From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

That crap is 2 1/2 years old. I'm pretty sure you posted it back then.
It was fact-checked back then too.

Factcheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/

Excerpt:

"A series of blog posts... by climate change denier Paul Homewood
which were highly publicized in two stories by Christopher Booker
in the Daily Telegraph in London. Both writers focused on the
adjustments made to temperature readings at certain monitoring
stations around the world, and claimed that those adjustments throw
the entire science of global warming into question. This is not at
all the case, and those adjustments are a normal and important part
of climate science."

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the U.S. agency responsible for monitoring national and global temperature trends,
has addressed these types of adjustments several times before."

***

This article is from last month: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/07/170724133153.htm

Excerpts:

"Earlier this year Arctic sea ice sank to a record low
wintertime extent for the third straight year."

"Most of the central Arctic Ocean used to be covered with thick
multiyear ice that would not completely melt during the summer
and reflect back sunshine... But we have now lost most of this
old ice and exposed the open ocean below, which absorbs most of
the sun's energy. That's one reason the Arctic warming has
increased nearly twice the global average -- when we lose the
reflecting cover of the Arctic Ocean, we lose a mechanism to
cool the planet."

***

The big deal your article makes about warmer water influx
is just one of the issues involved, and is not the full story.

Here's a more accurate general look, including current conditions: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Excerpts:

"This May, sea ice in the Chukchi Sea was at a record low for the
satellite data record. The early retreat of ice in this region may
partially be a result of unusually warm ocean temperatures in the region."

[So yeah, that sometimes does happen, but here's the big picture,
little man:]

"Our past reports, and many other sources, have noted that the
Arctic region is warming faster than the rest of the globe.
This warming has accelerated in recent years, particularly
since 2005. The ten warmest years on record for the Arctic are
within the past twelve years, and 2016 was by far the warmest
in the record since 1900."

***

The 10 warmest years on record for the Arctic (as a whole)
happened within the past 12 years.

Please stop wasting my time with your bad sources.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

trupmy boy wrote...

Please stop wasting my time with your bad sources.

### - (laffing...) oh really?? well how very scientific of you! i didn't
think you'd notice?

i just thought it might make a nice change for ya to talk about something
ELSE than old trumpy for 2 minutes?? (cracking up hehehe...)

i mean, don't get upset about it, there's STILL the other 23.58 minutes of
the day left for you to RANT about your 'current' favourite pet subject/obsession as well innit tho'?

(we needed the break! but we're all WELL USED to it by now! LOL :))))

dullard! :P

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: thangolossus@gmail.com

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 02:25:36 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:

trupmy boy wrote...

Please stop wasting my time with your bad sources.

### - (laffing...) oh really?? well how very scientific of you! i didn't >think you'd notice?

i just thought it might make a nice change for ya to talk about something >ELSE than old trumpy for 2 minutes?? (cracking up hehehe...)

i mean, don't get upset about it, there's STILL the other 23.58 minutes of >the day left for you to RANT about your 'current' favourite pet >subject/obsession as well innit tho'?

(we needed the break! but we're all WELL USED to it by now! LOL :))))

dullard! :P

Here's an ethnographic paper on bad "sauces" -v- good "sauces"...

"In 1984 Paul Stoller, an anthropologist, and Cheryl Olkes, a
sociologist, travelled to Niger to conduct a study on the medicinal
properties of plants used in Songhay ethnomedicine. Since both Stoller
and Olkes were seasoned fieldworkers among the Songhay, they had
experienced the pleasures of Songhay hospitality. And so when they
came to the compound of Adamu Jenitongo, in Tillaberi, they were not
surprised when Moussa, one of Adamu Jenitongo's sons, insisted that
they stay in his mudbrickh ouse. They were not surprisedw hen AdamuJ
enitongo, an old healer whom Stoller had known for 15 years, gave them
his best straw mattresses. "You will sleep well on these," he told
them. They were not surprised when the old healer told Djebo, the wife
of his youngest son, Moru, to prepare fine sauces for them.

Stoller and Olkes had come to Tillaberi to discuss the medicinal
properties of plants with Adamu Jenitongo, perhaps the most
knowledgeable healer in all of western Niger. They planned to stay in
Tillaberi for two weeks and then move on to Mehanna and Wanzerbe, two
villages in which Stoller had won the confidence of healers. During
the two weeks in Tillaberi, Stoller and Olkes ate a variety of foods
and sauces. Some days they ate rice with black sauce (hoy bi) for
lunch and rice with a tomato based sauce flavored with red pepper and
sorrel for dinner. Some days they ate rice cooked in a tomato sauce
(suruundu) for lunch and millet paste with peanut sauce for dinner.
All of these sauces contained meat, a rare ingredient in most Songhay
meals. When Songhay entertain Europeans-Stoller and Olkes for
example-the staples of the diet don't change, but the quality of the
sauces do. Europeans are guests in Songhay compounds; people do not
pre-pare tasteless sauces for them!

People in the neighborhood had the same perception: "They have come to
visit Adamu Jenitongo again. There will be good food in the compound."
In good times a host spares no expense. In bad times Stoller and Olkes
quietly slip Adamu Jenitongo money so he can fulfill his ideal
behavior.

The arrival of Stoller and Olkes in Tillaberi that year, in fact, was
a bright beacon that attracted swarms of the "uninvited" in search of
savory sauces. At lunch and dinner time visitors would arrive and
linger, knowing full well that the head of a Songhay household is
obliged to feed people who happen to show up at meal times. (Stoller
and Olkes, 336-337)"

lol

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:25:44 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:

trupmy boy wrote...

Please stop wasting my time with your bad sources.

### - (laffing...) oh really?? well how very scientific of you! i didn't think you'd notice?

Below is the thread where you posted the same denier baloney before: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.dreams.castaneda/lDXt1HJSpSQ/4JI9eKAWvW4J

It's also where I mopped the floor with your ass. :)

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Sequel' is playing in theatres right now.
Go see it.

Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BcRQ5wTRRY

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 20:05:59 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:25:44 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:

trupmy boy wrote...

Please stop wasting my time with your bad sources.

### - (laffing...) oh really?? well how very scientific of you! i didn't
think you'd notice?

Below is the thread where you posted the same denier baloney before: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.dreams.castaneda/lDXt1HJSpSQ/4JI9eKAWvW4J

It's also where I mopped the floor with your ass. :)

### - hehehe, imho you couldn't even find your OWN ass with BOTH hands and
a map! let alone mine?? lol! :)

'necessary adjustments' huh? i bet they are! same way they tweak the
standard model (in order to make it work at all...) and so end up with
'dark matter, dark energy & dark flow' to fill-in all the GAPS ya mean?? riiiight... basically/tacitly admitting in the process, that only around
5% of the whole actually makes ANY sense to us in the way we've elected to
look at things?? (meaning: if all you knew about 'banking' amounted to 5%,
then i wouldn't really want you to be MY bank manager innit!?! :)))

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Sequel' is playing in theatres right now.
Go see it.

Trailer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BcRQ5wTRRY

### - lol well how very dramatic! expensively construed/constructed bs! basically 'proving' that, with enough money, just about 'anything' can be
so construed/constructed so as to convincingly say just about 'anything'
ya want?? it's like an advert for some cult or another!

i.e., what i'd like to see now is 'another' short vid
construed/constructed by exactly the same company, only this time claiming
the complete opposite virtually word-for-word, scene for scene?

then who ya gonna call: ghostbusters?? (laughing...)

:D

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

Every time, instead of simply admitting you're wrong
and then studying up on the facts, you double-down on bs.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 22:02:25 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

Every time, instead of simply admitting you're wrong
and then studying up on the facts, you double-down on bs.

### - hey if i 'knew' i was wrong i would!

but i don't know, and neither do you! :)

the only thing i know for sure is that of NOT trusting them OR their data!

you've 'believed' people before and it only fucked you up! (that's proof!)

so always reserve a bit of doubt ok? no matter HOW adamant they are!

no matter HOW convincing their... stories!

in fact, the more convincing and adamant they are is the less am inclined
to fall for it!

they appear to have a great 'need' to have things fixed down! only it
never is!

i don't HAVE any such need... am curious about everything but nothing is
nailed down!

things change, nothing is written in stone!

yesterday's 'facts' are nonsense today! and will be different again
tomorrow!

(and if ya don't know that then ya don't know anything! :)

'perception' is what it's about! perceived truths! perceived beliefs!

perceived... facts!

our history is naught but a long line of evolving perceived... ideas!

'fashionable' ideas! (fashionable in both senses of the term: mallable AND what's in vogue!)

lol the things they've pulled outta their ass to date is astounding!?!

it is to me at any rate! :)))

99.999% of it pure... crap! (what a coincidence! :)))

ours is actually a very 'primitive' society and culture...

simpletons! (mostly...)

there's been a few bright sparks tho... (bright-er...)

but they're mostly ignored/ridiculed (or even gotten rid of...)

mainly because they don't... 'agree'??

they don't wanna be in the... 'club'

oooh look at us, we all agree so that MAKES us right!

riiiight... :D

so excuse me please if i head-off in the opposite direction mate?

'coz the 'very opposite' of what that lot EVER think/believe will always
be 'infinitely' closer to reality than where THAT lot's going!

believe me! ;)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: allreadydun@gmail.com

oh yes,
not every
conclusion is real.
is it?
maybe this one is flawed too?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

oh yes,
not every
conclusion is real.
is it?
maybe this one is flawed too?

### - well if you're gonna use the 'C' word am outta here? :)))

(there are no 'conclusions' - just temporary assumptions ;)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: thangolossus@gmail.com

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:28:04 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:

oh yes,
not every
conclusion is real.
is it?
maybe this one is flawed too?

### - well if you're gonna use the 'C' word am outta here? :)))

(there are no 'conclusions' - just temporary assumptions ;)

Slider is a man.
All men have a brain.
Therefore Slider has a brain.

Is that a "temporary assumption"?





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:36:43 +0100, Jeremy H. Donovan <jeremyhdonovan@gmail.com> wrote:

No scientific C is ever final

### - exactly! so how come you always act/behave like they... are??

(and perforce then is always wrong later hahaha...)

so that's almost a non-point.
Best current peer-reviewed evidence
stands pragmatically as the truth.

### - yes, a temporary 'working truth' - until it's overturned!

which it HAS been, time and again without end! it's expected!

to the point that we will probably NEVER know the FULL truth!

thus yesterdays truth is todays fallacy! ad infinitum!

we don't know anything for sure!

at best: vague approximations based on 'current' data!

data that will very likely be superseded tomorrow and even turn today's so-called truth/approximation completely on it's head! something which has already actually happened many times!

AND has gotten us (so far) to approximately only 5% of the whole!

so it's defo NOT final today then is it! okaaay? :)

That's not so hard to comprehend.

### - that's very 'easy' to understand!

what's hard to understand, is why you keep always insisting (and behaving)
that 'todays' truth is final when even the 'method' you cleave to suggests differently! :)

you 'want' it to be true then, is that it?

you 'like' man-made global warming!?!

better rush out and pay your carbon tax then maan! :)

first america's NOT in it, then they're IN it and tellin' everyone 'else'
to get in it, and now they're not IN it any longer?!?

fuck off with all that shit! :)))

go try hypnotise someone else!

am completely immune to shit like that :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: jeremyhdonovan@gmail.com

Slider you're almost C-nile.
You posted the same lame, debunked
mistakes twice.

No scientific C is ever final
so that's almost a non-point.
Best current peer-reviewed evidence
stands pragmatically as the truth.

That's not so hard to comprehend.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 04:11:55 +0100, thang ornerythinchus <thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:28:04 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:

oh yes,
not every
conclusion is real.
is it?
maybe this one is flawed too?

### - well if you're gonna use the 'C' word am outta here? :)))

(there are no 'conclusions' - just temporary assumptions ;)

Slider is a man.
All men have a brain.
Therefore Slider has a brain.

Is that a "temporary assumption"?

### - asses have heads
thang has a head
therefore thang is an ass? :)))

it's only 'contextually' correct (smile...)

step outside the whole frame in which it (logic) applies, however, and
there's no such labels for everything, even the 'term' brain doesn't exist!

i.e., there's more to life, the universe & everything than reason & logic alone! (and it's probably that 'other' 90+% of the standard model lol:)

there are some very 'illogical' and 'unreasonable' things out there!
'things' that will never yield to reason!

perforce assumptions based entirely on logic & reason are therefore only
ever partially correct + only ever apply strictly 'within' (and not beyond/outside) the context OF logic and reason itself!

we ourselves 'invented' that world of logic & reason!

it IS our projection! one we 'superimpose' upon reality and then
perceptually reject anything that doesn't (or can't) be made to conform to
it's (reasons') own standards/criterion! that in that sense it is mutually exclusive to anything 'but' itself! it recognises only itself!

of course there's far more to everything than that? but by dint of putting
a limit on reason/logic, it limits perception! (some might even argue; deliberately so!) like a set of blinders/blinkers on a horse; it
deliberately limits the range of our perception!

what they (our educators) DIDN'T tell us, however, is that we can take
them off ;)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: thangolossus@gmail.com

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:13:40 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Aug 2017 22:02:25 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan ><david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

Every time, instead of simply admitting you're wrong
and then studying up on the facts, you double-down on bs.

### - hey if i 'knew' i was wrong i would!

but i don't know, and neither do you! :)

I agree with this. While climate change is undeniably happening (and
probably allways has and will), whether it's anthropogenic will only
be known with certitude based on historic evidence perhaps half a
century from now. The paucity of records at this stage will not be
reflected in 50 years' time - there will be plenty of records from all
over the globe, unlike the last 50 years. So, in lieu of
extrapolating and interpolating, we will have continuous data from
which to make very strong conclusions.

The geological record on the other hand shows plenty of changes to
both extremes of temperature and levels of CO2 and O2 and other gases.
But over most of that frame the human species didn't exist.

the only thing i know for sure is that of NOT trusting them OR their data!

Define "them".

you've 'believed' people before and it only fucked you up! (that's proof!)

We know this. Move on.

so always reserve a bit of doubt ok? no matter HOW adamant they are!

no matter HOW convincing their... stories!

Both sides of the anthropogenic CC argument have been caught
manipulating data, interpolating on unsafe stochastic grounds,
extrapolating trends etc with too few datum points and so on.

in fact, the more convincing and adamant they are is the less am inclined
to fall for it!

You need to examine the data yourself and form your own conclusions.
At this stage, the records are incomplete, only cover the recent human
past and and only cover small fractions of the globe.

they appear to have a great 'need' to have things fixed down! only it
never is!

Define "they".

i don't HAVE any such need... am curious about everything but nothing is >nailed down!

things change, nothing is written in stone!

But facts are facts. They are carved into the stone of the past.
Everything in the past, including lies, becomes a fact due to the
passage of time. Ie - it is a *fact* that such and such a lie was
told on 3 January 1904 by so and so at a certain location to such and
such an audience.

yesterday's 'facts' are nonsense today! and will be different again
tomorrow!

Slider, that is the biggest pile of bullshit I have ever heard you
utter and you have uttered plenty. How can a fact become a non-fact?
Use the conditional "alleged" and I might pardon it.

(and if ya don't know that then ya don't know anything! :)

Says you...

'perception' is what it's about! perceived truths! perceived beliefs!

No, it's all about factual data as opposed to hyperbole,
misinformation, lies and statistical anomalies. Locate and isolate
the facts and then draw your own conclusions using deduction and
induction.

perceived... facts!

BS.

our history is naught but a long line of evolving perceived... ideas!

Nope. Our history is a long line of environmental impacts on the
species (natural history) interwoven with a long line of invention and
conflict (human history).

'fashionable' ideas! (fashionable in both senses of the term: mallable AND >what's in vogue!)

lol the things they've pulled outta their ass to date is astounding!?!

Define "they've"

it is to me at any rate! :)))

99.999% of it pure... crap! (what a coincidence! :)))

Says you.

ours is actually a very 'primitive' society and culture...

Have a look at the latest LIGO experiments and a scanning electron
microscopic gander at the latest CPUs from AMD and Intel and tell me
ours is a primitive society and culture. LOL. Also, why do you put
inverted commas around simple words like "primitive" without explaing
why you do so? Do you think we all think like you or do you think
we're telepaths?

simpletons! (mostly...)

Nope. Our IQ is precisely plotted on a normal distribution. Mostly,
we're of average intellect as measured between ourselves on a
representative basis.

there's been a few bright sparks tho... (bright-er...)

Many, many - but 75% of us, as always, have been and are of average intelligence.

but they're mostly ignored/ridiculed (or even gotten rid of...)

Bullshit. They are mostly revered as superior intellects especially
when their character is beguiling, as for instance Einstein and
Feynmann's characters were.

mainly because they don't... 'agree'??

Crap. Einstein was so advanced in sheer intellect his ideas of
gravitational waves formulated purely as thought almost 100 years ago
were proven beyond doubt by LIGO only as recently as 2015. Everyone
agreed with Einstein in the intervening period because of his sheer
brilliance.

they don't wanna be in the... 'club'

What fucking club? Have you put your tinfoil trifoil on Slider?

oooh look at us, we all agree so that MAKES us right!

Defiine "us" and "we"

riiiight... :D

so excuse me please if i head-off in the opposite direction mate?

What direction would that be? The direction diametrically opposed to
the rest of humanity? Into 4D space? Into orbit? Oh, I get it,
you're being fashionably obscure. Riiiight.

'coz the 'very opposite' of what that lot EVER think/believe will always
be 'infinitely' closer to reality than where THAT lot's going!

Fuck me, you don't NEED to smoke dope Brian. You're already well out
there mate. Get back on your meds. You have no idea how insane that
makes you sound, do you?

believe me! ;)

I don't and nor doesn anyone else. You're on your own. Wake up.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:58:06 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:36:43 +0100, Jeremy H. Donovan <jeremyhdonovan@gmail.com> wrote:

No scientific C is ever final

### - exactly! so how come you always act/behave like they... are??

I don't. I literally never do. I JUST clearly explained it again.
Why do you keep lying about stuff like this all the time?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:58:05 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 04:11:55 +0100, thang ornerythinchus <thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:28:04 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:

oh yes,
not every
conclusion is real.
is it?
maybe this one is flawed too?

### - well if you're gonna use the 'C' word am outta here? :)))

(there are no 'conclusions' - just temporary assumptions ;)

Slider is a man.
All men have a brain.
Therefore Slider has a brain.

This valid syllogism would usually be stated with the 2nd line first.

Is that a "temporary assumption"?

### - asses have heads
thang has a head
therefore thang is an ass? :)))

it's only 'contextually' correct (smile...)

An invalid syllogism, and a great example of your 'thinking',
provided by you. :)

step outside the whole frame in which it (logic) applies, however, and there's no such labels for everything, even the 'term' brain doesn't exist!

i.e., there's more to life, the universe & everything than reason & logic alone! (and it's probably that 'other' 90+% of the standard model lol:)

You TRY to reason virtually every time you post, yet usually fail. :)
Literally no one ever says or believes that logic is the only thing
there is to life and the universe. :)

But when you do reason, do it cogently and correctly.

there are some very 'illogical' and 'unreasonable' things out there!
'things' that will never yield to reason!

You, for example. LOL. :)

perforce assumptions based entirely on logic & reason are therefore only
ever partially correct + only ever apply strictly 'within' (and not beyond/outside) the context OF logic and reason itself!

we ourselves 'invented' that world of logic & reason!

We ourselves invented the 'world' of the arts. And cooking.
And lucid dreaming. So what?

it IS our projection! one we 'superimpose' upon reality and then
perceptually reject anything that doesn't (or can't) be made to conform to it's (reasons') own standards/criterion! that in that sense it is mutually exclusive to anything 'but' itself! it recognises only itself!

I tell you, there is more to the universe than cooking alone!
Or watching movies. Or taking a walk in the park.

of course there's far more to everything than that? but by dint of putting
a limit on reason/logic, it limits perception! (some might even argue; deliberately so!) like a set of blinders/blinkers on a horse; it
deliberately limits the range of our perception!

"Some might argue..." it limits perception, then fail to back it up. :)
Help, I'm having trouble seeing the mountains today! I'm too reasonable.
LOL.

what they (our educators) DIDN'T tell us, however, is that we can take
them off ;)

What do you think you can perceive that others can't?
Give us, and those terrible 'educators', an example.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: slider@nanashram.com

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 20:58:07 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:58:05 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 04:11:55 +0100, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 01:28:04 +0100, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:

oh yes,
not every
conclusion is real.
is it?
maybe this one is flawed too?

### - well if you're gonna use the 'C' word am outta here? :)))

(there are no 'conclusions' - just temporary assumptions ;)

Slider is a man.
All men have a brain.
Therefore Slider has a brain.

This valid syllogism would usually be stated with the 2nd line first.

Is that a "temporary assumption"?

### - asses have heads
thang has a head
therefore thang is an ass? :)))

it's only 'contextually' correct (smile...)

An invalid syllogism, and a great example of your 'thinking',
provided by you. :)

### - am merely entertaining thang/trying to get a laff outta him, any objections? :)

step outside the whole frame in which it (logic) applies, however, and
there's no such labels for everything, even the 'term' brain doesn't
exist!

i.e., there's more to life, the universe & everything than reason &
logic
alone! (and it's probably that 'other' 90+% of the standard model lol:)

You TRY to reason virtually every time you post, yet usually fail. :) Literally no one ever says or believes that logic is the only thing
there is to life and the universe. :)

### - you 'say/accept' that so very easily like you really know that, and
then never 'allow' for anything like that in any of your equations!?! you
SAY there's MORE than reason alone and then proceed with reasonable ONLY propositions exclusively??

iow: you admit to there being 2 sides to the coin but only ever deal with
one of them! anything perhaps suggestive of the 'other' side always
immediately rubbished and rejected out of hand!

make your mind up already can't you? :)

But when you do reason, do it cogently and correctly.

### - so maybe i just been fuckin' with all ya along then eh? ever
considered that?? (go figure...) ;)

there are some very 'illogical' and 'unreasonable' things out there!
'things' that will never yield to reason!

You, for example. LOL. :)

### - (haha funny...) and reason ALONE... no!

after all, and as you just confirmed; there's more than reason alone to it
all! yes?

there's that other side of the coin to also be taken into consideration!

'reason alone' (or the attempt at any rate...) is, for instance, arguably ultimately responsible for destroying our world! it's too lopsided to be entirely sane! a reasonable trade-off is the only realistic answer then,
no? the percentages of either/or, to be worked out!

perforce assumptions based entirely on logic & reason are therefore only
ever partially correct + only ever apply strictly 'within' (and not
beyond/outside) the context OF logic and reason itself!

we ourselves 'invented' that world of logic & reason!

We ourselves invented the 'world' of the arts. And cooking.
And lucid dreaming. So what?

### - correction: we made worlds 'of' them and set them competing?

otoh, the universe doesn't appear to need to deal in things like that to
do everything it's already done! only we humans think that way! we
invented that whole way of thinking! the newcomers on the block! and we've tried to 'squeeze' everything into that paradigm ever since! effectively
we've been trying to put 'infinity' in a box! no wonder then if it's all somewhat... distorted? that it's ultimately destroying our world and
ourselves along with it too in the process??

it's ridiculous to say there's MORE to life, the universe & everything
than reason & logic alone can account for, and then pursue reason & logic
alone to the exclusion of all and everything else?!?

it's not... balanced! :)

it IS our projection! one we 'superimpose' upon reality and then
perceptually reject anything that doesn't (or can't) be made to conform
to
it's (reasons') own standards/criterion! that in that sense it is
mutually
exclusive to anything 'but' itself! it recognises only itself!

I tell you, there is more to the universe than cooking alone!
Or watching movies. Or taking a walk in the park.

### - haha well said! i concur! :)))

of course there's far more to everything than that? but by dint of
putting
a limit on reason/logic, it limits perception! (some might even argue;
deliberately so!) like a set of blinders/blinkers on a horse; it
deliberately limits the range of our perception!

"Some might argue..." it limits perception, then fail to back it up. :)
Help, I'm having trouble seeing the mountains today! I'm too reasonable.
LOL.

### - no problem seeing a mountain, anyone can do that, but if you wanna 'experience' mountain, then you'll have to do something more than just
being reasonable alone about it ;)

what they (our educators) DIDN'T tell us, however, is that we can take
them off ;)

What do you think you can perceive that others can't?
Give us, and those terrible 'educators', an example.

### - smile, when you asked me this the last time (very early on...) i
gave you jean paul sartre, who literally (along with his pal albert
camus...) went to all the trouble of spelling it all out for the
intellectuals PLUS examples! and your reply was (wait for it heh...) "oh
well i never liked him anyway" ??? (or words to that effect LOL)

i even posted one of his examples! (of him sitting in some french park and everything turns all surreal... he said the park 'smiled' at him when
left? heh... tripping WITHOUT the acid!)

leave me out of it jeremy, am nothing! no one! but he was a real dude! the
real deal! accepted!

literally SPELLED it all out because the intellectual-type needs
everything placed in the correct precise order for it to even make any
sense! he DID that! talk about climbing a mountain lol! but they fucking
did it! bravo!

no more excuses now, see? there it ALL is for us! why then aren't they (humanity) just getting on with it all then, climbing mountains??

oh, well that's because we never really liked him anyway??? LOL LOL!!!

or Rimbaud either! apparently! hah!

and a bunch of others too! real diamonds most of 'em, gems!

find a lot of them (a cluster then) in the jazz world for instance?

stars indeed! brief flashes mostly! shooting stars! so cool...

sending out vibes that even the most lowly can resonate to! pure sound!

it can move you even if you don't understand it! it reaches! touches
something indefinable! sets it off/in motion!

a genuine example! - good stuff! :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: allreadydun@gmail.com

McGregor put on a good fight against Mayweather.
I thought (in the beginning of the fight) that
Conor had a good chance of beating Floyd. But
Floyd got on a roll in the 10th round landed
18 straight blows to the head before the ref
called it a night. Thank you referee, that Conor
can take some punches. But enough is enough, we
don't want no serious brain damage.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)

From: allreadydun@gmail.com

Mayweather's cut on this action was
between 300 and 360 million.

McGregor is clearing OVER 100 million.

not bad eh?

Floyd in his 21 years of beating the
shit out of his opponets has made 1 billon dollars.
50-1.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)