Sod the Wager, this works for me just fine.I cannot just come back. This will probably be my last time here unless I am on the finance committee again which is unlikely.
kind regards,
Olly
Sod the Wager, this works for me just fine.I cannot just come back. This will probably be my last time here unless I am on the finance committee again which is unlikely.
Well of course not. You've told us your profession is as a historian. So who in their right mind would actually expect a historian to remember the major points of history! Given that what you say is going to happen would be larger (MUCH larger) than the story of 9/11, your difficulty remembering would be equivalent to saying "I can't remember what exactly happened on 9/11, but it resulted in the US going to war."On May 1st , I am not sure (can't remember all the history)
Correction: You CAN NOT tell me a specific month, because you are fibbing.I will be very happy if you abide by your word, and do NOT come back. You are NOT from the future, and I'd predict that your future is not very bright given your exhibited level of intelligence here on this forum. I hope your parents strongly encourage you to go to college... you will need the advantage.Rainmantime-I will not tell you a specific month.
Get back to me once you understand my intention in harassing people like chronohistorian. If (when?) you understand my intention, then you will understand why I do what I do.Hey rainmantime try to chill out a bit,
Thank you for reinforcing and supporting my right of free speech to harass clueless hoaxers. And let me point out something about free speech and the US laws: The ability to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater (when there is in fact no fire) is NOT protected as free speech under the US constitution, as has been shown thru legal precedent more than once in the US legal system. Ergo, "free speech" that results in others being harmed, or killed, is punishable under US law. Just keeping you informed.What about the right to free speech you americans are always on about?
Could you please show me even ONE instance where King or Koontz actively attempts to convince people that their fiction is real, and will come to pass? The difference is, these authors admit to writing fiction; whereas chrono does not. That's a pretty big diff, wouldn't you agree?Once again... see if you can uncover my intention in battling people who try to paint negative futures as definitely coming to pass. Can you guess what my intention is? I'll give you a clue: The word that describes it begins with the letters "NUL".would you call novelists like Steven King/Dean Koontz etc terrorists? After all this is fiction isnt it?
Would it be so difficult to actually pick up a dictionary, or go to one online, and start looking at words that begin with these three letters? Let me give you a bigger hint: Look up the word NULLIFY.There...I have done all the work for you. Do you now see from what INTENTION my actions flow?Sorry but I have got to admit that I don't understand why you take such a strong position against this in my opinion harmless banter (NUL = What? Nullible?
And this analogy is especially pertinent in the "clash of civilizations" that is going on in our world right now. Kryten, here is another word for you to go look up: Madrassah. Are you aware of the kinds of information that the more militant Madrassahs teach to their pupils? Indeed, they teach hateful rhetoric, and they teach of a doomsday scenario which MUST come to pass for their version of "ascension" to be possible. And furthermore, these schools consistently reinforce the thought to these young, impressionable minds that the greatest thing they can do with their lives is to kill Western "infidels".If the teachers conditioned this into to enough students (maybe only 10-15%), eventually the whole school would be a danger to everyone that attends it.
Indeed. And as I have scientifically shown in another thread, Information holds sway over the release of Energy...for whatever purpose the Information is crafted....for whatever the INTENTION.I, for one, am not going to stand idly by while terrorists (and they come in all forms, shapes and sizes) propagate information based in hatred and doomsday futures. For in doing so, those people are attempting to steal MY future from me and those who see a brighter future. Therefore, I act to NULLIFY such information which is bred by the INTENTION of hatred and evil.As RMT has stated - Information is arguably one the most dangerous of tactics.
Ahem.... WRONG! The day of protest is pretty much over now, and we have seen NO violence associated with it (cudos to the protestors for keeping it peaceful, as they have in the past). Shall we go on? :devil:I can tell you that the first stage of civil war will start on May 1. If you have a gun carry it with you at all times on that day
Yes, once again we could not possibly expect a HISTORIAN like Chrono to keep track of minor details like the return of Christ! (sarcasm intended!) But oh my, he certainly is good at keeping track of things like Big Ben! Let's continue...If christ came back I am sure it would be in the history books somewhere or maybe he just came back on a holiday to see some disciples.
Yeah...sure... those rallies are just not covered ANYWHERE on the news? Any of you other Brits wish to chime in here? Any mention of the rallies in your news so far this evening??? But wait! There's MORE!It has something to do with the immigration rallies but I am stationed in England and ask any English person and you will see that the rallies are not covered on the news.
You lost it, but managed to retrieve it... and STILL it was WRONG and not reflective of what we have seen today! Imagine that! Chrono was WRONG! And yes, why should we think the mainstream news outlets tell the truth... all we really need is to trust Chrono... cuz clearly HE never lies! (yes, more sarcasm folks... it is my downfall!)Warrior381-We lost the info but managed to retrieve it. I thought I told the forum. What I am not sure about is if they show it on the news and if they show it on the news whether they will be truthful.
Eeeeyeah! Based on his track record, how many people want to take bets that this is gonna happen? Don't worry, Chrono, I'll keep track for you, just like I am tracking the "informers" predictions, and so far he is 0/2 with another event marker coming up at the end of May.We are all having a good laugh at you Chrono, you fool!I will be leaving in a couple of days but I tell you this: In the coming months you may see UN and NATO troops marching through your country to 'restore order'.
Fortunately, I have the tool of science on my side to expose you for what you are. And in this case, science does come in handy in terms of linguistic analysis of your posed poll question. Towhit:Bytheway, Ray said it was ok to post a poll . Otherwise, I wouldn't have.
These two statements in your poll are contradictory with regard to answer the poll (which is, of course, the point of fielding a poll). Therefore, speaking scientifically (which I know you have admitted is not your speciality), given your contradictory statements that frame your poll, I hope you can realize that either a "Yes" or "No" answer could mean anything. Thus, scientifically, the poll means nothing.Here, let me hold your hand a bit and guide you through this scientific process with an example. Let's say I am wishing to reply to your poll (even though I would not do that, because the poll is about me and that would not be a terribly ethical thing to do). So I read the first part of your poll ("Do you feel that RainmanTime has conducted his 'scientific-debunking-investigations' in adherence to the TTI forums 'general terms?"), and I would be inclined to vote "Yes", meaning that I think he has adhered to the TTI forums "general terms". Very well, I should then vote "Yes".Do you feel that RainmanTime has conducted his 'scientific-debunking-investigations' in adherence to the TTI forums 'general terms?' i.e. has he called you any names?
Thanks Ray I think. I know we're neighbors (almost), but I don't roll like that.Here, let me hold your hand a bit...
Really, you think you have adhered to the TTI forums "general terms"?So I read the first part of your poll ("Do you feel that RainmanTime has conducted his 'scientific-debunking-investigations' in adherence to the TTI forums 'general terms?"), and I would be inclined to vote "Yes", meaning that I think he has adhered to the TTI forums "general terms". Very well, I should then vote "Yes".
Please note that i.e. gives an example to it's infraction. It's not contradicting the previous statement, but reinforcing it with an example of not following the general terms. Since the poll states and applies only to following it in adherence to it, not just if you were scientific.But wait. Something is not right. For now if I read the second statement in your poll (using "i.e." is not usually intended to counter the previous argument) I would wish to vote in the opposite polarity: (i.e. has he called you any names?). Well.... NO,
So you haven't called anyone any names? I seriously doubt it's just been "hoaxer" and "fake" but I'm sure we'll hear what others have to say.RainmanTime has not called anyone any names. At least none that were not the truth (such as "hoaxer" or "fake" or other statements of truth).
I never called the poll scientific. Nor do I anticipate ever reading about this site in a science book or journal?The TTA has set up a scientifically invalid poll, where the results cannot be properly interpreted with respect to the fundamental questions asked in the poll's question!
I think people would know exactly how to vote. But just for you Ray, I'll make some clarifications.Would you care to modify your poll so people can know PRECISELY how they should vote?
I'm not worried about this poll revealing my poor polling abilities.As it is, your poll reveals an ignorance of proper (scientific) polling methods.
Not really. Calling someone ignorant, if they really are ignorant, is nothing more than speaking the truth. Much like the TTA (whom I have studied quite thoroughly, I might add) I am simply speaking the truth when I say you are ignorant.For example: If I were to give you a problem in calculus, and you, not being versed in this form of science, tried in vain but failed to give the proper answer, then this would mean you are ignorant about the science of mathematics called calculus. Calling someone ignorant is hardly being offensive, unless, of course, you find it offensive for someone to point out a truth about yourself and your limitations.Bytheway, calling someone ignorant is offensive behavior.
By the way... speaking of polls, have you checked the results of the democratic poll I created when you ceased answering questions for the personality test? If you are as supportive of a "democratic process" as you seem to have portrayed yourself, then perhaps you should take the results of this poll to heart. RMTBytheway, Ray said it was ok to post a poll . Otherwise, I wouldn't have.
Used in the context that you use it, it can be offensive.Not really. Calling someone ignorant, if they really are ignorant, is nothing more than speaking the truth. Much like the TTA (whom I have studied quite thoroughly, I might add) I am simply speaking the truth when I say you are ignorant.
Ok Ray... I'll give you that one.For example: If I were to give you a problem in calculus, and you, not being versed in this form of science, tried in vain but failed to give the proper answer, then this would mean you are ignorant about the science of mathematics called calculus. Calling someone ignorant is hardly being offensive, unless, of course, you find it offensive for someone to point out a truth about yourself and your limitations.
Personally I don't have a problem with anyone speaking the truth. But it seems you do if it's about you.Do you have a problem with someone speaking the truth, TTA? Because if you do, then perhaps I should revisit some of your own words that speak otherwise?
Yes, and quite an interesting number it is to.By the way... speaking of polls, have you checked the results of the democratic poll I created when you ceased answering questions for the personality test? If you are as supportive of a "democratic process" as you seem to have portrayed yourself, then perhaps you should take the results of this poll to heart.
wow, this could be the stupidest thing I've ever read on these boards by you Chrono, and you once said trees on your planet were made of muscle. Who's going to lead the Nato forces into the US, Canada? rotflmaoI never said that NATO or the UN will invade. They will be invited.
Am I? I'd be happy to admit it if you show me where, but I think you have misread the above. Do explain if you do think I am incorrect, but when you say:Actually, you are both incorrect.
I was not the one who claimed its usage was to mean "for example". That was Mr. TTA when he said:If you really want to be technical, Rain's assesment of the posting cannot be construed as correct, because I.E. is not the proper usage for "for example".
So he, not I, was the one who incorrectly attributed his own usage of "i.e.".TTA_01: Please note that i.e. gives an example to it's infraction.
You are absolutely correct sir, and I agree with you. However, I think if you read my assessment you will find it is correct in terms of how you would word a poll question so it is clear and unambiguous. I pointed this out when I said:It should of read "e.g.". The difference being that I.E. is a specifier. It acts as a qualifier, basically is a fancy Latin way to say IOW.
My point being here, even if you substituted (correctly, as you state) the words "in other words" for "i.e.", the two statements would still contradict each other in a logical, boolean sense. Applying the concepts of digital logic design to these two statements would lead to one being the "NOT" of the other.But if you can show me where I am incorrect, I'd be happy to admit it. :yum:Rainmantime: (using "i.e." is not usually intended to counter the previous argument)