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

[EE THr]

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

You're doing the same thing the LRL promoters do---insult anyone who doesn't fall in line with your ideas.

Another case of insisting that others "believe" your opinions.

You have a compulsion for that. My question to you is "Why?" You supposedly have so much "high level knowledge," you should know the answer to that, right?

Logically, there is no benefit to you whatsoever, in convincing me that your ideas are facts. Yet you continue to do so. Why does someone put so much energy into something, for no resultant value for himself or others? In other words, you have nothing to gain from doing so. Therefore you are putting forth all this concentrated effort, for nothing!

That's totally illogical.

So, Why?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[woof!]

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

EE, nobody else around here seems obsessed with me. So what's with you? It's kinda creepy.

--Toto

 

[fenixdigger]

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

Don't sweat it Woof. Probably just infatuation. You know how kids and electricians are.

 

[EE THr]

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

EE, nobody else around here seems obsessed with me. So what's with you? It's kinda creepy.

--Toto

You are right!

Obsession is creepy!

However, you are the one who continues to try and convince me of the benefits of accepting your notions, after I indicated, several times, that I'm not interested.

So you are right, but you've got it backwards.

Just as you've got the concept of Science backwards.

I wonder what other facets of your life are backwards? Are you a Crisco fan?

 

[woof!]

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

EE, I've recommended that you inform yourself through books, Google; or J_P's post if you've only got 5 minutes. Judy even gave you a demo of what J_P was talking about. You act as though I somehow control all that content in a vast plot to deceive you personally. Heck, I don't even moderate the Tnet LRL forum!

J_P's post was pretty easy reading for almost anyone of scientific bent. You did read it, but got nowhere with it. That's a good indication that the subject of human visual perception just ain't for you. Books and Google would waste your time.

Therefore, I hereby withdraw my recommendation that you attempt to become informed on this subject.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

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

EE, I've recommended that you inform yourself through books, Google; or J_P's post if you've only got 5 minutes. Judy even gave you a demo of what J_P was talking about. You act as though I somehow control all that content in a vast plot to deceive you personally. Heck, I don't even moderate the Tnet LRL forum!

J_P's post was pretty easy reading for almost anyone of scientific bent. You did read it, but got nowhere with it. That's a good indication that the subject of human visual perception just ain't for you. Books and Google would waste your time.

Therefore, I hereby withdraw my recommendation that you attempt to become informed on this subject.

--Toto

You're still trying to insult people who don't buy your ideas. Why do you have such a strong need to convince others to "believe" your opinions? Apparently you just can't stop yourself from engaging in that behavior, either. That is so sad.

 

[woof!]

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

Books.... Google.... J_P's post...... That vast array of content that you couldn't read in a lifetime even if you wanted to, you call all that my ideas? Woof has a monopoly on the world's supply of information on physiological psychology, particularly human visual perception? I control what pops up on Google searches? I choose the books that are recommended when you visit Amazon? I actually ghostwrote all that content so no matter what you click on or what you check out of the library, it's my ideas? I'm not God, EE, I'm just another guy who posts on the LRL forum. Strange obsession you've got. Creepy.

I have already withdrawn my recommendation that you bother trying to learn about this subject. From anyone. Of course you'll do whatever you want, just like other folks here do.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

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

Books.... Google.... J_P's post...... That vast array of content that you couldn't read in a lifetime even if you wanted to, you call all that my ideas? Woof has a monopoly on the world's supply of information on physiological psychology, particularly human visual perception? I control what pops up on Google searches? I choose the books that are recommended when you visit Amazon? I actually ghostwrote all that content so no matter what you click on or what you check out of the library, it's my ideas? I'm not God, EE, I'm just another guy who posts on the LRL forum. Strange obsession you've got. Creepy.

I have already withdrawn my recommendation that you bother trying to learn about this subject. From anyone. Of course you'll do whatever you want, just like other folks here do.

--Toto

I like to read factual data. The theories are interesting, but it's not Scientific for you to claim them to be proven facts, and that's what you are doing.

If it is your opinion that they are true, then that opinion is your idea. You don't need to originate the concepts to somehow get the idea that those opinions are true. That's your idea, that opinions are facts. And whose fault is that?

And once again---

You're still trying to insult people who don't buy your ideas. Why do you have such a strong need to convince others to "believe" your opinions? Apparently you just can't stop yourself from engaging in that behavior, either. That is so sad.

 

[woof!]

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

Well, jeez, EE, if you want "factual data"......... it's not within my power to stop you from finding it. I'm not God, I'm just another guy who posts on the LRL forum.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

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

Well, jeez, EE, if you want "factual data"......... it's not within my power to stop you from finding it. I'm not God, I'm just another guy who posts on the LRL forum.

--Toto

I said that only in response to your inference that I don't like to read biology.

 

[woof!]

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

Well, jeez, EE, if you want "factual data"......... it's not within my power to stop you from finding it. I'm not God, I'm just another guy who posts on the LRL forum.

--Toto

I said that only in response to your inference that I don't like to read biology.

I said that about all "factual data" of any kind whatsoever. The "factual data" problem you want solved is nobody's responsibility but your own; and in the end it's not even within anyone else's power one way or the other, but your own.

* * * * * * *

In your posts you constantly get into very demanding "factual data" and "proof" trips. You may have noticed that I ain't much into that, I don't share your obsession with "proven facts". If something were to snap between my ears causing me to go down the "only proven facts" road, I'd suddenly become the most useless engineer my boss ever had on the payroll. His problem wouldn't last for long, though, he'd quickly make the problem entirely mine.

Or to put it another way, if that had been my attitude 5-6 years ago, I'd have agreed with the MDA that "there is no proven cure for ALS"; and failing to reason through what that statement actually means, I'd have gone to the grave telling my friends and family to make their donations to the MDA.

If you want hard facts proof of stuff that prove whatever it is to you, I ain't your guy. That is your responsibility and yours only. Nobody else can do it for you.

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

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

Well, jeez, EE, if you want "factual data"......... it's not within my power to stop you from finding it. I'm not God, I'm just another guy who posts on the LRL forum.

--Toto

I said that only in response to your inference that I don't like to read biology.

I said that about all "factual data" of any kind whatsoever. The "factual data" problem you want solved is nobody's responsibility but your own; and in the end it's not even within anyone else's power one way or the other, but your own.

* * * * * * *

In your posts you constantly get into very demanding "factual data" and "proof" trips. You may have noticed that I ain't much into that, I don't share your obsession with "proven facts". If something were to snap between my ears causing me to go down the "only proven facts" road, I'd suddenly become the most useless engineer my boss ever had on the payroll. His problem wouldn't last for long, though, he'd quickly make the problem entirely mine.

Or to put it another way, if that had been my attitude 5-6 years ago, I'd have agreed with the MDA that "there is no proven cure for ALS"; and failing to reason through what that statement actually means, I'd have gone to the grave telling my friends and family to make their donations to the MDA.

If you want hard facts proof of stuff that prove whatever it is to you, I ain't your guy. That is your responsibility and yours only. Nobody else can do it for you.

--Toto

woofie---

Your imagined idea that I asked you to provide me with reading material is all your own fiction. Nowhere did I even infer that.

What I did do, however, is point out to you that there is a difference between ideas, guesswork, hunches, opinions; and facts.

All the rest of your rant is totally your contrivance.

I have not "constantly" demanded factual data and proof. What I did do, was, when you made false claims, ask for your proven Scientific evidence. That only occurred a couple of times, because the rest of my replies were to point out that those alleged "proofs" you tried to provide, were merely opinionary. And I also had to explain to you the difference between actual facts and the opinions in which you are so well versed and you so verbosely proffer as actual Scientific facts.

Your comments about creativity, however, I agree with.

You should calm down, and maybe take up a hobby that you can share with others. It will help you relax, and get along better. Try candy making. Then you can get one of your "buddies" to stir your fudge for you, just the way you like it.

 

[woof!]

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

"Proven scientific evidence". EE, nobody can do that for you, only you can do it. Since nobody else can do it for you, why decide I'm the guy whose job it is? I never promised you any such thing, and as you've rather consistently found out, I don't try very hard to deliver it anyhow. I'm not God, I'm just another guy who posts on the LRL forum.

Judy, Real..... c'mon, can't ya at least post a popcorn during intermission?

--Toto

 

[EE THr]

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

"Proven scientific evidence". EE, nobody can do that for you, only you can do it. Since nobody else can do it for you, why decide I'm the guy whose job it is? I never promised you any such thing, and as you've rather consistently found out, I don't try very hard to deliver it anyhow. I'm not God, I'm just another guy who posts on the LRL forum.

Judy, Real..... c'mon, can't ya at least post a popcorn during intermission?

--Toto

Where did I say you promised me anything? Your imagination is approaching that of hung-up's.

I merely asked for your proof, of your bogus claims. If you make the claim, you are the one whose responsibility it is to back it up. If you can't, then your claims are baseless. Like yours were. Oh well.

Don't make the claim if you can't take the blame.

You didn't complain any when you were posting all those opinions, and tried to pass them off as proven facts. So why are you whining about it now, after the fact? And trying to change the story around, at that?

You're starting to go into nonsense mode, dude. Get a grip!

 

[woof!]

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

How many times have I demanded of you that you prove your bogus claims, which have been in abundance in your recent posts in this thread? Here's a procedure for answering the question.

1. Make a list of each of your bogus claims. Don't be easy on yourself.

2. Identify which ones I demanded that you provide proof for.

3. The ones I demanded proof for, indicate if you provided the proof.

4. Of those, indicate if I agreed that you'd proven it.

Then ponder deeply the numbers, have a can of brew, wad the paper up, and throw it in the waste basket.

--Toto

 

[woof!]

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

K, for starters just how do we see ? what are we seeing?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Does anyone remember this? I thought it was an interesting question, and not irrelevant to LRL's either.

--Dave J.

 

[EE THr]

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

How many times have I demanded of you that you prove your bogus claims, which have been in abundance in your recent posts in this thread? Here's a procedure for answering the question.

1. Make a list of each of your bogus claims. Don't be easy on yourself.

2. Identify which ones I demanded that you provide proof for.

3. The ones I demanded proof for, indicate if you provided the proof.

4. Of those, indicate if I agreed that you'd proven it.

Then ponder deeply the numbers, have a can of brew, wad the paper up, and throw it in the waste basket.

--Toto

I've only stated my opinions or my experiences.

I have never insisted that others "believe" either of them.

1. Number of claims I have made, either true or bogus: 0.
2. N/A
3. N/A
4. N/A

Time required to ponder: 0.

Watching you go off the deep end: Priceless.

 

[EE THr]

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

K, for starters just how do we see ? what are we seeing?

Don Jose de La Mancha

Does anyone remember this? I thought it was an interesting question, and not irrelevant to LRL's either.

--Dave J.

I agree.

 

[Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp]

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

Geeze gentlemen: we haven't even started and already the sabres are out. For starters in this case. our brain is what we actually see with. It is eternally picking up minute energy waves and establishing a way for us - to be hypersimplistic - to perceive things. In light of this, yes, both woofer and EE are correct, but looking at the 'same' process differently.

One through the normal acceptance of visuality, the other through mental acceptance. Electronically, we might suggest a radio receiving the wanted signal via the built in antennae or an external one.

As go along we will get involved with both, the one and the same. Whether our brain receives this information through our eyes or "so called mentally", is really of no importance in the final analysis, as we shall hopefully develop.

Grammar, terminology, and punctuation are not critical for our purposes, so please do not use them in their selves, as a basis for a remark. Use them in their 'intended' context. We are here to learn, not to be simply one up on each other.

La Judy's little test is an extremely interesting one. Think on it for a while.

Remember in here we are not too interested in 'canned' responses, but yours, your free thinking. the most valuable trait that you have.


Don Jose de La Mancha

 

[EE THr]

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

RDT---

Theorizing is good, but you've got to stop from time-to-time and prove what you've got so far, otherwise you can end up in hung-up land.

No?