Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Is Atheism in compatible with a belief in the Afterlife?

123457

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    could you explain to me what your understanding is of incidents where people in deep meditative states are able to obtain information that they would not have been previously aware of?

    These incidents don't happen.

    I beg to differ. I have experienced the data myself. Have you ever tried?
    For example, there is enough proof that 'remote viewing' is, to use a clumsy word, real.

    This not true, and there are very large cash prizes and probably a Nobel prize waiting for anyone who can prove "remote viewing" is real.

    I remember John Sladek writing back in the 70s that it was interesting that experiments to try and demonstrate ESP and telekinesis always seemed to involve dice and card decks.

    Because scientists are experts with cards and dice, and fraudsters obviously never saw them before.

    I disagree, there is enough evidence for me to consider it an attainable experience. For example. You ask your friend to go home and write a word down on a piece of paper. You go home and meditate and ask to see the word. If it matches, then try again to see if you can do it again. Keep doing it until you see enough proof.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    It is not that I hold to the belief as such, so much as I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any other source of it, and plenty of evidence that the brain is the source of it. So the conclusion that it is generated in/by the brain is the only one currently open to me.

    While I think this is mostly true, I think there is fair evidence to suggest that it is not entirely the case. For example, there are studies that suggest our mood is affected by the state of our gut. If we consider that consciousness is stateful, the bulk of that state is stored within neurons in the brain. Some of it however however is stored in neurons elsewhere in the nervous system and in the state of receptors.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    I beg to differ. I have experienced the data myself. Have you ever tried?

    Which is anecdotal evidence, of which there's plenty yet none of it is verifiable, which suggests that this isn't anything other than a subjective experience.
    I disagree, there is enough evidence for me to consider it an attainable experience. For example. You ask your friend to go home and write a word down on a piece of paper. You go home and meditate and ask to see the word. If it matches, then try again to see if you can do it again. Keep doing it until you see enough proof.

    There's a million dollars out there waiting for you to pick up from Randi if you can demonstrate this. Many have tried, none have succeeded to date.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    In the majority of religious traditions



    Again I have not seen any such workings, least of all from you. So I will have to take your word for it. All I can say is that the majority of traditions I have been exposed to personally have a concept of a non-human intelligent intentional agent. Some of them claim you can commune or experience it in some way. Some don't.

    I would recommend some of the works of Joseph Campbell on religious mythology.
    I am assuming that you hold the belief that consciousness is generated in the brain.

    It is not that I hold to the belief as such, so much as I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any other source of it, and plenty of evidence that the brain is the source of it. So the conclusion that it is generated in/by the brain is the only one currently open to me.

    So I assumed right, you do believe that consciousness is generated within the brain. Why the pointless attempt at semantics?
    could you explain to me what your understanding is of incidents where people in deep meditative states are able to obtain information that they would not have been previously aware of?

    I can not explain incidents I have not been made aware of. I am aware of no such incident, let alone in any controlled situation that would verify such a thing has actually occurred.

    The same is true of much NDE experience, which you mentioned on another thread. Under controlled situations NDE experience pretty much falls away. When appealing to anecdote in completely uncontrolled situations however there is always plenty of claims of people "obtaining information they should otherwise supposedly be unaware of".

    So perhaps if you can give some specific examples of what it is you are talking about, I can work with them further.

    When you say the NDE falls away, what do you mean?
    But I am afraid vague questions can only result in vague answers.

    No need to be a smart arse.
    For example, there is enough proof that 'remote viewing' is, to use a clumsy word, real.

    Indeed? Well by all means present this "proof" for consideration because I am A) entirely unaware of it at this time and B) not likely to simply take your word for it.

    I'll post some this evening.


    This would suggest to me that there is a higher conscious intelligence other than our own consciousness.


    That would be quite a leap though. Even if remote viewing were to be verified as "real" that would just be evidence of some new faculty / attribute of our own intelligence that we were previously unaware of.

    Going from that to "Therefore there is some other conscious intelligence" is an unjustifiable leap. A complete non-sequitur.



    Some new discovery about our own consciousness does not magically mean there are OTHER consciousness out there.[/quote]

    I never said it would magically mean anything. I don't think you're engaging very honestly here. Before the mods have another hissy fit, that's not an ad hominem. That's me criticising his method of communication. Like the last time, but hey, let's not talk about that hey :)

    I'll find something that I consider to be proof of remote viewing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    smacl wrote: »
    I beg to differ. I have experienced the data myself. Have you ever tried?

    Which is anecdotal evidence, of which there's plenty yet none of it is verifiable, which suggests that this isn't anything other than a subjective experience.
    I disagree, there is enough evidence for me to consider it an attainable experience. For example. You ask your friend to go home and write a word down on a piece of paper. You go home and meditate and ask to see the word. If it matches, then try again to see if you can do it again. Keep doing it until you see enough proof.

    There's a million dollars out there waiting for you to pick up from Randi if you can demonstrate this. Many have tried, none have succeeded to date.

    I've contacted him before, he never replied. Same with several others on YouTube offering a prize. I explained my technique and they weren't interested.

    Wanna play for fun? Pick any word you want. I'll meditate on it tonight and post it in the thread tomorrow.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    Sorry I'm using a mobile phone and can't seem to figure out how to use the coding properly. I'm not on this website much.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Wanna play for fun? Pick any word you want. I'll meditate on it tonight and post it in the thread tomorrow.

    Cool, I'm game. I've picked a word, and just so I can't change it, a rather heavily encrypted copy of the word is 0x894D009A I'll also pm the method by which this may be checked to nozz above (but not the word). If you can hack it, I'll be in touch with the Great Randi myself :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    Coconuts


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I disagree, there is enough evidence for me to consider it an attainable experience. For example. You ask your friend to go home and write a word down on a piece of paper. You go home and meditate and ask to see the word. If it matches, then try again to see if you can do it again. Keep doing it until you see enough proof.

    Here is a list in wikipedia of cash money prizes you can win if you have this ability. The James Randi €1,000,000 prize challenge is over (no-one collected it in 50 years), but I think you could pick up at least €400,000 in smaller prizes with this ability.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Coconuts

    Want to try again?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I've contacted him before, he never replied. Same with several others on YouTube offering a prize. I explained my technique and they weren't interested.
    Gonna call bull**** on this also. Proof and docs please.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Pat strikes me as the kind of poster who will end up saying it was all a leg-pull as if that is an excuse.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,082 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Complete spoofer.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Wanna play for fun? Pick any word you want. I'll meditate on it tonight and post it in the thread tomorrow.
    Way to do this is for one person to chose a word, salt it by adding some random string of text, then calculate the hash using an online calculator, and post the hash today. Tomorrow, Pat D Almighty can post the word and then everybody can verify the hash. It's not 100% proof against collusion or hacking, but it's a good start. There's an online hash calculator , so if somebody were to choose the hidden word "vestibule" and apply a salt of "12345", we get a source string of "vestibule12345" whose SHA-1 hash is 70DBECB392047812157E48D25E22085A5157574A.

    So, anyway, I've chosen a word. Adding salt of "12345", the SHA-1 hash of this word is CC43076D3B2047FB436DBEF9206D2F27FE468D5A.

    I await a tomorrow's guess from Pat with some interest and I'm going to buy myself a pint tomorrow evening if this turns out, as expected, to be a spoof. I'll buy Pat two pints if s/he guesses the word correctly.

    Pat - over to you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Wanna play for fun? Pick any word you want. I'll meditate on it tonight and post it in the thread tomorrow.

    I am happy to play your game too and have picked a word. I will not say much about that word, like smacl did above, but I assure you that the word I picked I will be able to offer SOME evidence that I did not change after your guess. Lest anyone consider one not intentionally contributing.
    I beg to differ. I have experienced the data myself. Have you ever tried?

    Data that, despite being asked, I notice you have not actually offered in any way. Quelle Suprise.
    smacl wrote: »
    While I think this is mostly true, I think there is fair evidence to suggest that it is not entirely the case. For example, there are studies that suggest our mood is affected by the state of our gut.

    Oh I have little doubt that things happening elsewhere in the body can affect brain states. Not really an issue with what I have been saying. All the energy, electrolyte mediums and everything else that our brain uses to do it's thing are manufatured and sources from other areas of the body. So it would be a shocking surprise to me if brain states and mood states were NOT affected by such things, rather than that they ARE. Otherwise it very much would be evidence that the brain is somehow operating independent of it's environment and connected systems. Which would be something requiring some extensive explaining.
    I would recommend some of the works of Joseph Campbell on religious mythology.

    So rather that cite any statistics backing up your claim, you just vaguely throw out a single name. Hardly helpful. Even then the name you are offering might support the existence of what you speak, which I never questioned. I was questioning what you are claiming is the "majority".
    So I assumed right, you do believe that consciousness is generated within the brain. Why the pointless attempt at semantics?

    There is a difference between specifics and clarity, and mere semantics. YOu can offer all the assumptions you like, but it is for me to tell you what my ACTUAL SPECIFIC positions are. Not for you to inform me of them.
    When you say the NDE falls away, what do you mean?

    I mean the claims being made off the back of the experience fail to be verified in any way. Under controlled conditions we have not found any patient accessing information they otherwise could not have access to.

    Anecdotally without any controls however there are always stories of people seeing or hearing things "remotely" during NDE but nothing verified in even the smallest fashion.
    No need to be a smart arse.

    No need to make up things I did not do, in order to dodge replying to my points and sentences. Nothing smart arse about callng a spade a spade when it is, in fact, a spade. And it is simply a fact that if you offer me vague questions without substance, i can only offer you equally vague answers in return.

    If however you want to ask more specific questions, rather than return to your approach of merely flinging out invective and insults, I am here for you. Otherwise I can but remind you that insults demean the insulter and NEVER the target. And I would hate to see you fall foul of the Moderators ministrations again for that low level of behavior.
    I'll post some this evening.

    I am agog.
    I never said it would magically mean anything. I don't think you're engaging very honestly here.

    I do not think you have demonstrated a pedestal from which to comment on the honesty of others, let alone as falsely as you have done here. The simple fact is, which you have dodged, that some new discovery about OUR consciousness would say NOTHING about the existence of any other one, let alone some "higher" one whatever that is meant to mean. But speaking of lack of honesty.........
    Before the mods have another hissy fit, that's not an ad hominem. That's me criticising his method of communication. Like the last time, but hey, let's not talk about that hey :)

    ......... there is, to my knowledge, a rule about questioning moderator decisions on threads. So please do not hide petty digs at same inside posts directed at me. IF you have a problem wtih the moderators and their decisions, take it up with THEM, not me OR by proxy through me.
    I'll find something that I consider to be proof of remote viewing.

    I repeat. I am agog.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    Pat strikes me as the kind of poster who will end up saying it was all a leg-pull as if that is an excuse.

    Projection


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    So, anyway, I've chosen a word. Adding salt of "12345", the SHA-1 hash of this word is CC43076D3B2047FB436DBEF9206D2F27FE468D5A.

    Only problem there is that if the word is a single word in the English language by saying which encryption algorithm you're using you've left yourself open to a simple brute force attack. There are 171,476 words in the OED. Open security reckons it can generated 7,107 SHA-1 keys per second so your word could be found out in about 24 seconds. This assumes access to a fast dictionary and writing some code to transfer from there to the hashing algorithm. Now if you hash your word prior to encrypting it using one undisclosed algorithm and then hash it again with SHA-1, the brute force method jumps to 95 quintillion years. Only sayin' :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Pat strikes me as the kind of poster who will end up saying it was all a leg-pull as if that is an excuse.

    Or perhaps a bad comedian who will come tomorrow and, as promised, merely post "it" :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    Pat strikes me as the kind of poster who will end up saying it was all a leg-pull as if that is an excuse.

    Or perhaps a bad comedian who will come tomorrow and, as promised, merely post "it" :)

    Careful now.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smacl wrote: »
    Only problem there is that if the word is a single word in the English language by saying which encryption algorithm you're using you've left yourself open to a simple brute force attack.
    Well, a bunch of things here - 1) the word isn't English but should be known to religious people; 2) it's salted to avoid lookup in any of the available rainbow tables; 3) brute-force is easy if one has a word list or a string-generator and a usable implementation of the necessary hash algorithm and the ability to use both and - going out on a limb here - I'm imagining that Pat doesn't; 5) this is is a low-security "well, let's see if you can make it to the starting line" kind of test which is easy for anybody to verify. A more secure test would not provide the salt and would hash the hash some large number of times, but still use a peer-reviewed, certified, established crypto primitive and would avoid security through obscurity - ask the excellent gentlemen who spec'd the security for the original version of the Mifare Classic; and finally, 4) SHA-1 is a hash algorithm, not an encryption algorithm :)

    BTW, that figure of 7,107 hashes per second seems to be 7,107,000 hashes per second (see the 'K' in the dropdown) - that's a little slow - devices like AntMiner S9 claim to calculate 11.5 terahashes/s, or eleven and a half thousand billion hashes per second - for BitCoin mining.

    /geek


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    No need to be a smart arse.
    No need to make schoolyard comments about your fellow posters either.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    robindch wrote: »
    No need to be a smart arse.
    No need to make schoolyard comments about your fellow posters either.

    I disagree


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Complete spoofer.

    You mean I am waiting in vain for examples of mistranslations from the original Chinese?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    this is is a low-security "well, let's see if you can make it to the starting line" kind of test which is easy for anybody to verify. A more secure test would not provide the salt and would hash the hash some large number of times, but still use a peer-reviewed, certified, established crypto primitive and would avoid security through obscurity

    With respect, I think you've actually provided a solution to a different and more complex problem. In this case we only need to be able prove that we haven't changed the word guessed, we don't need to reveal the proof (i.e. provide the algorithm) until such time as we're revealing our word. Even though in this case you picked a word that isn't an English word, it is still a selection of a single item from a relatively small finite list of possible items, so we really don't want to provide hints as to what the word might be. More specifically, we don't want to provide a mechanism to check potential answers prior to the person guessing providing their one guess.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smacl wrote: »
    we don't need to reveal the proof (i.e. provide the algorithm) until such time as we're revealing our word.
    Nope, because that allows the person choosing the word (and presumably also choosing the algorithm) to select a different algorithm which produces the same hash from different input, allowing them to claim that Pat didn't choose the right word after all.

    Easy way to do that is to find rainbow tables for multiple algorithms, then find a few clashes and work backwards to input data - this is almost a trivial exercise if the pre-supplied hash value is quite small - 894D009A for example :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robindch wrote: »
    No need to be a smart arse.
    No need to make schoolyard comments about your fellow posters either.

    I disagree
    Your friendly moderator team will be taking out the leather and doling out a little co-operation if there's any more of that kind of carry-on.

    Thanking youze.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    Nope, because that allows the person choosing the word (and presumably also choosing the algorithm) to select a different algorithm which produces the same hash from different input, allowing them to claim that Pat didn't choose the right word after all.

    Easy way to do that is to find rainbow tables for multiple algorithms, then find a few clashes and work backwards to input data - this is almost a trivial exercise if the pre-supplied hash value is quite small - 894D009A for example :)

    Which is why I PM'ed the actual algorithm used (but not the word) to one disclosed user and another undisclosed user in case Pat called foul play on this basis. To crack this requires collusion between those involved AND the necessary hacking tools.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    robindch wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    No need to be a smart arse.
    No need to make schoolyard comments about your fellow posters either.

    I disagree
    Your friendly moderator team will be taking out the leather and doling out a little co-operation if there's any more of that kind of carry-on.

    Thanking youze.

    Zzzzzzzz


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ User carded for ignoring a mod instruction.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    pauldla wrote: »
    You mean I am waiting in vain for examples of mistranslations from the original Chinese?

    Do you have the patience to wait till your mud settles and the water is clear? Methinks if you do, all you're going to find is more mud :)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    smacl wrote: »
    Which is why I PM'ed the actual algorithm used (but not the word) to one disclosed user and another undisclosed user in case Pat called foul play on this basis. To crack this requires collusion between those involved AND the necessary hacking tools.
    Yes, that's correct, though you don't need the tools or tool developers to collude. In any case, it's still easier to compromise than a publicly-announced algorithm and result - which is why that private-algorithm approach isn't, to my knowledge, ever used in infosec.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    robindch wrote: »
    ^^^ User carded for ignoring a mod instruction.

    Mod needs a Valium


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    Yes, that's correct, though you don't need the tools or tool developers to collude. In any case, it's still easier to compromise than a publicly-announced algorithm and result - which is why that private-algorithm approach isn't, to my knowledge, ever used in infosec.

    Depends on the problem you're trying to solve. This one isn't typical in that we're trying to guess the selection of a single discrete value from a relatively small finite set. This is an ideal candidate for a brute force attack where the algorithm is known. The simplest solution here is to not disclose the algorithm, not use an algorithm typically associated with cryptography and not depend entirely on the technology. Unadorned public key encryption isn't the optimal solution here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Mod needs a Valium

    In an attempt to dissuade you from the path you are clearly on to get yourself entirely banned from this area of the forum (and given your snide one liners that do not address my posts there, also the philosophy forum).......... I move to request your update on your word game from last night.

    Shall you be presenting any guesses today? Or are you intent on getting banned so you do not have to?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    Mod needs a Valium

    In an attempt to dissuade you from the path you are clearly on to get yourself entirely banned from this area of the forum (and given your snide one liners that do not address my posts there, also the philosophy forum).......... I move to request your update on your word game from last night.

    Shall you be presenting any guesses today? Or are you intent on getting banned so you do not have to?

    The game of one-upmanship requires patience, so you'll have to wait.
    Also, you accusing me of being snide is quite ironic, doncha think?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,421 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The game of one-upmanship requires patience, so you'll have to wait.
    Another eight and a half hours or so until it's 24 hours from the time I chose the word after you'd announced your special talent.

    If you don't post the word, then I think we can safely assume you're either unaware of your incompetence, or you're aware of your incompetence, making you a fraud.

    Over to you!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    The game of one-upmanship requires patience, so you'll have to wait. Also, you accusing me of being snide is quite ironic, doncha think?

    Well if one-upmaniship was your game and intent then you probably should have been explicit on that before, especially as nothing you have offered so far has one-upped you on anyone at all.

    That said I shall certainly let the readerbase read my responses and your responses on this thread and on the other thread in order to decide where the irony lies and where the weight of quality and maturity lies in our respective posts.

    As for waiting however, I have only your own words to go on and your own words very expressly and clearly said.........

    "Wanna play for fun? Pick any word you want. I'll meditate on it tonight and post it in the thread tomorrow."

    .............. which seemingly this cop out post above from you means you are not reneging on? Or is the aforementioned input still likely to be arriving today?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    robindch wrote: »
    The game of one-upmanship requires patience, so you'll have to wait.
    Another eight and a half hours or so until it's 24 hours from the time I chose the word after you'd announced your special talent.

    If you don't post the word, then I think we can safely assume you're either unaware of your incompetence, or you're aware of your incompetence, making you a fraud.

    Over to you!

    Yawn, have some patience.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    The game of one-upmanship requires patience, so you'll have to wait. Also, you accusing me of being snide is quite ironic, doncha think?

    Well if one-upmaniship was your game and intent then you probably should have been explicit on that before, especially as nothing you have offered so far has one-upped you on anyone at all.

    You're fully aware that I was referring to your game of one-upmanship. The rest of your post is just an ego-flex disguised as a relevant response to my post.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yawn, have some patience.
    Does this mean you haven't done it yet, like you said you were going to? If so, why the wait?
    Does it mean that you have done it and are yet to announce it? If so, why hold off?

    I don't understand why anyone who's accessed complete proof of a supernatural ability like this would be so hesitant to demonstrate it...


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,800 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    robindch wrote: »
    Another eight and a half hours or so until it's 24 hours from the time I chose the word after you'd announced your special talent.

    Just out of curious interest, care to try the same again using your original technique but with an english word in lower case?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty





    That said I shall certainly let the readerbase read my responses and your responses on this thread and on the other thread in order to decide where the irony lies and where the weight of quality and maturity lies in our respective posts.

    It's ok, we can both be snide in this instance. No need to deflect and appeal to the majority for comfort.

    Ps, stop trolling me and be patient instead of acting like an intellectual bully.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yawn, have some patience.
    Does this mean you haven't done it yet, like you said you were going to? If so, why the wait?
    Does it mean that you have done it and are yet to announce it? If so, why hold off?

    I don't understand why anyone who's accessed complete proof of a supernatural ability like this would be so hesitant to demonstrate it...

    One question at a time, you'll have me overthinking as much as you clearly are.

    I haven't attempted it yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    You're fully aware that I was referring to your game of one-upmanship. The rest of your post is just an ego-flex disguised as a relevant response to my post.

    How can I be fully aware of you referring to something I know I am not engaged in? Are you even trying to make sense at this point? Though to use your own words "Also, you accusing me of being irrelevant is quite ironic, doncha think?" given the responses you have offered to my posts......

    Here and here and here for example

    ....... you certainly have no pedestal upon which to be making such false assertions.

    Exactly who is offering responses that contain no relevance to the other I wonder? Again I will leave it to the readerbase here, not you or I, to decide for themselves. But really until you offer a reply of some substance to my posts with the same level of decorum as I have done for you, you really do not have a pedestal from which to admonish anyone. Least of all me.
    It's ok, we can both be snide in this instance. No need to deflect and appeal to the majority for comfort.

    Were comfort required you might have a point, but you have roundly offered NOTHING at this point to cause any discomfort so I am not sure what you think you mean.
    Ps, stop trolling me and be patient instead of acting like an intellectual bully.

    Perhaps you have been fortunate in life never to have been the subject of ACTUAL bullying. I have seen it happen and met people it has happened to and being bullied...... ACTUALLY bullied....... is a horrific thing.

    However saying "I will give you X tomorrow" and then being asked "It is tomorrow now, will you be giving us X?" is so far from being "bullying" that I am only able to doubt that you know what the word even means.

    Similarly you might wish to learn the difference between "trolling" and "replying to" as the latter (which I am doing) is very strongly different from the former (which I am not). YOU said you would delivery today and I have done nothing but ask you IF you still intend to do so. You could just answer "yes" or "no" of course at which point I could stop asking, and you could stop playing the persecution card.

    Especially given that THIS.........
    I haven't attempted it yet.

    means that you have already reneged on the middle part of this......... "Wanna play for fun? Pick any word you want. I'll meditate on it tonight and post it in the thread tomorrow."........ so suspecting you plan to renege on the rest is well founded and warranted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    One question at a time, you'll have me overthinking as much as you clearly are.

    I haven't attempted it yet.
    Ok, why not when you said you'd do it last night?

    When will you be able to do it?
    Why do we need to wait? Is your ability only available at certain times?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    You're fully aware that I was referring to your game of one-upmanship. The rest of your post is just an ego-flex disguised as a relevant response to my post.

    How can I be fully aware of you referring to something I know I am not engaged in? Are you even trying to make sense at this point?.

    Yawn, you're just clogging up the thread with ego-driven impatience now.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    King Mob wrote: »
    One question at a time, you'll have me overthinking as much as you clearly are.

    I haven't attempted it yet.
    Ok, why not when you said you'd do it last night?

    I was otherwise engaged.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,841 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    I was otherwise engaged.
    So when can we expect your attempt?

    Why not do so now and show all of us unbelievers up?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 668 ✭✭✭Pat D. Almighty


    King Mob wrote: »
    I was otherwise engaged.
    So when can we expect your attempt?

    Later this evening perhaps.

    [QUOTE=Pat D. Almighty;103418350Why not do so now and show all of us unbelievers up?[/quote]

    I wouldn't have the time right now, sorry.

    Any other questions?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,357 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Yawn, you're just clogging up the thread with ego-driven impatience now.
    Later this evening perhaps.

    Except the thread would not have been "clogged" (if such a thing were even possible on a text forum) if you had merely answered the question when first asked. You just did it with the "Later this evening" post above. That was not so hard now was it?

    I await your guesses agog. Genuinely interested to see how close to my word you get. Especially as I have something quite interestingly amusing to reveal if you get it wrong :)
    Any other questions?

    Other than all the ones in the posts you have ignored? Nah, if you want to answer questions you could likely just go back and find the ones you have thus far dodged I guess. Hardly makes sense to ask new ones, when you so demonstrably have retreated from the old ones.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement