fayfreethinkers.com

I said that I would make a different post for all the personal attacks that you would want to throw at me. As you have already turned my post into a childish squabble that nobody would ever want to work they way through, and would never expect to gain anything significant from it. So I am creating this post to allow you to express your feelings. I very much understand that your group has become mostly a "social group" now and aren't actively trying to uphold anything of meaning. So I do not wish to disrupt your fun and games. Perhaps I am even talking to the members that are ONLY here for social reasons, and somehow missing all the ones that actually care about gaining a valid understanding of how the universe operates. If you can't separate information from your personal attacks at my character, then it only proves you have no true character and no willingness to consider information outside of your already pre-established beliefs (sound like religion to anyone else?). I WANT you to prove me wrong. But you can ONLY do that by using INFORMATION against INFORMATION. You can't fight information with ad hominem attacks. You can't consider logic with only your emotions. So now is really the time to start showing that you can work ONLY in the realm of INFORMATION. OR that you would rather have a circus that goes around and around and never gets anywhere. I filed this in the complaints and objections, because I am obviously objecting to your lack of science behind any of your arguments, and constant attempts to derail and distract from any logical consideration. You say that "there is nothing to consider logically." But you were saying that even before you tried to read it. If you can't handle considering information and have to result to personal attacks every time. Then you should change your name to something other than "freethinkers." You could consider yourself New Age if you want, because they allow ANYONE to believe ANYTHING that they want to (this fits your relativistic logic perfectly!). Or you could find a religion that hates the same religions you also do (very popular). Or you could just label it appropriately what you are acting as, "limited athiests." Are you willing to consider information that might or might not be true? Prove it, and disprove me by logic. Not by your very small attempts to show me how much smarter and better you think you are.

Kevin Lyon wrote: "So may words, Joe, and so little content. This is one of the primary ways I have learned to recognize ideas lacking merit without having to invest large amounts of time. People who have little to say tend to say a lot."

You're right! I have to spend all my time defending attacks. I WILL never get anywhere with it. And so I won't. I'm not going to try standing on the surface of the water, because I know I will just fall through it. If the place of the discussion is under attack....I simply won't go there. And we will NOT talk about truth or science, because of YOUR choice to react instead of consider. Look at these quotes and what you are trying to show of them. It is almost like you are reading a completely different post from the one I wrote. I already showed WITHIN your PRESENT statements the flaws of your logic and the mistakes you are continuously making in order to maintain this emotional onslaught. Whereas you all attacked ME PERSONALLY, OUTSIDE of anything that I brought up, irrelevant to the current line of discussion, and FAR into the past that you have no evidence of. I feel like I am trying to explain thermodynamics to an infant. If you are truly at such a low level to avoid even considering the information in an UNBIASED environment, then I won't waste time to the point of hurting myself just to try and break through your defensive beliefs.

(I'm just gonna start at the top, I probably won't get to all of them. So if you REALLY, really really really R E A L L Y want to attack me about something. Then make it your first one, or the ONLY one. Otherwise it is only serving to allow you to converse about ME , instead of the information ITSELF. And I probably won't even get to the end to acknowledge it.)

Savonarola, you replied to my statement," Are you saying that moving of the conversation was dependent upon me starting the forum page?" And told me that," No. I'm saying that I told you straight up, first thing, that you should post on the forum instead."

re: So you acknowledged that it was never dependent upon me creating the forum post. You just told me to do something. How does this strengthen your argument any? How does this bear relevance towards the information, or EVEN towards describing ME as someone that could corrupt the information I speak, simply by being SO insidious! This doesn't help your argument any, and it isn't even relevant. And yet you called me a liar, how many times because of it?


Savonrola, you replied to my statement, "... somehow makes me a liar for saying that you "[told me it would eventually be archived after the conversation had run its course]?" And then told me that, "I don't know that you were ever told that the conversation would be moved "after the conversation had run its course." Those -- to my knowledge -- are your words, your interpretation because you're just not very good at reading comprehension. And I never told you that I would archive the conversation. That was someone else, which I made clear in my opening reply here. Please try to keep up."

re: Again, how can something that you told to someone else, be something that I can EVEN CONSIDER? How does it change what I was told, regardless of IF it was you or not? It was expressed within the conversation, much more than just once, because I insisted upon bringing it up a few times. And you, or anyone associated with the group, NEVER suggested anything contrary to it eventually being archived. In fact, how would I even KNOW about your supposed "Archiving" of forum posts, if someone in your group had not suggested it? In your defense, you were all very busy at getting ANGRY, and emotion clouds reason. No wonder you overlook so much and act like you are reading a completely different post from what I wrote.

Savonrola replied to my statement," I don't know that you were ever told that the conversation would be moved "after the conversation had run its course." Those -- to my knowledge -- are your words, your interpretation because you're just not very good at reading comprehension. And I never told you that I would archive the conversation. That was someone else, which I made clear in my opening reply here. Please try to keep up." And Savonrola replied that, "Nothing I said even implies that you should have known anything about conversations that were not privy to you. What I said established the timeline showing that the notion that you "let the conversation die" upon learning that the conversation would be archived on the forums is a blatant lie."

re: You are again confused in assuming this "timeline showing that [my] notion..." I did NOT say that I only decided it AFTER hearing that it would be archived. I decided it at the very start, when the information was presented to me. I mentioned it only in the context of some assurance that you wouldn't simply delete the post and hide from what it showed of you. I'm not the one getting angry and trying to tear you down as a person. I'm the one trying to build you up in the light of logic and rational consideration. But you are making associations that WERE NOT said. That WERE NOT derived from the information I presented. They were instead derived from your personal feelings of fear and paranoia. I asked you this in the last post too, because your descriptions are noticeably poor... Is English your first language? Because I am having trouble understanding you at some places. "Savonrola" sounds like a foreign name, so I thought I would be sure. Either way. Please slow down and try to be clear and concise.

Here is a little English lesson for you. If I had meant the quote as YOU portrayed it, it would have been written, "I don't know that it would ever be moved, when you told me, "after the conversation." But it wasn't written like that. "after the conversation" is a prepositional phrase, acting as an adjective, and describing when it would be MOVED, and not when I was TOLD (as you wrongly assumed from it). I was never told ANYTHING when I stopped participating. You all had shown that you were incapable of acting with impartial consideration. You were busy talking to some religious guy on there after I left. Which had nothing to do with the information either, just more bickering, which is apparently the only thing your group is good at. (I can look at the dates on the posts of the conversation that I saved and get a very good estimate of when I stopped participating, and when I checked back to see if you had transferred it yet. If that would help any)


Savonrola replied to my quote," You are going to have to slowly gather the completeness of the message that I am presenting." And replied that, "Just because you have trouble understanding that you're not saying anything doesn't mean that I do. Kevin Lyon agrees:"

re: I am not saying MUCH. For 2 specific reasons. One, is that you won't let me because of your constant attacks. And the other is because I started out with complex issues last time without laying any framework or assuring that you weren't relatvists that thought truth could be made up on the spot to back any argument. I tried to prove complex ideas with simple ones, but you never gave the simple ones consideration. You never tried to see the whole of the picture that I was building from. You didn't try to connect anything, and so didn't look at the evidence for it. You simply assumed that you were right because you did not want to WORK towards being CERTAIN. And grats on that... Do people not like talking to you about important things because of your extreme unwillingness to find worth in any perspective but your own? Because it is surely how I feel about you.


Savonrola replied, "Kevin's right. If you have a point, get to it."

re: How? How can I possibly? Under constant distraction and attacks? If you actually want me to get the point. Then why are you attacking me as a person and painting me as an evil liar even before we consider the information. And I do mean "WE." I am not here to spoon feed you information like a baby, or like programming a machine. If you want me to get to the "point" as you just said that you do; then it requires your group to consistently show up with an unbiased willingness to consider it. Otherwise, you are saying you want something, but acting towards exactly the opposite. Which is it? (You can't answer this by "voicing" an answer, you can only answer this by "ACTING" to show that you have rational unbiased consideration to give. And I would take the bet ANY DAY that you are going to keep attacking me, despite saying you want to move forward.)


Savonrola replied to my comment, "I imagine that you are already having a tough time accepting that there is such a thing as a "single unifying truth." That there is any scientific basis of information to be gained by finding hard scientific fact." And replied that, "I'd have no trouble at all accepting something for which there is indeed sufficient evidence. Your problem continues to be that you cannot provide any evidence or "hard scientific fact" that demonstrates that your view is correct."

re: You are asking for proof and ignoring the VERY little information discussed SO FAR. If YOU cannot prove it true, then WE cannot prove it true. So why try? Why get upset? If it isn't provable, why are you so mad about it? If you could show me an unbiased consideration, and an ability to hold certain basic scientific knowledge at the same time, then we can build on that and move forward towards more complex understandings that you feel are simply unprovable. But that is just a feeling expressed from a limited perspective. And emotionally fighting to maintain that limiting perspective is simply pride and ignorance.

Savonrola replied to my comment, "This is honestly NO different from your most fundamental scientifically accepted information." And replied, "I already accept, fundamentally, the existence of happiness waves from Pluto? Really? Are you delusional, Joe?"

re: Sweet! More names to call me. Delusional. That word means to avoid consideration of truth in favor of how you feel. You must be REALLY good at using that word, as anyone can see by your attacks. (lol) Even though this isn't based in ANY information in the argument, and is an EXTREME exaggeration. No, I will call it what it really is this time. You are lying about what I said. Stop pretending that I said something so easily proved "ludicrous," or is too difficult to argue and remain in reality? You have already shown that you are going quite astray from reality in inventing your own perceptions of it that you have established are much further reaching than anyone like me could possibly realize. I don't think you CAN hold this information. So, please contain ALL your replies to THIS post, at least until you can relearn how to use ONLY logic to think, and not be controlled by your emotions to such an extent.

Savonrola replied to my comment," You are trying to make it sound like I am some evil stalker." And replied, "Actually, I was just demonstrating that the "I let it die" claim is easily refuted, but now that you've planted that "evil stalker" seed and expressed wanting to "come visit [me] in person," it's not going to be my fault if people think you're creepy."

re: People will act like they are the only person correct in the universe, if they are hiding behind their computer. I was hoping that facing somebody in person would bring more HONESTY to our discussion. But if you are such a deeply conceited person inside to NEED to attack anything that seems different from yourself, then it might end up nearly the same. Honestly I am quite interested to see which it would be. Would an acceptance made by members of your own group cause you to change your stance, or become even more rigid? I actually thing that YOU are the creepy one. Because you try to think with your emotions, and haven't given ANY consideration to the information. VERY creepy, and VERY scary! Not in a "OMG terrorists hate our freedom" type of way, but more of an "aged mother-in-law with dementia that is trying to clean the kitchen knives" type of way.


Savonrola wrote, "I was wrong zero times."

re: From your perspective, I am sure you are right EVERY TIME! But I need you to look at it from a larger perspective than just your own. I need you to look at this from the perspective of unbiased truth. If you are wanting to attack it, attack it logically and fundamentally. Feelings can be wrong OR right. But TRUTH can be known as JUST ONE THING.


Savonrola wrote, "Lie. You messaged (at least) Dardedar, Doug, and me. (Remember, you mentioned messaging me above, although you conveniently didn't mention that you sent me a message with argument content.)"

re: When I said that I "talked with one other person," I meant as in a conversation. I messaged you other two after I stopped participating in the conversation to see why the post wasn't archived here, as I have already stated. That sad excuse of a teacher Dougy was the only one who even pretended to be nice about it. But then it became rather obvious that even HE wasn't willing to work with anything that required building it from the ground up. Your argument is simply semantics. And another attempt to prove me wrong by my actions, instead of my information. Just another excuse for your avoidance.


Savonrola quoted me saying, "And that ONE person WASN'T even involved in the initial conversation." And then you replied, "If you found some other guy to bother with your nonsense, it has nothing to do with my statements."

re: This sounds like MY argument as to the irrelevance of telling someone BESIDE ME that you weren't archiving it as I had initially been led to believe. I think that I need to give another English lesson here to help clarify how diction works. You see, words actually mean something (woah, no really?) So if there is a word such as "that," which is acting as an adjective (which person, THAT person); then it is specifically describing it as someone ALREADY MENTIONED, and not some person irrelevant to the situation. I don't bring up irrelevant information; that's YOUR expertise! So stop assuming that I put something unrelated in my argument and actually figure out WHAT it was INTENDED to MEAN. Unless you don't want to find out what it means, which implies you don't want to consider others' information, which implies that you are relativist and incapable of ascertaining true knowledge (this is why I had to find out before moving on, and taking small steps at first, because you are already offending the most basic knowledge that I have presented so far).


Savonrola wrote, "If you found some other guy to bother with your nonsense, it has nothing to do with my statements. I spoke only to your contacting other people in the initial conversation.
Jeez, Joe, you can't even accuse me of lying without being wrong. This should tell you something."

re: This is exactly the same as the last one. Are you being intentionally redundant? (I'm being redundant, because the only position I can assume is one of defense, and your arguments are starting to all look the same.) You would love for me to be talking about something completely unrelated, wouldn't you? It would just make you feel SO much better to justify your limited perspective. How sad, and incredibly delusional. I don't hate you so much as I did initially, now I am starting to feel sorry for you. Like some grandfather that is too decrepit to take care of themselves. I really feel bad about criticizing someone in your condition. Maybe I could come help carry books for you, or something to ease your stress. It is obviously overwhelming you beyond the point of rationality. I'll bring some cookies when I visit.

I would like to briefly consider something you mention that proves my ignorance, by your standards. You criticized my comment from long, long ago, that "...a planet or star that is made up of this same vibrational energy could very easily send an amount of energy in some way (light, gravity, sound?) and in some amount (regardless of how much or how little), it could have a real effect in combination with the actions, thoughts, or feelings that we are having in that moment."

The only thing that I am saying here is that by the powers of observation, we can determine if we are or are not perceiving something truly. And by increasing the amount of observation we use, we will know it even clearer and with better definition. The light received by our perception, signifies that there IS something real causing that effect. The light of a planet, reflecting in the night sky like a twinkling star, IS something significant. The light that we perceive by our observation ISN'T ITSELF the planet. It is only the light of the sun, bouncing back towards us. This traveling of light, both TO and FROM the planet is itself PROOF that SOME form of energy IS REALLY traveling between them. That some form of energy IS reaching us from something like a planet in our solar system. It may not have ORIGINATED at that planet, but it only reached our awareness and perception BECAUSE OF that planet.

To see the planet in the sky is an ACTION which is REAL, and affecting us in a specific way (otherwise we wouldn't be able to observe it). The light traveling, or bouncing, from the planet IS a type of energy. It CARRIES the information that our eyes decode to know the sight of a star/planet. This is exactly what I said in the first quote, and it is all fundamental logic. To disagree with it, you would need to create a COMPLETELY different and UNINTENDED comprehension of my message. So yeah, that is ALL I was trying to establish as a basis of information to be built upon later.

To disagree with this logic can only be done by assuming the stance of a relativist. Thinking that things happen regardless of other events, and that there is no discernible connection between them. It is like saying that if I flick your ear with my finger, you won't feel it. There is no connection between things, so I can just keep flicking your ear and not care that it could be hurting you. This really is the crux of all information. And we must climb over this hurdle and demonstrate understanding of it before we can build anything else more complex. So go to it. Do work!

Let me mention the critiques of this incredibly basic, logical, and fundamental truth that even science is built upon. I mean look at this. He barely even understand what I am saying before says, "That's really hard to beat. That's suitable for framing." I agree, but he was being sarcastic about it and didn't even seem to grasp the truth of it. So then he went on immediately to explain to me why I am so wrong and some techniques that I should use towards, basically being ignorant like him. Isn't this hilarious? It is almost funny enough to start a sketch comedy troupe! The hilarity is ONLY eclipsed by the sadness that, yes, you really ARE that dumb.

Oh, here's the rest of the critique from Darry... Enjoy it!: "Joe, you've learned a bunch of words and you put them in different orders but it's pretty clear you don't understand what they mean. This happens sometimes. Most of what you write comes across as gibberish because you don't have basic, even rudimentary skills of discernment. Astrology is really a litmus test for this. If you can fall for the vapid assertions and complete lack of evidence that astrology is anything other than complete, 100% myth and superstition based upon claims that we know, with as much certainty as anything can be known (including flying donkeys), to completely false, then you really don't know how to begin.
If there is any hope to dig out of your situation, you would need to take greater care to respond directly to the questions posed to you. The uncomfortable ones that you have taken care to avoid. You do this because the answer to those questions refute what you would like to believe for emotional reasons. I know, I lived for years up to my knees in this New Age stuff. For years."

Joeknows wrote:As you have already turned my post into a childish squabble that nobody would ever want to work they way through

Believe me, Joe, the childish squabble started with your initial post.

Joeknows wrote:I WANT you to prove me wrong.

We already did. Your entire argument is based on the fallacy of appeal to ignorance, and Doug mentioned (and Darrel expounded upon, and I fleshed out) here.

Joeknows wrote:How does this bear relevance towards the information, or EVEN towards describing ME as someone that could corrupt the information I speak...

It shows that you seem to think that we say things very different than what we actually say. (I showed this multiple times in the original conversation.) Observe:

Joeknows wrote:

Earlier, Savonarola wrote:I don't know that you were ever told that the conversation would be moved "after the conversation had run its course." Those -- to my knowledge -- are your words, your interpretation because you're just not very good at reading comprehension. And I never told you that I would archive the conversation. That was someone else, which I made clear in my opening reply here. Please try to keep up."

how can something that you told to someone else, be something that I can EVEN CONSIDER?

Nothing here references something that I told to someone else. You -- for no apparent reason -- think that I was talking about a conversation that I had with someone else. I wasn't.
You have a gift for finding an interpretation of our words that exists nowhere in the minds of either the author or any sane person reading them.

Joeknows wrote:I did NOT say that I only decided it AFTER hearing that it would be archived.

I didn't claim to know when you decided anything. I cited that you claimed to have "ended [your] discussion in order to allow the thread to die and be saved." Then I proceeded to show that even that wasn't true.

Joeknows wrote:But you are making associations that WERE NOT said.

You have this backward. I quote you saying exactly what I claim you said. You quote me and then say that I've said something else. Again, observe:

Joeknows wrote:

Savonarola wrote:Your problem continues to be that you cannot provide any evidence or "hard scientific fact" that demonstrates that your view is correct.

re: You are asking for proof

No, I am asking for evidence. Proofs are for math and alcohol. You can't even provide evidence. If you had any, you would have provided it by now.

Joeknows wrote:Here is a little English lesson for you.

Little Joe, I am so far ahead of you here that this is just sad. You proceed to lecture me about the prepositional phrase referring to when the conversation would be moved, which is exactly what I said. (If that's not what I had meant, there would have been no reason for me to point out that you indeed did not end your discussion "in order to allow the thread to die and be saved.")

I had said, "I don't know that you were ever told that the conversation would be moved 'after the conversation had run its course.'"

You are pretending that I said: "I don't know that you were ever told 'after the conversation had run its course' that the conversation would be moved."

The former -- which is what I said -- is absolutely what I meant; the latter -- which you say I meant -- is neither what I said nor what I meant, and it wouldn't make any sense in context of my other statements.
Lecturing me about sentence structure will not end well for you. You are simply very bad at reading, Joe.

I won't even continue with this nonsense. The real problem can be summed up in this little bit of gold from Joe, who repeatedly calls me "Savonrola" and blames my ability to read:

Joeknows wrote:Is English your first language? Because I am having trouble understanding you at some places. "Savonrola" sounds like a foreign name

My screen name is Savonarola. You have trouble understanding a great many things, Joe, and I bet you don't understand why.

We're done here.

"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool." -credited to Plato

Joeknows wrote:"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught falsehoods in school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool." -credited to Plato

OK, show us that we've misidentified you. You claim that you are telling the truth, so show that your ramblings about astrology are true.

It's that simple.

I am not using "appeal to ignorance" to prove anything. Although I do feel VERY MUCH like I am trying to appeal to "ignorants." (Show me specifically where I do this if you are so bold to make this claim, and only in relevant information we are discussing. Not the end of some convoluted line of discussion that isn't completely available. Do work, don't just SAY you did.)

Dardar wrote

Joe, you don't make any sense. You've never made any sense. And it's really beyond boring.

If I am not making sense, then why are you so vehemently refusing to allow me to present it, as if your life depended on proving me insufficient. Just because YOU couldn't make sense of it, doesn't you should keep others from trying. By this logic, anything that doesn't make sense immediately is inherently false? Well that is gonna make anything complex, something unworthy of consideration, and nullifies most of what science has achieved. You think it's boring? That is fine with me, but why do you keep coming back and working SO hard to disprove me? And your signature at the bottom of each of your quotes says, "I'm a skeptic because I want to know." And you called ME the LIAR? lol


Douggy wrote

I don't expect to get anything substantive from you. We've been asking for evidence for months, and you steadfastly refuse to provide any, and, furthermore, you adamantly defend your decision to give no evidence for astrology at all. Instead, you want to talk about hypotheses about how astrology might work.

re: I refused to talk to you anymore about it after you showed you were a relativist, by accepting points I made, and then deciding that you would do better to un-accept them later. And without any good reason, or proof that you actually understood it. I have the whole thing still available on my page, in case you don't want to look up the messages on your own account. Not only were you unable to fully consider anything I described, you are STILL unable to keep to the topic. We aren't talking about astrology or astrotheology...YET! We might get there. but not if you can't show that you understand that truth is truth EVERY TIME, and not just when you feel it should be.

Okay, now this is hilarious: Dougy wrote:

But no one is interested in possible explanations of a phenomenon that does not exist. Until you show evidence that astrology works, forget trying to show how it works.

No one is interested in a phenomenon that doesn't exist? Then why do you put so much into "experiments" where you put a random object in a box and have people guess what it is, in order to prove if anyone is actually psychic? Do you really think that there are psychics? What evidence do you have that there MAY be some phenomenon that upholds this idea. What? None? Well then why did your group put forth a reward for anyone to guess it right? Why do you make such grand tests, that you knew would fail? It sounds like you are willing to devote a LOT of time to things that do not exist. So why suddenly change your mind? Oh ya, because you are a relativist. And nothing true ever stays true for you. You are very much like the "new agers", ignoring truth whenever it makes you feel upset. You obviously didn't expect to find anyone psychic or you wouldn't have put money on the line. Did you think that these experiments were actually teaching something, or building on knowledge? No, it was a dog and pony show. It was entertainment for little kids. And since you are unable to handle talking about real information, I have only one question for you.... Do we get lemonade and cookies at the meetings? ("evidence based group," lol) So if you don't expect to get anything "substantive" from a discussion with me, then why not just leave this discussion to the freethinker members that aren't here just for a social gathering?


Okay up next is our foreign friend, savonrola. Let the roast begin! I just proved in my last post that I WAS talking about something real (unless you want to disagree with what science has proven). I showed specifically what I was talking about, and showed HOW it was true. Do you even want to TRY to disagree with what I stated and showed? Because you are conveniently avoiding it. If you can't show an error in anything I stated, then that is at least ONE step closer towards accepting that my information CAN be true. Doesn't that directly contradict all that I supposedly stand for? Then why aren't you attacking it? I rest my argument.

El Savonrola wrote:

Believe me, Joe, the childish squabble started with your initial post.

But unlike you, I don't really care WHO started the childish squabble. I just want it kept in THIS post, so that it doesn't infringe upon the real information (hopefully, and that depends on you) being discussed in a specific forum topic. Can you keep all the squabbles on THIS side of the line, and keep only to intelligent discussion on the other? I bet you probably can't. But here is ANOTHER chance for you to prove me wrong. If you can actually show that you can do this, then I will be HAPPILY wrong for the first time in our many discussions.

El Savonrola wrote:

Nothing here references something that I told to someone else. You -- for no apparent reason -- think that I was talking about a conversation that I had with someone else. I wasn't.
You have a gift for finding an interpretation of our words that exists nowhere in the minds of either the author or any sane person reading them.

re: Guess what? I can actually understand what you are saying, when you don't mock and berate me, and actually attempt to explain it as best you can. Because I am willing to reassess my understanding (unlike you all), I can see that you really DIDN'T mean that you were talking to anyone else. You were just saying that you didn't know if anyone had told me. I thought you meant that you didn't know if I had "gotten the memo that you had sent to everyone else." You were just repeating what I said and I thought you were telling me more about it. I didn't look at it in the right context, exactly like how you assumed that I was saying I was only told "AFTER" that it would be archived, instead of being told that it would be archived, "after." Do you see how easily both sides can get the wrong idea if they aren't BOTH actively working to meet each other on the same ground and look from the same perspective? I am sorry that I looked at it from a perspective that you weren't trying to suggest, but you could have said something like, "no, i was just quoting you when I typed that. And not suggesting something." But I am willing to work to actually know what other people are trying to mean. Could you have the slightest decency and try it yourself? Do you not see how easily I could infer that you were describing an event, instead of quoting me? Just like you mis-inferred what I was talking about. It happens. But only putting effort forth on an individual level can we actually derive what was meant, from what we presumed. Will you please try also knowing what I am saying, as I will try even harder to actually know what YOU are saying?

Regardless, your point was only that you didn't know if I had been told that or not, and that it wasn't you saying it. Not sure why you wasted my time with a response that only sued for your own innocence. Someone in your group said it, and at least a few times. I made sure to ask. So take the question from the point of view of your group. Or don't take the question at all, if it doesn't have any bearing to you. So that we won't waste time over something that was completely irrelevant like this. Practically your whole reply was talking about our miscommunication. And nothing about what I showed that I was saying, and showed how it was true. Does energy not travel to earth from pluto, in the form of Light? Because if it can be seen in any way, then it proves it.


El Savonrola wrote:

No, I am asking for evidence. Proofs are for math and alcohol. You can't even provide evidence. If you had any, you would have provided it by now.

re: HA HA HA! You are so funny. But seriously. I am almost thankful for your backhanded way of getting to something that I actually see as very important to what I am discussing, and the CRUX of the difference in our systems of understanding. My understanding DOES involve math. My understanding attempts to describe information about how the universe operates, specifically by deciphering a FORMULA that is general enough to cover every specific situation of a type. If you don't see how something can be "proven" by overwhelming evidence, then you simply haven't looked at enough of it to be sure yet. Your system is made of many pieces of information that have to be kept separate. Mine is described by an equation that can be known outside of any specific examples. My system can be taken from it's generality, to be applied towards anything specifically having to do with that variable.

This is really nothing more than the 2 principles of falsifiability, which gives us the scientific method, but from what you might call a more "math-oriented" perspective on it. Deciphering these formulas is simply what you call the first step, which is to gain information about something, and/or many somethings. The second step is to "draw a formula" that keeps all these pieces within its bounds, and use it to predict pieces that you didn't specifically gather. This is simply a more detailed explanation of what we do when we form a hypothesis. And they go back and forth, testing, hypothesizing, testing, etc...

El Savonrola wrote:

You have trouble understanding a great many things, Joe, and I bet you don't understand why.

We're done here.

re: I do have trouble understanding a lot of things. It's because I am human. It's because my brain wasn't completely developed when I was an infant. I was put into this world in motion before my rational capacity developed enough to start making sense of it. This is the process we ALL go through. But most of us stop trying to make sense of it. We decide to invest in the small piece that we have deciphered and learned to use for survival. But I am willing to learn from my mistakes. And I am willing to continually add to my knowledge, and continually try to find equations that are even more sound, more developed, and describe a wider range of information about reality.

When you say that, "we're done here." I really hope that you mean it. I would love for you to consider this information unbiasedly. But if that can't happen, I agree. Lets be done discussing it between the two of us, and allow the other freethinker members to reply who aren't here just for social engagements. Honestly, out of the 3 stooges, I like you best. But if you don't want to discuss it, then you really shouldn't.

Joeknows wrote:Not only were you unable to fully consider anything I described, you are STILL unable to keep to the topic. We aren't talking about astrology or astrotheology...YET! We might get there.

I doubt you will ever attempt to discuss evidence for the efficacy of astrology. Ever. You will never get there.

Joeknows wrote: but not if you can't show that you understand that truth is truth EVERY TIME, and not just when you feel it should be.

So you won't even begin to discuss astrology until we agree to accept all your statements as true?

HA HA HA HA HA!

You've got a long wait ahead..!

There's just something about this clip that reminds me of Joeknows trying to defend Joestrology:

I didn't say that you had to accept what I described as true before I would move on. But if you can't ever decide the validity of the fundamental pieces, then we won't be able to talk about them in application or examples. If you can't discern what is real from what is non-real, then I would do better explaining this to an inanimate object, like a lamp or toaster oven. So it's just as much as you want to participate, that will limit where it can take you.

Sorry for the delays, I was enjoying discussions on another site that distracted me, then I got caught up in the drama of life some too. I think I am ready to present what I have so far. But I have a drawing of a diagram that illustrates the nature of our universe, and it is too large to upload to this website. When I shrink it below 250k, the letters are blurry and hard to read. What would be the best way to make my drawing available from the forum post? It looks fine at about 1MB. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Joeknows wrote:I didn't say that you had to accept what I described as true before I would move on. But if you can't ever decide the validity of the fundamental pieces, then we won't be able to talk about them in application or examples. If you can't discern what is real from what is non-real, then I would do better explaining this to an inanimate object, like a lamp or toaster oven. So it's just as much as you want to participate, that will limit where it can take you.

It's called presenting evidence. You present, and others evaluate. We may decide that one or more of your fundamental "pieces" is nonsense. We aren't going to declare ahead of time that this is not so, as you seem to be suggesting.

Joeknows wrote:I think I am ready to present what I have so far.

Just present what evidence you have. Don't bother to announce that you are ready to do so. Just do it.

Joeknows wrote:But I have a drawing of a diagram that illustrates the nature of our universe, and it is too large to upload to this website. When I shrink it below 250k, the letters are blurry and hard to read. What would be the best way to make my drawing available from the forum post? It looks fine at about 1MB. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

My suggestion is to forget about the drawing and present your evidence. After you have spent months avoiding presenting evidence for your claims about astrology and other things, one might think that your drawing is just another way of avoiding the issue of evidence. Present the evidence you have. You can post the picture some other time.

Joeknows wrote:....I have a drawing of a diagram that illustrates the nature of our universe, and it is too large to upload to this website.

Just write the thousand words. If they're the right words, we won't need a drawing.

Djaredjar, you are a sad person. I think the freethinkers should ask you to leave, if they at all value freethinking. This isn't furthering any conversation, it is furthering your ego drive to look like a "big man" who is in control of the information. But anyone can see your facade of knowledge is only surface thin. You say that you are a "skeptic because [you] want to know." But you have conveniently let "being skeptic" become an excuse to ignore information. And that is no longer just skepticism, it is the active effort of ignoring, or just ignorance plain and simple. And now you are both ignorant and proud of it.

I doubt you can control the emotions that decide for you how to react, but maybe you can limit them to just posting in this forum about how "your brain is broken," or , "you've convinced yourself of an illusion," etc... The problem that you aren't considering, is that I've already considered EVERYTHING that you've said. Every possible fallacy that I could notice or was pointed out to me... And the fact still remains that this method of information hold up far, FAR superior to your own limited portrayal of it. To say that you can "portray" it isn't even very accurate. You can "use" it in the very, VERY narrowly prescribed way that you were taught to do it by your employer. And since you don't care about anything other than maintaining what you've achieved, you are willing to ignore information or presume it unknowable just to uphold your job and your pay check. You have already made your choice that you don't want to learn anything else, or risk the knowledge that you have gained. You have no will and your consciousness is basically dead and gone to fallow, although you still walk around like a human. What you are is closer to a zombie.

If you aren't a brainless and parasitic zombie, then try asking questions about what I said that will clear up some definition about a function, instead of only attacking information that if proved true, would alleviate you from any mental effort of consideration.

That would be a useful tattoo for your forehead.
Joe, are you truly oblivious to the fact that the communication portion of your brain is broken? Surely others have drawn this to your attention before. I know I did when you got your ass repeatedly handed to you on Facebook. You're not well in the noggin. It doesn't work in there. You've convinced yourself of an illusion that you know how to think at some high level and are communicating the chatter that goes on in your head in some profound way, but you're not doing that at all. Not even close. It's word salad language masturbation. Surely this has been pointed out to you before.
Have you even said anything in this entire thread that you can back up in a way that someone could verify it? Anything that has any substance outside of vague assertions and pious prattle? Because not only is it not apparent that you have done, it looks rather unlikely at this point that your are even capable of accomplishing something like that.

_________________
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

You could always try stamping your feet Joe, see how that works. Or misspelling my screen name, that'll get me! Ouch!

...try asking questions about what I said that will clear up

I really don't have any questions for you. Other than the ones I've already asked you and you've ducked either with walls of gibberish, or straight up avoidance. When you accidentally stumble into saying something specific that addresses a claim that is objectively true or false, we see that you consistently get your most basic facts wrong (moon effect, coriolis effect, numerology nonsense, chemistry basics). Since debunking these common pedestrian canards is a freethinker specialty, I will point your errors out on the occasion that I happen to skim some wall of blah blah you post. That's all. You're not well. Might be drugs, might be a defect. It's really quite boring. Delusions of Grandeur or more common that people realize. It's a fantasy world people who are not well create in order to deal with their personal inadequacies. Boring. Just because you're a nut case doesn't mean you have to be annoying.

Above Joe says:

I WANT you to prove me wrong.

That's easy to do when you actually say something specific. But you take care to very rarely do that. 99.9% of what you post is word salad New Age blather. When you do accidentally get specific, you get your basics wrong, as has been easy to show. The truth is in the details, and you can't do details, apparently. But you can stack completely vague completely unsupported mere assertions with the best!
-------------------
"Errors, like straws, upon the surface flow; He who would search for pearls must dive below." --John Dryden (1631-1700)

by David Franks:

Q: What is the only possible shred of evidence that Joe knows anything?
A: He calls himself "Joeknows".

Q: What is the possibility that Joe's screen name is accurate-- that is, that Joe knows anything?
A: The possibility increases from less than zero as the likelihood that his screen name refers to a different Joe increases.

"Shred of evidence?" There is more than a shred, try looking harder. Of course I don't expect you to believe me because of my name, how retarded is it to even think that? Wow!

I call douggy and djaredjar complete fools, but they are much, much smarter than you. And if they don't even have the capacity to look at this information, your feelings won't do anything towards changing that fact. Of course I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I was at a severe advantage in my "order" of my information compared to yours. I can explain on countless levels why you won't and haven't done the work to grasp these basics. And you can only rationalize that what I says has no connection. It is pretty much like djaredjarr's reasoning: "[Everything you say is gibberish, I can't understand what you are saying, and you are also completely wrong..."

You will admit that you don't understand it, but you will defend your point of view that I am wrong? Despite admitting that you don't know that I am saying? I don't think there IS a greater contradiction in this whole compilation of forum topics!

You win the prize for biggest idiot. But you don't have to stay the biggest idiot. You can learn, and I am willing to help you, if you are willing. But I think your brain-load is already at capacity. Because you can only put so many contradicting theories in your head before you are forced to stop learning. And you need to do some "unlearning the wrong way," in order to fit anything else in there.

Joeknows wrote:they don't even have the capacity to look at this information,

What information?
------
in·for·ma·tion [in-fer-mey-shuhn]
noun
1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2. knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3. the act or fact of informing.

Joe thinks what he has been posting is information!

Joeknows wrote:by David Franks:....Of course I don't expect you to believe me because of my name, how retarded is it to even think that? Wow!

Went right over your head, didn't it? I'm surprised it got your attention at all. But it's not a matter of belief. As I said, the only indication that you know anything is that you keep claiming that you do. I suppose you could change your screen name....

I call douggy and djaredjar complete fools

So I've noticed. Ad hominem attacks are not shreds of evidence.

but they are much, much smarter than you.

They have their moments. They certainly appear to be much, much, much, much, much, much, much smarter than you are. But I'll concede the point that you might not be stupid; you might be so addled, inarticulate and unversed in this subject that you only appear to be stupid.

And if they don't even have the capacity to look at this information

Now you're just blaming your abysmal failure on others. It is quite clear that they have looked at your posts. ("Information" seems a bit overblown.)

your feelings won't do anything towards changing that fact.

What feelings would those be? I'm quite dispassionate.

Of course I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I was at a severe advantage in my "order" of my information compared to yours.

I see: your peculiar surfeit of ego is the only contribution you brought here.

I can explain on countless levels why you won't and haven't done the work to grasp these basics.

No, you can't. You can't even explain your own "basics" correctly. Note: zero is a number. That is the number of levels you have explained anything on. Not "countless" at all, so far.

And you can only rationalize that what I says has no connection.

Well, golly. At least one of us needs to be rational, and at this rate it isn't going to be you.

You will admit that you don't understand it

Casting blame again. You haven't explained anything in a way that invites understanding. Your glaring factual errors, your failure to use a standard lexicon, your failure to use your own lexicon consistently-- that's all on you.

but you will defend your point of view that I am wrong?

That isn't my point of view. Reread my post.

Despite admitting that you don't know that I am saying?

In that case, I'd have you to keep me company, as you don't know what you're saying, either. But seriously: I know what you're saying. The problem is, you're not saying anything that indicates that you know anything. All we have to go on is the assertion you use for a screen name.

I don't think there IS a greater contradiction in this whole compilation of forum topics!

I'll give you this much credit: you got those first three words right.

You win the prize for biggest idiot.

You're abdicating? But you're doing so well.

But you don't have to stay the biggest idiot.

Ah-- I see: you're taking your prize back.

You can learn, and I am willing to help you, if you are willing.

Willing and able aren't the same thing. Thank you, but I'll wait until you've posted a lesson.

But I think your brain-load is already at capacity.

"My brain is full-- I've got to start letting things go. Maybe I'll start with Truman's hat size.” --Phil the bartender ("Murphy Brown")

Because you can only put so many contradicting theories in your head before you are forced to stop learning.

I take it you know this from experience, but I'd like to hear it from a reputable source. Can you provide a reference for this interesting theory?

And you need to do some "unlearning the wrong way," in order to fit anything else in there.

Forget unlearning. You haven't gotten very far into the learning part. But at least you've done it the wrong way.

You're a real hoot.

Hey Doug, we got a ranking of "7x much" smarter than Joe. Not bad.