying they are 'misunderstood'. There is leeway, because there is no right answer in art. So, to become a scientist does require intelligence, to learn the right answers. To be an artist, just requires an ego.

sheeesh the naiveity you show says it all about your 'science'. first i am NOT anti-science as i have said before. what i am anti is when science becomes te religion--which it has. Thomas Szasz very much reveals ti to be te case in his book The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement

What you don't get, if that science is the antithesis of religion. Science abandons theories when they no longer fit the evidence. Religion does not.
So repeating that you think science is a religion shows how little you know about it, and how much you have to remedy.

I.e, tis is what i meant before when i said you dont seem to understand the context from where you expound your pro-sceincism views, which is te paradgm we ae in.

Hah! The word paradigm! I was once given a very useful piece of advice. never trust anyone that uses that word! It's become a cliché, and most people who use it don't actually understand it. You are saying that I don't understand myself, or the world, but you do, because you're an artist? Philosophy and self exploration are not just traits of artists.

Which oppresses people if tey dont abide by what science says is normal behaviour.

That's a broad brush you have there! Science attempts to be dispassionate, and not define normality, but discover it, through observation. It then does not judge, it just records. This is just another example of how you misunderstand science.

this oppression is based on pseudoscience masqueading as real science. so it is with your views. tey are not based on real science but on unreolved fears you my have regarding alternative worldviews......

Oh, so you're psychoanalysing me now! I'm not afraid of different world views, far from it, I find other cultures viewpoints and religions fascinating, so much so I try and travel and experience them. Why would someone elses view frighten me? The only thing that concerns me is the power of large groups of stupid people, like the Christian right wing in the USA. Here, science stands firmly against dogma, lies, dishonesty and hatred, and stands for ethical treatment of people. Science does not oppress people, blinkered people do the oppressing.

wheter these worldviews are right are wrong, you tend to dismiss them outright. ALL alterntive experienc you explain away. and tat is to silly from where i'm standing. it smacks of religious dogma.

If it's just a personal view, I have no issue. It's when people claim their view is the truth, without providing any supporting evidence to sway me I take umbrage. You are free to express opinions, but when people make statements of fact, or try and impose their opinions and affect law, they'd better have the facts to demonstrate why. And once more, science is not a religion, stop using that line, it's starting to erode any credibility you had left.

i wish you would examine that mantra of yours you end with. it may keep you from actually beingopen. there are othe ways than math and books to explore this universe you know.......art and creativity aren't just galleries, messin with paint, and sculpture etc

No there aren't. Maths and physics explore the Universe. Art explores the self.

 

[duendy]

))))))))that last statement of yourse:

"Maths and physics explore the Universe.
Art explores the Self"
is very revealing to me of wher you are at.

ie., that you ASSUME science in its application is subjective-free. that is just not the case, and the state of tis word shows tis profoundly!

Science applicators can be BRUTAL. above you talk about te 'detached eye'? the first image that came to me was the anima vivisectionist. R.D.Laing gave a brilliant emphatic specultive view of how animal might view the detched scienists as he connects the wires, and all forms of horrors to te encaged animal. he goes on about the dead eyes of said scientist. totally detached from feeling, yet not even being aware of it!

also tought of ECT applied to persons, lobotomies, etc. ALL backed up by 'ethical' science. I one diesn't conform to your 'ethical' science, and its worldview which it demands is THE TRUTH, then god help us, we too may meet that detached eye of the scientist. this makes me think of te Greys........!

you separate 'Self' from 'Universe' dont you?

 

[duendy]

correction of one of the above typos ''''the state of this 'WORLD' not 'word'

 

[Oli]

Fiat veritas, pereat vita.
You've contradicted yourself Duendy:

you ASSUME science in its application is subjective-free. that is just not the case

totally detached from feeling, yet not even being aware of it!

Science has no ethics, it's a search for truth, a repeatable, verifiable truth. The application of science is something else entirely...
Scientists don't separate themselves from the universe, they're fully aware that they're part of it.
Art cannot give testable, reproducible results, or verifiable explanations of why it does what it does, that is science's forte.
There's only one of each "major" artist, eg, Kandinsky, Mondrian, Feinninger, but science is available to anyone who wants to "learn the language". It doesn't matter how much I study colour, or paint brushes, or canvas, I'll never be able to put a "Feinninger" on my wall that I have painted (I know, I've tried ), but Feinninger could have learnt maths (and knew a fair bit from what I remember, as did Escher and others) and kept up to date with physics.
That's the difference, and that's what's so good about science - it's availble to anyone who wnats to join in.

 

[phlogistician]

No Duendy, I don't assume science is non-subjective, I _know_ scientists do their damndest to remove the element of human error, and leading the results. They try really hard to double blind experiments, so subjects do not give scientists the answer they think scientists are looking for.

If you want to discuss the ethics of vivisection, start a thread, and link to it here, and we can go discuss that. Maybe science is guilty of some abuse. But what's the alternative? A world full of artists! LOL! Would a cure for cancer, or reduction in child mortality rates be found through art?!!! The device you type at, was designed by scientists. You are bought into the scientific world, and are as guilty as anyone for supporting the regime you allegedly detest. This discussion is for a different thread however, feel free to start that if you want to contiune.

This thread was about the pseudoscience of scalar waves, and you defending a guy who's talking complete rubbish, when you don't have enough science to call it either way.

No, as you've admitted you don't understand the links provided, you haven't really got a leg to stand on, but it has been fun drawing you out.

I look forward to your new thread.

 

[duendy]

Oli--you who worry how i spell you user name--art is also for everyone, and isn't only about painting and scupture as i explained. you are being typically scientifically reductionist

No Duendy, I don't assume science is non-subjective, I _know_ scientists do their damndest to remove the element of human error, and leading the results. They try really hard to double blind experiments, so subjects do not give scientists the answer they think scientists are looking for.

me::hhhhh....how you understate the case, and thus hide the incredible abuse the RELIGION of science has fostered on the world. its crimes are many indeed---following on from its predecessor, the Church and its crimes against humanity.......remember, phlo, it is not scince i am challengn, but your arrogant attitude reagrding its superiority over ALL other worldviews. thus trying to undermine their integrity and authenticity!

If you want to discuss the ethics of vivisection, start a thread, and link to it here, and we can go discuss that. Maybe science is guilty of some abuse. But what's the alternative?

me:::NO abuse--backed up by science as religion which is PSEUDOscience.

A world full of artists! LOL! Would a cure for cancer, or reduction in child mortality rates be found through art?!!!

me::hy you have such a limited concept of art. fo you its all paintbrushes and spirits isn't it?
and HVE you got the cure for cancer? what aout its preventin? cofvered that too? os that not part of your remit. and child mortality rates? for where? the rich white middl class sciency places? s fas as i am aware the child mortality rate worldwide is dire, as it is in poor areas of the UK

The device you type at, was designed by scientists.

me:::and hippy art types, which giveit the life..ie., the WEB

You are bought into the scientific world, and are as guilty as anyone for supporting the regime you allegedly detest. This discussion is for a different thread however, feel free to start that if you want to contiune.

me:::h so typicall scientifically specialistdontyaknowwwww

This thread was about the pseudoscience of scalar waves, and you defending a guy who's talking complete rubbish, when you don't have enough science to call it either way.

me:::i ask you again. what do you KNOW about occultic symbolism and its relavance in the politcs of this world mr knowit all mr scientist guy? huh?......

No, as you've admitted you don't understand the links provided, you haven't really got a leg to stand on, but it has been fun drawing you out.

me:::the winner mentality. the ego game. you struttin off into the sunset strip, likin lips all self satisfied? all right with his little science world he protects himself with like some security blanket which he grips up to his neck, cuse he doesn'y really even know what he is doing here, why he ishere and where he is going. yet he is SURE he does cause science tells him so....hah!

I look forward to your new thread.

scalar waves rule OK

 

[Oli]

Spelling matters to me. That's my worldview.
I wasn't being "reductionist" I was providing specific examples Art is not for everyone - ask an artist what's wrong if someone tells him his work is rubbish - he'll say that that person is a philistine or similar derogatory comment. Maths can be taught, artistic skill and inspiration cannot.
Science is not a religion, science operates on demonstrable (and testable) results, religion operates on nothing but faith and undemonstrability of its object. A scientist will discard his theories if better explanations come along, a religious person will not abandon his faith despite evidence to the contrary.
Cancer prevention is being worked on by science (I've done some in that field as well), are artists doing any work towards it? Child mortality rates can and probably HAVE been cured by science, it's getting the funding to do it, and getting those in power to implement the programmes, hardly science's failure.
Science isn't necessarily superior to all other views, but it's the only one that provides workable results every time. That can be verified by any else.
The web was sod all to do with hippy art types, it came from particle physicists wanting to keep in touch with each other.
As for occult symbolism, Phlogiston hasn't answered as it's not relevant to the topic. But I know some having studied architecture as well as science among other subjects (all part of the genius/ Einstein2 thing, you know).
You're supporting someone who's work you don't understand against people who do understand his work, presumably because you have "faith" that he's right? Is that religion I smell?

 

[phlogistician]

me::hhhhh....how you understate the case, and thus hide the incredible abuse the RELIGION of science has fostered on the world. its crimes are many indeed---following on from its predecessor, the Church and its crimes against humanity.......

Again you reiterate a falsehood. typical woowoo behaviour. Science is not religion, and if you knew history, you'd know that religion tried to stifle science during the renaissance. A period you may, or may not be familiar with!

remember, phlo, it is not scince i am challengn, but your arrogant attitude reagrding its superiority over ALL other worldviews. thus trying to undermine their integrity and authenticity!

Can you read, duendy? I have never stated that, and in fact, have stated exactly the opposite! Other world views fascinate me. I have stated that. But I guess you stating I don't like other world vews is part of your dogma now? ;-)

NO abuse--backed up by science as religion which is PSEUDOscience.

No, what? No you don't want to discuss a topic _you_ brought up?

hy you have such a limited concept of art. fo you its all paintbrushes and spirits isn't it?

No, because like I said, I indulge in the arts myself. You keep trotting out this falsehood that I don't understand art when I actually participate! Woowoo behaviour, reiterating falsehoods! I indulge in various kinds, from creative arts, to martial arts.

and HVE you got the cure for cancer? what aout its preventin?

Well, working in IT, I have provided support to institutions which are looking for cures, so in my way, yes, I have helped towards finding a cure.

and hippy art types, which giveit the life..ie., the WEB

Nope, the web was brought to life because of need for scientists to share information. I have been using computer networks since 1986, and used various precursors to the web, like the HENSA archive, WAIS, Gopher, etc for along time. A few hippies using the web hasn't added life. Just hippes.

i ask you again. what do you KNOW about occultic symbolism and its relavance in the politcs of this world mr knowit all mr scientist guy? huh?......

It's nothing to do with this thread, so start another if you wish to discuss it.

me:::the winner mentality. the ego game. you struttin off into the sunset strip, likin lips all self satisfied? all right with his little science world he protects himself with like some security blanket which he grips up to his neck, cuse he doesn'y really even know what he is doing here, why he ishere and where he is going. yet he is SURE he does cause science tells him so....hah!

No, it's you who thinks they are superior, that you are more open minded. I just pointed out (something that you have made No attept to refure yet, btw) that scientists are more rounded from an educational perspective.

Here's a question for you, to illustrate why we scientists get pissed off with pseudoscientists.

If I said Leonardo Da Vinci never existed, and was actually a pseudonym used by Michelangelo, would you accept my 'world view'? Or, knowing your art history, would you correct me and list the evidence that suports Da Vinci was a real person? If you kept coming across people who held this view, would it become tiresome?

 

[duendy]

Again you reiterate a falsehood. typical woowoo behaviour. Science is not religion, and if you knew history, you'd know that religion tried to stifle science during the renaissance. A period you may, or may not be familiar with!

me:::some sources sy that the idea the church tried to stifle science is a myth.
suely the renaissance was the more acceptance of humanism and science. science would go on to carry ON the power of the church!


Can you read, duendy? I have never stated that, and in fact, have stated exactly the opposite! Other world views fascinate me. I have stated that. But I guess you stating I don't like other world vews is part of your dogma now? ;-)

me:::i am watching your ACTIONS not just your words, and you religiusly put down others worldviews here, and call them woo woo. noo?

No, what? No you don't want to discuss a topic _you_ brought up?

me:::i am referring to NO abuse as in no abuse by arrogant scientists who believe that they can impose their sciencism on all areas of life because they are more intelligent than those they class non-scientific. err you said i couldn't read?

No, because like I said, I indulge in the arts myself. You keep trotting out this falsehood that I don't understand art when I actually participate! Woowoo behaviour, reiterating falsehoods! I indulge in various kinds, from creative arts, to martial arts.

me:::and i still feel you underestimate what art IS by how you describe 'doing it'. art ffor me is not just painting and scuplting an martial rts, but real creativity is a lookin at the cracks between presented reality......?

Well, working in IT, I have provided support to institutions which are looking for cures, so in my way, yes, I have helped towards finding a cure.

me:::but have you FOUND one, and do you realize the politics of the cancer BUSINESS. the corruption of it, the duplicity etc. i bet not. got yer head to far in yer science speacialist book no doubt to look out at stuff that may disturb your contentment

Nope, the web was brought to life because of need for scientists to share information. I have been using computer networks since 1986, and used various precursors to the web, like the HENSA archive, WAIS, Gopher, etc for along time. A few hippies using the web hasn't added life. Just hippes.

me:::jeeez. ....oh never mind. lets move on

It's nothing to do with this thread, so start another if you wish to discuss it.

me::h you mean that occult symbolism i keep going on wit and you ...achem, keep avoiding to answer?....you see. soething very relevant you kbow nowt about. tat's all i am trying to show

No, it's you who thinks they are superior, that you are more open minded. I just pointed out (something that you have made No attept to refure yet, btw) that scientists are more rounded from an educational perspective.

me:::can you not see how you have just contradcited yourself there. how can you be 'more'educated if you dont know about relevant stuff. te very context, times, paradigm we are living in?? dont you think that is real education?....is it being superior to point ths out? i am trying to convey to you that we--we the un-scientifically trained (or indoctrinated as the case may be) are to also be respected for your intelligence. which you dont. you dont cause you flash yer science credentials about. your lingo, math etcetc. technical obfuscation. and i am saying that lifeis MORE than just your science text books and practicval applications. it is VAST and your view tends to trivilaize it. and that attitude doesn't help sciences cause.

Here's a question for you, to illustrate why we scientists get pissed off with pseudoscientists.

If I said Leonardo Da Vinci never existed, and was actually a pseudonym used by Michelangelo, would you accept my 'world view'? Or, knowing your art history, would you correct me and list the evidence that suports Da Vinci was a real person? If you kept coming across people who held this view, would it become tiresome?

yes i ould put tem striaght sure. causei wold know. but much of the stuff you call woo woo...watch my lips. you really dont know. really. you THINKyou do, and back this up wit science, which i can see ispseudoscience. you generalize ALL evidence, all rports. that is bad bad science. that is a religion trying to defend its worldview through fear. ie., feeling threatened one's worldview might be challenged. tis is what happened with modern physics isn't it. and they STILL dont understand what quantum mechancis actually means. and we still have the 'mind/body' 'problem'....get me?

 

[Light]

yes i ould put tem striaght sure. causei wold know. but much of the stuff you call woo woo...watch my lips. you really dont know. really. you THINKyou do, and back this up wit science, which i can see ispseudoscience. you generalize ALL evidence, all rports. that is bad bad science. that is a religion trying to defend its worldview through fear. ie., feeling threatened one's worldview might be challenged. tis is what happened with modern physics isn't it. and they STILL dont understand what quantum mechancis actually means. and we still have the 'mind/body' 'problem'....get me?

Duendy, let me give you a very helpful tip.

You write and spell like a little child. And that, if nothing else gives people the impression that you ARE a little child - and think like one. So even when you have someting valuable to say it's destroyed by your style of presentation.

You'd gain a lot more credibility and respect for yourself if you started writing like an adult - like everyone else BUT little children do.

 

[phlogistician]

some sources sy that the idea the church tried to stifle science is a myth.

So? Any of those sources credible?

suely the renaissance was the more acceptance of humanism and science. science would go on to carry ON the power of the church!

So you aren't familiar with the renaissance. It was when science dared challenged religious dogma. Science does not carry on th epower of the church, the two are separate. How many times does this need saying?

i am watching your ACTIONS not just your words, and you religiusly put down others worldviews here, and call them woo woo. noo?

There you go again with religious comparisons. It's getting tiresome. If I kept calling you a Nazi it would be just as irrelelevant and as tiresome, so cut it out, eh?

i am referring to NO abuse as in no abuse by arrogant scientists who believe that they can impose their sciencism on all areas of life because they are more intelligent than those they class non-scientific. err you said i couldn't read?

You didn't put it across very well. Your posts do require deciphering somewhat, with the crappy posting style and the hideous typos. Again, you labour under a misapprehension. Scientists don't impose their views on anyone. They discover the truth. Do you have a problem with truth?

and i still feel you underestimate what art IS by how you describe 'doing it'. art ffor me is not just painting and scuplting an martial rts, but real creativity is a lookin at the cracks between presented reality......?

Your definition of art differs from mine. That doesn't make you right! As for "looking for the cracks between presented reality", do you do too much spliff or something? If you want a headfuck, go learn quantum mechanics. That really will challenge your perception of reality, and it's legal.

but have you FOUND one, and do you realize the politics of the cancer BUSINESS. the corruption of it, the duplicity etc. i bet not. got yer head to far in yer science speacialist book no doubt to look out at stuff that may disturb your contentment

Oh please, the more you write, the more you sound like a paranoid delusional.

you mean that occult symbolism i keep going on wit and you ...achem, keep avoiding to answer?....you see. soething very relevant you kbow nowt about. tat's all i am trying to show

It's not relevant to 'scalar waves'. Start another thread. I've stated I know little on the subject, but I don't see the relevance. So you think you know something on the subject? Filled your head with garbage, sounds like to me.

can you not see how you have just contradcited yourself there. how can you be 'more'educated if you dont know about relevant stuff.

I'll spell it out. I didn't assume superiority, I merely stated that scientists have a more rounded education, whereas you seem to think we're all narrow minded and unaware of our surroundings.

te very context, times, paradigm we are living in?? dont you think that is real education?....is it being superior to point ths out? i am trying to convey to you that we--we the un-scientifically trained (or indoctrinated as the case may be) are to also be respected for your intelligence. which you dont. you dont cause you flash yer science credentials about. your lingo, math etcetc. technical obfuscation. and i am saying that lifeis MORE than just your science text books and practicval applications. it is VAST and your view tends to trivilaize it. and that attitude doesn't help sciences cause.

I live on the same planet, and observe the same things as you. I have that AND science! Science studies this in detail, quantitavely and qualitavely, whereas you only do the latter! You think you can see more because you know less! How arrogant is that!

yes i ould put tem striaght sure. causei wold know.

Right, but when I put others straight about science, you get on your high horse about scientists, and start throwing mud. Do you get it yet? When some folks on this board make claims, they are as wrong as they would be claiming DaVinci didn't exist.

 

[duendy]

Duendy, let me give you a very helpful tip.

You write and spell like a little child. And that, if nothing else gives people the impression that you ARE a little child - and think like one. So even when you have someting valuable to say it's destroyed by your style of presentation.

You'd gain a lot more credibility and respect for yourself if you started writing like an adult - like everyone else BUT little children do.

oh. mr snidey agin hey? weeeelll you take the crown from phlo for utter patronization dont you. tanks for the tought....so dont read me. stik wid the adults

 

[duendy]

So? Any of those sources credible?

me::thaty's your middle name isn' it? only phlo can pick the right sources. how convenient then

So you aren't familiar with the renaissance. It was when science dared challenged religious dogma. Science does not carry on th epower of the church, the two are separate. How many times does this need saying?

me:::you can say it till you ar blue in the face. your interpreatin is just that. science--its whole etos is really a carry on of christian dogma. only acientists made a deal with the church to study 'matter/events' whilst the church would take care of the 'spirtual' needs. i sense a duality there don't you? but they oth didn't fall out a such. to quarrels...of course. but science for the church would suddenly mean the lory of 'God'...ad plenty plaent moneeeeey and power!


There you go again with religious comparisons. It's getting tiresome. If I kept calling you a Nazi it would be just as irrelelevant and as tiresome, so cut it out, eh?

me:::no i wont cut it out. you cut it out. see what i mean. THAT is fascxism. you wanting to shut_me_up. druggin comes next, then ECT, then lobotomy, then execution
i am not saying it for no reason. the fact it pisses you off so much may mean something deep down

You didn't put it across very well. Your posts do require deciphering somewhat, with the crappy posting style and the hideous typos. Again, you labour under a misapprehension. Scientists don't impose their views on anyone. They discover the truth. Do you have a problem with truth?

me::you obviously do. the absurdity of wht you say, and the irony....quite breathtaking. and here's you--the all rouned suprior knowledged person.
let me repeat. if you want the biggest most evil example of the oppression of SCIENCE then study about the mental illness scam. the central controlling sysstem of the AGE OF SCIENCE. you poo pooers are revealing this adequately in tis pseudoscience forum for those who understand!...keep up the good work

Your definition of art differs from mine. That doesn't make you right!

me::hhh of couurse not, i m just an artist. but you the scientist are neeever wrong. oh no. continue.....

As for "looking for the cracks between presented reality", do you do too much spliff or something? If you want a headfuck, go learn quantum mechanics. That really will challenge your perception of reality, and it's legal.

me::ypur reactions are increasingly preedictable. how ypu mock other states of consciousness you.......soberite you

Oh please, the more you write, the more you sound like a paranoid delusional.

me::h a shrink now too. do that in ya spare time do ya? go an diagnose yerself you utter ignoramous

It's not relevant to 'scalar waves'. Start another thread. I've stated I know little on the subject, but I don't see the relevance. So you think you know something on the subject? Filled your head with garbage, sounds like to me.

me::never claimed i knew about scalar waves at all sweetie. and it takes 2 2 tango. why you keep replying? a last word freak?

I'll spell it out. I didn't assume superiority, I merely stated that scientists have a more rounded education, whereas you seem to think we're all narrow minded and unaware of our surroundings.

me:::no not ALL. just you in this instance. yes sir!

I live on the same planet, and observe the same things as you. I have that AND science! Science studies this in detail, quantitavely and qualitavely, whereas you only do the latter! You think you can see more because you know less! How arrogant is that!

me:: let me ask you this. and i awiat with interest and will watch yor every move. so be careful. ....hve you ever had a psychedelic trip?

Right, but when I put others straight about science, you get on your high horse about scientists, and start throwing mud. Do you get it yet? When some folks on this board make claims, they are as wrong as they would be claiming DaVinci didn't exist.

maybe da Vinci didn't exist...thought o that?

 

[shaman_]

oh. mr snidey agin hey? weeeelll you take the crown from phlo for utter patronization dont you. tanks for the tought....so dont read me. stik wid the adults

No duendy you are the most patronising person in this thread. You are also responsible for the most personal attacks. I think Phlogistician has been very patient to try and have a genuine discussion with you.

Most of you arguments are based on a false premise. You seem to have a poor understanding of science (and the www).

I think you need to provide credible sources that show the church has not tried to hold back science (Still happening today to some extent).

You also need to explain better why science is just an extension of the church. There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise...

 

[duendy]

No duendy you are the most patronising person in this thread. You are also responsible for the most personal attacks. I think Phlogistician has been very patient to try and have a genuine discussion with you.

me::h jeeez. another one's come outta the woodwork. they proliferate.
so you j'accuse me do you mr shaman. well it is just YOUR judgement from the bac of your eyes. obviously not much insight there

Most of you arguments are based on a false premise. You seem to have a poor understanding of science (and the www).

me:::itis easy to just criticise. showexamples, and explanations. make some effort. at least i put myself on the line

I think you need to provide credible sources that show the church has not tried to hold back science (Still happening today to some extent).

me:::ME. oh you wanna ME runnin round providing evidence for YOU, like some sefr? no dude YOU provide the evidence for what you challenge

You also need to explain better why science is just an extension of the church. There is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise...

why, does it worry you it might be tru? are you anti-chuRch? why. provide documented evidence why......ok. or i will have the gestapo AFTER YOU. HEIL SCIENCE!