#38326  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:13 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.
It will do a lot of good. Everyone will get to see you for the lying evasive weasel that you are.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38327  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:14 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Spacemonkey, nothing in this model has changed the properties of light. That's why we cannot continue to discuss light when it's the way the eyes work that causes this change. I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. You may need some time to ruminate on this model before closing the door, but for me to be interrogated by you regarding the location of photons doesn't answer the question as to whether this change from afferent to efferent causes us to see in real time. This argument could go on for another 3 years, and I'm getting bored.
You just weaseled again, dingbat. You said the photons from the Sun now at the eye traveled (after flatly denying that they traveled to the camera film on Earth). So where did they travel from and where did they travel to?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38328  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:17 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Please explain how these traveling photons got somewhere without traveling.
Oh my gosh, how many times am I going to have to repeat this? Why do you say photons got somewhere without traveling? They did travel...
Okay, lets work on that. (Working backwards, remember?) Keep in mind that we are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the camera film on Earth...

Where did they travel from?

Where did they travel to?

How long did it take?

When did they get to wherever they traveled to?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38329  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:18 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38330  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:19 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.
Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.
Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...
Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.
Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.
Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.
Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.
So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...
Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.
That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...
Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.
Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:
(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.
So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38331  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:25 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.
It will do a lot of good. Everyone will get to see you for the lying evasive weasel that you are.
I don't deserve the treatment you're dishing out. I have been upfront with you this whole time, and I even answered your questions again. Just because you can't wrap your head around this model doesn't mean I'm to blame. You have misplaced anger.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38332  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:30 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't deserve the treatment you're dishing out.
Yes, you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have been upfront with you this whole time, and I even answered your questions again.
Bullshit. You refused to answer my questions until I had bumped them a dozen times. Then you answered 2 out of the 6 questions. Then you answered the rest in a way that contradicted the previously answered ones. Then you retracted your answers by denying you had ever said what you said, and refused to ever try to answer them again.

That is not being upfront at all.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (07-19-2014)
  #38333  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:53 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
If I were you I'd sign up and start a thread this very evening. :yup: You will meet a whole new exciting cast of characters, and who knows? Maybe you'll finally find those scientists who will take this stuff seriously! :D
I really dislike the thought of starting again but I may just to find new people who may bring new life and interest to this discussion. But I will only go in one condition. If you promise that you won't follow me there. :laugh:
I will follow you there and I will ask you the exact same questions you are dishonestly evading now.
You really are trying to spoil things for everyone, aren't you?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #38334  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:55 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Forget the evidence right now
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
We can't "forget" what has never been presented.
It was presented, but without people understanding how he came to this conclusion I'm not being as effective as I could be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
In any event, that's not how science -- or basic logic -- works. First you must provide some evidence if you want your extraordinary claims to be taken seriously. And the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be.

You're expecting people to accept your claims on pure faith.

It is absolutely, positively not the job of the listener to provide evidence for a claim. It is the job of the person making the claim. And no claimant has any business expecting listeners to take his or her claims seriously if they cannot/will not provide evidence for those claims.
I'm not expecting people to accept these claims on faith alone and I never expected the listener to provide evidence for this claim. It's just that his spot on observations are difficult to back up empirically, but it can be done, and it will be done, when people start questioning whether science could actually be mistaken. The theory that the eyes are a sense organ and that we see in delayed time is not conclusive. The evidence makes it appear that it is conclusive, but the evidence is circumstantial and based on inference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
The lesson of history is that the vast majority of extraordinary claims turn out to be false. Therefore, no one has either the obligation or the time to seriously consider every extraordinary and unsupported claim. Especially when the claim, if true, would violate well-established principles and theories.
These are not extraordinary claims. They just seem that way because of the entrenched idea that we have 5 senses. This claim is supported based on his observations and reasoning, which happened to be extremely accurate. Furthermore, this claim regarding the eyes does not violate the laws of physics although it does violate what has been thought to be true. If you want to stick to your beliefs, that's understandable, but sooner or later the truth will come out because we are all truth seekers. More importantly, it wasn't the knowledge that the eyes are not a sense organ that really mattered to my father; it was the knowledge that was hidden behind this hermetic door.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-19-2014 at 03:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #38335  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:00 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.
Bull Shit, Just like any other thread you can post whatever you want, whenever you want, no-one is keeping you from posting anything you want except your own vanity and persecution complex.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #38336  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:09 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Please explain how these traveling photons got somewhere without traveling.
Oh my gosh, how many times am I going to have to repeat this? Why do you say photons got somewhere without traveling? They did travel; they just didn't travel to Earth...
We are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the film (on Earth). Where did they travel to, if not their present location? :chin:
The photons travel to Earth, but this doesn't answer the question as to whether the film is interacting with the light (the distance from the eyes to the object is not the same as the distance that it takes for the photons to travel to Earth) when the lens is focused on said object. There is no contradiction.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38337  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:09 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I think her few remaining interlocutors here should promise NOT to follow peacegirl there. I know I won't. Let her get a fresh start, with reasonable people. :yup: If we go there, we'll just ruin it for everyone. :D
Reply With Quote
  #38338  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:18 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I think her few remaining interlocutors here should promise NOT to follow peacegirl there. I know I won't. Let her get a fresh start, with reasonable people. :yup: If we go there, we'll just ruin it for everyone. :D
If people would promise me that, I would leave here because I need fresh eyes to look at this claim. I know I've overstayed my welcome anyway, so it will be a relief for all of us. :yup:
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38339  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:19 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I think her few remaining interlocutors here should promise NOT to follow peacegirl there. I know I won't. Let her get a fresh start, with reasonable people. :yup: If we go there, we'll just ruin it for everyone. :D

Can we just go to watch, if we don't say anything, till it's absolutely necessary.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #38340  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:25 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I certainly won't post there, and I think Spacemonkey and others should agree to do so as well. I will be content to sit back and watch. :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #38341  
Old 07-19-2014, 03:27 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Also, peacegirl, I think you should employ exactly the same strategy you've employed on message boards for more than a decade. Announce that you have an earth-shattering announcement to make, then never actually announce it when people ask what it is. Reprimand them for being too hasty, then copypasta huge swaths of your father's book in post after post and demand that the people there read every word of it, and not talk back to you until they can recite to you what the "two-sided equation [sic]" is. That strategy has worked well for you in the past; no reason it won't work again. :yup:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-19-2014)
  #38342  
Old 07-19-2014, 04:04 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
We are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the film (on Earth). Where did they travel to, if not their present location? :chin:
The photons travel to Earth...
So the photons from the Sun and now at the camera film are photons that traveled from the Sun to the Earth?

Here then are your present answers. Let me know if you want to flip-flop some more...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Did they get to the film by traveling? [Yes] "The photons travel to Earth..."

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light.

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO they can't leave before the Sun is ignited...

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source? NO Spacemonkey.
So now you have traveling photons from the Sun that leave the Sun when it is first ignited, and then travel the 93 million miles to the camera film on Earth at the speed of light and cannot arrive there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. (This is all what YOU have told ME with YOUR answers above.) And these are supposed to be the same photons that are at the camera film 8min earlier when the Sun is first ignited.

Obviously you have fucked up your answers again, as they are still contradictory. The photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited clearly cannot be photons which travel there from the Sun and don't get there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. So which of your answers do you want to change?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-19-2014)
  #38343  
Old 07-19-2014, 04:13 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The photons travel to Earth, but this doesn't answer the question as to whether the film is interacting with the light (the distance from the eyes to the object is not the same as the distance that it takes for the photons to travel to Earth) when the lens is focused on said object. There is no contradiction.
That in itself is a contradiction, silly. If these photons from the Sun travel to Earth, then the distance from the eyes (on Earth) to the object (the Sun) is exactly the same as the distance they have just traveled.

Sun-to-Earth distance = Earth-to-Sun distance.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-19-2014)
  #38344  
Old 07-19-2014, 04:23 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I think her few remaining interlocutors here should promise NOT to follow peacegirl there. I know I won't. Let her get a fresh start, with reasonable people. :yup: If we go there, we'll just ruin it for everyone. :D
If people would promise me that, I would leave here because I need fresh eyes to look at this claim. I know I've overstayed my welcome anyway, so it will be a relief for all of us. :yup:
Why would you even want to start this whole thing all over again at TalkRat? You know it won't end any differently than your last dozen forums. Different people will still ask you the exact same questions which you can't answer now. You'll just end up convincing a new handful of people that your dad was a crackpot and that you are sadly delusional and compulsively dishonest. Do you really need to keep continually re-enacting this sick roleplay fetish over and over again?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38345  
Old 07-19-2014, 04:29 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Why would you even want to start this whole thing all over again at TalkRat?

While perhaps not for Peacegirl, for everyone else, it would be fun to watch.

Maybe that is Peacegirl's and Lessans whole purpose, to provide some comic relief for everyone.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #38346  
Old 07-19-2014, 04:38 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I need fresh eyes to look at this claim.
Yes, you need fresh eyes to look at these claims, unsullied by the 10+ years of posting the same old, same old, that you have posted before. Maybe someone there will not have any knowledge of science, optics, psychology, reincarnation, human relationships, or any of the topics your father expounded on, and will believe it, sight unseen.

You need to contact some religious fundamentalists to get this "discovery" out.

Have you tried to contact Jimmy Baker?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #38347  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:53 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are rejecting this claim because you can't see how the retina and light could interact when light hasn't reached Earth yet.
We can't see it because you can't explain how that is even possible. You can't explain because it isn't possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm just trying to get you to understand the plausibility of this model. Forget the evidence right now, I can't even get past first base.
The first base is evidence. You can't get past it because you don't have any evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.
Just like you haven't been able to get a word in edgewise here. It is truly a shame that your opportunities to post here have been so severely limited.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Cynthia of Syracuse (07-20-2014), davidm (07-19-2014), Dragar (07-19-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-19-2014)
  #38348  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:03 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Yes, with XVMCLXXVIII posts over three and a half years and more than one million pages views, you haven't gotten a word in edgewise!

:awesome:

You never cease to amaze. :D

BTW, have you figured out yet that your claim (1) that "uncalculable" numbers of photons strike the earth each moment, and your simultaneous claim that (2) few or no photons strike it because of the inverse square law, is, er, a logical contradiction?

Just trying to get you primed for Talk Rational. :yup: I promise I won't post there if you do.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-20-2014), Dragar (07-19-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-19-2014)
  #38349  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:04 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The photons travel to Earth, but this doesn't answer the question as to whether the film is interacting with the light (the distance from the eyes to the object is not the same as the distance that it takes for the photons to travel to Earth) when the lens is focused on said object. There is no contradiction.
That in itself is a contradiction, silly. If these photons from the Sun travel to Earth, then the distance from the eyes (on Earth) to the object (the Sun) is exactly the same as the distance they have just traveled.

Sun-to-Earth distance = Earth-to-Sun distance.
I had an answer for you, but you blew it again. I just noticed you called me dingbat again along with liar and other horrible names. I am sorry Spacemonkey but I need a break from you. If you continue to disregard my request not to call me names, I will not engage with you. What is it you don't get?
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38350  
Old 07-19-2014, 02:05 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Yes, with XVMCLXXVIII posts over three and a half years and more than one million pages views, you haven't gotten a word in edgewise!

:awesome:

You never cease to amaze. :D

BTW, have you figured out yet that your claim (1) that "uncalculable" numbers of photons strike the earth each moment, and your simultaneous claim that (2) few or no photons strike it because of the inverse square law, is, er, a logical contradiction?

Just trying to get you primed for Talk Rational. :yup: I promise I won't post there if you do.
I accept your promise, but maybe my first post will rub everyone the wrong way. I don't want that to happen, so what do you suggest? I will do what you think is the best way to approach this. :)
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 19 (0 members and 19 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 2.68192 seconds with 14 queries