Why is Physics 'More Objective' than Astrology?

[FlashDangerpants]

As long as you can hold on to the rein of your internal horses, I am willing to go as far as I can go to show your views are outdated.

IWP recently tried to explain to you that your responses to us seldom relate very much to what we have actually written, didn't he? Here is a perfect example.

You see what I have quoted there? That's what I was addressing to you, the fact that I already know you will cut me off when you are feeling overwhwelemd, not because you are genuinely hurt by my words, but just because you want to claim a win and hide. The last time you did that very obvious thing it was because I used the word "idiot" and we both know that you use a lot worse langauge than that mister "Hey, don't fuck around when you have aids".

I have already told you that I am not going to do all the work of re-arguing something from months ago that you blatantly ducked because you were all wrapped up in your feels. I handled my end of that argument perfectly well in Novemver and you were in that position and that is why you sulked. And I see through that tactic.

End. Of.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As long as you can hold on to the rein of your internal horses, I am willing to go as far as I can go to show your views are outdated.

IWP recently tried to explain to you that your responses to us seldom relate very much to what we have actually written, didn't he? Here is a perfect example.

You see what I have quoted there? That's what I was addressing to you, the fact that I already know you will cut me off when you are feeling overwhwelemd, not because you are genuinely hurt by my words, but just because you want to claim a win and hide. The last time you did that very obvious thing it was because I used the word "idiot" and we both know that you use a lot worse langauge than that mister "Hey, don't fuck around when you have aids".

I have already told you that I am not going to do all the work of re-arguing something from months ago that you blatantly ducked because you were all wrapped up in your feels. I handled my end of that argument perfectly well in Novemver and you were in that position and that is why you sulked. And I see through that tactic.

End. Of.

You used the word 'fuck' in that post, thus I had to use
"Hey, don't fuck around when you have aids"
to nib it in the bud before it gets out hand.

The point is with the current issues I am dealing they require high intensity engagement with the neo-cortex deep thinking brain, words like 'fuck' and other vulgar, insulting words trigger and deviate attention to my "reptilian" brain [to retaliate] and hinder effective thinking on my part.

[FlashDangerpants]

As long as you can hold on to the rein of your internal horses, I am willing to go as far as I can go to show your views are outdated.

IWP recently tried to explain to you that your responses to us seldom relate very much to what we have actually written, didn't he? Here is a perfect example.

You see what I have quoted there? That's what I was addressing to you, the fact that I already know you will cut me off when you are feeling overwhwelemd, not because you are genuinely hurt by my words, but just because you want to claim a win and hide. The last time you did that very obvious thing it was because I used the word "idiot" and we both know that you use a lot worse langauge than that mister "Hey, don't fuck around when you have aids".

I have already told you that I am not going to do all the work of re-arguing something from months ago that you blatantly ducked because you were all wrapped up in your feels. I handled my end of that argument perfectly well in Novemver and you were in that position and that is why you sulked. And I see through that tactic.

End. Of.

You used the word 'fuck' in that post, thus I had to use
"Hey, don't fuck around when you have aids"
to nib it in the bud before it gets out hand.

The point is with the current issues I am dealing they require high intensity engagement with the neo-cortex deep thinking brain, words like 'fuck' and other vulgar, insulting words trigger and deviate attention to my "reptilian" brain [to retaliate] and hinder effective thinking on my part.

That's preposterous and stupid. If you ever did effective thinking we wouldn't have had to point out to so many times that your replies generally miss the point of what you are replying to. As you did there. But also as you nearly always do.

[Veritas Aequitas]

IWP recently tried to explain to you that your responses to us seldom relate very much to what we have actually written, didn't he? Here is a perfect example.

You see what I have quoted there? That's what I was addressing to you, the fact that I already know you will cut me off when you are feeling overwhwelemd, not because you are genuinely hurt by my words, but just because you want to claim a win and hide. The last time you did that very obvious thing it was because I used the word "idiot" and we both know that you use a lot worse langauge than that mister "Hey, don't fuck around when you have aids".

I have already told you that I am not going to do all the work of re-arguing something from months ago that you blatantly ducked because you were all wrapped up in your feels. I handled my end of that argument perfectly well in Novemver and you were in that position and that is why you sulked. And I see through that tactic.

End. Of.

You used the word 'fuck' in that post, thus I had to use
"Hey, don't fuck around when you have aids"
to nib it in the bud before it gets out hand.

The point is with the current issues I am dealing they require high intensity engagement with the neo-cortex deep thinking brain, words like 'fuck' and other vulgar, insulting words trigger and deviate attention to my "reptilian" brain [to retaliate] and hinder effective thinking on my part.

That's preposterous and stupid. If you ever did effective thinking we wouldn't have had to point out to so many times that your replies generally miss the point of what you are replying to. As you did there. But also as you nearly always do.

If you think I have missed your point, that is due to your bad and ineffective communication skills.
One of the critical element in communication is to understand your 'communicatees' and present your message in as simple as possible to get your intended message across.

If I think you have missed my point, in general, I will state 'you miss my point' [as evident] and represent the point if it is critical to the issue on hand.
If the other side really cannot get my point, I will do my best to represent it [note the number of threads I raised to explain the same issue], else I will just let it pass.

Note, I am aware you, Peter and many others are entrapped by primordial philosophical realist dogmatic views, it is very unlikely for you and them to understand the anti-realist [kantian] POV. Even supposed smart professors like Simon Blackburn could not understand the essentials of Kant's morality.
It is just like the majority of theists clinging to their dogmatic theism and never be able to understand the non-theists' POV.