Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here)

[abraxasinas]

Originally Posted by BROOK

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

Hi Brook!

Now you are 'putting words in my mouth'.

None of my data is 'second hand' - this is YOUR labeling not mine.
Some of my information uses metaphor.
Some of my information uses advanced semantics of science - this data becomes subject to validation ON SCIENTIFIC TERMS.

What 'validation' do you seek - the prediction of an earthquake or the winning lottery numbers?
I am who I am and my agenda is to share otherwise unobtainable data.
If this data is meaningless or worthless for you this is perfectly in order in the scheme of things.
You are superimposing your preconceived ideas onto my 'expected' response. Iow you are playing intellectualized wordgames with the English language.
Common sense has little to do with your agenda.

I shall not continue to engage with your wordgames of banalities.
If you desire meaningful clarification, ask a meaningful question and I shall answer you to the best of my ability.

I have no ability to engage in dissonant discourses.

Be well on your path into enlightenment and you will find your validations in due course.

Love Abraxasinas