Posted: Apr 03, 2011 1:03 pm
Come off it, Paul. You know how it works. You came here with conclusions. Then, when pressed about your hypothesis or method of testing it, you jump onto the "Everything new must be 'woo' or 'pseudoscience'" train. How about you diagram this for us? What's your hypothesis? How did you/do you propose to test it?
Are are you just making shit up? What do I think? You've got nothing. I think we're going to go round and round asking you what the fuck you're talking about and you will evade, then tell us all how we aren't as bright as you because what you spout makes no sense.
If you're so bright, you should be able to figure out how to explain what the hell you're on about so it's understandable. Then, if you're "new ideas" are worth a tinker's dam, they will withstand scrutiny.
I bet we never get to that last part.
Are are you just making shit up? What do I think? You've got nothing. I think we're going to go round and round asking you what the fuck you're talking about and you will evade, then tell us all how we aren't as bright as you because what you spout makes no sense.
If you're so bright, you should be able to figure out how to explain what the hell you're on about so it's understandable. Then, if you're "new ideas" are worth a tinker's dam, they will withstand scrutiny.
I bet we never get to that last part.