Political Crossfire Forums

[cap'n queasy]

BOOM

[Tracker]

As the planet vibrates, these reverberations caused by the WOBBLE of Earth (there are two), send out 'heat-waves' in very specific places. By flooding 'chambers' within Earth and inland dry-seabeds, including pumping water back onto poles, the vibrations are controlled, reducing volcanism and earthquakes.

Did you know there were hollow chambers? I'm not talking about 'caves' AT ALL. And I'm not talking about oil-wells pumped dry, either.

We also need UPLIFT THE WATER, and begin reducing MASS, thus gravity itself. We can do this, a 1/9th reduction, within a decade. Instead, Senators TalkAndSpend and perversley examine anatomical differences as their 'priority'. And that is all AssBackAwards priorities, right there, EXACTLY.

[social]

Tracker wrote: Oh, come now, you are all being mean and intentionally argumentative.

Nobody can claim they have not heard the phrase, "school of thought." Well, I just combined it as, "ThoughtSchool." OBVIOUSLY.
Nobody can claim they have not heard the phrase, "think outside the box," either.
And nobody can claim that there are not 'elements' within DISCUSSIONS and ThoughtSchools.

Yes, I'm aware of the meaning of these terms. But the way in which you word your sentences simply does not make sense.

Tracker wrote: Now, let's take a look at this from 'social':

social wrote: I'm sorry, but claiming that all forms of verbal and non-verbal human communication stem from religion and "ultimate-positive HOLOCAUSTS ultimate-negative" (wtf is this?) just doesn't wash. To remark that mathematics and advanced forms of language have denied humans knowledge and forestalled advancement and inhibited thought ignores the sheer advancement that has occured over the past hundred or so years.

Religion is the BATTLE between ultimate-good verses ultimate-bad. Everybody knows this. Assuming you've had a single comparative-religion class, or read a single article about religions. Most have. If you have not, my I apologize for the condescension.

Everybody knows what 'burnt at the stake' means, and that ALL scientists, musicians, philosophers, and government-promoters were HATED and BURNT, ostracized, 'cast-out' ... denied nurture until they STARVED, or recanted their 'wicked ways' and started spouting the approved soundbites, goose-stepping in lock-step like mindless Scheople. Well, people are NONE OF THAT, curiosity, speculation and WONDER being at the very ROOT of the beauty of life itself.

So, you got it TWISTED in the last part of your quote. I said RELIGION HATES SCIENCE and holds it back, as it ALWAYS HAS. And a religious-scientist worships theories and only adds more 'stuff' to wade through in order for others to examine the theory, instead of thinking 'outside the box.'

So, I'm sorry for condescension ... but when CLEAR STATEMENTS are twisted, and OBVIOUS CONNECTIONS overlooked, merely to IGNORE the message and HATE the messenger, I get cranky. So do you. Everybody does. Again, I'm sorry. I'll strive to do BETTER, as I'm sure you all will too.

If I twisted your message, or ignored the obvious connections you've been making, it's because you're not being very clear. But I didn't do this, since you didn't actually make these connections, or state your position, in the first place.

Your original statement:

Quote: All language (words or math or music) stems from what was FIRSTLY provided by religion, "ultimate-positive HOLOCAUSTS ultimate-negative." This is a figurative 'terrible-twos' stage of human development, inhibiting THOUGHT, and thereby DENYING KNOWLEDGE and ADVANCEMENT.

Here it is suggested that all forms of language stem from "ultimate-positive HOLOCAUSTS ultimate-negative", which, incidentally, you have not explained. Nor have you justified what you said regarding religion's tendency to inhibit thought, deny knowledge and advancment; and you've done a poor job of adressing my criticisms.

You act like I've contrived this wicked intepretation of your argument but in actual fact I've merely repeated what you said, if only overstated your aims. I don't think all organised religion stems from "ultimate-positive Holocaust ultimate negative", and I certainly don't beleive all language stems from religion.

Care to elucidate?

[social]

Tracker wrote: social wrote: Are you suggesting we rid of these 'psychological perceptions' and replace them with something else?...The symbols + and = are not just 'interjected.' They are the base foundations of maths, without which mathematics simply would not work...

Nonsense. That is simply NOT TRUE.

An apple and an orange is how many fruits? TWO. I didn't need a 'negative/positive' symbol AT ALL.

And there are many ways in which math is performed without using them. The 'negative/positive' signs are 'psychological representations' of RELIGION, interjected into math. They hinder the mathematician, because it ENTRAPS your entire psychology -- your very REASONING -- into TWO-DIMENSIONALITY. Like 'black/white' or 'good/bad' or 'negative/positive' ... these are the psychological perceptions of RELIGION interjected by RELIGIOUS PEOPLE into SCIENCE.

How can you talk of maths in this way and keep a straight face? The fact that you even support my position with your apple and orange example shows how woefully ill-informed you are.

To demonstrate that you've added something to something else, in a mathemtical equation, you require an abstract symbol that represents such an addition. The fact that an apple and a orange makes 2 fruits is something one cannot explain, in abstract terms, without such a symbol. Do you suggest we just put two symbols together, one representing the orange and the other representing the apple, and hope that people will somehow know you've added them?

Quote: It is NOW time to RE-EVALUATE SCIENCE in terms distanced from subliminal, psychological-religions. SIMPLE. Unfortunately, for those that have now been brainwashed into seeing/perceiving ALL THINGS in 2-dimensions, it becomes quite difficult, and therefore entire generations of scientists are ALREADY OBSOLETE.

The premise of your argument - that religion excercises a 'psychological' control over science - has not been proved. Your analysis of mathematics is, as I think I've made quite clear, erreonous, fallicious and inaccurate. You seem incapable of arguing your point without digressing with wild mewlings and assertion-ridden warnings of the impending apocalpyse. I apologise if I'm casting this in such harsh terms, but you seem unwilling (or incapable) of seeing - to borrow a well-known aphorism - the errors in your ways. I recongise the determinatal affect religion has had on science, but to claim that this pervades the very models that scientists use ignores their ultimate scientific validity.

Again, you'll have to provide some proof for what you think is happening to science...

[foadi]

social wrote: Actually, it's about 40,000 years overdue
social wrote: given that the volcano has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years,
Uh, what? Yellowstone had major eruptions 2.2 million years ago, 1.3 million years ago, and most recently 640,000 years ago. I always see people claim that Yellowstone is on an eruption cycle of 600,000 years, but i have no idea where you guys are getting that figure from. Either you don't know what your talking about, or your an alarmist kook who is willing to lie to prove your point.

[social]

foadi wrote: social wrote: Actually, it's about 40,000 years overdue
social wrote: given that the volcano has been on a regular eruption cycle of 600,000 years,
Uh, what? Yellowstone had major eruptions 2.2 million years ago, 1.3 million years ago, and most recently 640,000 years ago. I always see people claim that Yellowstone is on an eruption cycle of 600,000 years, but i have no idea where you guys are getting that figure from. Either you don't know what your talking about, or your an alarmist kook who is willing to lie to prove your point.

Why would I lie to prove my point?.. I heard the figure somewhere, sometime, and (as is often the case when one writes) it came to mind when I was writing my post.. I'm not an alarmist kook, as I think you'll find if you read my posts.