OS 0 1 2, Global Dialectic for the Internet

[WWHP]

What the heck has this discussion to do with "Computers," "links" *or* "the internet?" [/B]

about as much as it has to do with Bubblefish's thread on the randi challenge. zip

Since i am still claiming the EXACT same thing now as when I did when I arrived, I certainly am not defeated, nor is my claim.

 

[Pragmatist]

I certainly am not defeated, nor is my claim.

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-04.htm

 

[WWHP]

I find the monty python media clip more accuratly descripts my posts rather than yours. Since I already defeated your arguements two or three times, I dont have the time to continue to re-address the same point over and over.

Although a physical body only has a few limbs to hack off, a delusional mind can reproduce them ad infinitum.

If you wish for delusion to triumph in your mind, so be it.

See you at the Randi Challenge next year.

 

[jellerbee]

A is NOT A

Emphasis Mine.

BubbleFish at 6:12 PM 7/17/05

"Being a practioner, I know Qi exists, I dont need Dr. Lo to prove it to me. I can manipulate it and prove it to myself.

BubbleFish at 10:09 PM 7/17/05

I too am skeptical of Dr. Lo's testing. I am naturally skeptical until I can prove it to myself.

 

[Zep]

Originally posted by Bubblefish
For the record, a correction on my end. In this thread I mentioned Dr. Lo had tenure at Melbourne University. I dont know if that is true, I wrote that heatedly. He was a professor of physics there, and what his exact title was, sitting or tenure or visiting, I dont know for certain. I think I saw where it was tenure, but I look back and may have been mistaken.

I have made that CLARIFICATION after going back and reading this rather humorous discussion with all of you.

Was this post in in response to this one of mine?

Incidentally, I shall be checking into the business of "sitting tenure" for Dr. Lo at Melbourne University. He was last seen there in 1976, according to a number of sources. So a tenure now, especially when he is so involved in the Institute of Noetics in California, seems somewhat dubious. However it may yet be valid, so I'll let you know what they tell me when they get back to me

YES ZEP!

Then your triple reverse backflip in the piked position is noted. Once again.

 

[Zep]

Thanks Zep. You should do yours anyway, it's bound to be more interesting than his drivel.

By the way, did you notice his sig? Hilarious!

That would be a waste of effort all round - you covered my points better than I had written at the time.

To me, Poissons De Bulle has yet to pass from being a self-important but annoyingly ignorant pre-teen to being a functional adult. So I just ignore the insults...which leaves almost no other content, really.

And a little research shows BubbleBrat actually does personal promotions work in LA, hence the the talk about being an "agent" for Dr Lo, I expect. But with BB's flair for personal harmony, talk about a recipe for disaster! Total FIGJAM.

 

[Zep]

I find the monty python media clip more accuratly descripts my posts rather than yours. Since I already defeated your arguements two or three times, I dont have the time to continue to re-address the same point over and over.

Although a physical body only has a few limbs to hack off, a delusional mind can reproduce them ad infinitum.

If you wish for delusion to triumph in your mind, so be it.

See you at the Randi Challenge next year.

Eh, yeah. Bring it on. Just like you did here.

 

[Mojo]

And a little research shows BubbleBrat actually does personal promotions work in LA

Something like this guy, perhaps?

ETA: Maybe not: I think he was in NY.

 

[WWHP]

Gentleman and delusional academia,


Although i would normally be able to rip through your rediculously posted ideas about me with the grace and charm of the princes and with the logic of the elders, I really dont have time.

You see, I have just given birth to a beautiful baby boy, 6 pounds and 9 ounces, perfectly health and loving his father.

If you all wish to assume that I am not addressing delusional and misleading Pragmatists arguements because he 'got me', guess again. I can assure all of you that I could rip apart every single one of his last posts false ideas exactly like I did his first two. But since his apparently obssessive nature inspired him to post with the length of the US constitution, I dont have the time to tit for tat with a delusional man who forces the world into a false bivalent model and then accuses anyone else of lying to fit his map.

So, take that as you will. You are already convinced of what you wish to believe.

All of my claims here I am STILL claiming, and one day you will see for yourself.


until then......




scroll down






















keep scrolling.......................






















you can blow me



Love,

Bubblefish

 

[MRC_Hans]

Pure, uninteresting troll. Won't even offer you congratulations. Perhaps being a parent will make you grow up. Your're now on my ignore list.

Hans

 

[WWHP]

Then your triple reverse backflip in the piked position is noted. Once again. [/B]

Oh Zep,

At least when your delusional innuendo is made, you keep it short and sweet. And if you go back and try to pull a sherlock holmes to find clues in my posts to back up your innuendo, you shouldnt leave out the information that explains what I write in context.

Dr. Lo's theoritcal QM proof of Qi I may be skeptical of, just like I am skeptical of Danniel Dennets 'Consciousness explained' as a proof of consciousness.
However, I am not skeptical that Dr. Lo can manipulate Qi, and there is a distinction between his theoritical proof explaining Qi and what he can do with Qi

That doesnt mean I am skeptical of Qi, just like I am not skeptical about the existence of consciousness. I dont need Daniel Dennet to prove to me that consciousness exists and for him to prove his theory empirically for me to know that I exist.

iF you read my posts, you would note that I clarify the distinctions between a subjective truth qualifier and empirical proof.


tootles.

 

[WWHP]

Won't even offer you congratulations.

Wasnt expecting the anti human crowd here to anyway.

. Your're now on my ignore list.

good, one less delusional troll for me to worry about.

 

[Zep]

Oh Zep,

At least when your delusional innuendo is made, you keep it short and sweet. And if you go back and try to pull a sherlock holmes to find clues in my posts to back up your innuendo, you shouldnt leave out the information that explains what I write in context.

Dr. Lo's theoritcal QM proof of Qi I may be skeptical of, just like I am skeptical of Danniel Dennets 'Consciousness explained' as a proof of consciousness.
However, I am not skeptical that Dr. Lo can manipulate Qi, and there is a distinction between his theoritical proof explaining Qi and what he can do with Qi

That doesnt mean I am skeptical of Qi, just like I am not skeptical about the existence of consciousness. I dont need Daniel Dennet to prove to me that consciousness exists and for him to prove his theory empirically for me to know that I exist.

iF you read my posts, you would note that I clarify the distinctions between a subjective truth qualifier and empirical proof.


tootles.

...with triple-twist for that added degree of delusion on top of evasion.

PS. Would you like me to critique your previous "blow me" post? I think you managed at least one major spelling error and one grammar error per paragraph. Not counting the aforementioned delusions, the ongoing lack of content, and the initial total evasion. You almost qualify to be Kumar, if it weren't for the fact you are trying to be an idiot.

PPS. Please keep it up! You're my current post-count accelerator!

 

[WWHP]

.with triple-twist for that added degree of delusion on top of evasion.

oh cute Zep, if you read my thread, you would see that is what I have been saying all along.

PS. Would you like me to critique your previous "blow me" post?

would love you to!

I think you managed at least one major spelling error and one grammar error per paragraph.

hehe, sounds like my style.

Not counting the aforementioned delusions,

ahhh Zep, just go re read the randi challenge thread, k?

the ongoing lack of content, and the initial total evasion.

evasion? oh, you mean when I dont respond the way you wish I would, or with the presumed response you THOUGHT I would write....got it, that is what the delusional crowd here calls evasion.

You almost qualify to be Kumar, if it weren't for the fact you are trying to be an idiot.

that was a dud!

PPS. Please keep it up! You're my current post-count accelerator! [/B]

you got it buddy. you too! your my favorite here.

 

[SmooveK]

Bubblefish:

You have said nothing of actual note and resorted to attacks since your initial post was criticized and your own ignorance shown.

To continue as you have shows that you are a troll.

There is no other explanation.

 

[Donks]

However, I am not skeptical that Dr. Lo can manipulate Qi, and there is a distinction between his theoritical proof explaining Qi and what he can do with Qi

That doesnt mean I am skeptical of Qi, just like I am not skeptical about the existence of consciousness. I dont need Daniel Dennet to prove to me that consciousness exists and for him to prove his theory empirically for me to know that I exist.

Have you provided evidence of Qi? I don't have the time at the moment to read your threads and was wondering if you have.

 

[Pragmatist]

Just a quick summary:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986535#post1870986535

Dr. Lo's says it can be measured with QM through what he calls water clusters.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870992255#post1870992255

Dr. Lo has a theory regarding Qi that he calls 'water clusters'. According to him, he had his research paper published and reviewed a few years back.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870986560#post1870986560

Dr. Lo has published his evidence in peer reviewed journals. I am not sure if they are available on the web or not. Would you care to read them?

It terms of Dr. Lo's peer reviewed papers, if you are serious, I will see if I can get you a copy.

I say that these papers don't exist. I say that the only thing that exists is Lo's papers on "water clusters" which I already criticized - in a non-peer reviewed letters journal (i.e. Modern Physics Letters B). Bubblefish says that these papers are not relevant to his claims.

I say that Lo has never published peer reviewed papers on either qi or "water clusters".

I say that such papers don't exist.

I say that Bubblefish is a liar.

Put up or shut up.


From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870996742#post1870996742

Many of you accused him of fraud, and where does it say that? All you have done if is found contention on an irrelevant topic.

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870997974#post1870997974

And I did not accuse him of fraud. In fact I don't actually recall anyone accusing him of fraud. Please would you point out where anyone actually accused him of fraud? The only similar comment that I can find is that Zep called him a quack. So please show the evidence in support of your claim that "many of you accused him of fraud".

I say that nobody accused him of fraud, and only Zep accused him of being a quack.

I say that "many of us" did not accuse him of fraud.

I say that Bubblefish is a liar.

Put up or shut up.


A summary of reponses so far to these and other questions:

From: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870998295#post1870998295

1. I find this little tit for tat exchange going on on your end to be a bit delusional and paranoid.
2. You don’t appear to be able to integrate reality too well.
3. Certainly not discussion.
4. You don’t know how to read or relate to others via discussion, and I don’t have the time to teach you.
5. Sentences you write like ... are stupid.
6. I don’t admit I don’t know if it is true that Dr. Lo has proof of Qi, I say I accept, for reasons I am not mentioning, that he does, and have signified that over and over.
7. You arguing with a character in your head.
8. Your not cognitive fully of this discussion.
9. I don’t need Lo’s science to prove to me the existence of Qi, I already experience and accept it as a true phenomena.
10. Your quite lost in language,
11. and are unable to address a rational discussion.
12. The above is TRUE, and argued as true, but I wont repeatedly argue it with a delusional obsessive individual on a discussion forum.
13. That is a stupid waste of my time, and will not participate in your delusions or argue them.

1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13 constitute 11 cases of ad-hominem. 6, 9 and 12 constitute 3 claims.

Answers so far, 0.
Evidence so far, 0.

1. Gentleman and delusional academia,
2. Although i would normally be able to rip through your rediculously posted ideas about me with the grace and charm of the princes and with the logic of the elders, I really dont have time.
3. If you all wish to assume that I am not addressing delusional and misleading Pragmatists arguements
4. I can assure all of you that I could rip apart every single one of his last posts false ideas
5. But since his apparently obssessive nature
6. I dont have the time to tit for tat with a delusional man
7. who forces the world into a false bivalent model
8. All of my claims here I am STILL claiming, and one day you will see for yourself.
9. you can blow me

1,3,5,6,9 constitute 5 cases of ad-hominem. 2,4,7,8 constitute 4 claims.

So in response to various questions of which I've extracted just 2 above, the grand total to date of Bubblefish's responses are:

16 cases of argumentum ad-hominem
7 claims
Answers 0
Evidence 0



Time for a Larsen list perhaps...?

 

[Zep]

oh cute Zep, if you read my thread, you would see that is what I have been saying all along.



would love you to!



hehe, sounds like my style.



ahhh Zep, just go re read the randi challenge thread, k?



evasion? oh, you mean when I dont respond the way you wish I would, or with the presumed response you THOUGHT I would write....got it, that is what the delusional crowd here calls evasion.



that was a dud!



you got it buddy. you too! your my favorite here.

 

[WWHP]

My old friend SmooveK

Bubblefish:

You have said nothing of actual note and resorted to attacks since your initial post was criticized and your own ignorance shown.

I have clarified and addressed concerns, and used novel theatre and honest expression to denote my state of mind.

To continue as you have shows that you are a troll.

lol, you guys look at me as a troll no matter what I do. However, since YOURE coming onto my thread, it appears that your more the troll than me.

There is no other explanation. [/B]

oh the delusional mind that always wants to be 'true'.

 

[WWHP]

Pragmatist! You have learned to quell your passions for Bubblefish! By keeping your posts more consise, you have given me the oppurtunity to respond!

Just a quick summary:


Bubblefish wroter. Lo's says it can be measured with QM through what he calls water clusters.

Yes, I wrote that

I say that these papers don't exist.

who cares?

I say that the only thing that exists is Lo's papers on "water clusters" which I already criticized - in a non-peer reviewed letters journal (i.e. Modern Physics Letters B). Bubblefish says that these papers are not relevant to his claims.

correct. they are irrelevant to my claims regarding the Randi Challenge

I say that Lo has never published peer reviewed papers on either qi or "water clusters".

who cares?

I say that such papers don't exist.

who cares?

I say that Bubblefish is a liar.

who cares?

Put up or shut up.

I dont have to 'put up' anything, especially when I have clarified my intentions and have stated about a kazillion times I am not here to explain EMPIRICAL proof of Qi, however I can discuss the philosophical or ontological implications of my posts, the relevancy of Qi as a subjective truth qualifier, which in your delusion you dont address.

I say that nobody accused him of fraud, and only Zep accused him of being a quack.

There was someone here that accused him of fraud, and even came over to my forum to use those very same words.

I say that "many of us" did not accuse him of fraud.

perhaps 'many of you' did not use the word 'fraud'.

I say that Bubblefish is a liar.

who cares?

Put up or shut up.

I dont have to 'put up' anything and will continue to post at my leisure.

A summary of reponses so far to these and other questions:

[1. I find this little tit for tat exchange going on on your end to be a bit delusional and paranoid.]

Yes, you dont appear to me to be able to properly model a discussion environment, you jump to conclusions, and seek to prove your convictions by mangling my words instead of asking for clarification.

So, let's highlight it again:

[2. You don’t appear to be able to integrate reality too well.
3. Certainly not discussion.
4. You don’t know how to read or relate to others via discussion, and I don’t have the time to teach you.]


Another thing you do is confuse words with intention. You do this over and over. I never claimed Dr. Lo is an expert. Expert is a relative term. To me, he is an expert, to someone else who is a physicist, perhaps, I dont know, that is why I simply stated he was 'respected'. I assume to have the positions he has means he is respected.

So when you write that "Now your saying he's NOT an expert" I say:

5. Sentences you write like that ... are stupid.

because they ARE stupid. It is stupid to assume another human beings intention other than what they clarify it to be. You use this false bivalency in your arguements that is rather easy to sift through and pick apart. However, since you post with the length of the US constitution, going through every exchange with you is a bore and a waste of time, because all your mind is doing is trying to re-arrange the discussion and model it to FIT your conclusion. I call that stupidity. Your not seeking to learn any information that is outside of your point of view. Your rigid. YOU tell me this by the way you communicate.


[6. I don’t admit I don’t know if it is true that Dr. Lo has proof of Qi, I say I accept, for reasons I am not mentioning, that he does, and have signified that over and over.]

Now here is where I can understand there would be confusion, but if you would simply ask questions requesting clarification, you would come to understand.

Qi, being a subjective truth qualifer, currently up til now if Lo's and other's claims are proven, is outside of the world of empirical evidence, and is a different value, like consciousness or ideas. I accept that Dr. Lo can 'show' Qi exists outside of his theoritical paper explaining what he does. I am not going into the reasons I accept that, UNLESS you want to have a philosophical or ontological discusion.

I AM personaly skeptical regarding his theoritcal proof of Qi, which is different than him practicing Qi as an advanced practictioner. Dr. Lo can manipulate Qi, this I accept, and to many, this could be 'proof' in the subjective sense of 'experience'.

Dr. lo is NOT going to use his theoritical paper on Qi in the Randi Challenge. Nor is it being used now in the study he is about to finish up with a few others. Since I have acces to information going on in that study and you dont, I have insight here BEFORE the paper is to be shortly published. It would be unwise of me to address that study before they are finished.


[7. You arguing with a character in your head.
8. Your not cognitive fully of this discussion.]

Yes, you have an 'image' in your head of what I am doing and what I am up to. Now, since I know me certainly better than you, it is quite simple for me to see that you DONT discuss with me, but rather your image of me in your head that your trying to prove exists by your long drawn out posts.



[9. I don’t need Lo’s science to prove to me the existence of Qi, I already experience and accept it as a true phenomena.]

Yes. This is true. I dont need Dr. Lo to prove his theoritcal paper to be true for me to accept Qi as a phenomena.



[10. Your quite lost in language,]

Yes you are indeed. You spending so much time arguing over intention confused as language. Like your 'your saying he is NOT an expert now?' accusation. Utterly rediculous.

Words are empty and relative to discusion. Your confusing how YOUR defining words with how I am intending them to address what I write.



[11. and are unable to address a rational discussion.]

Indeed. It is rational to ask questions and seek clarification. If your paying more attention to the image of your opponent in your head and trying to fit the discusion around a false image believed to be true, that is IRRATIONAL.



[12. The above is TRUE, and argued as true, but I wont repeatedly argue it with a delusional obsessive individual on a discussion forum.]


Yes, to me, you appear delusional. I am not trying to defame you, I am being honest. You dont appear able to properly integrate simple objective reality, rather force the image of the reality in your head onto the environment. I dont know what else to call that other than delusion.



[13. That is a stupid waste of my time, and will not participate in your delusions or argue them. ]


Which is true. I dont have time to argue YOUR delusions. When one confuses false images as the objective reality and wont let go, those delusions can continue ad infinitum. That is your concern, not mine. This discusion to me is utterly meaninglessness. It is not about anything relevant. Perhaps you have time to continue to argue meaninglessness, but I dont.

1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10,11,12,13 constitute 11 cases of ad-hominem. 6, 9 and 12 constitute 3 claims.

Answers so far, 0.
Evidence so far, 0.



1,3,5,6,9 constitute 5 cases of ad-hominem. 2,4,7,8 constitute 4 claims.

So in response to various questions of which I've extracted just 2 above, the grand total to date of Bubblefish's responses are:

16 cases of argumentum ad-hominem
7 claims

I dont deny that I refrence YOU as a human being and relate how YOUR actions APPEAR to me. But I do this AFTER I have clarified in my arguements RATIONALLY, which you appear UNABLE to integrate in any logical fashion.

Therefore, I am NOT using argumentative ad hominem to prove my arguements.

If you wish to get lost in language again and use the emotionaly charged word 'claim' to the other things I write, so be it. It is a perfect example of what I say about your level of communication. Your lost in language. Since you get to define the word 'claim' as anything I write, and then hold some standard of 'claim' that must be addressed the way YOU want it to, YOU appear to me as delusional and rigid, lost in language.

I dont have time to continue to address your delusions here. I imagine your rather a mature man, and you have been communicating like this for sometime. I dont expect you to change anytime soon.


Bubblefish