[BROOK]

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

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

As I stated:
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

However...now I must add..."secondhand" is My interpretation of it, "My" analysis of such a statement....and "I" feel it needs great analysis and scrutiny to be taken seriously.

As for "validation"...well...if you are who you say you are..you should have known "exactly" what went on in that "room" I spoke of...but you did not...and it gave me "validation" that you are not as in touch with your Draconian friends as you might think you are...again..Only "My" analysis..and conclusion

Now please...continue to "enlighten" everyone here to your findings.

I'm off on "my agenda"...blessed be