Steve Kilbane wrote:
Jenny wrote:
Steve Kilbane wrote:
Jenny wrote:
I'm not making this up you know. This is no self deluding "IMO"
bullshit..
The pattern's there. Everything fits.
Even assuming that that is the case,
It is the case.
that doesn't mean you're right.
Yes it does.
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 means you have a hypothetical model which fits the facts you've observed.
Yes, Dr Havant.
Which means, what, exactly?
Which means that you are trying to use a very dangerous mind controlling technique on me. 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.
Other models that do not contradict the same evidence are
equally valid.
But there are no others that do this and fit all the "facts."
You can't know that. See Popper, again.
Bollocks to Popper. You put up another theory and I'll tear it to shreds.
Standard scientific approach, diluted somewhat
by individual interpretations of what is a "fact", in a dramatic presentation. :-/
Who do you think writes these stories? Aliens? No, human beings.
Therefore
the stories will, to a great extent, reflect human society.
Which has nothing to do with the processes of logical deduction, or the ability to recognise supposition for what it is, rather than facts.
Ah, so you do believe there are facts to be found then? Listen Steve. I am using a process of logical deduction, what I am coming up with is based entirely on the facts presented in the show.
This conversation with you reminds me greatly of that scene in TWB
with
Dr
Havant.
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. This isn't a logical argument, it has become a personal one.
Note: anyone offering Occam's razor as a tie-breaker also has to offer a mutually agreeable definition of "simplest".
Simplicity is always easy to recognise.
Note "mutually agreeable".
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. And if your are brave enough, put your own Gan theory forward as well. Then we'll see what is "mutually agreeable".
Jenny
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
-
Jenny Kaye