• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

JEROME - Black holes do not exist

Has anyone not figured out that Jerry here is just doing this to get a rise out of us?
 
*test*

Why the heck can't I see the most recent post?
I don't have SeanDamnit on ignore...

edit: ah, there we go.

The new page wasn't loading. Very odd.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
*sigh*

Given the context, the appropriate definition is this one:
Click to expand...

JEROME DA GNOME said:
I introduced the word!!!


This is insane and all to common here.

The reader defines the words that are written and when corrected by the writer the reader tells the writer he is wrong.

This is insane.

:boggled:


ETA: Maybe I should try this. I could go about and redefine anything that I disagree with and ... THIS IS INSANE!!!
Click to expand...

Hey, Terry. I think we found the source of the database corruption...
 
Paul said:
Maybe you should try this: when you use a word with a meaning which should be obvious given the context, but which you have decided has an entirely different definition, you could link to the definition you wish to use. This would remove any misunderstandings and save you from having to not tell use anything more than once.
Click to expand...


I used the first and common definition of the word.

:mgbanghead
 
Hi Jerome: Back to the subject.

What do you think that the object in the center of our galaxy with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses in a volume with a radius of less than 45 AU is?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I used the first and common definition of the word.

:mgbanghead
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....do you always deliberately ignore the context of the discussion (here the fact that the discussion is on an internet forum among people who, for the most part, don't believe in the supernatural)?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
SeanDamnit said:
Has anyone not figured out that Jerry here is just doing this to get a rise out of us?
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. I think he's genuinely trying to articulate what he thinks about things. However, the problem is that what he thinks about things is merely denial of what other people think about things. If he has an actual opinion, he's yet to make it clear. Classic trolls don't usually rack up as many posts as he has.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Hmmmm....do you always deliberately ignore the context of the discussion (here the fact that the discussion is on an internet forum among people who, for the most part, don't believe in the supernatural)?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The context is a false thread title. Strange that you would ask to stay in context and introduce a new idea concerning the supernatural, which has not been any part of this talk. You only wrote one sentence, how did you conflate without noticing?
 
Belz... said:
And how should we have known, exactly, which definition you used ?

Should we pick the first one by default no matter what the context of the conversation is ?

Please, JEROME, no more wiggling.
Click to expand...

I used the first and common definition of the word. I am sorry that many here seem to lack the ability to understand that it is not proper to redefine words that others write.
 
So, do you guys also like to argue with the people on the streets that talk to themselves too? Poor JEROME is in great need of attention, not knowledge and/or information, just attention. His avatar also looks a little like a guy that comes to ACE where I work. He seems to be always buying a new shovel because he has worn out another one, and mumbles under his breath about digging new holes to move a goalpost too.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I used the first and common definition of the word.
Click to expand...
You see, this is where the trouble starts: I gave you definitions of made-up, the first of which (assuming you are talking about things and not people) is
2. Of a thing.
a. Put together; composed of parts from various sources.
Click to expand...
This is not the obvious definition in the context of your problem with black holes; in this case 3. a. is much more appropriate.

To make things perfectly clear, please give the exact definition, from the list, that you are using for made-up.
 
Paul said:
You see, this is where the trouble starts: I gave you definitions of made-up, the first of which (assuming you are talking about things and not people) is This is not the obvious definition in the context of your problem with black holes; in this case 3. a. is much more appropriate.

To make things perfectly clear, please give the exact definition, from the list, that you are using for made-up.
Click to expand...

We are currently talking about the word avatar. :boggled:


But since you asked.

Made-up: fully manufactured

So as to not further the misunderstanding.

Manufactured: to make into a product suitable for use


Are there any more common, first listed definitions of words that I use that you do not understand?
 
Hi Jerome: Back to the subject.

What do you think that the object in the center of our galaxy with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses in a volume with a radius of less than 45 AU is?
 
Reality Check said:
Hi Jerome: Back to the subject.

What do you think that the object in the center of our galaxy with a mass of 3.7 million solar masses in a volume with a radius of less than 45 AU is?
Click to expand...

Why do you think I have changed my answer from the first time I answered this question?
 
And which posting was this in?
I seem to remember that it was in the vein of "I have no idea but anything except a black hole". Am I wrong?
 
Searching for postings is a problem with a thread containing 900 postings, especially when the search index has lost the older entries (back soon hopefully).
Any idea roughly where the posting was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom