Originally posted by Prote
I'm not sure why you are laughing, since you failed to make any point and danced around semantics like you were at a verbal squaredance, thats cool.
So you maintain your agression and want to continue with a semantic argument, fine.
I'm not sure where you got agression from, that sting isn't from me, its the truth smacking you in the face
And its not semantics when you are
using a word or term out of context.
Your issue seems to stem simply from my use of the word "provable". Perhaps I should clarify this before you rupture something.
maybe you could stop assigning new definitions to words as you see fit and stop expecting everyone else to understand what you mean
I can see your confusion but just because we misunderstand is no requirement to write with a certain "tonality".
If by "tonality" you mean not speak facts then, sorry buddy you are out of luck. If I am curt with you it is because time is of the essense for me,
the truth does tend to sting though so I see how you could take honesty that way, although I doubt so many would agreee with me and even vote "way
above" for me.
By the word "provable", I mean that this tower, as a physical construct, has an ability to be proven... or disproven at some point,
with the right means.
Please refer the my "bunk" post about Unicorns
Yes, I do believe it can be proved, this is different to saying that I have proof and I have it right this second. I don't have the means so I
remain open to it.
I remain open as well, I just do not subscribe to his ideas like you do, If are going to use a word like provable and tell us to look past if the
tower is there, we should be more concerned about what it does
Do you see how stupid this sounds? It is the exact oppisite of reason and logic.
So lets not worry if the unicorn actually exists, we need to focus on what color it is!!! Sorry buddy but how do you expect me to have serious
conversation with you, with logic such as that? I mean a unicorn is provable right? More bunk to disregard?
The fact that we could potentially do this at some point, means that someone's claim of a tower is provable... or disprovable. It
simply means that it is not impossible to gain proof. If you take this away from the intended manner even after I explained it to you
twice, I can't help you further. Most things are provable, whether we have the means or not.
Keep backtracking buddy the cliff is just behind you,
YOU TOLD EVERYONE HERE THAT WE SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT A TOWER EXISTING, WE SHOULD WORRY ABOUT WHAT IT DOES, that it is provable. So you made the
assumption that is does exist or you would'nt have been so worried about us trying to dertermine if it actually exists. SO don't argue the samantic
for a word when you comeplety use it out of context and then try to imply that it can be proven or disproven and then go and say that you never
implied it did exist!
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID BY TELLING US NOT TO FOUCS ON THAT? THAT IS IMPLYING YOU BELIEVE SUCH TO BE TRUE!
Why would we bother with the second part of a 2 part question if the first part was crap? You have to clean the crap of your shoes before you going
worring aobut the carpet my friend!
The rest of your post was bunk, so I won't respond to it to argue for argument sake.
Because you cannot and you never will, you have no anwers for them,
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE clarify your proven until disproven thoery!!!
that is like saying gulity until proven innocent in the science community.
Continue your obstination if you wish.
If by obstination you mean calling you out on your flawed logic, then I surely will.
If I'm wrong then it seems that most who have posted on this thread on wrong as well, because between the votes U2U's and other psots of agreement
that I have recieved from this post alone tells me I msut have said something right
Have a nice day
[edit on 29-4-2007 by kleverone]