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?
It's unnecessary.
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.
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?
You put up another theory and I'll tear it to shreds.
Sigh. You haven't been paying attention, have you?
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.
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.
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:
1. I am not disagreeing with your conclusions about Gan. You might be right, or wrong. I don't particularly care.
2. I *am* objecting to your approach of presenting your own theory as undeniable truth, without admitting that it inherently rests on supposition, and without admitting that the supposition is based on a body of information that has multiple valid starting points for analysis.
steve
-
Steve Kilbane