The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Matthew Ellard]

I don't mind of anything that I've posted here one bit. In fact I hope it becomes well renowned in the world and it lasts forever!

I already know you are lying and you are very upset. You already had Pyrrho delete all your previous posts on the Skeptic Society Forum as you were so humiliated and embarrassed about your earlier insane claims.


"Stundies" : Your nonsense posts will be added to the eleven other current threads, by lunatics, making alternative bad-science claims.
They will then be added to the thousands of earlier insane claims.

If anyone searches "tazanastazio infinitism"......they can laugh at you again.

 

[tazanastazio]

Yada, yada...blah, blah, blah...

Like I've already said,

Bullflakes!

I'll do you one better, as always! I hope the first Google hit for the word "infinitism" to lead to "Taz Anastazio" on the first page, and that first page to include a link to this very thread! The same goes for Bing, Duckduckgo, any other search engine and successors. Nay! I'll do you even better than that! I hope this thread is included in an International Skeptics Forum hard bound publication, that'd occupy a shelf of every chain bookstore of every English speaking country, and quite the number within the rest of the world! I'd be very proud in fact, if I was to elaborate about this very thread, in the media across the globe!

"Son", if I was to tell you that the occurance of any of the aforementioned would make me "very upset",
that would be a lie!

Hasta luego chamaquito, vaya con Dios.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I'll do you one better, I hope the first Google hit for the word "infinitism" to lead to "Taz Anastazio" on the first page, and that first page to include a link to this very thread!

Nope. It leads to the Wikipedia page on "Infinitism", from where normal people understand you stole the word from, for your new invented "religion".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitism

In contrast, a search for "Tazanastazio" will lead them to your posts, where you don't even know what a magnet is and your claims about biblical radioactive angels..

That's why you deleted all your similar posts on the Skeptic Society Forum out of embarrassment. Did you forget again?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I hope this thread is included in an International Skeptics Forum hard bound publication, that'd occupy a shelf of every chain bookstore of every English speaking country

Like this?

 

[tazanastazio]

Nope. It leads to the Wikipedia page on "Infinitism" yada, yada...blah, blah, blah

All philosophical concepts may bear some truth or may be correct to a degree, but no absolutism would be accurate, other than the certainty of the Infinite, and that the infinite has no duplicate.

The concept of a segment, or a sequence of events with a beginning and an end, or a circle of events; can be used to describe everything within the Infinite, which is finite, not the Infinite.

An occurence is preceded by a sequence of infinite events but no absolutes in relation to any such sequence (regression or progression) would be accurate.

No philosophy would justifiably claim the name "Infinitism" other than the philosophy that pertains to the Infinite itself; to the mathematical infinity as extended to every other scientific discipline and extrapolated to existence; and which adheres to the aforementioned principles?

Any other philosophy so far, either barely, slightly, or inadequate approaches the concept of what infinitism should truly be about, or misuses the term altogether.

The term "infinite" and its derivatives were used many times in the past by mathematicians; along with authors and philosophers (Anaximander, Giordano Bruno, Victor Hugo), to describe some of the attributes of that which is not finite. I simply have extrapolated the concept to its full infinite extent.

 

[tazanastazio]

Like this?

(you actually wasted your time to put together this pointless picture! Ha, ha, ha!)

Any lawyer who is worth his/her pay, would tell you that publishing an author's work without approval; let alone, paraphrasing an author's work, especially in an effort to defame the author; is grounds for a successful lawsuit. In fact you don't need a lawyer to tell you that, is common knowledge! What is more, any pupil is even taught not to plagiarize from the junior high level! Don't waste my time anymore with nonsense! I'm busy.



Hasta la vista chamaquito.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

All philosophical concepts may bear some truth or may be correct to a degree, ......

Hilariously, you unwittingly stole the word Infinitism from an already existing philosophical concept. Anyone looking up "Infinitism" will go to discussion on that topic.

Infinitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitism

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Any lawyer who is worth his/her pay, would tell you that publishing an author's work without approval; let alone, paraphrasing an author's work, especially in an effort to defame the author; is grounds for a successful lawsuit.

No. As a lawyer I can inform you that excerpts can be used in both positive and negative reviews.

You really don't have a clue about anything, do you?

 

[tazanastazio]

No. As a lawyer I can inform you that excerpts can be used in both positive and negative reviews.

You really don't have a clue about anything, do you?

Give it a try then; with your name included in sharing the responsibility of the publication, and I'll see you in court.
I did say "any lawyer who is worth his/her pay", didn't I?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Give it a try then; with your name included in sharing the responsibility of the publication, and I'll see you in court.
I did say "any lawyer who is worth his/her pay", didn't I?

1) I am a lawyer. You haven't got a clue.

2) You don't know anything about "Fair use" of copyright. I do

"“Fair use” is the right to use portions of copyrighted materials without permission for purposes of education, commentary, or parody. ..".

3) I have no need to copy your posts into a book, as they are already here for people to laugh at you.

If anyone were bothered to review "your book" on philosophical infinitism they would have a non-stop party quoting your posts on "radioactive angels" and other nonsense, that have nothing to do with the existing philosophical field of infinitism.

Philosophical Infinitism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitism

What makes you very funny is that you didn't bother to check first if "inifinitism" was already being used since the 19th century by philosophers.

 

[abaddon]

Any lawyer who is worth his/her pay, would tell you that publishing an author's work without approval; let alone, paraphrasing an author's work, especially in an effort to defame the author; is grounds for a successful lawsuit.

Veiled threats of legal action are grounds, on this site, for instant banning. You are unaware of that because you were to lazy to read the T's and C's.

In fact you don't need a lawyer to tell you that, is common knowledge!

That same lawyer, if he/she is worth their pay, would also explain the concept of fair use to you. Of course you would not understand said concept. An ethical lawyer would decline to take such a case. An unethical lawyer would agree to take your money. Either way, such a case would dismally fail.

What is more, any pupil is even taught not to plagiarize from the junior high level!

Citations are not plagiarism. Didn't you know that?

Don't waste my time anymore with nonsense!

Yet you are quite prepared to waste everyone else's time with your crap, including your own. That is called hypocrisy.

I'm busy.

Clearly, you are not busy at all. You have any amount of time to write your screeds on multiple websites.

SO let us summarise.

1. You have a messed up version of how the universe works.
2. You have absolutely no evidence that your messed up idea might even be vaguely true.
3. Your messed up idea flies in the face of ALL available evidence.
4. When challenged, you descend into veiled legal threats. Because your notion is so logically fragile and bereft of evidential support that you have nothing left in the locker.

Somehow, you think this BS should be persuasive to others. And you are frustrated when nobody finds it remotely persuasive. To the extent that you will hurl random threats of legal action against your critics. To silence them. Or at least try to do so.

As an observer, the situation is rather different to me.

Your notion is crank science at it's worst, you have absolutely no evidence for any of your claims, you are willing to do and say anything to protect your notion from criticism even if truth and honesty are casualties along the way.

Now, when somebody, anybody, rocks up and makes an extraordinary claim, as far as I am concerned, they all get placed in the same category. Extraordinary claims. All of those are dismissed unless and until the proponent can produce evidence, actual evidence, to support the claim made. So far, YOU have reached the stage of having a claim. And have then refused to go any further than said claim. So far, all you have managed is "because I say so" as support for your useless notion. And that is not sufficient for anything. It just does not cut the evidential mustard in any way shape or form.

 

[Craig4]

Don't waste my time anymore with nonsense! I'm busy.

What's sad is that what you call time wasting most people would call education. The real waste is that in all the time you've spent here, you seem to have learned nothing.

 

[tazanastazio]

Veiled threats of legal action are grounds, on this site, for instant banning. You are unaware of that because you were to lazy to read the T's and C's.

That same lawyer, if he/she is worth their pay, would also explain the concept of fair use to you. Of course you would not understand said concept. An ethical lawyer would decline to take such a case. An unethical lawyer would agree to take your money. Either way, such a case would dismally fail.

Citations are not plagiarism. Didn't you know that?

Yet you are quite prepared to waste everyone else's time with your crap, including your own. That is called hypocrisy.

Clearly, you are not busy at all. You have any amount of time to write your screeds on multiple websites.

SO let us summarise.

1. You have a messed up version of how the universe works.
2. You have absolutely no evidence that your messed up idea might even be vaguely true.
3. Your messed up idea flies in the face of ALL available evidence.
4. When challenged, you descend into veiled legal threats. Because your notion is so logically fragile and bereft of evidential support that you have nothing left in the locker.

Somehow, you think this BS should be persuasive to others. And you are frustrated when nobody finds it remotely persuasive. To the extent that you will hurl random threats of legal action against your critics. To silence them. Or at least try to do so.

As an observer, the situation is rather different to me.

Your notion is crank science at it's worst, you have absolutely no evidence for any of your claims, you are willing to do and say anything to protect your notion from criticism even if truth and honesty are casualties along the way.

Now, when somebody, anybody, rocks up and makes an extraordinary claim, as far as I am concerned, they all get placed in the same category. Extraordinary claims. All of those are dismissed unless and until the proponent can produce evidence, actual evidence, to support the claim made. So far, YOU have reached the stage of having a claim. And have then refused to go any further than said claim. So far, all you have managed is "because I say so" as support for your useless notion. And that is not sufficient for anything. It just does not cut the evidential mustard in any way shape or form.

1st, I don't mind any criticism on THIS thread alone.
What Matthew Ellard was joking about was publishing a book with certain title and subscript of title. I was referring to that alone. I was not even referring to the fact that he took liberties with published work of mine from another forum posted on ANOTHER web site, in some cases about 10 years ago, misrepresenting the original posts; which even if they were available for comparison, people would not bother.

2nd, this is the third time I mention that everyone has a mind and an opinion of their own. I'll add to that: "or have ceratain opinion or support a viewpoint for various reasons.

 

[tazanastazio]

What's sad is that what you call time wasting most people would call education. The real waste is that in all the time you've spent here, you seem to have learned nothing.

I was referring to Matthew Ellard's nonsense Graig; Don't take things personally. As a matter of fact I find this forum very educational. Additionally it is proven by neuroscience that social association and conversation enhances cognitive ability, by means of the building of neuroconnections; and therefore contributes to the thwarting of natural mental degeneration that may happen with aging; and to people's general well being. But when it is done with negativity, and that negativity is let to affect people beyond a certain degree, it becomes stressful and counterproductive and can even be damaging to their health.

Besides, I think we have just about exchausted the subject.

 

[abaddon]

1st, I don't mind any criticism on THIS thread alone.

Really? K. Your crank notions suck in every way possible. They explain nothing, not even basic facts already established. They have exactly zero evidence in favour of them and all established evidence shows them to be utter bollocks. When your notion is challenged you have only two tactics: Make up some brand new crap or ignore the challenge and pretend it never happened.

What Matthew Ellard was joking about was publishing a book with certain title and subscript of title. I was referring to that alone.

Sure. But while everyone else understood that it was not a real publication you did not. We know this because you immediately introduced "law suit" "libel" "slander" and veiled legal threats into the conversation.If your crackpot notion had any substance to it you would have defended it on it's own merits. You only introduced the veiled legal threats because at some level, you understand that you are unable to defend your mad notion because there is no substance to start with.

I was not even referring to the fact that he took liberties with published work of mine from another forum posted on ANOTHER web site, in some cases about 10 years ago, misrepresenting the original posts; which even if they were available for comparison, people would not bother.

It so happens that I am a member there also. So your BS is plainly apparent to me. Your posts are not available because YOU demanded their deletion. Your attempt at revisionism is noted and dismissed.

2nd, this is the third time I mention that everyone has a mind and an opinion of their own. I'll add to that: "or have ceratain opinion or support a viewpoint for various reasons.

Everyone does indeed have the right to their own opinion. Nobody has the right to their own facts.


Now, you rocked up here with your wild claim that "god is infinities". For starters, nobody anywhere ever has demonstrated that there is a god in the first place. In fact, were you to do so, you would be the first in all human history. Unless and until you can demonstrate that some god exists, anything else you may claim is moot and worthless.

 

[tazanastazio]

Really?...etc.

I'm glad you got it out of your system Abbadon; now excuse me while I enjoy and appreciate my glimpse of the Infinite:

 

[abaddon]

I'm glad you got it out of your system Abbadon; now excuse me while I enjoy and appreciate my glimpse of the Infinite:

View attachment 41087

There is nothing infinite in that image.

 

[tazanastazio]

There is nothing infinite in that image.

As with everything else, that is also a matter of perception; even a glimpse of the Infinite is an infinity in itself.

 

[sackett]

I just felt a breeze

As with everything else, that is also a matter of perception; even a glimpse of the Infinite is an infinity in itself.

Gettin' oracular in here.

 

[tazanastazio]

Gettin' oracular in here.

Just stating the fact of life:

The Infinite is the only certainty, everything else is a matter of perception and perspective.