You do not have to take anything back there.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pmYou used to use a different name, Ken. And under that name you wrote these words....Age wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 amOnce again you could not be more WRONG about me.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm
That's not really accurate. I mostly skip everything you write, because I remember when you believed historians would value this forum as a place to research how your genius found its voice.
Either your memory is wrong now or what you were thinking back then was completely wrong.
Either way you have a very wrong and distorted view about me.So I don't feel the need to take anything back there.ken wrote:Our discussions in these writings in this forum will prove and is all that will be needed for future generations to fully understand 'My' (so called) "Theory".
You are just wrong in saying that I believed some thing. You seemed to have forgotten, or disbelieve, that I neither believe nor disbelieve any thing. So, you are wrong there.
I also never said any thing about "historians" nor about that they "would value" any thing. So, you are wrong there on those two parts as well.
And, I certainly never mentioned nothing of the sort about "genius". So, you are wrong, once more, and again.
Therefore, you have a very wrong and distorted view about me. You have a very narrow and limited view of things, and this is because you are very closed.
Considering you have no intention of clarifying, and you just prefer to make up perceptions and believe them to be right and true, you will continue to keep being wrong about me. You do not have to take anything back. I certainly do not want you to do any thing at all. You can keep your distorted views of me for as long as you like.
So, are you completely and utterly incapable of showing how what I said is stupid and nonsense?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pmUnless we are jointly addressing an audience of utter morons, they have all they needed to informed those opinions already.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 amIs it?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pm You wrote: "Genetics can only affect the visible. Emotions (and thoughts) are not visible." That's totally stupid, utter nonsense.
Instead of hiding behind attempts at insults and ridicules, why do you not show how it is stupid and nonsense? Just saying something, does not make it so.
Tell us how exactly how both of those statements are wrong. To me, they are obviously true, and did not need clarifying, but I could be completely wrong.
If you are capable of showing how they are wrong, then do it. Otherwise the readers, in a public forum, are forming their own opinions.
You have not shown any thing so far.
You, once again, have misconstrued what I said and took it completely out of context.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pm Likewise, you already pouted at me about the relationship between appetite and genetics being obvious, appetite is not less invisible than emotion.
The reason you do this is because you never clarify what I say. You, instead, just assume what I am saying, make up some conclusion about that (misinformation), and then believe what you have concluded is actually true.
You are just getting more and more wrong.
You are not at all open.
If you so believe, then that is what I must be.
Yeah, and from you not one shred of writing that refutes nor rejects what I say.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 10:05 pmYeah, bit of a pissy response, that.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jul 15, 2019 1:25 amYou live totally in your own beliefs.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 6:19 pmNow you can do another round of pissily complaining that I shouldn't accuse you of pissiness if you want. I might bite, but I might not bother.
I have not even done, what you proposing here, a first time.
From you, all we seem to get is continual attempts at ridicule in the hope that you look more superior.
You may be fooling yourself and some "others". But you can not fool EVERY one.