Full reply to TruthIsLife7

[TruthisLife7]

Ben sent everyone on a massive red herring about telepathy. This was the actual part that I wanted him and others to read by Cambridge Scientist Rupert Sheldrake, PhD., who is ANYTHING but sloppy and has quite a bit of peer reviewed research published, including on telepathy (which wasn't my point and I don't have much of an opinion on it since I haven't studied it much). His statements on materialism are what's important to read and they also apply to methodological naturalism....esp.read the ***):

"Materialists believe that the mind is nothing but the brain.This is a theoretical definition (that telepathy, consciousness, etc. can't happen outside the brain) and in science, we're meant to look at evidence. If we look at the evidence, we get a very different picture. Things like telepathy are common. The majority of the population say they've experienced it. So, it happens. There's a lot of evidence, scientific evidence, it happens. So, it's normal, not paranormal. It's only paranormal from the point of view of a particular theory.

******IMPORTANT PART***********
And science isn't committed to particular theories. It doesn't have to adopt the materialistic ideology as its basis. Science is a method of inquiry where we can find out by looking at evidence and constructing hypotheses and understand the world better through proper investigation, not dogma.

One of the problems with research in this area is that because of the taboo, there's virtually no funding for this area, so there's very little research. Now the funding is decided by central scientific committees and they reflect scientific [establishment] prejudices and, and consensus values. It's partly a political question and I think that in a democracy, a certain percentage of science funding should be spent on research that actually interests voters. At the moment, it's all decided by small committees of scientific establishment people and representatives of big business.

Science is not committed to any particular ideology or worldview. It's a method of inquiry. There's a dominant materialism that grew up in the 19th century. It's become part of the culture of science. But, it's really a dogmatic belief system rather than a testable theory. Things that don't fit in with it, the evidence against materialism, like a lot for psychic phenomenon, is simply dismissed or treated as taboo. So, it's really a matter of maintaining a belief system. And that in my opinion is extremely anti-scientific. Science is not about dogma. It's about investigation.

Superstition is really believing something on the basis of a habit, a cultural habit..you are told about it and you go on believing it even in the absence of any evidence. I would say that in some ways the materialistic dogmas of science are a kind of superstition, a belief that anything that doesn't fit into this way of thinking, can't exist. It's a kind of anti-superstition superstition...We need to investigate things on an experimental basis.If a lot of people believe in telepathy for example, maybe it's a superstition, maybe it really happens. The only way to find out is to study the phenomenon and find out whether it happens or not, not to adopt the view that it's a superstition, a prejudice against it and then close off inquiry. That way we learn nothing. We remain trapped in our belief system.

Materialism for example is a metaphysical doctrine. It's says that the only physical reality is matter. Now it doesn't prove that. It says it. It starts from that as an assumption. And with that assumption you investigate what matter does. Anything that doesn't appear to be explicable in terms of matter is regarded as non-existent, as a metaphysical assumption.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frJpThIims8 (the whole interview is quite thought provoking interview.)
**********************

I'm not a proponent of telepathy, more of a skeptic of it for the most part, although some accounts and studies make me wonder a bit. To refuse to listen and read just 10 minutes, esp. something I had said was important regarding materialism, a foundational area of our discussion (the important part came AFTER the telepathy part) is completely anti-rational, putting you on the level of those who mocked Pasteur for claiming that bacteria couldn't possibly kill a human being since they just knew that couldn't be true. That's the level that you are unfortunately consistently operating at, being enslaved by the tyranny of your own lack of knowledge instead of following the evidence where it leads, something that is another way that atheism is diametrically opposed to rational thought. Anyone can dismiss any evidence they like using that technique.

Sheldrake and others have published peer reviewed evidence of telepathy and whether you and I like it or not, it IS EVIDENCE. PERIOD. That is indisputable.

Here are just a couple I found at pubmed in just a couple minutes.
**"Meta-analyses of "ganzfield" studies as well as "card-guessing task" studies provide compelling evidence for the existence of telepathic phenomena." And they add another study to that. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21829287

**"50 participants (29 women and 21 men) were recruited through an employment web site. Of 552 trials, 235 (43%) guesses were hits, significantly above the chance expectation of 25%. Further tests with 5 participants (4 women, 1 man, ages 16 to 29) were videotaped continuously. On the filmed trials, the 64 hits of 137 (47%) were significantly above chance." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16491679

**Evidence for a communal consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724158

**http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733813

and there are some others, even though it's a fairly new field compared to many others and it is indisputable that not much funding has been given to it, esp. from public govt. and establishment sources, which is clearly what Sheldrake was referring to). Again, 1-2 studies doesn't prove something is true. Evaluation, etc. must be done. But, to say there is no evidence for telepathy is simply dishonest.

 

[TruthisLife7]

The only people that think anything was invented with magic are the creationists and last time I check, you are one of those. You are projecting your faults onto Inferno again.

Straw man lying fallacy again. No creationists think anything was invented by magi. Higher intelligence DOES NOT equal magic. FAIL.

When emergence theory actually demonstrates something like kinesins developing WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENCE interfering, or better yet the laws of science, or matter from nothing, or something of that nature, then you don't have ANY strong evidence or even any of the weak inferential evidence that is required for a rational person to make a commitment to anything.

Atheism and certain other groups have suppressed the facts of who pioneered most of the human rights in history and esp. the reasons why, including much of my last post in the debate as well as all the large evidence for the resurrection, creation science, etc. which we will be discussing in the near future. Almost no one in public schools is learning ANY of this due to lawsuits that were often led by atheists.

While there are rare cases of Christians going against science, there are many cases of scientific and historical evidence being suppressed by a number of groups. Atheists have campaigned to deprive students worldwide of the knowledge of what Christianity has done. They have campaigned to remove even simple references to the facts of history and motivations for why many great people and thinkers did what they did. They've denuded history of its references to religion, in courts in America and other countries, in publishing, in media, in journals, etc. They are not the only group that has done this. But, they ARE a major one. Countries that were/are officially atheist have also engaged in the most extreme forms of suppression in all history and atheism was a motivating factor in that.

The fact is that Christians (based on Bible principles) invented most of the basic tools of science and it's major fields. A VERY short overview is here:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

Dr. Gauch Jr, of Cornell, explains that medieval science made incredible progress in the most crucial areas.
"The thirteenth century began with a scientific method that lacked experimental methods and lacked an approach to truth that applied naturally to physical things. It concluded with an essentially complete scientific method with a workable notion of truth. Because of Robert Grosseteste at Oxford, Albertus Magnus at Paris, and other medieval scholars, it was the golden age of scientific method. Never before or since that century have the philosophy and method of science been advanced so greatly." Scientific Method in Practice Hugh G. Gauch Jr. (M.S. in plant Genetics from Cornell University and currently a professor there), Cambridge University Press, pg. 58. (some of this book is available on google books). See Gauch's homepage here: http://www.css.cornell.edu/staff/gauch/index.html

There is MUCH more evidence beyond this.

Atheism and other rivals to Christianity have suppressed this information so much that many people are unaware that Christianity was involved with pioneering science. I have personally met probably 100s who are under the complete delusion that Christianity was 99% if not more the enemy of science when the reverse is the fact of history. This is DIRECTLY due to atheist disinformation campaigns on many levels, as well as some other groups.

You can cherry pick a few cases where religious establishments rejected evidence for a while. But, you can show the same thing with scientific establishments, political establishments, historical establishments, etc. This is a fact of history and I'll list some cases in the next post. Cherry picking is an easy kindergarten level immature tactic. All establishments have made errors.

But, you are ignoring the centuries when it was almost exclusively Christians who were funding progress in science (even though there were MANY other religions and philosophies with power in different places).

Dr. Hannam, Ph.D. in the history of science from Oxford, who is himself an evolutionist, not a creationist, explains:
""¦Christians believe that God created the world and ordained the laws of nature. He is the guarantor of constant and rational laws, such that investigating the world can consequently be a religious duty. It's easy to forget that, until the 19th century, science had almost no practical applications. A religious imperative to study nature provided almost the only reason to bother doing it. It's no surprise that so many scientific pioneers were devout men: Johannes Kepler, Sir Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, Michael Faraday, Georg Mendel, and James Clerk Maxwell, to name just a few." wwwDOTpatheosDOTcom/Resources/,­Additional-Resources/Science-a,­nd-Christianity-Can-Get-On-Bet,­ter-Than-You-Think-James-Hanna,­m-04-14-2011

Dr. Hannam further explains:
"The claim that the Catholic Church had impeded scientific progress, for instance, was a way for Voltaire and his fellow philosophes in ancien régime France to attack the absolutist monarchy. The myth reached its final form with Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). It was, for White, a handy weapon in his struggle to curtail clerical influence at his new foundation of Cornell University."
http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Science-and-Christianity-Can-Get-On-Better-Than-You-Think-James-Hannam-04-14-2011

Atheists these days are propagating the same deceitful myth using every fallacy in the book. Because of them and other groups, more are are ignorant of the fact that is FREQUENTLY documented in history...that Christians , often working directly or indirectly on Bible principles, pioneered most of the foundational principles and branches pioneers of science. Cherry picking and suppression like this is massively deceitful.

Atheism has been significantly involved in the suppression of a universe of facts of its rivals like these (not just Christianity) and using very immoral tactics to do it, tactics that destroy the foundation of rational thought, to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Straw man lying fallacy again. No creationists think anything was invented by magi. Higher intelligence DOES NOT equal magic. FAIL.

Oh yes, I forgot, you like to redefine terms to better suit your position. I know you were trying to argue that a miracle was not the same as magic, but in my book they are interchangeable and until you can explain fully why a miracle is not simply magic, it will remain that way. Also reading the book of genesis it states, god spoke things into existence, which sounds like an incantation to me. So, no, I am not lying nor have I created a straw man. You are the one that relies on redefined terms in order to support your nonsense.

When emergence theory actually demonstrates something like kinesins developing WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENCE interfering, or better yet the laws of science, or matter from nothing, or something of that nature, then you don't have ANY strong evidence or even any of the weak inferential evidence that is required for a rational person to make a commitment to anything.

Again, your ignorance is showing. Perhaps take some time to research studies being conducted in the field of abiogenesis before stating something this ignorant.

And the fact is that Christianity (based on Bible principles) invented most of the basic tools of science and it's major fields. A VERY short overview is here:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

Now this is a logical fallacy, the genetic fallacy to be correct. I have pointed this out to you repeatedly, but it always seems to slip right over your head. The founding of a field of science is unimportant; it is how it is used now. Simply because a Christian discovered any field of science does not make that field of science Christian. Furthermore, the reason any of those fields of science were discovered was that the person was conducting research not because they were a Christian.

 

[australopithecus]

May I remind everyone that this is just a thread so Inferno could post a full reply, it is not the debate thread.

Brian/TruthisLife/Dotoree, unless you have a bloody good reason as to why you're not responding to the official debate thread when you clearly have the time to post walls of text here I suggest you stop. The debate thread is waiting.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Australopithecus,
The reply on the main debate thread is coming very soon...hopefully in the next day or two. Don't worry at all. Those things will be answered as well.
Bryan

 

[TruthisLife7]

Australopithecus,
The reply on the main debate thread is coming very soon...hopefully in the next day or two. Don't worry at all. Those things will be answered as well.

He who is nobody,
You are the one ignoring accurate definitions. I have used dictionary definitions OR peer reviewed sources to show why words in the past differ from now. This is basic linguistics to not slaughter meanings by imposing one culture or times meaning on others. Your methods would basically force there to be no difference in the use of "football" in America and England for example...or many other terms. Your "book" doesn't matter. Accurate definitions do.
I have the researched abiogenesis quite a good deal. Nothing even remotely close to what is necessary has been discovered.
I debunked the genetic fallacy fiction already in the debate and have shown some of the biblical agents/mechanisms already and more will be coming.
Bryan

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

He who is nobody,
You are the one ignoring accurate definitions. I have used dictionary definitions OR peer reviewed sources to show why words in the past differ from now. This is basic linguistics to not slaughter meanings by imposing one culture or times meaning on others. Your methods would basically force there to be no difference in the use of "football" in America and England for example...or many other terms. Your "book" doesn't matter. Accurate definitions do.

magic[/url]"]2 the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature. Compare contagious magic, imitative magic, sympathetic magic.

miracle[/url]"]1 an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

The only real difference I see is that a human preforms one and a magical creature preforms the other. However, what dictionary or peer-reviewed sources do you have that differ from this? In addition, it is hilarious that you think you can talk to me about the changing of language over time, when Inferno and I were the ones to point out to you that you were using race in the wrong context when you were accusing Darwin of being racist. I hope you know that you are only fooling yourself when you act as if you are a linguist on this forum.

I have the researched abiogenesis quite a good deal. Nothing even remotely close to what is necessary has been discovered.

First off, you are wrong, but second, even if you were right that does not mean GodDidIt is a legitimate answer. This is your basic god of the gaps argument right there. I also highly doubt that you knew of any of those 77 articles before I posted a link to them here.

I debunked the genetic fallacy fiction already in the debate and have shown some of the biblical agents/mechanisms already and more will be coming.
Bryan

First off, how did you debunk the genetic fallacy, do you even know what a genetic fallacy is? I might have missed it, but nowhere that I have read have you come close to debunking any fallacy. From what I can see, you are the only one making the fallacies in the first place.

 

[australopithecus]

I don't recalling asking you to stop posting. I was telling you. If you have a reply to Inferno then it will be posted in the debate thread, and the next time I see you whining about your personal life and how hard it is for you post formulate timely replies I will direct you here. Speaking of which, you can save at least 30% of your post length by never mentioning your personal life ever, because no one cares. Think of that as constructive criticism if it helps the message sink in.

Also, can we all stop giving him a reason to ingore the debate so he can post here. If needs be I will lock the thread until the debate is over.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I don't recalling asking you to stop posting. I was telling you. If you have a reply to Inferno then it will be posted in the debate thread, and the next time I see you whining about your personal life and how hard it is for you post formulate timely replies I will direct you here. Speaking of which, you can save at least 30% of your post length by never mentioning your personal life ever, because no one cares. Think of that as constructive criticism if it helps the message sink in.

Also, can we all stop giving him a reason to ingore the debate so he can post here. If needs be I will lock the thread until the debate is over.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought Inferno ended the debate with this:

Inferno[/url]"]----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In any case, I just drew a line. There's absolutely no arguing with you because even after I prove something to you beyond the shadow of a doubt, you still spout the same crap over and over again. (To name just two examples: My position on Methodological Naturalism and Eye Witness Testimony.) You are incapable of reason and rational thought, you're too arrogant to consider you might be wrong and your debating style is the worst I've yet to encounter. Seriously, I was peeved about 10k words but 60k? Are you kidding me? That's what Gnug rightly called a Gish Gallop, a huge pile of dung. I'm not here to get preached at, I'm here to discuss one idea in a concise manner.
I can do that, you can't. Think about that.

Good luck with whatever you choose to do, consider getting an education.

 

[australopithecus]

Dotoree still ha to post his closing reply, until that's done in the debate thread the debate is still open.

 

[Inferno]

So apparently there's only one thing worth responding to...

Dotoree/TruthIsLife7/Bryan:
You repeatedly accuse me of being "wrong" and "immoral" for posting those PM's. You've got a pretty low threshold for things that are "wrong" that you don't yourself keep, but whatever.

The PM you posted was from 2011, very nearly a year ago and from a rather different situation. This time, I asked you twice and you blatantly ignored me. I asked for a simple "Yes or No" and I got a huge jerkfest of nonsense in response. In fact, the only response you gave me that had anything to do with my question was this:

Hi Ben,
Don't worry, this will be part of my reply in public, but with more documentation to show explicitly how atheist arguments shatter the concept of following the evidence where it leads and use double standards. So, you'll be able to quote from that.

warblewarble

I've underlined the important parts. The first underlined part suggests that since you will use the same material, though not necessarily the same presentation, in your public reply, it's OK to quote. That's what the "don't worry" suggested to me.

The second underlined part suggests the very same: "You're allowed to quote from that" [PM]. That's what I understood those lines to mean, because anything else is just so convoluted...

If the above had meant "No, you're not allowed to quote from this PM", then it would have to be interpreted like this:
Underlined bit 1: "You don't have to quote it now, because I will reply in more than two months, which will leave everyone to wonder just why Inferno suggests we continue this "debate" in the debate thread yet suggests we end the debate in this second thread."

Underlined bit 2: "I'm giving you permission to quote from a public text that you're allowed to quote from anyway. You're welcome."

Do you see what crazy mental gymnastics one has to do just to arrive at your point of view? Let me repeat what I said at the beginning of this post: "I asked you twice" about whether or not I could use the PM's, both of them were fairly unambiguous:

Hello Bryan

Would you grant me the right to reproduce this PM either in part or in full?

Thanks
Ben

Hi Bryan

...

In any case, I ask again: May I, yes or no, quote what you wrote a few days ago?

Cheers
Ben

If, after two very unambiguous and precise questions, you were still not able to give me a straight answer, then you wouldn't have been capable after a third time.

In fact, I had every right to post that PM and stand by it.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

Atheist criticisms of the Bible and resurrection are quite similar to those of holocaust deniers like the one below, since the Bible has MUCH physical and logical evidence + eyewitnesses from many different backgrounds corroborating many of its claims. AFTER evaluation, it is a VERY strong claim, since no alternative can explain all the evidence we have as well as the resurrection being real.

"AS DOCUMENTARY 'PROOFS' for the mass murder of the European Jews fall by the wayside, Holocaust historians depend increasingly on "eyewitness" testimonies to support their theories. Many of these testimonies are ludicrously unreliable. History is filled with stories of masses of people claiming to be eyewitnesses to everything from witchcraft to flying saucers.

You know i'm very tempted to call this out as a reductio ad hitlerum except of course we're not dealing with Hitler, we're dealing with Bradley R. Smith. Who is enough of a crackpot Neo-nazi so maybe the name of that logical fallacy still counts. It really is quite funny. In the paragraph before the quote Dotoree cites, rambles on about the volume of documentary evidence. Unfortunately for Bradley, despite his protestations there is a large volume of documentary evidence for the Holocaust and anyone who doubts that can go spend a little time reading through the "Holocaustcontroversies" blog which is a fine resource for debunking Holocaust deniers, such as Bradley and CODOH and all their ilk (And this post is most relevant). Historians know that an indivudial eyewitness report can be "off colour" (shall we say) especially when an eyewitness is forced to recall something 40-50-60 years after they experienced the event (That long time can and does exaggerate things) which is why we need at the very least two things in relaton to this post:

1) For there to be enough multiple eyewitnesses so that "general truths" can be settled upon in where a great to overwhelming majority appear to agree on a certain something (One has to weigh potential biases as well [for example you have to ask if there is a paticular reason why someone said what they said or not])

2) you need those "general truths" to be in agreement with the documentary evidence available, which as a flipside will show especially with regards to documents relating to policy the extent of what was being practiced and ultimately the extent of what was going on. if your documents do not agree with your eyewitness you've selected to use/quote from. You obviously have a real problem on your hands. Personally i generally prioritise documentary evidence first before eyewitnesses, unless my research would indicate a mass eyewitness disagreement with what i have. If that's the case than obviously it's something that should warrant further investigation.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

In addition, it is hilarious that you think you can talk to me about the changing of language over time, when Inferno and I were the ones to point out to you that you were using race in the wrong context when you were accusing Darwin of being racist. I hope you know that you are only fooling yourself when you act as if you are a linguist on this forum.

Damm i missed that, otherwise i would have contributed a bit :lol:

I think You probably already know what i would have said

 

[TruthisLife7]

Ben,
I'm working on a summary of the most important lines and areas of evidence since you seem not to be interested in an in depth, fair or objective discussion following the weight of evidence (which is what I have come to expect from most atheists) and have already used many fallacies to try to discredit fully legitimate evidence of the most important kind. But I have had some other issues and so many people, friends atheists contacting me asking questions, some very open minded and willing to follow evidence that is legitimate by any academic standard and a couple have become Christians due to the evidence I've shared and more are very interested.

Pragmatic evidence is BY FAR THE very most important type of evidence, since as even thunderfoot says about science, it is for pragmatic reasons that we have accepted the methods and processes of science as well as those in many other areas. Those who dismiss pragmatic evidence simply do not care about rational thought or human life very much. You don't get to use double standards and claim that you are still using rational thought. If pragmatic evidence is valid in many other fields, and atheists use it, then you can't be honest or rational and dismiss it when Christians use it. Nearly your whole post was a double standard fallacy as well as others. The reason I started with pragmatic evidence is because it is the most important kind of evidence that directly affects our lives and also because it helps break down irrational prejudice and fallacies that are commonly used against other kinds of evidence. The fact is that without Christianity most of us would just be illiterate serfs/slaves spending our lives to build up some chieftains power dreams. There is 0% chance that we would now be talking on the internet without Judeo/Christianity. ZERO CHANCE. At best it might have been developed centuries or millennia later.
---

Dotoree/TruthIsLife7/Bryan:
You repeatedly accuse me of being "wrong" and "immoral" for posting those PM's. You've got a pretty low threshold for things that are "wrong" that you don't yourself keep, but whatever.

The PM you posted was from 2011, very nearly a year ago and from a rather different situation. This time, I asked you twice and you blatantly ignored me. I asked for a simple "Yes or No" and I got a huge jerkfest of nonsense in response. In fact, the only response you gave me that had anything to do with my question was this:

Hi Ben,
Don't worry, this will be part of my reply in public, but with more documentation to show explicitly how atheist arguments shatter the concept of following the evidence where it leads and use double standards. So, you'll be able to quote from that.

I've underlined the important parts. The first underlined part suggests that since you will use the same material, though not necessarily the same presentation, in your public reply, it's OK to quote. That's what the "don't worry" suggested to me.
----

Your post above is almost totally untrue.
1) You made a promise not to post from friendly emails to public forums without permission. You broke that. You don't seem to remember that I lost $150,000 due to people who broke promises to me...so this is something I don't take lightly at all. But, I DID say it there are many things far more immoral than what you've done, trying to excuse you as much as possible.

2) I have not quoted from your private e-mails in public except for one instance to show you broke your promise...which was required because you broke your promise, which WAS about THIS debate.

3) Nowhere in ANYTHING that I said was there any permission for you to do what you did. I SPECIFICALLY stated that I would post things more fully and with more documentation in the debate thread and "YOU'LL BE ABLE TO QUOTE FROM THAT". "That" can ONLY mean that you can quote/post from the official debate thread post. I would hope that you know the difference between such basic words as "this" and "that" and what they refer to. This was clearly referring to our private conversation. "That" was clearly referring to the public debate.There is no other legitimate way to understand what I said. The don't worry was letting you know that I would be posting some of the private discussion in the public thread, but with more documentation. It had nothing to do with giving permission. There is no legitimate linguistic way to make it seem like it did, esp. considering the other things I said.

There was no convolution of any sort. There was nothing ambiguous. I did not ignore you. PERIOD. You have wasted a lot of time by breaking your promise. I forgive you...and it's FAR from the worst mistake ever made . But, it did waste time which you seem to be concerned about and I am.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

But I have had some other issues and so many people, friends atheists contacting me asking questions, some very open minded and willing to follow evidence that is legitimate by any academic standard and a couple have become Christians due to the evidence I've shared and more are very interested.

I highly doubt this.

The fact is that without Christianity most of us would just be illiterate serfs/slaves spending our lives to build up some chieftains power dreams. There is 0% chance that we would now be talking on the internet without Judeo/Christianity. ZERO CHANCE. At best it might have been developed centuries or millennia later.

:lol:

There was no convolution of any sort. There was nothing ambiguous. I did not ignore you. PERIOD. You have wasted a lot of time by breaking your promise. I forgive you...and it's FAR from the worst mistake ever made . But, it did waste time which you seem to be concerned about and I am.

:facepalm:

The only person I see wasting time is yourself dotoree. Everything you posted in this thread could have been posted in the debate. Thus, if anyone is wasting time, it is you and not Inferno.

In addition, I will end this post with this:

australopithecus[/url]"]... If you have a reply to Inferno then it will be posted in the debate thread, and the next time I see you whining about your personal life and how hard it is for you post formulate timely replies I will direct you here. Speaking of which, you can save at least 30% of your post length by never mentioning your personal life ever, because no one cares. Think of that as constructive criticism if it helps the message sink in.

 

[australopithecus]

Brian, if you have time to post here then you have time to reply in the debate thread itself. To that end (and I apologise to Inferno) I'm locking this thread.

Inferno has posted in the debate thread, Brian can respond there.