Originally posted by tgidkp
i am exhausted after reading those 3 pages. the level of stupidity evidenced by the OP is staggering (ruh-roh, i guess i am next on the ignore
Stupidity is evident, yet depends on where and how that stupidity applies on who is actually dumb.
The person who calls another stupid may very well be just a self-description.
The observed can't be the observer.
i want to congratulate golden boy on saying (most) everything that needed to be said. it was a good fight, but i think the OP is the only one
that understands what he/she is talking about.
Somehow a "fight" became evident for some to assume a reason for this symbology and their study.
Despite the obvious, we could consider a gravity of attraction based on the symbology alone where it doesn't matter at all who presents the
In this sense, the one who presents the symbology is in a "fight" to learn to present, while those to are later presented the symbology "fight"
the presenter to learn the symbology. There is this obvious center of gravity to attract this "fight".
somewhere in page 2 you started talking about computers. you made the claim that you have always, from the very start of this thread, been
talking about computers.
and yet, the word "computer" is used in the OP exactly 0 times.
Computers are people. If artificial intelligence already dictates reason to "fight" to learn this symbology, then the source of the artificial
intelligence is questionable.
can you see why this would be confusing to me, as a reader?
When one questions themselves if their reason came from their own intelligence or their artificial intelligence in them by assimilation or genetic
variation, then this adds further exponential results to the 'initial research' just to present the symbology and simulate it in any fashion.
Now consider who is dumb... the one with intelligence, the one with artificial intelligence, or the one with neither.
if you are talking about computers in the OP, but dont ever use the word "computer" in the OP, then YOU are the ONLY one that understands
what you are talking about.
Noticed that there is a bur to mention computers before any application of computers being used to render, simulate, image, generate, organize, etc
etc, as if there is a need to "blame".
Actually, in developer teams of software, there usually is a functionality to track the contributor that makes changes to the source. There seems to
"present" evidence of such organic trackers, and any mention of the exponential results raise a heighten awareness.
It takes a "meditative" approach to follow the source and present any details. It is highly questionable, based on evidence of intelligence and
artificial intelligence, on who can actually follow the source. Those that are prone "to fight" obviously don't match a description to "meditate"
the carbon ring you have presented, phenyl, has totally absolutely 100% nothing to do with DNA. phenyl and DNA are NOT connected
in ANY way. yet, you say that they are. if i dare ask why you think they are connected, you will tell me that i am being too
Noticed the different chemicals thought to constitute the organic ring. There is one common base and that is carbon. If we include benzene rings,
however, then it isn't carbon itself that is noted as the base. It's is the structural design, the geometric pattern, that is more significant.