Nightsider
Chrono Cadet
Re: Out there is a symphoney
"my proof will be when my predictions come true."
At best, that isn't really true. There is no external proof of any accuracy, and you could easily be 100% accurate by sheer random chance. I don't think you will be though.
"like I said the language hasn't changed much. as for the slang I got it from looking at other forums."
Language hasn't changed much between 1850 and 2000 either, but the sense of the words sure has. And the difference between a real 19th century or early 20th century manuscript and a pastiche is always marked, no matter how skillful the pastiche's imitation.
"the spelling errors I have already explained. I am not good with a keyboard."
OK. But how does that explain the SYNTACTIC errors that are consistent with my assertion? Don't they have internally consistent logic where you come from? See, when you use the construction "the spelling errors I have already explained" instead of "I've already explained that" or "I've already explained the spelling errors", you are conforming to a contemporary use of language that a 2004 native would use when they are trying to disguise their normal use of language. It takes longer to use the word arrangement you are using than the normal use of language. This in itself is evidence of premeditation rather than idiomatic use of language. Oops.
Also, WHY aren't you good with a keyboard? You should either be flawless with one since they have become common as pencils today, or else totally unfamiliar to you as having been long since superseded.
Finally, unlike the Titor phenomenon, you aren't sophisticated enough to use reverse psychology. You responded to my posts swiftly - an indication that you have a need to be believed. Why? Wouldn't it be better for you not to be believed, so that you can observe contemporary society in as unspoiled way as possible.
Poor you - you're smart for an undereducated teen - but that doesn't actually make you smart. Stop spamming.
"my proof will be when my predictions come true."
At best, that isn't really true. There is no external proof of any accuracy, and you could easily be 100% accurate by sheer random chance. I don't think you will be though.
"like I said the language hasn't changed much. as for the slang I got it from looking at other forums."
Language hasn't changed much between 1850 and 2000 either, but the sense of the words sure has. And the difference between a real 19th century or early 20th century manuscript and a pastiche is always marked, no matter how skillful the pastiche's imitation.
"the spelling errors I have already explained. I am not good with a keyboard."
OK. But how does that explain the SYNTACTIC errors that are consistent with my assertion? Don't they have internally consistent logic where you come from? See, when you use the construction "the spelling errors I have already explained" instead of "I've already explained that" or "I've already explained the spelling errors", you are conforming to a contemporary use of language that a 2004 native would use when they are trying to disguise their normal use of language. It takes longer to use the word arrangement you are using than the normal use of language. This in itself is evidence of premeditation rather than idiomatic use of language. Oops.
Also, WHY aren't you good with a keyboard? You should either be flawless with one since they have become common as pencils today, or else totally unfamiliar to you as having been long since superseded.
Finally, unlike the Titor phenomenon, you aren't sophisticated enough to use reverse psychology. You responded to my posts swiftly - an indication that you have a need to be believed. Why? Wouldn't it be better for you not to be believed, so that you can observe contemporary society in as unspoiled way as possible.
Poor you - you're smart for an undereducated teen - but that doesn't actually make you smart. Stop spamming.
