'Myth' vs 'Science' (Part Deux), page 2

reply to post by scraze

(Re prior post)

Is there a point floating around somewhere in there?

(or have you fallen in love with the 'quote' feature?)

Btw, all the while I'm just trying to talk about your behaviour, not about what you're saying - although I have said some things about your statements, and I shouldn't have. I said I disagreed with most things but didn't reply - but I'm referring to the way you have been making most of your points. I strongly disagree with the way in which you choose to make your points. Although I may have insulted you with words as 'blabbering', I do not mean that you're speaking false truths - I mean blabbering as in ranting, going on and on. Again, it is about the behaviour, not about the content.

Dude, it's all GOOD. (Read: There ain't NOTHING you could say that would offend me.

I'm willing to speak about the content - I'm willing to hear what you have to say about 'science' and Absurdists. But first I need to know why you chose to go the way you went, e.g. what you think the thread was about and what you think your posts added to the conservation - what I've got so far is that you thought the thread was about the book itself, and simply stated some things about the content. As you see, I haven't got a clear idea.

Dude... How many laps is that?

Guy, you might want to quit while you're ahead.

This is only the beginning of Science. We are going to go back and fix EVERYTHING that is broken.

And we are certainly NOT going to use SHALLOW MATERIALISM.

So please help me out by clearly answering this question. Of course you can say you have done it already, but I'd like to get some confirmation and just a clear view of your intentions.

I don't know... ah... Get things RIGHT?

PS. Sofi, I gotta tell ya man... You are doing the words 'Revisionist History' proud!

(golem wipes a tear away from his eye)

You go man!

(And yes... STILL not answering you.

)

[edit on 3-6-2009 by golemina]