ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve Kilbane wrote:
Sorry, no. Saying it does, doesn't work, either. See Popper.
I have evidence, see my emails, or is that too much trouble for you
as
well?
I've read them. You're wrong.
Which means that you are trying to use a very dangerous mind
controlling
technique on me.
What, asking you to recognise the difference between known facts, supposition, and theories? Or just sticking to the point when you go off on a tangent? Such as this:
And guess what? It's been used on you as well. Now the question is: Does it mean that there is someone, or a group of
someone's,
using mind control techniques on this lyst to condition us? Or does
it
mean
that you have all inadvertently conditioned yourselves? I think it's both.
Next question: Does it mean that there is a very dangerous subtext
contained
in some episodes of B7 which if read incorrectly can have a
conditioning
effect? Or is it a social conditioning mechanism natural to human
beings? I
think it's both.
BTW I am not taking about a conscious conspiracy theory here. In
fact
I'm
not talking about a conspiracy at all. I'm talking about human
nature.
This isn't going off the subject at a tangent. That is the subject.
> But there are no others that do this and fit all the "facts."
You can't know that. See Popper, again.
Bollocks to Popper.
Does that mean you disagree with Popper on verification of theories, or just haven't got a clue what I'm talking about, but don't want to admit
it?
Britannica.com:
"Austrian-born British philosopher (b. July 28, 1902, Vienna, Austria-Hungary--d. Sept. 17, 1994, Croydon, Surrey, England), believed that knowledge--particularly scientific knowledge--evolves from individual experience and cannot be verified through inductive reasoning. Popper postulated that since no one can ever observe and verify all possible evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct, it is necessary only to discover one observed exception to the hypothesis to prove it false."
Have you found an observed exception to my hypothesis, Steve?
You put up another theory and I'll tear it to shreds.
Sigh. You haven't been paying attention, have you?
Ooooh. Handbag again! I always pay attention Steve when someones got something interesting to say.
If you like. It's irrelevant, but you can be reminded of it, if
you
like.
Oh dear. You can't have it both ways you know. It can't be both
relevant
and
irrelevant.
It's not both. What you are reminded of, when I make a point, is
irrevelant
to whether my point is correct. The two are entirely unrelated.
You're wrong again. Not your year is it?
Look Steve if I'm wrong about Gan then there will be a great many
holes
in
my theory. And we'll call it a theory for the moment. Instead of
trying
to
attack my intelligence or my technique, try and attack the theory I
am
putting forward.
"Or technique"? If you stated that you'd worked something out by
reading
tea leaves, the line of reasoning would be understandably called into question.
Oooooooooh. Double handbag! You're the one grasping at straws Steve. Remember, attacking someone's posting style is an admission that you can't attack their argument.
And if your are brave enough, put your own Gan theory forward as well. Then we'll see what is "mutually agreeable".
Like I said, you haven't been paying attention. So I'll be clear:
Why break a habit of a life time?
- I am not disagreeing with your conclusions about Gan.
Good.
Jenny
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.