[BROOK]

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

Hi Brook!

You cannot subject data to scientific analysis, if this data does not contain parameters amenable to such analysis.

I am not here to play wordgames with people.
If you use words like 'validate', the criteria for validation must emerge from the context from which you operate your semantic constructions from.

You are playing wordgames, because my context is applied to constructed sentences which attempt to indicate two sides of a coin say metaphorically - whilst you are asking for 'proof' for the metphorical coin existing.

Abrax

Sorry you feel I am playing word games here...I'm just looking for an answer to your conclusion for such a statement.


So it would appear that your information in that context is "metaphorical"?...and again..it was concluded as not from scientific data...but from information gathered from an outside source. And if that is the case...it, as I stated earlier on...should have validation of some kind..otherwise it is "secondhand"...to those of us who are unfamiliar with it. And being that is the case...it should require some kind of validation to be take seriously...and to be analyzed with great scrutiny.

No word games here...just good old fashioned common sense

I will add it is not my intention to upset you in any way....just looking for some answers to your analysis and conclusions.
So I will bother you no further...as I think you have answered my question sufficiently

Thank you
Blessings
Brook