Why am I not banned?

[birch]

I wasn't really. I think you are seeing things that aren't there.

i think you are a pathetic liar. lol

 

[birch]

Oh really? Why do I think that deserves a::roflmao:

what i think is funny is that i've read some of your posts on this thread alone and you were completely befuddled and turned the meaning of the posts completely around. lol

are you sure you aren't senile or something? lmao

 

[YoYoPapaya]

i think you are a pathetic liar. lol

Well then you ARE seeing things that aren't there. Maybe that's one of those "experiences" you are referring to.

(Now I'm mocking you. Can you tell the difference?)

 

[birch]

Well then you ARE seeing things that aren't there. Maybe that's one of those "experiences" you are referring to.

(Now I'm mocking you. Can you tell the difference?)

that's even poor logic. i can infer anything i choose to from your posts. you can't tell me that i'm 'seeing' anything as if that is proof since you can also lie by your intentions or just state you meant otherwise.

you called it 'magic' which either indicates mocking or stupidity. i think you were mocking or do you want me to call you stupid? is that hard to comprehend? lmao

 

[Randwolf]

what i think is funny is that i've read some of your posts on this thread alone and you were completely befuddled and turned the meaning of the posts completely around. lol

Easy to say. Can you substantiate this claim? Or will you run home to mama as so many others have done? Let's dance...

are you sure you aren't senile or something? lmao

I would love to see some examples. In fact, I would absolutely adore it. I've been telling my wife that I'm getting senile for years - perhaps you can help me out.

Specific links and short explanations of your reasoning, if you don't mind, please sir. Then perhaps we can make progress towards demolishing any remaining doubts regarding your complete and utter lack of intellectual honesty and intelligence in general.

I'm so glad you decided to reply in this manner - I was wondering what was for supper...

 

[YoYoPapaya]

that's even poor logic. i can infer anything i choose to from your posts. you can't tell me that i'm 'seeing' anything as if that is proof since you can also lie by your intentions or just state you meant otherwise.

you called it 'magic' which either indicates mocking or stupidity. i think you were mocking or do you want me to call you stupid? is that hard to comprehend? lmao

Yes you're right. You can interpret my posts as you like. I'm just telling you that you're wrong. It's not about who has the bigger penis Birch. It's about intentions. Mine was to say that science might one day be able to explain these experiences. Everything else is your failed interpretation. It's like you want to see me as some sort of evil Birch hater whose only purpose in life is to make fun of you.

 

[birch]

Easy to say. Can you substantiate this claim? Or will you run home to mama as so many others have done? Let's dance...

I would love to see some examples. In fact, I would absolutely adore it. I've been telling my wife that I'm getting senile for years - perhaps you can help me out.

Specific links and short explanations of your reasoning, if you don't mind, please sir. Then perhaps we can make progress towards demolishing any remaining doubts regarding your complete and utter lack of intellectual honesty and intelligence in general.

I'm so glad you decided to reply in this manner - I was wondering what was for supper...

so not only are you senile, it seems you might have alzheimers.

exhibit a:

Originally Posted by 420Joey
Your trying to look at the bigger picture through cracks.”

posted by randolph
Does this imply that you don't think it's a good idea to look at "the bigger picture"? Don't you try to see things as they are from a macro view? Or do you only see trees and no forest?

how stupid can one be? lmao.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

so not only are you senile, it seems you might have alzheimers.

exhibit a:


how stupid can one be? lmao.

I don't know. Are you trying to set a new record?

 

[birch]

Mine was to say that science might one day be able to explain these experiences.

what makes you think that is the point, genius?

did i say science couldn't one day explain it? i don't think so.

i was merely stating that unexplained phenomena should be allowed to be discussed without it being patently dismissed as nonsense when we don't know that in regarding to all of the phenomena. when you discuss a subject that is not understood, there is going to be speculations on the matter.

 

[birch]

I don't know. Are you trying to set a new record?

what? this reply makes no sense. but that seems to be the best you can do but of course, you are so smart because you safely use the empirical evidence argument. that is brilliant. lol

 

[Dywyddyr]

i was merely stating that unexplained phenomena should be allowed to be discussed without it being patently dismissed as nonsense when we don't know that in regarding to all of the phenomena. when you discuss a subject that is not understood, there is going to be speculations on the matter.

Except that the phenomena were "allowed" to be discussed. What was dismissed were the patently ridiculous attempts at explanation.
A point you persist in ignoring.

 

[birch]

what i find so goddamn funny is that these assholes and buffoons think i'm an idiot when i realize that this subject cannot be evaluated based on strict empirical evidence for a number of reasons. first, we don't know enough about this subject. second, the phenomena varies (which these buffoons still can't grasp). third, we don't understand how our reality works in it's entirety.

these fukers think i don't know how to use the empirical evidence argument when it is THE most easiest to employ which is just based on established knowledge.

motherfuckers!!

 

[Dywyddyr]

what i find so goddamn funny is that these assholes and buffoons think i'm an idiot

Oh no. I think you've demonstrated quite enough for us go beyond "thinking" you're an idiot.

when i realize that this subject cannot be evaluated based on strict empirical evidence for a number of reasons. first, we don't know enough about this subject. second, the phenomena varies (which these buffoons still can't grasp).

These two fall under the same remit.

third, we don't understand how our reality works in it's entirety.

So what? We understand quite well for the vast majority of things. Whatever else is left to be found must fit into the existing structure of science.

these fukers think i don't know how to use the empirical evidence argument when it is THE most easiest to employ which is just based on established knowledge.

Yet you persist in claiming that "empirical evidence" isn't sufficient for this subject. :shrug: So how is this relevant?

You are proclaiming (implicitly if not explicitly) that these phenomena aren't going to be subject to empirical evidence. What's wrong with "Wait and see"? Or "Let's gather more evidence before embarking on specious speculation"?

 

[Randwolf]

so not only are you senile, it seems you might have alzheimers.

You're a funny guy. You make enemies when there is no cause to do so. However, as I said earlier, let's dance. Do you have anything beyond ad-homs to present? Anything at all? In all honesty, you're not even very good with those. 'Course, I may have to make concessions for your apparent lack of sense, common or otherwise.

exhibit a:

“Originally Posted by 420Joey
Your trying to look at the bigger picture through cracks.”

posted by randolph (SIC - but what else would I expect?)

Does this imply that you don't think it's a good idea to look at "the bigger picture"? Don't you try to see things as they are from a macro view? Or do you only see trees and no forest?”

What would your response to this question be? Besides a demonstrable inability to grasp nuances? Oh, that's right - you have no response, except for ad-homs. Do you just want to see who can win a pissing contest? If so, fuck off right now junior, before you incur serious injury.

how stupid can one be? lmao..

Well, you got me there, I'm forever amazed at the depths of stupidity to which humans can descend. You seem to be expanding the limits with every word you type...

Just how stupid can you be? Do you have to put in conscious effort, or does it just come naturally? Or maybe both? That would be my bet - inherent genetic defects coupled with environmental influences produces... birch! Right, deary?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh I nearly forgot:

you called it 'magic' which either indicates mocking or stupidity.

Or a failure of comprehension on your part.

He actually said:

I hope these magical experiences can be proved one day.

adj also magical
1. of or relating to magic a magic spell
2. possessing or considered to possess mysterious powers a magic wand
3. unaccountably enchanting magic beauty
4. Informal wonderful; marvellous; exciting

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/magic
Got it?

 

[chimpkin]

you called it 'magic' which either indicates mocking or stupidity

Gee, thanks for insulting my spiritual practice!

 

[Syzygys]

To answer the OP:

Being an idiot itself is not a banable offense. To be a troll, spammer, yes, to be stupid, no.

 

[quadraphonics]

And this differs from other forum sites how, exactly? Or real life for that matter... IMO there is a wealth of information here, the trick is mining it. Still, I would say the average banter on Sci is more intellectually stimulating than many other sites I have visited. Perhaps you have suggestions (links) to an online community whereby I might increase my knowledge at a higher pace?

I've previously recommended physicsforums.com, to similar queries. It's basically what this site would be, if it took its pretensions to maturity and productivity seriously. If you want a place that does more politicized topics well, I'd recommend metafilter.com (although you have to pay a nominal fee and endure a waiting period to begin posting there - one of their mechanisms for keeping the trolls at bay).

 

[YoYoPapaya]

So your admitting that you ignore my rebuttles because they make you feel stupid?

No because they consist of you calling me stupid.

AlexG found a flaw, as did I, the difference: you decided to acknowledge one and ignore the other. I said that your equation can be said about any possible thing and get the same result. Prove this is not the case

No AlexG found a flaw. You called me stupid.

Dude there is more than just one article. On this forum I'm sure there are many who agree the universe is expanding or always expands. I suspect you dont know the difference.

All I'm asking for is one source. I'm not a physicist. Sorry I guess.

It's a hyperbole - it has no logic. You simply said how one belief is unlikely verse an infinite amount of beliefs. I accept this but it does not mean anything at all esspecially in regards to what we are discussing.

It's a hyperbole yes. I also explain how i get to that hyperbole. One belief out of infinite number of imaginable beliefs. Very unlikely to be true.

Lmao I like how you switched it around. I'm not painting but im interested in art wouldent that equate I'm not preaching but im interested in religion?

That's not what your saying its more like

Your not interested in art but your trying to be a painter.

(Thats a more accurate analogy, learn to read in context, for the love of god)

Oh yes I'm the one switching meaning around. I was the one that made the analogy in the first place. I think I pretty much know what I meant by it. Let me give you another example, so there's a chance you can understand it: I'm not a phycisist but I'm interested in physics. I'm not religious but I'm interested in religion. Is that wrong? Who are you? The thought police?

 

[Randwolf]

YoYoPapaya and 420Joey - guys, let's take this back to the original thread, shall we?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=107478 (What are the odds of a religion being the "right one").