It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Matter Self Aware?

page: 7
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





A link? You want me to waste 3 hours of my limited time, to hop around Google, search for an ancient paper that I came across one year ago, then what? You say, Oooh, this is not conclusive?


I really don´t need to you to do that, cause, and this is the third time, I have already shown where you, and the conclusion of that paper, judging by your description, are wrong.

The only reason I mentioned you not coming up with the link, is because you said this,



I don't expect you to do any research about what I just said.


Once again, I would need the link first.



And yet you just admitted that you never opened a book of physics or visited ArXiv.


I didn´t admit to anything. I asked how it was relevant to our discussion. A question I will ask again.

How is this relevant to our discussion?




That explains why you use the word "wave collapse function" abusevly,


You mean "wave function collapse"?

en.wikipedia.org...



In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse (also called collapse of the state vector or reduction of the wave packet) is the phenomenon in which a wave function—initially in a superposition of several different possible eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single one of those states after interaction with an observer. In simplified terms, it is the reduction of the physical possibilities into a single possibility as seen by an observer.


Isn't this exactly what we are talking about? Is Wiki also using the word abusively? Lol, you couldn't even get the word I was supposedly abusing right.




So, you are no physicist


Correct.




yet you want me to hop around giving you links?


I want you to back up your claims, yes.

Are you saying that because you studied physics, and I didn't, you don't have to back up your claims?

I loved this post of yours.

You couldn't have given a better insight into the mind of the outdated skeptical physicist that is presented with paradigm shattering proof. Arrogance, self entitlement, bias.

All of that, yet not a single word about the actual evidence that was presented. Only trying to somehow discredit me.

Very sad actually.
edit on 20-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 





I've looked at the experiments you posted and nothing adds up to what you claim. Please, find me one fact that says consciousness has anything to do with matter, whether on a macro or microscopic scale. I'll take anything that isn't interpretation or conjecture, but solid agreed upon facts.


You are right, most scientists, even the ones conducting these experiments stay clear from directly mentioning the role of consciousness. Because their world is full of Swans.

There is a number of scientists that do talk about it, but they are called "New Age idiots" that make "stupid YouTube vids" and vids "like What the Bleep".

Anyways you have to read between the lines. For instance, from the Quantum Eraser exp.:

en.wikipedia.org...


This stage shows that it is the existence of the "which-path" information which causes the destruction of the interference pattern.


Besides human consciousness, what mechanism would care wether the Which Path information exists or not?

Why do you think they came up with the Eraser exp.? The only reason is because it proves that the detector is not causing the wave function collapse, and that only leaves consciousness as an answer.

Here is an example of how carefully and toned down, some remarkable results are described.

This is by an author on Arstechnica about a quantum exp.

arstechnica.com...-



The picture certainly looks like future events influence the past, a view any right-minded physicist would reject. The authors conclude with some strong statements about the nature of physical reality that I'm not willing to delve into (the nature of physical reality is a bit above my pay grade).


Makes me wonder what's so shocking, he clearly doesn't want to go there.

So when you look at the statements in the paper itself you'll find the experimenters saying this,



According to Wheeler, Bohr said: “No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon.” We would like to extend this by saying: “Some registered phenomena do not have a meaning unless they are put in relationship with other registered phenomena.”


This was too much for the author at Arstechnica, but it actually is a toned down description of their findings.

This is science, describing things without putting the logical conclusion to it.


“No elementary phenomenon is a phenomenon until it is a registered phenomenon.”


In other words, nothing exists(or everything; wave of potential), until we, consciousness, look at it.



“Some registered phenomena do not have a meaning unless they are put in relationship with other registered phenomena.”


In other words, when we, consciousness, look at the phenomena and put them in relationship with each other, we get these outcomes. Our consciousness is connecting these phenomena.

You see how that works? You have to think for yourself
, because they refuse to spell it out like that, but it is what they are saying.

Lastly, if people try to debunk the role of consciousness in these DS experiments, they always say that the detector itself is causing the wave function collapse.

Our buddy Swan being a prime example here.

I think we can agree that this way of reasoning has been proven wrong a few times in this thread already, so logically, it proves that consciousness has got to be playing a role.

I mean it is the only argument against the role of consciousness in these experiments, and it is proven wrong, so....



edit on 20-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 





Also, was the "observer" active or passive? Please enlighten me.


At the time that the detectors make their detection it is passive.

As soon as they check the results from the detectors it becomes active and this is the point where results seem to materialize.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by swan001
As this information was not heavily published, we can assume that is the reason why media (which promotes New Age vision because it is part of its New World Order agenda) kept it quiet.
Basically the detector affected the shape of the slit so it gave an "anomaly" which made it look as if electron were aware. We need a detector to detect the passage of an electron, but, as Heisenberg showed it, the detector will temper with the behaviour of the particle affected by the detector.


Here's a little something I dug up specially for you Swan. Please take note of the fact that not only can I do research when I know where to look but I have also provided a source


The early generations of quantum physicists, led by Niels Bohr,
Werner Heisenberg and John von Neumann, insisted that there is a
strong division between the classical world and the quantum realm,
although they conceded that the boundary is not fixed by the laws of
physics.

Their view was that the transformation into “classicality” is
effected by the very act of observation; the idea being that the
wavefunction “collapses” to a particular value when the observation
takes place.

To avoid the seemingly decisive role played by the
observer, physicists put forward many alternative theories and
interpretations.
Often this was done at the price of introducing
as-yet-unobserved quantities into quantum mechanics called
hidden variables.





edit on 20/7/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


arstechnica.com...



As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.


But it is so simple. There is in fact a mechanism that allows information travel between them.

The observer, it is the one and only answer, the one and only truth.

Because we know what happened at one point, the result of the other point automatically adapts to that knowledge, because otherwise it would break the rules of the program that contructs our reality, so to say. It has to conform to our "idea" of it.

So the result only materialises at the moment that the other detector is checked. It doesn't travel FTL.

It's all hard to believe I guess but it is a simple and undeniable truth. I think worldwide and historically speaking there are many cultures and religions that speak of the same sort of concepts.

One of my favourite qoutes, and so true.


“Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.” Bill Hicks



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 


Thanks for sharing your past. You put a lot of work into it and made it very clear where you're coming from. I could almost picture it from your angle.

Despite our theological differences, we are probably very much alike. My folks owned a guide company in the northern rockies, they usually took packs of rich Americans into the beautiful hills and alpine lakes to fish and sometimes hunt. We lived an hour away from any other human. I was schooled by my mother and I've spent most of my life in the trees and mountains up there. I never knew religion. My spirituality developed with the solitude the environment offered. As friends were almost non-existant—except for the friends I made when our pipes froze and we had to spend 5 months in the nearest town—I spent much of my youth either exploring the mountains or reading (our satellite had one channel—the weather). I mistakenly read Nietzsche and have been into philosophy ever since. I also got to watch grizzly bears grow up and wolves defend their territory; I have a profound love and connection with animals. That is what has always been real to me. After twenty years of that existence I moved to the big city to get a ‘life.’ I've been here 12 years, working, getting by and studying philosophy (two more years till i'm finished masters program. Also have bachelor in fine arts. Bloody liberals eh?). Despite many failed attempts at religion, and other pseudo-doctrines my spirituality remains the same as it always has. Luckily, I can escape the madness of society and still go up there to visit.

This is my angle. The only reason I seem materialistic or posses what you might call an old-way of thinking is because I severely value those things I grew up with. It's not because of me or human consciousness that those mountains exist, it is because of them that I exist. For me, spirituality is contemplation, nothing more than deep introspection and thought. I can have the most profound experiences out there in life: whether it's through surfing waves, snowboarding down a mountain, living in the woods or coming face to face with a grizzly bear. To me, it's the experiences that change matter.

Well, I suppose now that we know what we are both about, we may be a little more lenient of each others philosophical opinions. For now, this topic seems at a dead end. I look forward to obsessing about other ideas with a fellow wolf in the future.


.




posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
No, but an intelligence is definitely coercing it's adherence to form; as well as functionality.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 




So you really think I am going to waste my time on you? This other poster, Littlewolf, was more credible than you. At least he/she seems to actually give a damn.
My time on the Internet is limited. You don't need to know my private life.
And yes, SO SORRY it bothered you so much, my english is bad. Not everyone is born in USA, you know.
I won't try and find links for you. If you really give a damn, you can do that yourself.
Now My time on the Internet is up. Goodbye. Don't reply to this post.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


You don´t have to acknowledge the effort I made to answer your questions, you´re welcome.




posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





So you really think I am going to waste my time on you? This other poster, Littlewolf, was more credible than you. At least he/she seems to actually give a damn.


You are replying to me aren't you? You could've spent the time it took you to write these BS posts to do what you are supposed to do, backing up your claims.

I didn´t see you providing links or replying to that poster either. Seems that we both spent quite some time typing out substantial posts backed up with evidence. And this poster agreed with my conclusions of these Quantum experiments, and had actually also studied them before that.

Just goes to show the amount of BS you are shoveling in this little post of yours.




My time on the Internet is limited. You don't need to know my private life.


Ok? I don't recall inquiring about it.




And yes, SO SORRY it bothered you so much, my english is bad. Not everyone is born in USA, you know.


Me neither, English is not my native language. But weren't you the one that was attacking me for the supposed abuse of a word? You act like I was after you, this whole post is so twisted. You are really childish and pathetic. No sadder thing than to see a grown man acting like he is still in control, after making such an epic fail.

You really think you are walking away like a winner here?




I won't try and find links for you. If you really give a damn, you can do that yourself.


In science, and on forums like this it is standard practise to back up your claims with evidence. But, it's ok, we already established that you were wrong. But let's say I wanted to review it, how do you suggest I could find the paper that you read, witout a link? You are so full of it.

You are no man of science. You are a conservatist. You are about conserving your outdated worldviews, even in the face of overwhelming evidence and proof. Nothing you said in this thread had any substance to it whatsoever. Just empty drivel.




Now My time on the Internet is up. Goodbye. Don't reply to this post.


Time well spent. Bye bye, thanks for adding nothing of substance at all.


edit on 21-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ralphy
I wanted to get your opinions on matter being self aware or not.

Many believe that a big bang happened and from there matter slowly evolved into planets and eventually cells came to be. Now during the time of the big bang it is safe to say there was no one(person) to witness it, so if matter existed and no one was around to see it, did matter have to be self aware to exist?

If matter is self aware does it have consciousness? If matter isn't self aware then how does matter exist outside of consciousness or at a time when no one(person) is around to see that it indeed does/did exist?

I think I'm trying to ask opinions on how does matter exist without anyone to see it if it isn't self aware?
edit on 15-7-2012 by Ralphy because: spelling


Space/nothingness is aware of matter/somethingness.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 



Originally posted by swan001



So you really think I am going to waste my time on you? This other poster, Littlewolf, was more credible than you. At least he/she seems to actually give a damn.
My time on the Internet is limited. You don't need to know my private life.
And yes, SO SORRY it bothered you so much, my english is bad. Not everyone is born in USA, you know.
I won't try and find links for you. If you really give a damn, you can do that yourself.
Now My time on the Internet is up. Goodbye. Don't reply to this post.


Hey Swan, maybe you should think of your experience on this thread like this.

I'm guessing you came to ATS because you're a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Now if TPTB started making certain claims against something, especially if it were something which was truly amazing and promised to open a whole new world of potential for humanity; and then expected you to believe them based merely on the fact that they were TPTB and began making vague references to some document that they then refused to release you wouldn’t buy it for a second would you.

This is more or less exactly what you’ve done in your initial post.

I’m guessing the B:1988 in your avatar means you were born in 1988. Unless you were a child prodigy this probably also means you only have an undergraduate degree in physics; which in turn means you have only just delved into the massive world of physics and certainly does not make an expert in the field of Quantum Mechanics. I only posses an undergraduate degree in geology and have myself been proven wrong on more than one occasion by a few keen amateurs who turned out to know a lot more about certain aspects of geology than I had ever covered in my few years at university.

The fact is this is ATS, which is basically all about getting to the core truth of the matter and as the motto goes, denying ignorance. If you make a claim you must back it up. I looked at your ArXiv website and it contains more than 10,000 papers on physics related subjects. You seriously expect me to wade through all that to try and find proof about a claim which I don’t believe anyway?

If you think you had a rough time here try pulling such actions in some of the other forums. Some of those guys will rip you to shreds.




edit on 21/7/2012 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Space/nothingness is aware of matter/somethingness.


But then the question must be asked, do either of those actually exist anyway? Or at the very least, are they actually separate things



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Btw, this is Swan a few months ago.

The thread he posted in was specifically about the fact that the detectors in those Quantum experiments do not cause the wave function collapse.

The Dr Quantum vid was posted as a basic learning tool for those unfamiliar with Quantum experiments.

Within 3 mins the driveby "debunker" strikes.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I saw this movie. Actually the experiment put an electron detector (because electrons are invisible to naked eye) behind one of the slits so it influenced the experiment's result by modifying the slit's shape. Sorry, I'm a physicist, and I tell ya, that phenomenon has been debunked last year as being an error.


Again no use of sources.

He's a physicist.......


edit on 21-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


Lol I’m glad your attempts at religion failed. You would be far less interesting otherwise.

It is my view that we do not come into this world, but we are born out of it. I too love nature and find most of my peace and inspiration wandering alone through the forest near my house. My home is in Australia though so for better or worse we have no grizzly bears or wolves.

There is much value in possessing an old world view as long as it’s tempered with reason. It is my view that these discoveries are to a certain extent only reinforcing many old world views with verifiable evidence. I do not believe that there is any hard barrier between the spiritual world and the natural world (just like the quantum world and the macro world). It is simply we are looking for evidence in the wrong places using the wrong techniques. We are merely relying on clumsy scientific equipment and our physical senses which themselves are merely tools with limitations. At any rate I foresee a time when much of the knowledge we have intuitively gathered through the ages can be verified as fact. The experiences I’ve had I know in my heart to be real. As, like I said above, I do not believe in boundaries between the spiritual and the physical, these discoveries which (I know I’ve said this many times before) question the very nature of reality show me a means to apply logical thought to them in a way that cannot easily denied by even the most eminent scientist.

I do not see these discoveries or many of the New Age claims that accompany them as taking anything away from reality that you and I both know and love. In fact imho they only add a depth and beauty to it far beyond anything found in ancient superstitions, dusty old religious tomes or dry scientific texts.

For me spirituality and contemplation go hand in hand with day to day life. The longer I live and the more I learn only further serves to reinforce this point of view. For it is the thoughts behind the experiences that change matter. For your thoughts are the only thing you can control. Yet maybe this is all you need to control….

Thanks so much for sharing your story. It really means a lot. If you are interested and you have five minutes you should click on the first link in my signature. It’s a short autobiographical story I wrote for one of ATS short story comps. At any the 2nd link in my signature is something I know you’ll enjoy. It’s some of my nature and wildlife photography.

Lastly….fine arts eh. I envy you. Maybe you should consider submitting a few pieces in the ATS Members Art Forum where I started my photography thread.

Here’s to future debates about the nature of the world as we know it.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TraitorKiller
 


I present you with other point of view. You, as a individual being, are free to choose.
If you would have studied physics a bit further, you would have know that the quote from Wikipedia you generously gave me actually benefits my opinion. It basically says that the wave function is a SET OF EVENTS (not an actual physical wave, as you tend to believe) that unfolds under the eyes of the Observer. Have you ever read about the Schrödinger's cat? To help his readers to better understand him, Schrödinger used the viewpoint of the Observer, which, by its presence in the wave function equation, would disrupt the said equation and collapse it into one reality. Is the Observer the cause of this collapse? From the Observer's view point, yes. But in reality, the Observer is just an observer (that's why he got the name, see? He's not called the Doer) that keeps observing collapses. Is the Sun orbiting Earth? From Earth's view point, yes. But in reality the Earth is just a planet, amongst others, which reacts to the Sun by orbiting around it. When a possibility of events exist, they all have an equal amount of being possible (bases to the multiverse theory) and as long as you don't break the stealmate by Observing the set of events, these possibilities all coexist. But once you Observe the set of events, only one event unfolds. You broke the stealmate. Physicists call it "collapsing the wave function".
Let's say you are walking around, at night, in your (I presume New Agey styled) house. Then you hear a sound behind you. You know someone is behind you, but what is it? What if it's Granny? Or maybe it's an italian gangster that wants your money. Maybe it's David Copperfield. What if it's an ex-CIA agent gone haywire? Or maybe an alien. In physics, we say that all these are workable possibilities. So, you grab your orgone generator (your closest peaceful weapon) and you slowly turn to look behind you, and there! You see it's just your dog. All the other possibilities can be ruled out. You collapsed them. Does that mean that all these folks (Granny, Capone, David, Bourne, E.T.) were all together behind you all that time? No. Just your dog. Does that mean that just by observing, you magically transformed everyone behind you into a dog? No. Your dog stayed a dog.
Another example involves a deck of cards, face down. The top card has the simultaneous possibilities of being any of the 52 cards of the deck, but once you observe it, only then will you discover that it was a, say, 9 of clubs all along.
Physics is the same way. When Bohr used to talk with Einstein about theories, Einstein was very perplexed by the cryptic way those physicists explained themselves. Einstein asked Bohr one day: "But if you don't look at the Moon, surely you don't think that the Moon will disapear? " Einstein asked that question half-jokingly... Of course we know that the Moon won't disapear if we stop looking at it, because if that was the case we would feel the consequences of its gravitational absence here on Earth.
So, that's a wave function and its collapse. No magic is involved.
I sincerely hope I clarified it for you. You understand why now I say matter isn't self-aware? Matter is just matter.

Oh, my English isn't perfect, so, I am SO sorry if by accident I mispelled some words.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by 1littlewolf
 

I am glad to know that at least you're into sciences. I happened to have some question about geology but that will be for another time... Keep up with the good work, science is good.
Werner Heisenberg demonstrated that a particle's position or motion would be affected by "observation". If you attempt to detetmine its position, you affect its motion. If you attempt to determine its motion, you affect its position.
Why did he say that? Here's why. Werner started by thinking: How can we observe a particle's motion/position in the first place? Well, particles are too small to be visible to naked eye. Optical microscopes won't do the job neither, as these are still not enoughly powerful. The only way you can detect the presence of a particle is by sending an electron beam, just like an electron microscope would do. Now, as a beam undergoes wavelenght phenomena, you have to make sure the beam's frequency is high enough so that its wavelenght doesn't exceed the particle's size, or else the beam would just jump over the target without detecting it. When the high-frequency beam finally detects the particle, it would be reflected to the microscope sensors and display on the monitor. Thus, you will be able to "Observe" it. But what happens to the small target particle after it was hit by a high-frequency electron beam? It reacts.
Let's say you play pool. You can't see because someone decided it would be fun for you to play in the dark. Weird enough, this someone also decided you would play with only one ball (in addition to the white one) instead of the usual set. This lone ball in the dark represent the target particle. But, luckily enough for you, your white ball is phosphorescent, so it's the only thing you can see. This white ball represents the beam. So, you take your white ball out of your pocket, put it on the table, and shoot. You send the beam toward the target, which is in the dark. Luckily, the white ball (the beam) hits something in the center of the table, and sharply bounces back to you. So, now you know exactly where the target ball was: its location is the point where your white ball rebounded. So, cool, you know the position of the target (you just hit it). But this target reacted to the collision too! Now where does it go? You affected the target's state by "observing" it and now its motion is unknown
That's what Werner meant. One of the guy's book (Can't remember if it was Hawkin's or Susskind's) I read explained the details quite eloquently. Susskind is really easy to read, and his books were a good start.
That's why Heisenberg's Incertitude Principle only applies to particles, as particles don't send light to your eyes and are too tiny to be seen, so you have to hit them with electron beam if you want to observe one. Anything bigger will escape that principle.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1littlewolf

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Space/nothingness is aware of matter/somethingness.


But then the question must be asked, do either of those actually exist anyway? Or at the very least, are they actually separate things


Something appears to exist but it cannot appear without the nothing being present.
Emptiness is form/form is emptiness.
edit on 21-7-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by swan001
 





It basically says that the wave function is a SET OF EVENTS (not an actual physical wave, as you tend to believe)


What makes you say that? Where did I suggest it was anything different?

Frankly my definition of it doesn't even matter in this discussion.

We can all agree that the wave function collapses in these experiments, when the which path info is available.

You said it is simply because of the detector itself, because it influences the particle when it is detected.

This is your reason to say that the role of consciousness has been debunked.

I have posted several times by now that these experiments prove that this can't be the case, because when they erase the info of detection, the wave function doesn't collapse, even though the detection took place.

The means of erasure is not the cause either.

You keep ignoring this. All you have to do is adress this fact.

This is the basis of our discussion.

You are just trying to save face by coming up with all sorts of irrelevant scenarios to make it seem like you are smart and know what you are talking about.

Discuss the facts.

How do you explain that the detector is causing this, when the Quantum Eraser experiments prove that it can't be the detector?




So, that's a wave function and its collapse. No magic is involved.


That is such bull, you act like these quantum results are completely normal and explainable, when noone has an explanation for them, and everybody in the scientific world seems to agree that they are bizarre, except for you Swan, you got it all figured out huh?

You can say that consciousness has got nothing with it, but you don't have any other valid explanation for these events.

arstechnica.com...


As always with entanglement, it's important to note that no information is passing between Alice, Bob, and Victor: the settings on the detectors and the BiSA are set independently, and there's no way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Nevertheless, this experiment provides a realization of one of the fundamental paradoxes of quantum mechanics: that measurements taken at different points in space and time appear to affect each other, even though there is no mechanism that allows information to travel between them.


How do you explain this? This is normal to you? Why do you think they call it a paradox?

I'd love to hear it.
edit on 21-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by TheSubversiveOne
 


You don´t have to acknowledge the effort I made to answer your questions, you´re welcome.



Apparently I do. I meant no disrespect, but I feel I may have put too much unnecessary time in this thread. I never got to your answer. We're not going to change each other's opinions on the subject.

Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion and interpretation. We both remain unconvinced.


ETA: I now see the post. Well done. I will get to it as soon as time permits.
edit on 21-7-2012 by TheSubversiveOne because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join