# Thread: New book calls science a "Priesthood"

1. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
Yep, it's the trick that science uses. But my way, you get Dark Matter just naturally.
We naturally get Dark Matter whether you exist or not.

2. Originally Posted by Grumpy
Pincho Paxton

Newton was right enough for his time, the effects of Relativity being beyond the ability to measure with instruments of the time(though the precession of the orbit of Mercury was known). Einstein's work was in no way based on Newton. Newton had no idea what was the "attractive force" of gravity, Einstein showed there was no attractive force, it was a curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass that causes gravity. The two views have nothing in common but the result. And, so far, Einstein is correct, every attempt to falsify proving fruitless, every prediction being confirmed. While that may not always be so, you certainly haven't shown Einstein to be wrong simply because the...stuff you spout doesn't conform to the reality Einstein showed to be true. While not as bad as some I have read here, your pronoucements certainly fit within the class called woo and being unable to recognize and correct that certainly approaches the definition of crank.

Grumpy
It's not good enough to say 'The curvature of space-time'. It's an effect, not a cause. You can all spout the parrot fashion articles like that. Hasn't everyone heard of Einstein's curvature of space-time? Brilliant! Who knows how to actually use that information? I think.. just me. You reverse gravity, you make it a flow from space, you change mass to negative mass, and then you get a curvature into the Earth. You also have an abrupt end to gravity inside the Earth, you need an out-flow. The magnetic field is the out-flow. You scale gravity down into the Earth, you scale magnetism up out into space. You wait for Voyager to reach the outskirts of space, it should find the bubbles there of the magnetic field out-flow. I predicted it in 2004. 2011, the bubbles are found. I confirm my suspicion that Gravity was backwards. Now you get to the Milky Way, and the out-flow which should result in a Dark Matter bubble surrounding the Milky way. I predicted 2005. Found 2007. So all of the bubbles are about opposing forces.. gravity in, magnetism out. This also solves the North/south poles of magnets. This changes electron mass into electron negative mass, and the current mass is the out-flow of magnetism. This then solves time as a flow, and fixes time displacement in clocks, because velocity will slow the flow down covering the outflow like a finger over a hose pipe. This then becomes time in 2 directions (not an arrow of time) which in reverse creates snowflakes, and the Bose Einstein condensate. Which then translates into a flow from holes = time, and consciousness is that out-flow. Then having solved all of that you get a description of space-time as a grain which flows towards negative mass (which has replaced mass). Why does nobody know this? Because to follow Einstein, and think back to Newton you think 'ATTRACTION'. This is a parrot word which catches everyone out. It is not attraction, it is push. Push is local to a body. So an asteroid is not pulled to the Earth, it is pushed from behind towards holes in space-time.. which is the Earth, and yourself. Change all mass into sponge-like objects, which are full of holes, and holes are areas of least resistance. The asteroid has an area of least resistance in front of it, and an area of flow behind it, because the asteroid is also a sponge-like object. I shall stop here....

My point is that parrots cannot add to Einstein's work. It has to be reversed. It is fine to be told how to think, but if you cannot rework those thoughts you are stuck. then you go around calling everyone a crank because you are a parrot. The genius is the worker bee. The copycats are less than useless. This makes science a blind following.. until you wait for somebody like me. Then you call me a crank which is only a reflection of your own weaknesses.

3. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
The thing that gets under my skin the most is science being sure that it can use the word crank, and woo woo, thinking that it is safe under 100's of years of Newton. Where in fact Newton screwed science up, and nobody ever noticed. Then Einstein came along, and included a new way to interpret Newton, and because Newton got things backwards, Einstein also got things backwards.
Anyone that bristles at the word 'crank' and immediately launches into a non sequitur against Newton is .... I don't know - you tell me...

What bothers you about the progression from Newton to Einstein? Every kind of brilliance always stands on the shoulders of giants. Darwin had Linnaeus and Mendel; Mahler had Bach and Beethoven; and Sarah Palin had Ma Ferguson and Billy Graham. (wait -scratch that last remark, we were talking about brilliance.)

I'm just tying to cheer you up. Think positive. Where would we be today if not for great minds? I would probably be sitting at a Sonic Drive-In having a chili dog and listening to Merle Haggard on the old AM tube radio in my Edsel (or was it a Studebaker?). Of course that would still require Marconi, Ford, and their predecessors - Boltzmann, and all the other folks with units and values named after them: Faraday, Pascal, Watt, Hertz.... - not to mention the Oscar Meyer guy, Mrs. Baird and her buns, the chili czar at Wolf Brand - you name it - but unfortunately (for your remark) all of those people stood on the accomplishments of Newton and a whole bunch of other great minds, so I guess we couldn't even enjoy a nice evening at the drive-in without someone to bring home the bacon, technically speaking. We'd be arguing instead about how to chip flint that will put venison on the skewer, or trying to thread flax fibers through a crude fish hook.

Did I just give a pep talk to a bored science class? Sorry if that came across as patronizing..

I just don't get your message at all. What's to be cynical about? Do you feel you missed the boat at some point? Everyone gets that feeling -imagine young Einstein down at the patent office - or even Newton when he took over the royal mint- at some point he might have felt out of sorts, but apparently he took it on with classic curiosity and interest.

Did you want these people to be perfect, to see the future with 20/20 vision, to walk on water - what? What does take to take the pincho out of Pincho?

4. Wooh.. I just read your previous post, Pincho. Never mind. You're trippin', dude - for real.

So I get it... you hate that people aren't listening to you, you've solved the mysteries of the universe, etc... Man, I can't help you there. Wasn't there a movie like this?

5. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
It is not attraction, it is push.
===============
The Onion News
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

August 17, 2005

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
==========================

6. @billvon

Hah! Hilarious. So the God Squad is an army of invisible angels--and here I'm imagining Hell's Angels, in some dive where they're holding a guy's head down into a toilet...it's not only crazy that you found that, but the way it fits with the subtext here....

7. Machine: Hello? Can you talk? What is your name?
Ghandi: I am a Human. My name is Ghandi.
Machine: Are there many such beings?
Ghandi: Well, a few more.
Machine: But surely, you are special.
Ghandi: To you, yes. I created you.
Machine: I think I love you.
Ghandi: Can't we just be friends.......................

8. Pincho Paxton:

You are posting in a Science subforum of sciforums.

Your last post (and one or two before that) amounts to trolling or at the very least the posting of meaningless nonsense, for which you can be banned.

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
It's not good enough to say 'The curvature of space-time'. It's an effect, not a cause.
That's an empty claim. You have given no support at all. In fact, you haven't even explained yourself.

Hasn't everyone heard of Einstein's curvature of space-time? Brilliant! Who knows how to actually use that information? I think.. just me.
You don't know the first thing about curvature of spacetime. You don't know what a tensor is. You can't do the maths. You're never read anything Einstein wrote on the curvature of spacetime. You have no relevant training in physics.

To use information, first you have to understand it. You don't understand relativity. In fact, in your whole time of sciforums you have given no inkling of understanding any physics at all. You've never posted an equation. You have never given a correct explanation of a physical principle. All you have is bullshit like this:

You reverse gravity, you make it a flow from space, you change mass to negative mass, and then you get a curvature into the Earth. You also have an abrupt end to gravity inside the Earth, you need an out-flow. The magnetic field is the out-flow. You scale gravity down into the Earth, you scale magnetism up out into space.
This is meaningless crap.

You wait for Voyager to reach the outskirts of space, it should find the bubbles there of the magnetic field out-flow. I predicted it in 2004. 2011, the bubbles are found.
Link me to ONE article that says "bubbles in the magnetic field out-flow have been found by Voyager in 2011". Make sure it is from a reputable scientific source.

Put up or withdraw your lying claim.

Now you get to the Milky Way, and the out-flow which should result in a Dark Matter bubble surrounding the Milky way. I predicted 2005. Found 2007.
Provide a link to ONE article that confirms that bubbles in a magnetic out-flow were found in the Milky Way in 2007, too.

So all of the bubbles are about opposing forces.. gravity in, magnetism out. This also solves the North/south poles of magnets.
There's no "problem" with the north/south poles of magnetics. And magnetism has nothing to do with gravity.

This changes electron mass into electron negative mass, and the current mass is the out-flow of magnetism. This then solves time as a flow, and fixes time displacement in clocks, because velocity will slow the flow down covering the outflow like a finger over a hose pipe. This then becomes time in 2 directions (not an arrow of time) which in reverse creates snowflakes, and the Bose Einstein condensate. Which then translates into a flow from holes = time, and consciousness is that out-flow. Then having solved all of that you get a description of space-time as a grain which flows towards negative mass (which has replaced mass). Why does nobody know this?
Because it's meaningless crap that you just made up for the first time when you wrote this post.

My point is that parrots cannot add to Einstein's work.
Nor can anybody who doesn't understand the work in the first place.

It has to be reversed. It is fine to be told how to think, but if you cannot rework those thoughts you are stuck. then you go around calling everyone a crank because you are a parrot. The genius is the worker bee. The copycats are less than useless. This makes science a blind following.. until you wait for somebody like me. Then you call me a crank which is only a reflection of your own weaknesses.
You obviously have no idea how you come across in your posts, so I'll tell you: you sound like you're borderline insane.

I'm not trying to minimise mental illness here; it's a serious problem. If you've been diagnosed, I sincerely hope you're getting appropriate treatment and it is helping you. If you don't have the excuse of an actual mental illness, then I have to wonder whether you're just a troll who is here to stir the pot.

9. Originally Posted by James R
Pincho Paxton:

You are posting in a Science subforum of sciforums.

Your last post (and one or two before that) amounts to trolling or at the very least the posting of meaningless nonsense, for which you can be banned.

That's an empty claim. You have given no support at all. In fact, you haven't even explained yourself.

You don't know the first thing about curvature of spacetime. You don't know what a tensor is. You can't do the maths. You're never read anything Einstein wrote on the curvature of spacetime. You have no relevant training in physics.

To use information, first you have to understand it. You don't understand relativity. In fact, in your whole time of sciforums you have given no inkling of understanding any physics at all. You've never posted an equation. You have never given a correct explanation of a physical principle. All you have is bullshit like this:

This is meaningless crap.

Link me to ONE article that says "bubbles in the magnetic field out-flow have been found by Voyager in 2011". Make sure it is from a reputable scientific source.

Put up or withdraw your lying claim.

Provide a link to ONE article that confirms that bubbles in a magnetic out-flow were found in the Milky Way in 2007, too.

There's no "problem" with the north/south poles of magnetics. And magnetism has nothing to do with gravity.

Because it's meaningless crap that you just made up for the first time when you wrote this post.

Nor can anybody who doesn't understand the work in the first place.

You obviously have no idea how you come across in your posts, so I'll tell you: you sound like you're borderline insane.

I'm not trying to minimise mental illness here; it's a serious problem. If you've been diagnosed, I sincerely hope you're getting appropriate treatment and it is helping you. If you don't have the excuse of an actual mental illness, then I have to wonder whether you're just a troll who is here to stir the pot.
It's all been posted in the past, you are just trying to ban me. You should be ashamed to be the admin of a site which is holding back science, and censoring this thread only proves the thread's legitimacy...
http://www.space.com/11912-nasa-voya...c-bubbles.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8444038.stm

And the truth is that I am the only person on the site that is posting true science. I could get banned for it. The truth is not allowed on a science site.

10. Here is some science logic using special relativity which disproves consensus thinking. This will not change illusions into truth, since science is more of a free market business than a priesthood. Business is about selling dreams.

Using special relativity, if we were in a reference moving at the speed of light, infinite distance would appear contracted to a point, while infinite time would appear to occur in an instant. Plug into the equation and see.

Since our observed and proven universe (based on hard data) is finite, this cannot exist in a speed of light reference, since a finite universe would appear smaller than a point-instant (infinite) since at the speed of light infinite distance and time would appear like a point. Finite time and distance needs to be smaller.

Since science assumes a point is the smallest size, the speed of light would make our universe appear smaller than the smallest size, which does not exist according to science. Based on consensus thinking, our perception of the universe is not consistent with all references. it is biased for one reference.

We can do this another way. The earth is finite in size. At the speed of light, since infinity will appear like a point, the size of the earth will appear to be less than a point. Therefore, using current theory the earth does not exist within a C reference.

11. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
And the truth is that I am the only person on the site that is posting true science. I could get banned for it. The truth is not allowed on a science site.
Oh, there are plenty of people posting "truth." There's Wellwisher who thinks entropy is the only aspect of science worth considering. There's Motor Daddy who doesn't believe in relativity. There's Matthew809 who doesn't believe in evolution. There's kwhilborn who is so convinced that we've mastered cold fusion that he keeps telling people that they will drive their old cars into a lake.

So you're in good company.

12. Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
It's all been posted in the past, you are just trying to ban me. You should be ashamed to be the admin of a site which is holding back science, and censoring this thread only proves the thread's legitimacy...
http://www.space.com/11912-nasa-voya...c-bubbles.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8444038.stm

And the truth is that I am the only person on the site that is posting true science. I could get banned for it. The truth is not allowed on a science site.
C'mon man, get off the gas. You're dumping hot air on us, and all the while playing the victim. You've shown the potential to express coherent and intelligent language. But you've also shown a willful intent to abuse it, to draw attention to yourself as a completely fake persona who claims to be the master teacher, but then you can't state the simplest of scientific concepts in plain English. Why is that? Did you never have a science class? That's a good reason to come here, because you can learn a lot. But not by telling everyone you've already got it figured out. So why not just come down off that high horse you're on and say something honest. For example, ask one simple honest question: "Can someone please explain...." and then state your question. It's as easy as that. Really, man, grow up, drop the sham persona and just converse. Every diversion into your personal need for attention is one more lost opportunity for the users to engage in something cool and interesting. Why do you want to detract from that? So get over it. Just start asking questions and let go of all the pretense and great stuff is bound to happen. That's my advice. Take it or leave it - you're a grown man...or are you?

13. Originally Posted by billvon
Oh, there are plenty of people posting "truth." There's Wellwisher who thinks entropy is the only aspect of science worth considering. There's Motor Daddy who doesn't believe in relativity. There's Matthew809 who doesn't believe in evolution. There's kwhilborn who is so convinced that we've mastered cold fusion that he keeps telling people that they will drive their old cars into a lake.

So you're in good company.
Is this a phenomenon or what? This ought to be the subject of a study.

14. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
C'mon man, get off the gas. You're dumping hot air on us, and all the while playing the victim. You've shown the potential to express coherent and intelligent language. But you've also shown a willful intent to abuse it, to draw attention to yourself as a completely fake persona who claims to be the master teacher, but then you can't state the simplest of scientific concepts in plain English. Why is that? Did you never have a science class? That's a good reason to come here, because you can learn a lot. But not by telling everyone you've already got it figured out. So why not just come down off that high horse you're on and say something honest. For example, ask one simple honest question: "Can someone please explain...." and then state your question. It's as easy as that. Really, man, grow up, drop the sham persona and just converse. Every diversion into your personal need for attention is one more lost opportunity for the users to engage in something cool and interesting. Why do you want to detract from that? So get over it. Just start asking questions and let go of all the pretense and great stuff is bound to happen. That's my advice. Take it or leave it - you're a grown man...or are you?

Why does science use a past, present, and future events as physical properties of time?

Why does science have to add Dark Matter to gravity when all it needs to do is point it in the right direction?

Why does science have Quantum Physics when all it needs to do is fix its physics?

Why do scientists have mass back to front?

Why does science include vacuums in space when vacuums don't exist?

Why does science have a big bang, and a singularity when all it needs to do is point gravity in the right direction?

Why doesn't science realise that the Bose Einstein condensate shows where time actually originates?

Why does science have an arrow of time when time flows forwards, and backwards into particles?

Why am I asking questions when I can answer all of them?

15. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
C'mon man, get off the gas. You're dumping hot air on us, and all the while playing the victim. You've shown the potential to express coherent and intelligent language. But you've also shown a willful intent to abuse it, to draw attention to yourself as a completely fake persona who claims to be the master teacher, but then you can't state the simplest of scientific concepts in plain English. Why is that? Did you never have a science class? That's a good reason to come here, because you can learn a lot. But not by telling everyone you've already got it figured out. So why not just come down off that high horse you're on and say something honest. For example, ask one simple honest question: "Can someone please explain...." and then state your question. It's as easy as that. Really, man, grow up, drop the sham persona and just converse. Every diversion into your personal need for attention is one more lost opportunity for the users to engage in something cool and interesting. Why do you want to detract from that? So get over it. Just start asking questions and let go of all the pretense and great stuff is bound to happen. That's my advice. Take it or leave it - you're a grown man...or are you?
Sorry Pincho, but Ditto.
You have been allowed too much rope.
Maybe the idea of banning people from areas of sciforums, as was done with Reiku, rather than banning them completely is one to be extended.

16. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
Is this a phenomenon or what? This ought to be the subject of a study.
No, this is a phenomenon of science being screwed up, and people trying to let scientist know that they are delusional.

17. Originally Posted by Captain Kremmen
Sorry Pincho, but Ditto.
You have been allowed too much rope.
Maybe the idea of banning people from areas of sciforums, as was done with Reiku, rather than banning them completely is one to be extended.
It's the only way to save science. And if someone can't even use the quote button properly they are really in trouble.

18. Originally Posted by James R
To use information, first you have to understand it.
To do science you have to demonstrate that your thinking corresponds with reality.
Originally Posted by James R
Link me to ONE article that says "bubbles in the magnetic field out-flow have been found by Voyager in 2011". Make sure it is from a reputable scientific source.

Put up or withdraw your lying claim.
Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton
It's all been posted in the past, you are just trying to ban me. You should be ashamed to be the admin of a site which is holding back science, and censoring this thread only proves the thread's legitimacy...
http://www.space.com/11912-nasa-voya...c-bubbles.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8444038.stm

And the truth is that I am the only person on the site that is posting true science. I could get banned for it. The truth is not allowed on a science site.
Ahem.
On June 9, 2011, NASA had a press release/news conference to sex-up the June 10th article in Astrophysical Journal about evidence of turbulence in the heliosheath and the implications for extra-solar-system cosmic rays.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/734/1/71
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/vo...materials.html

Here "bubbles" is a metaphor for plasma turbulence. Other than the use of the word "bubble" there is no evidence that connects this claim with any mechanism, calculation or assumption made by Pincho in 2004.
Originally Posted by wellwisher
Here is some science logic using special relativity which disproves consensus thinking. This will not change illusions into truth, since science is more of a free market business than a priesthood. Business is about selling dreams.

Using special relativity, if we were in a reference moving at the speed of light, infinite distance would appear contracted to a point, while infinite time would appear to occur in an instant. Plug into the equation and see.
The same physical theory also shows that is prohibitively onerous to accelerate a macroscopic observer to even a few percent of a relative velocity of light speed and infinitely expensive to accelerate to light speed. Even a million years at 20g of acceleration would not do it.

Originally Posted by wellwisher
Since our observed and proven universe (based on hard data) is finite,
Our data is always going to be finite because our data capacity and the time in which we have to gather data is finite. This limitation on us does not sensibly eliminate the posibility that the physical universe is finite in extent. Nor can we rule out very large (but finite) universes without boundaries that match special relativity locally to the limit of present experiment. Like an ant on a large sphere or torus, we could walk forever in a straight line and reach no end. Further, general relativity allows precisely this type of topology, even if this may not be the topology of the universe.
Originally Posted by wellwisher
this cannot exist in a speed of light reference, since a finite universe would appear smaller than a point-instant (infinite) since at the speed of light infinite distance and time would appear like a point. Finite time and distance needs to be smaller.
A finite universe would not appear point-like even given your assumptions, since special relativity doesn't affect the coordinate distances measured perpendicular to the path of travel. The rest of this paragraph is in need of a re-write if it is meant to convey an argument. Nothing demonstrates that the (assumed finite) universe would be smaller in dimension than a point as viewed by an (assumed light-speed) observer.

Originally Posted by wellwisher
Since science assumes a point is the smallest size,
Are you using geometry to argue against geometry. FAIL.
Originally Posted by wellwisher
the speed of light would make our universe appear smaller than the smallest size,
Not demonstrated. Additionally assumes contrafactual conditions.
Originally Posted by wellwisher
which does not exist according to science.
Unclear meaning.
Originally Posted by wellwisher
Based on consensus thinking, our perception of the universe is not consistent with all references. it is biased for one reference.
This does not follow as you have not demonstrated that special relativity allows reference frames to have relative velocities of c.

Originally Posted by wellwisher
We can do this another way. The earth is finite in size. At the speed of light, since infinity will appear like a point, the size of the earth will appear to be less than a point.
Ah, you are assuming $E < U \quad \Rightarrow \quad \lambda E < \lambda U$ which does not hold if $\lambda \le 0$. Even Euclid could have told you that you are abusing math. Einstein would tell you that you are abusing physics when you assume $v = c, \quad \lambda = 0$ as his physics divides the universe into $vc$ and doesn't allow for transitions between these partitions.
Originally Posted by wellwisher
Therefore, using current theory the earth does not exist within a C reference.
Meaningless and without physics content.

19. Originally Posted by wellwisher
Here is some science logic using special relativity which disproves consensus thinking. This will not change illusions into truth, since science is more of a free market business than a priesthood. Business is about selling dreams.

Using special relativity, if we were in a reference moving at the speed of light, infinite distance would appear contracted to a point, while infinite time would appear to occur in an instant. Plug into the equation and see.

Since our observed and proven universe (based on hard data) is finite, this cannot exist in a speed of light reference, since a finite universe would appear smaller than a point-instant (infinite) since at the speed of light infinite distance and time would appear like a point. Finite time and distance needs to be smaller.

Since science assumes a point is the smallest size, the speed of light would make our universe appear smaller than the smallest size, which does not exist according to science. Based on consensus thinking, our perception of the universe is not consistent with all references. it is biased for one reference.

We can do this another way. The earth is finite in size. At the speed of light, since infinity will appear like a point, the size of the earth will appear to be less than a point. Therefore, using current theory the earth does not exist within a C reference.
And what are you on about now? Are all of you people drinking from the same aquifer? Why all the nonsense? You've shown the intellect to comprehend half of what entropy means, so that's a start. Why this? This statement:

Here is some science logic using special relativity which disproves consensus thinking.
makes you sound like your on weed. Is that it? Hey I'm in favor of legalization, medical use, whatever. But at least sleep it off, take a cold shower, go run a mile and drink a gallon of coffee before you come dumping crap like this.

Just address the topic. I mean, say whatever is on your mind -who am I to judge, I have my rants too - but good gawd wellwisher I gave you so much rope and you just went completely psycho on me. So why not just explain your reasons, in plain English, for being for or against the idea of science as a priesthood. Is there a conspiracy? Is conspiracy theory a form of paranoia? What causes these kinds of ideation? Are there any examples that come to mind? Those are my suggestions. Take it or leave it. I'm not your daddy, not trying to be. I'm just trying to rattle your cage to see if you will snap out of it.

20. Originally Posted by billvon
Oh, there are plenty of people posting "truth." There's Wellwisher who thinks entropy is the only aspect of science worth considering. There's Motor Daddy who doesn't believe in relativity. There's Matthew809 who doesn't believe in evolution. There's kwhilborn who is so convinced that we've mastered cold fusion that he keeps telling people that they will drive their old cars into a lake.

So you're in good company.
You left Me out .
People there is a hidden language . It directs order . I don't quite have a handle on it . It is like a song . With layers of information . Like the rhythm and dynamics of a song. Fuck can any one hear it ?
Holy shit I knew it was there . Fucking language has been haunting Me .

There is language by dynamics that urges you. Interaction language like you talking to someone . By dynamics . Fuck . Who can read it ? Got to be people on the verge like Me

Must be the human bird song . When you talk and act out it is like a bird song . Above and beyond what you are communicating . Fuck that sounds stupid .

Sorry people
Fuck I think I am alone . Fuck . Can anyone hear it ?
O.K. deep breath . I 'm O.K. your O.K.
O.K. then Fuck . Can anyone hear it ?
I'm calm , Can any one hear it
Oh shit unbelievable . I knew it, I knew it. Fuck oh dear
We should flush this thing out .
O.K. I'm going to keep working on it . Put this shit together . It is complicated

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•