Theory and Proof

Really, Time02112, is it necessary to post so much in one thread? Most of this stuff is contained in many popularised physics books anyone could pick up at the library. And it doesn't bear any relation to what this thread was originally about. I know you like to cut and paste, but this is ridiculous.
Plus, this particular essay (or book, whatever it is) shows quite a Christian bias. Explaining relativity through Scripture? Is this really necessary? What about Nirvana, or the Australian aborigines' Dreamtime, or one of any number of spiritual 'beyond time' beliefs?
He does have a point there Mr. Arrogant (opps I mean Janus =). It seems like your the only one being bothered by this =). Please excuse us for not being or acting like you.

The world would be such a better place if we all did what you thought would be best, right =)? Haha. I hope you can tell I was being sarcastic...

Have a nice day,
-Javier C.

<This message has been edited by TimeTravelActivist (edited 09 July 2000).>
Time 02112, my point was just, that if you got this info from a website, it would be much more efficient to post a link to it, father than pasting 10 pages in an unrelated thread. Like anyone, I like a clean thread, and postings like that just clutter it up almost to the point where one cannot quickly sift through the real argument. As for exposing others to the information, if someone doesn't have the small amount of time it takes to go to the library or do a simple search on the Web, do you really think they'll even be here reading through all of this stuff anyway?

If you run across interesting, unrelated info, post it in a new thread. That'll get it to a wider audience, too.

By this last flood of information, you completely changed the subject of this thread, ignoring the earlier topic. A topic which, perhaps, you were uncomfortable at being wrong in? I'd appreciate it if you'd stay more focused on one topic, so that we can debate them to the fullest.
Hey Janus, do you always like talking people out of things that don't matter? What a downer you are man. I mean, come ‘on. I'm not bothered by Time02112 postings. Yet your assuming everyone else feels the same way you do. Have you asked everyone here how they feel? I don't think so. So you have no case.

If you don't like it here, no one is making you post...

-Javier C.
Very well, I have removed my posts that appear to bear no relavence to your thread as you wish Janus.

Perhaps if you were to elaborate some helpful guidelines, as to prevent any unecessary postings that would be more suitable to your expectations, we might be able to avoid such problems in the future.

I know you have made many hints to suggest what you are looking for, as pertaining to comments within your thread, but since it appears that very little contribution has met your standards, perhaps you should be more specific.
TIME! I didnt get to read all of those.
darn it.

could you atleast put the links to them back up?

<This message has been edited by pamela (edited 09 July 2000).>
My God, you're infantile, TTA. Maybe next time you start a thread I'll post reams of untopical information so you can see how it disrupts conversation. My main point is not that others would not want to see the info, it's that it is disruptive and has no *relevance*. Just as this argument has no relevance. Care to debate the topic? Anyone?
Janus, you say it's "untopical information, disrupts conversation, that the info has no relevance"? And all of this is, according to who?


Excuse us Janus. But we don't hear any compliants. Just from you. And that's the truth.

-Javier C.
Hmm... Judging how a thread was disrupted... Who might be able to judge if a conversation was being disrupted? Hmm... could it... yes, yes, I think so... could it be the people who were actually involved in the conversation? ie, Time02112 and I? And possibly the others who made single posts? Not, I think, someone who it seems only began contributing to the thread to argue.
What are you babbling about? I only said that your the only one complaining. You have no case if you haven't asked everyone if they were bothered by how Time02112 posts.


For the sake of argument, I believe you were implying, that a more *focused conversation pertaining to the topic of the thread is more ideal.

However, sometimes it becomes necessary to post references, or provide examples to clarify what an individual is discussing, therefore additional information may be required.

Be that as it may, the conversation should project a basis of *consistency, and the information provided, should remain relevant to that topic of *discussion, therefore additional outside information, should be limited to brief highlights, accompanied by "Links", thus allowing more room for *intelligent conversation.

<This message has been edited by Time02112 (edited 10 July 2000).>