Mandela Effect - Kidney Proof - Internal Organs Changed Position

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: TerryDon79

So, you don't know if it's real, yet dismiss all evidence that is contrary to it being real.

There is no such evidence that says the ME isn't real.

I never said there was. Try reading it again.

Derp.

You attack and ridicule anyone who says it isn't real.

Aw poor little Terry. And you didnt do any ridiculing yourself?

Nope. Show me where I call people names and where I'm insulting.

You act like it is a real thing.

I act like it could be a real thing.

With zero evidence that it's even possible.

Yeah. Obvious troll is obvious.

Yet you are constantly in these Skunk Works threads, intended for speculative theories that can't be corrroborated, demanding proof.

I don't demand proof. I counter arguments with proof of the scientific alternative. Funny how many ME threads have got "proof" in the title, yet no proof is ever given.

So who is the troll here?

That would still be you.

I find that I have identified with almost all of the changes you highlight. I very specifically remember the kidnesy being where you stated they were originally, adn also I very clearly recall the location of the pulse in the wrist - it was a deep shock to my mind when I checked and found that there is now no pulse in the location where I used to find it.

This stuff is truly staggering. I'm not sure what's causing the Mandela Effect (is it a real phenomenon with acttual changes physically occurring?), or whether the changes are not genuine & this is all some 'great delusion' (ergo, the memories are false, changes have only occurred in our memories/ minds..)

Whatever it is, this is a powerful & strange anthropological/ psychological effect, and I would sure like to clarify the root cause, in terms of gaining understanding on the matter..!!

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

Terry, the above is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. I responded less than a page ago that I had retracted that statement completely because it was easier than explaining how it was a fair analogy, and in fact I explained at least 5 times previously what I really meant, which as far as I know, he has never really acknowledged or responded to.

You made an incorrect statement but did not admit to this and obviously you still don't.

Why did you "retract" it again? Because you admit it was a wrong BS statement? No? Because it was easier than explaining it was acually a fair analogy you say?

It wasn't a fair analogy, It was a bs statement.

I'll use MSR (Max Standard Reply) #1: I wasn't talking to you.


Wow, now I see why you do it. That was super easy!

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Greggers

I saw all your replies on the matter. He clearly either didn't understand or straight up ignored it. And I also saw your posts about retracting it.

Not sure if he reads everything or just skims. Either way, his replies are 90% out of context. 1% relevancy (maybe). The other 9% are just insults.

I'm not sure he even has an opinion on ME. All I ever see him talk about are his mysterious protocols and strange inability to comprehend intent, context or relevancy.

I'm not sure he realizes that such tactics completely undermine the veracity of whatever his actual arguments might be, if he has any.

For any of you who might have a serious interest in the misinformation effect identified by the research of Elizabeth Loftus, I'm going to share a couple of links.

I'm going to flat out ask Max not to read this or respond to it. To do so violates my protocols, so please don't.

In any case, the first link shows a very simple drawing illustrating how memories are essentially read/write (as opposed to read) and how accessing them VIA THE PATH SHOWN can corrupt them (which by the way was the basic argument I was making earlier).



All those bizarre counter arguments where Max claimed I said that a memory accessed more often was more likely to be compromised were merely his own misunderstanding (likely) or intent to troll (more likely).

And here is another link to the Wikipedia article detailing the effect.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Greggers

I'm glad you requested max not to read it. It's to do with science. He probably wouldn't understand it and just call it a fake argument (or something similar).

a reply to: TerryDon79

I never said there was. Try reading it again.

So you agree there is no evidence that says the ME isn't real? So what was your point again?

What did you intend to say with this then,

So, you don't know if it's real, yet dismiss all evidence that is contrary to it being real.

?

Nope. Show me where I call people names and where I'm insulting.

I said ridiculing.

With zero evidence that it's even possible.

This is the Skunks Works forum, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I don't demand proof.

Oh please, you keep pointing out that there is no proof.(or evidence).

Funny how many ME threads have got "proof" in the title, yet no proof is ever given.

Did I write such a tiltle?

That would still be you.

Sure, troll.

a reply to: Greggers

I wasn't talking to you.

You were talking about me.

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

Everything you just posted shows that
A, you don't know how to read
Or
B, you just enjoy taking things way out of context.

Please don't reply to me again. It will be against my personal posting protocols.

Anyone else notice these folks just want to talk to each other and bury anyone else who discusses it? They bury it with pages of BS no one wants to read, that is a tactic. It is being used here.

a reply to: Greggers

All those bizarre counter arguments where Max claimed I said that a memory accessed more often was more likely to be compromised were merely his own misunderstanding (likely) or intent to troll (more likely).

No it wasn't my misunderstanding, it is what you said, literally. But since it was a fair analogy, according to you, you should be able to qoute the passage from that Wiki page that comes close to it.

a reply to: TerryDon79

A, you don't know how to read Or B, you just enjoy taking things way out of context.

It's literally what you said.

Please don't reply to me again

Get on your knees.

Text

It will be against my personal posting protocols.

Can you outline them?

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

I thought I said replying to me was against my personal posting protocols?

As for the "it's literally what you said". Um, no, it wasn't literally what I said. It was your (bad) interpretation of what I typed. Not like I should expect anything else from you. You can't read basic sentences either.

Derp.

a reply to: TerryDon79

But I am not contesting the science of how memory works.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I thought I said replying to me was against my personal posting protocols?

Crap in one hand, wish in the other, see which one fills up first.

As for the "it's literally what you said". Um, no, it wasn't literally what I said. It was your (bad) interpretation of what I typed. Not like I should expect anything else from you. You can't read basic sentences either.

I also asked what you did mean to say, if not that. For some reason you didn't respond to that.

Worried about Pearj. No no threads on Mandela Effect?

a reply to: TheMaxHeadroomIncident

Then why do you choose to ignore it then and assume the Mandela effect?.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

I wasn't talking to you.

You were talking about me.

MSR#2: Out of context.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: TerryDon79

A, you don't know how to read Or B, you just enjoy taking things way out of context.

It's literally what you said.

Please don't reply to me again

Get on your knees.

Text

It will be against my personal posting protocols.

Can you outline them?

Man, you keep violating those protocols.

originally posted by: TheMaxHeadroomIncident
a reply to: Greggers

All those bizarre counter arguments where Max claimed I said that a memory accessed more often was more likely to be compromised were merely his own misunderstanding (likely) or intent to troll (more likely).

No it wasn't my misunderstanding, it is what you said, literally. But since it was a fair analogy, according to you, you should be able to qoute the passage from that Wiki page that comes close to it.

MSR#3: You're violating my protocols. I wasn't talking to you.