discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrLs

[hung]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Hi my friend Tayopa.
I congratulate you for your intention but I'm sorry to inform that this will lead nowhere.
Skeptics here were not able to understand, much less explain theories regarding the documented videos I presented showing the kind of phenomena that ordinary science still has trouble to cope with, since a lot of paradigms would show and a lot of concepts would have to be rewritten.

So, as you see, it's null. It will become a paradox since the limited data would exclude the elements that are just variables currently.

As for the theory, many of them already have been put to work as we have several long range detectors being used today to find treasure and other elements.

But good luck anyway. You will need a lot of and glasses of water for being up so late at night.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, since Artie hasn't thrown a ton of garden slugs on the topic yet, I'll do me customary "parse everyone off" act by rendering my opinion on what's happened so far and its implications.

I thought Joe's question to be good one, although another forum might have been a better place to flesh out the basic pre-electronic arguments before it was dragged into this forum.

EE's contribution to the matter keeps getting stuck on his decision not to learn anything about biology since he's already got a new fundamentalist theory which because it's fundamentalist needs no evidence. To EE's credit, he does take Joe's question seriously. EE doesn't seem to "get it" that the fact he can Artie a theory doesn't give it the power to play trump against scientists who have actually researched this stuff and published what it was they actually regarded as consensus or otherwise. I wonder if EE reads scientific journals, even Scientific American, not because every article published therein is gospel truth (not that any church ever taught that anyway) but because the principle of peer review by the supposedly well informed on current thinking at least has the advantage demanding that renegades be able to explain what's wrong with the prevailing dogma and then to provide a better explanation. Without that, all nonsense is created equal.

--Dave J. [signed as such because that's the monniker by which I'm known in Lou Gehrig's Disease research]

Dave---

I appreciate your sincerity, but look at this a little more Scientifically.

1. Everything I said in my post was true and verifiable. If you think something there is false, you should say so. That would be more Scientific than merely your opinion, wouldn't it?

2. Let's take a Scientific look at peer review. What, exactly is it's true value? It's basically just many opinions about one opinion, and in the end, adding opinions to opinions results in what?

Take a hypothetical group of people, in a remote area. They all believe that a giant boulder shaped like a skull, rules the Universe in all matters. One day, one of them says so to an outsider. And all of the other tribesmen come around and agree totally with him.

That's peer review.

I gave no theory. Just factual premises and a logical conclusion. If you can come up with a different rational conclusion, I would like to hear it.

A consensus of opinion never overpowers known facts. Neither does faulty logic.

Only facts are worth learning. Opinions, ideas, hunches, and theories, may be interesting, and might even stimulate someone into discovering actual facts about the matter; but they, themselves, are not actually facts until proven to be.

To regard theories as facts, is not only unscientific, but less than sane; and usually leads to the dead-end mentality of obsession.

You have accused me of conjuring up a "theory," when all I did was state known facts. Then you claimed that I don't "get it," and tried to use mere theories as your "proof."

Sorry, Dave, it just doesn't work that way in real Science.

You should know better!

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Dave---

I should add this about peer review.

Proof is different than peer review.

When someone develops a theory, they then devise an experiment which will prove it either right or wrong, in order to know if their theory is true. If their experiment works, then their theory can become known fact.

But a writeup about all this in some journal is not enough for acceptance by the Scientific community. Their experiment must be proven repeatable by others. So, they must publish exactly how their experiment was conducted, to enable others, preferably in different locations, to perform the exact same experiment. If all others get the same results, the results are then referred to as "verified." The more the merrier.

An important part of Science is knowing the difference between ideas, guesswork, hunches, opinions, theories, and real, actual, proven knowledge.

So, if someone wants to talk Science, they should be Scientific about it, right?

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Dave---

In addition, peer review is generally used to gather opinion as to whether something is worthy of being referred to as a viable theory, which would be worthy of further investigation.

If a person is going to read Scientific journals, he should know how to read them, because otherwise, they just might not be saying what the person thinks they are saying.

...Just sayin'....

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

sigh, such a fixation on lrl's.

We commonly see with our eyes, but how do we see and just what is it that we are seeing? Hint photons.

Don Jose de La mancha

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

sigh, such a fixation on lrl's.

We commonly see with our eyes, but how do we see and just what is it that we are seeing? Hint photons.

Don Jose de La mancha

Keep going with that. Don't stop now, I'm all ears!

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Bk, k just what do we normally see with and how do we manage to convert it?

what is light in the first place, other than being electro magnetic energy? Why & how do we see different colors?

Do diferent humans actually see the same color ? How can we prove that?

There is an interesing science project studying the relationship between persons that were born blind, but recovered the ability to see later in life. How did their former impressions check with the later ones?

This is the first step in the thread to understanding the possibilty of lrl's theories. It will get much more complex later. When we are through you will defiitely see that lrl's are actually quite fesable, just as fully electrical multi human carrying aircraft are capable of flying around the world indefinitely.

Sceptics get in here.

Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

RDT---

OK, I'll give you a good example.

When I was in high school, a small group of boys and girls would often go to one house after school and hang out for an hour or so, just talking and telling jokes and stuff.

On one of these occasions, I was sitting there watching three people having a conversation about something, and I happened to close my eyes, just to relax, I guess. I wasn't thinking about anything in particular, just sitting there. And I realized that I could see them.

I was kind of shocked, so I told them, and of course they didn't believe me, so I put my hands in front of my eyes, and then a pillow. One guy did the "how many fingers am I holding up," and I didn't need to guess, I could just see all of them, and his hand, and I told him how many fingers, and even caught him not holding up his hand at all. They all still thought it was some kind of trick, and we started talking about something else, and it was never mentioned again.

So, what would all that have to do with eyeballs, impossibly sophisticated video circuitry that can't be found, and photons even?

 

[woof!]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, EE, there's the theory that eyeballs are just hood ornaments. And that if biology never interested you enough to learn a thing or two about it, the resulting lack of knowledge on your own part proves that there is no such thing as biological science.

I've heard a lot of theories in my time, but that one I never ran into until you showed up. Even the so-called "creationists" are 'way ahead of you on this score, they agree with real scientists that the whole thing is complex, no blob of jello! The "blob of jello" theory is a "speak for yourself" theory of mind-brain, it ain't gonna work for anyone else.

EE, since this question of what's actually between your ears seems to be a real "biggie" with you, I recommend that if you want to discuss the matter with other people who know at least a little about it, first pick up a good textbook on the human brain and read the damn thing. If you fear that most biology books are written by neo-Nazis, well, pick one that's not written by neo-Nazis! You don't have to make a career of researching the mind-brain system, several hours of a good textbook on the human brain should be enough for the light bulb go on. Heck, that's less time than you spend some evenings on this forum making arguments that defeat your own purpose! .......The book won't likely tell you how you saw what theoretically you couldn't have seen, since that's not what it's about. But it will at least steer you in the right direction. If you're interested in going there.

After you get interested, you might get curious enough to backtrack to my post on the matter. But if the light bulb goes on so good that no backtracking is necessary, please offer us something better.

--Toto

 

[J__P]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

sigh, such a fixation on lrl's.

We commonly see with our eyes, but how do we see and just what is it that we are seeing? Hint photons.

Don Jose de La mancha

Hi Mr. Don,

I don't normally post here, but you opened a discussion that could be interesing. I have read Marc's notice:

[size=14pt]

MOST IMPORTANTLY​

TreasureNet is about treasure hunting, metal detecting and prospecting. We expect our members to post messages generally related to these main topics. While we do provide some more generic forums, like Favorite Music, the general subject of TreasureNet is treasure, and treasure hunting. Thank you for helping us keep our content on topic.

Since you are discouraging a fixation on LRLs, I must assume you really want to hear an answer about how we see things. In other words, this is not really a discussion about LRLs, but a discussion about the mechanism of seeing, which you will later spin into some far-stretched basis to prove that LRLs really work. I presume this would make it ok to talk about eyeballs instead of LRLs. If this is the case, prepare for a long answer that you are free to skip and ignore if it gets boring.
(skip to bottom to see short answer) --- where it says "****** SKIP HERE FOR THE ANSWER *******"


How we see:
There are two parts of how we see. There is the physical part, and there is a mental part. Physically there is not so much of interest. It is all fairly well-known mechanics from the time photons (or waves for those who insist on wave theory) send energy that passes through a lens and projects an image on a focal sphere in your eye. There are light sensors on this focal sphere which are a little tricky... The central part has more light sensors that give better resolution than the peripheral sensors. But there are some more physical details, such as the part that is called the optic nerve from one eye is actually connected to the opposite side of your brain, so both eyes are wired from the opposite brain hemisphere than where we would think they are connected -- a strange arrangement. For what reason?
But it gets even more tricky... The light sensors and optic nerve are not really a nerve at all. These are brain cells that happen to be sensitive to light. These brain cells pushed forward to become part of a retina during some early pre-birth development. So there is not really a nerve interface, it is a direct connection into the brain. And to further complicate things, there are two basic kinds of light sensors. One group is very sensitive to even small amounts of light, but cannot make a distinction of what light frequency is being detected. These are the sensors on the retina that see in dim and dark scenes. Other light sensors on the retina can see various colors, but these colors must be falling on the sensor fairly strong in order to be detected. Moving on from the lens and light sensors, there is a huge amount of decoding (mental operations) that happen after light images project onto a retina, and even more decoding when from a pair of retinas. Researchers found that there are brain cells that look for lines within the field of vision from the densly packed array of light sensors in your retina. But this is done at the rear of your brain where the so-called optic nerve ends. In fact this area of the brain is one of the largest sensory centers. It seems vision is one of the most important senses we use for survival.

Without detailing all the mechanics, these are some of the vision functions that are handled by brain cells:
A. Stereo vision and depth perception to estimate distances.
B. Identifying scenes seen with the eyes that represent an immediate danger.
C. color vision interpretations to extract more information than could be seen in monochrome.
D. Special decoding to identify lines within the array of retinal pixels.
E. Edge detection functions,
F. Determining that it must be dark because all we see is monochrome.
G. Filling in missing details that don't exist, such as the "blind spot" image that is missing, or other more daring attempts to construct an image you really didn't see.

The list goes on, but these are all physical/mechanical functions performed by brain cells, which sometimes involve very sophisticated processing. We can note that these functions are automatic, and do not require any decision-making or exerting any effort in order for them to happen. Of course none of the brain circuitry which performs these decoding functions is very similar to man-made electronics. There are no raster graphic schemes in these biological chemical-electrical mechanisms. But they seem to do an efficient job which has yet to be matched entirely by a man-made machine.


Then we come to the second part of how we see.
This is where things get interesting. We leave the world of pure physical mechanics and enter the world of mind.
To start, the images that project on our retinas are dumb images. The raw data is only a very large collection data from brain cells which have been stimulated to different degrees by different light intensities. We have only a huge collection of signals carried by a bundle of long, skinny brain cells. By the time they are processed by brain cells at the back of the brain, we arrive at an image (2- dimensional light pattern) which can be compared to the opposing eye's light pattern to perform more mental processing and arrive at a 3-dimensional image. We start with a collection of light impulses from our eye sensors, and end up with a mental idea of a 3-dimensional object which is different than the light patterns that we actually saw. We are not actually seeing an object, we are interpreting images of light that came from the direction of the object to our eyes, to predict what the object is. We are usually good at predicting what the object is, which can be verified by walking to the object and testing it to see if it is indeed what we interpreted it to be when we saw it from a distance. But there are occasions when we make a bad prediction. For example, we could mistake a paper bag blowing across the road for a small dog, then step on the brakes only to find there was no need.

Of course not all people see the same. some people have physical variations in their eyes which will limit or enhance the information they can take in. And there are also qualitative variations. Some people may see colors tinted differently, or may have a better ability to recognize objects in the peripheral areas as others. In some cases, a deficiency in vision could cause corrective actions in the processing part of the brain which allows for more precise interpretations to compensate for the deficiency.

But what we see goes even farther than the optics and decoding of images. After we identify an object in our field of view, we make some further mental assessments to determine what does the object mean, and how to react to it. If the vision poses some kind of threat, then we determine a threat is in front of us, and we start to initiate protective measures which are decided by a different part of the brain. If not a threat, we may try to categorize the vision and decide how to deal with it. This all happens in a split second. After that moment passes, we will have decided one of the following things:
A. Threat: take protective action
B. Important situation for right now: take action to deal with important situation - This could be anything from an important business contact, to reading an interesting book.
C. Interesting thing for later: remember for future reference because priorities don't allow time now
D. unimportant: ignore as part of the scenery

The list could be expanded, but the point is the mental operations after the image is decoded include evaluating the object which was interpreted, and making a value decision for that object.
This is a lot of processing that is very sophisticated. How much money would a geek spend to build an equivalent robotic apparatus that does all of these things, including artificial intelligence on par with the level of discernment a human makes? Could a geek build a machine that could compete with a human at quickly recognizing visual patterns and dealing with them in real time at the speeds we do?

We remember that seeing allows us to determine some basic knowledge about an object like shape, color, brightness, distance etc. But wait.... those brain cells didn't spontaneously decide to give us all this information. Those cells were trained to give us this information... way back when we were less than a year old. We learned to see things by trial and error until we got it right. The same optic brain cells could just as easily have been taught to give us useless information about distance, color, danger etc. What we see physically is some light patterns that mean nothing until we learn ways to interpret them. After we learn to interpret what different light patterns mean, then we know what we are seeing, And the more experience we get in doing this, then the better we can see, with fewer occurrences of seeing something that we had figured out wrong. But even with these basic principles working, we should not forget that the majority of what we learn about seeing things is learned when we are less than a year old. The things we learn about how to see are not logical or scientific. We learn things that work and things that don't work. For example, a little kid sees a bright orange/yellow flame and feels his hand getting too hot by the fireplace, and he learns that real bright orange/yellow is bad. Maybe he will learn later it is not always bad, or maybe he won't learn that. Each person is different. But after years of learning, most people arrive at a similar experience and ability to interpret what they see.


****** SKIP HERE FOR THE ANSWER *******

So to answer your question of how do we see?
We see a collection of signals from brain cells which were stimulated by some light coming from our field of view.
We interpret these signals into light patterns if our eyes are in good condition. But these are useless images unless we apply further brain interpretation and experiential knowledge which comes from mind functions to these light patterns before we actually see something other than nonsensical images. My feeling is that even with perfectly working eyes, a person does not see anything until his mind is working to determine what these images mean. Then he could say he saw something. Otherwise you would see an endless series of light patterns that mean nothing and never will. Much like people who have tinnitus and hear an endless hissing in their ears that will never mean anything. They eventually conclude they are not hearing a real sound at all, and ignore it. I could probably show you some pretty dramatic illustrations to convince you about the importance of optical interpretations to define seeing if you were interested.


So there is one possible answer to your question.
Did I prove LRLs work?


Best wishes, Mr. Don.
J_P

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, EE, there's the theory that eyeballs are just hood ornaments. And that if biology never interested you enough to learn a thing or two about it, the resulting lack of knowledge on your own part proves that there is no such thing as biological science.

I've heard a lot of theories in my time, but that one I never ran into until you showed up. Even the so-called "creationists" are 'way ahead of you on this score, they agree with real scientists that the whole thing is complex, no blob of jello! The "blob of jello" theory is a "speak for yourself" theory of mind-brain, it ain't gonna work for anyone else.

EE, since this question of what's actually between your ears seems to be a real "biggie" with you, I recommend that if you want to discuss the matter with other people who know at least a little about it, first pick up a good textbook on the human brain and read the damn thing. If you fear that most biology books are written by neo-Nazis, well, pick one that's not written by neo-Nazis! You don't have to make a career of researching the mind-brain system, several hours of a good textbook on the human brain should be enough for the light bulb go on. Heck, that's less time than you spend some evenings on this forum making arguments that defeat your own purpose! .......The book won't likely tell you how you saw what theoretically you couldn't have seen, since that's not what it's about. But it will at least steer you in the right direction. If you're interested in going there.

After you get interested, you might get curious enough to backtrack to my post on the matter. But if the light bulb goes on so good that no backtracking is necessary, please offer us something better.

--Toto

woofie---

Once again, you have tried to form conclusions based on false premises. I have studied biology, and it's all very interesting. Have you found all that "complex scanning circuitry" yet? Didn't think so!

And I have not proffered any "theories." I have merely posted my answers to questions asked, from personal experience. And related some anecdotal examples from the past.

You are mistaking me for someone, like the LRLers, who continually insist that others believe them. I have no interest in convincing anyone to believe me. Why should I?

You are the one who continually insists that others believe your ideas, guesses, and hunches. And that is absolutely all they are, because there is in no way enough scientific evidence to support an actual "theory," by definition.

Your nasty attitude towards others, for not "believing" your unsupported ideas, puts you near the same class as the LRL manufacturers. The only difference is that they know they are full of BS, and apparently you don't. The reason I use the term BS, is because that's what it's called when you insist that others believe you.

It seems that you have such a strong desire to be seen as an "authority" on matters, that you feel damaged whenever anything different is mentioned, even though there is no proof anywhere of what you claim to be true. How would that possibly benefit you, though? Especially just here on this forum?

Anyway, I hope that you don't refer to yourself as a "Scientist." Because, as I have had to indicate before, you are not. Because you have such a disregard for the Scientific Method.

Enjoy life, have fun, and quit worrying about stuff like always being right.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, EE, there's the theory that eyeballs are just hood ornaments. And that if biology never interested you enough to learn a thing or two about it, the resulting lack of knowledge on your own part proves that there is no such thing as biological science.

I've heard a lot of theories in my time, but that one I never ran into until you showed up. Even the so-called "creationists" are 'way ahead of you on this score, they agree with real scientists that the whole thing is complex, no blob of jello! The "blob of jello" theory is a "speak for yourself" theory of mind-brain, it ain't gonna work for anyone else.

EE, since this question of what's actually between your ears seems to be a real "biggie" with you, I recommend that if you want to discuss the matter with other people who know at least a little about it, first pick up a good textbook on the human brain and read the damn thing. If you fear that most biology books are written by neo-Nazis, well, pick one that's not written by neo-Nazis! You don't have to make a career of researching the mind-brain system, several hours of a good textbook on the human brain should be enough for the light bulb go on. Heck, that's less time than you spend some evenings on this forum making arguments that defeat your own purpose! .......The book won't likely tell you how you saw what theoretically you couldn't have seen, since that's not what it's about. But it will at least steer you in the right direction. If you're interested in going there.

After you get interested, you might get curious enough to backtrack to my post on the matter. But if the light bulb goes on so good that no backtracking is necessary, please offer us something better.

--Toto

Nice post, Your Dogginess.

Here is a little chart I like to use to demonstrate. Of course, since EE has admitted to being "Mindless" already....he will flunk the test out of hand.


Look at the Chart and say the Color not the Word.

Big J---

What was your purpose in posting that?

 

[woof!]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

woofie---

Once again, you have tried to form conclusions based on false premises. I have studied biology, and it's all very interesting. Have you found all that "complex scanning circuitry" yet? Didn't think so!

You are the one who continually insists that others believe your ideas, guesses, and hunches. And that is absolutely all they are, because there is in no way enough scientific evidence to support an actual "theory," by definition.
:

EE, the "scanning circuitry problem" is something YOU invented. To my knowledge nobody else on the planet ever thought they needed to prove that the eye isn't a television.

I recommended and continue to recommend that you READ A BOOK of your choice to inform yourself of the basics of brain biology. If you don't have several hours to do that, J_P posted a good 5-minute intro.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

woofie---

woofie---

Once again, you have tried to form conclusions based on false premises. I have studied biology, and it's all very interesting. Have you found all that "complex scanning circuitry" yet? Didn't think so!

You are the one who continually insists that others believe your ideas, guesses, and hunches. And that is absolutely all they are, because there is in no way enough scientific evidence to support an actual "theory," by definition.

EE, the "scanning circuitry problem" is something YOU invented. To my knowledge nobody else on the planet ever thought they needed to prove that the eye isn't a television.

I recommended and continue to recommend that you READ A BOOK of your choice to inform yourself of the basics of brain biology. If you don't have several hours to do that, J_P posted a good 5-minute intro.

--Toto

You are right, and I was mistaken.

I was the one who originated the "scanning" example in a previous discussion.

Here is what you did say, however---

The eye is a sophisticated active image processing system which greatly reduces the bandwidth needed by the optic nerve and the visual cortex.

The neuron network behind the retina does a bunch of image compression. It's lossy, but efficient.

Have you, or has anyone, ever seen all this supposed circuitry? Or the waveforms of all this supposed "active image processing" and "...bunch of image compression," for instance on a scope, or any other way?

Didn't think so!

Yet you continue to spew out this drivel, as though it were all proven fact.

Then you have the nerve to insult people who don't agree that you are an "authority" on all this, and insist the I read the books which contained the ideas, guesses, hunches, and opinions on which you want to base your authoritative statements; in hopes that I, too, will become a "believer" and you can shine as the guru of guesswork.

For someone who keeps referring to Science, you make a very sad case.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.






P.S. Something cannot be both lossy and efficient at the same time. It is self-contradictory.

 

[woof!]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

EE, if you don't like what I said, at least find out what other people say. You can start by reading J_P's post. If you get interested in the subject matter, you can Google and even go to a bricks & mortar bookstore and buy books. My complaint is not that you don't "believe me", my complaint is that you're the person in the discussion who has manifested no knowledge of the subject matter (other than the discovery that the eye isn't a television after all) and yet you expect to be taken seriously despite your refusal to spend a little time coming up to speed.

If you are certain that something cannot be both lossy and efficient at the same time, then descriptions of the human vision system will completely baffle you. If the subject matter baffles you, it'll make attempting to become informed about it a bit of a waste.

Back to J_P's post. In 5 minutes you can discover whether or not human vision is subject matter you're cut out for. Quick 5-minute screening test. Let us know how it comes out.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

EE, if you don't like what I said, at least find out what other people say. You can start by reading J_P's post. If you get interested in the subject matter, you can Google and even go to a bricks & mortar bookstore and buy books. My complaint is not that you don't "believe me", my complaint is that you're the person in the discussion who has manifested no knowledge of the subject matter (other than the discovery that the eye isn't a television after all) and yet you expect to be taken seriously despite your refusal to spend a little time coming up to speed.

If you are certain that something cannot be both lossy and efficient at the same time, then descriptions of the human vision system will completely baffle you. If the subject matter baffles you, it'll make attempting to become informed about it a bit of a waste.

Back to J_P's post. In 5 minutes you can discover whether or not human vision is subject matter you're cut out for. Quick 5-minute screening test. Let us know how it comes out.

--Toto

I hope you meant to say effective, rather than efficient, and simply don't know the meaning of those words. Otherwise you don't know what you are doing.

Apparently you have trouble reading, also, because I already told you that your assumption that I haven't studied biology was false. Do you know what that means? (Hint: "False" means "not true.")

And you assume that I didn't read the post to which you referred. Which is also false.

Also, you still want me to read your recommended book, even though you know that whatever you got from it, that you continue to use to try to validate your false statements, was unproven, and you are now fully aware of that.

In addition to all that, you are still trying to insist that I agree with your opinions. 'Cause you done some o' that there book readin'. Don't matter none if them books are only unproven o-pin-yuns.

One thing that real Science is consistant about, is it's Standards.

It seems that the only thing that you are consistant about is insisting that people believe in false assumptions.

Not only is that not true Science, but you are certainly no Scientist.

Lets see if you understand this: I'm not impressed.

 

[woof!]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, did you choke on J_P's post, or not?

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, did you choke on J_P's post, or not?

--Toto

Go bite yourself.

 

[EE THr]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

Well, did you choke on J_P's post, or not?

--Toto

Go bite yourself.

JP's post takes some known data, and mixes it with ideas, guesses, and hunches. Then takes the sum total and presents it as factual.

Are you two related?

Probably not, because he does, and I give him credit for it, state in some parts that it is only his views.

If you were half as smart as you like to infer that you are, you would understand that the poor logic you are trying to use is invalid. It's as simple as that.

Why are you so worried that your view of things won't be believed by others? What does it matter to you?

Obviously, I'm even less impressed that I was before.

 

[woof!]

Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's

In other words you choked on J_P's post.

--Toto