Welcome, Tandi

[Azrael 5]

Why did you go and get yourself banned from digital spy PAJ. What did you get banned for ?

For injecting reality into the lives of people who have none.Like you.

This post has been reported. I consider it borderline with regards to civility, given the context.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[wiggywoo25]

Who the f""k are you

This post has been reported. Please read your Membership Agreement, although we anticipate heated debate and exchanges your post (given the context) is in violation of your Membership agreement. Repeated breaches of your Membership Agreement may result in further sanctions being applied.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Temp3st]

Who the f""k are you

reported

 

[wiggywoo25]

Tempest do you know why paj was banned. REPORTED do I look bothered

 

[Ossai]

Interesting Ian
A boat load of $#!+. You’ve done nothing more than beg the question and load everything down with assumptions for which you also don’t have evidence.

Ossai

 

[wiggywoo25]

For the boy paj. just incase anybody else thinks this post is for them its not its for the BOY PAJ. I just thought ide ask the question why did they ban you as I didnt see anything wrong with your posts ?. Once again this post is for THE BOY PAJ .

 

[Ashles]

The reasoning is circular. The brain is a limitation of perception for the soul so it can grow, and to grow it has to exist in this reality, and the brain has to be limited to allow this, and the brain is limited so the soul can grow, etc, etc, etc.

You presuppose the existence of the soul, then sure, you might be on to something. But none of this provides any proof of a soul or afterlife.

Ian your phobia of spiders can't be as bad as mine.

Anyway Huntsman is right. Your logic is circular.

Why do you feel our unbounbded consciousnesses would do what we currently do?

And how was it 'agreed' that full telepathy would be unworkable? You are talking about limitations on a mental state you could by absolute definition have no concept of.

How on earth are you reaching conclusions on what we could or couldn't do if we were pure consciousness?

 

[Azrael 5]

Saw that Moderator banner on my post and thought I was on wrong forum. A bit harsh Darat,surely?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Just a quick note. I have been banned from Digitalspy for saying that Derek Acorah is a terrible medium.

Why did you go and get yourself banned from digital spy PAJ. What did you get banned for ?

Tempest do you know why paj was banned. REPORTED do I look bothered

For the boy paj. just incase anybody else thinks this post is for them its not its for the BOY PAJ. I just thought ide ask the question why did they ban you as I didnt see anything wrong with your posts ?. Once again this post is for THE BOY PAJ .

My spirit guide is telling me that TheBoyPaj was banned from Digitalspy for saying that Derek Acorah is a terrible medium.

---

Jumping spiders?

Spiders shouldn't be able to jump.

That's just plain wrong.

 

[LostAngeles]

My spirit guide is telling me that TheBoyPaj was banned from Digitalspy for saying that Derek Acorah is a terrible medium.

---

Jumping spiders?

Spiders shouldn't be able to jump.

That's just plain wrong.

Damn you're good.

Jumping spiders are all good. When you have too many, they tend to jump into your kitty's mouth. Or at least, that's what Ridley tells me his littermate does after they fight.

 

[Hellbound]

Jumping spiders?

Spiders shouldn't be able to jump.

That's just plain wrong. [/B]

They're cute little buggers.

They only get like a half-inch diameter at best. They can usually fling themselves a few feet though. Lots of spunk

 

[Ashles]

Jumping spiders?

Spiders shouldn't be able to jump.

That's just plain wrong.

As everyone knows spiders have one intention and one single purpose for their entire existence and that is to jump on my face when I am least expecting it

Oh I know all the theories:
Blah, blah, important part of food chain, blah, blah fascinating diversity of species, blah, blah, stronger than steel, blah, blah, amazingly long life, blah, blah, anticaogulant, blah, blah.

Kill them. Kill them all.

Seriously.


Anyway, Ian I'm still awaiting your reasoning about the logic of assuming pure consciousness has limitations.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Huntsman
The reasoning is circular.

I haven't reasoned. I was speculating. It was a speculative hypothesis. So the question is whether you can show it to be false. So can you?

The brain is a limitation of perception for the soul so it can grow, and to grow it has to exist in this reality, and the brain has to be limited to allow this, and the brain is limited so the soul can grow, etc, etc, etc.

You presuppose the existence of the soul, then sure, you might be on to something. But none of this provides any proof of a soul or afterlife.

I know. So what? Prove my hypothesis to be false.

Ian your phobia of spiders can't be as bad as mine.

Anyway Huntsman is right. Your logic is circular.


Why do you feel our unbounbded consciousnesses would do what we currently do?

And how was it 'agreed' that full telepathy would be unworkable? You are talking about limitations on a mental state you could by absolute definition have no concept of.

Look up the previous discussion.

How on earth are you reaching conclusions on what we could or couldn't do if we were pure consciousness?

I think you're a bit confused. It is not *I* who is doing any concluding, it is the sKeptics. They have concluded that the brain generates consciousness.

 

[Ashles]

I haven't reasoned. I was speculating. It was a speculative hypothesis. So the question is whether you can show it to be false. So can you?

There's no point - if you agree there is no logical reason to think that your theory is correct then we need prove it incorrect no more than any other random theory.
Otherwise of course we would find ourselves having to show every single theory that anyone came up with to be false. Which would be both ridiculous and impossible.

I know. So what? Prove my hypothesis to be false.

Why? We have agreed that there isn't a single shred of evidence or logical reason to take this theory seriously in the first place.

I think invisible fairies pull our thoughts around by magic string.
Tell you what Ian, I shall show your theory to be false when you can show mine to be false. Is that fair?

Look up the previous discussion.

Could you link to it? You know, just to be slightly helpful. It's your claim after all.

I think you're a bit confused. It is not *I* who is doing any concluding, it is the sKeptics. They have concluded that the brain generates consciousness.

So you haven't actually concluded anything about consciousness?

Okay then.
Again we are agreed that your theories are based on no actual evidence or logic.

 

[Interesting Ian]

There's no point - if you agree there is no logical reason to think that your theory is correct then we need prove it incorrect no more than any other random theory.

I don't know what you mean by logical reason, but I certainly have reasons for supposing my hypothesis is correct. Nevertheless my hypothesis is speculative. I prefer talking about things that I'm more certain of such as the fact that materialism is unintelligible, that we have free will, that ESP exists etc.

Otherwise of course we would find ourselves having to show every single theory that anyone came up with to be false. Which would be both ridiculous and impossible.

My hypothesis fits all the facts.

Why? We have agreed that there isn't a single shred of evidence or logical reason to take this theory seriously in the first place.

Who has? You lot? I care less than nothing what you lot agree upon since you never provide any arguments to justify your contentions.

I think invisible fairies pull our thoughts around by magic string.
Tell you what Ian, I shall show your theory to be false when you can show mine to be false. Is that fair?

First of all it's not a theory -- it's a hypothesis. Secondly your "theory" makes no sense to me. Explain what it actually means and why you believe it.

Could you link to it? You know, just to be slightly helpful. It's your claim after all.

I don't know where it is.

 

[Jason 1978]

My spirit guide is telling me that TheBoyPaj was banned from Digitalspy for saying that Derek Acorah is a terrible medium.

---

Jumping spiders?

Spiders shouldn't be able to jump.

That's just plain wrong.

Just one more contribution from me, as I jump from forum to forum:-

I can tell you exactly why The Boy Paj was banned at Digital Spy.

It's because he persistently "sceptic baited" users on a "fans only" thread. He also harrassed them by vexatiously reporting any posts he considered didn't fall exactly into his definition of "fans only". A mod warned all on the thread to stick to the title, but he continued to abuse that guidance.

He asked for what he got IMHO.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Just one more contribution from me, as I jump from forum to forum:-

I can tell you exactly why The Boy Paj was banned at Digital Spy.

It's because he persistently "sceptic baited" users on a "fans only" thread. He also harrassed them by vexatiously reporting any posts he considered didn't fall exactly into his definition of "fans only". A mod warned all on the thread to stick to the title, but he continued to abuse that guidance.

He asked for what he got IMHO.

The mod said that people should stick to the topic, and not argue about the contents of any of the posts.

MY posts were consistently on topic (about Most Haunted), and I got banned as a result, despite the fact that I am a fan of the series. Apparently I'm not the right kind of fan. The unthinking kind.
The believers' posts were consistently off topic (personal chit-chat, moaning about me, criticising skeptics) yet they were allowed to continue. I reported posts which broke the moderators rules, and nothing happened.

I think this says more about the moderator's views than anything.