Great forum but can you just ban me please.

tomorrow.

funny, you must of felt that comment pertained to you for reasons. which is why you responded to it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. There is thought, held by some, that quite intensive remarks - with critical connotations - that are ostensibly about others may actually be projections of ones own perceived weaknesses. My mirror reference was an indirect query as to whether that might be true in this case. I was just fishing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(psssst - you just posted pathetic nonsense/argumentative shit.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(shakes head) elementary.
you are attempting to start an argument with me with your presumed flawed intellect.
which is why you're commenting on it.

 

no problem. i understand most of what i post is far advance for you(shrugs).

 

there's reasons why both of you responded to my comment.

 

More argumentative shit! Good for you. You perpetuate that which you rail against. I'm sure you can't see that, though (shrugs.)

 

what ever you need to tell yourself, feeling offended piss-ant.
agian,
no problem. i understand most of what i post is far advance for you(shrugs).

 

I have no wish or need to start an argument with you. I thought your comments were tending towards the trite, not especially relevant and their motivation was obscure. That is why I commented. I paid you the compliment of assuming you could interpret a modestly subtle metaphor.

The impression you are creating is that you are the one who wishes to start an argument. Oh, look! You are projecting your motives and emotions on to others again. Interesting.

 

You just keep posting content-free personal attacks! That will really show people what you're made of. Next make sure to claim that your superior intellect just can't be understood by all the lesser people on the forum. Remember to make a few spelling and grammar mistakes to prove how superior you are.

 

hilarious, both of you still attempting to get your arguing fix.
pathetic.
was all that suppose to mean something on a piss-ant level ?

 

I don't believe you

I'm only a student , but I'm sure my professors could start an argument.

Please make posts more enlighten.

 

From his view or the mirror's.
Do mirrors reflect time?

 

I am struggling to understand this sights rules, they are seemingly contradictory.
I agree with science and offer a better explanation video by using cgi of white light to sciences own specifics of light in the appropriate section and that gets put into Psuedo defining my agreement and the present information to be Psuedo.

I had a thread and good conversation from Psuedo put into the bin. I and the people who replied were having a good discussion.

I had people agree that passive dark space exists behind the light and that one went into the bin.

I have seen several garbage posts in the forum that get left alone.

My feed back is the site is very contradictory .

 

You cite no specific rules which demonstrate tension of values let alone contradiction. Since you present no specific claim, the credibility of this claim is the same as your other unevidenced claims.

How can you propose something "better" without disagreeing with it? "Better" in science means your explanation has a more precise or just-as-accurate-but-more-general description of the behavior of nature than 1970's quantum electrodynamics and the 1931 study of average human color perception and certainly better than Newton's 1704 Opticks. Instead you seemed to deny the results of observation. So your self-assessment of "better" was not similar to that of your readers, including the moderation team.

As above, these are not examples of the rules of this website seeming contradictory, but of your self-judgment not aligning with the standards others hold you to. In any specific case, the forum rules require that you discuss the matter PRIVATELY with the moderation team via PM.

This may be an example of your judgment not aligning with the judgment of others or a case of moderators fatigued in part by your actions unable to catch everything. Since you present no specific claim, the credibility of this claim is the same as your other unevidenced claims.

As contradictory as you spelling the abbreviation of website as both "sight" and "site" in the same post? I think the only contradiction being seen is called the patience of the moderators. Because they act as judge, jury and executioner, they move slowly to avoid charges of unfair tyranny. You are unhappy that they judge you at all -- we are unhappy that they don't nuke all your posts. Since both parties are unhappy, it is proof of the fairness of moderation.

 

It seems that there are quite a few things that you struggle to understand.

That is really odd since this morning you wrote: "I know science is clueless to its own information and what the information speaks."

No, you offered and inane, poorly thought out conjecture that is absurd.

It was a terrible thread. You would make bat-shit crazy claims and people would tell you why you were wrong and you would say something to the effect of, "nuh-uh".

People simply said when light does not enter your eye you do not see light. That might be an interesting discussion between a couple of 5 year olds, but not here.

I do not think you are not a good judge of what is garbage and what is not.

That, I agree with.

 

More site feedback - members are allowed to discriminate other members on their educational background and standards they achieved.

 

Nobody is discriminating against you based on any educational background... hell, nobody KNEW any educational background about you until you decided to spout it (with a healthy dose of random drivel as well). They/we are frustrated by your consistent refusal to accept proven fact.

 

I don't see that claim is supported by independent evidence or argument.

Most importantly, you are not being unfairly prejudged by any aspect of your status or even those parts of your status you claim to share. You are being fairly judged, however, by your behavior, especially those parts of it which are incompatible with the advancement of knowledge.

You are being judged for your fixation on topics on which you are demonstrably ignorant and where you have paved over that ignorance with stories you made up. You are being judged on your willingness to embrace your unreliable made-up stories and definitions over those that come from science -- the great advancement of human knowledge over the past 350 years. If you inability to bring commonly taught scientific background to apply to simple questions is a result of ignorance resulting from your educational background and lack of relevant success, it is the former that is being criticized as being no basis for you to invent stories without factual basis, not the latter.

You are also being judged for your lack of engagement in honest intellectual exchange. You claim to be beaten and seek advice. You then dismiss advice on the basis of made up stories without basis in fact. You then change your position on whether you need advice in contrary to all input. Do you see how such patterns of behavior make you the bad guy in a community that values truth and rational argument?

 

Other members may consider me an absolute retard. But what the heck are you trying to say - the internet you can gain knowledge from, not heckle people - I think it would be nice if you can explain your motives.