My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2015, 07:48 AM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(26-08-2015 07:44 AM)Eva Wrote:  Having spent some of today catching up on 3q's posts i'm...well.....

[Image: Nathan-Fillion-Loss-For-Words-Reaction-Gif.jpg]

And I'm like

[Image: tumblr_lxke54uk7X1qalcu6o2_r1_250.gif]

"I feel as though the camera is almost a kind of voyeur in Mr. Beans life, and you just watch this bizarre man going about his life in the way that he wants to."

-Rowan Atkinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Can_of_Beans's post
26-08-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
That's an affront to nutbags everywhere!

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 08:41 AM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(25-08-2015 03:55 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:My Cosmic Heirarchy: i.e. the overall top to bottom, generalized outline/list.

Yeah thats right no humans at TTA can grasp the following three words, 'My Cosmic Heirarchy', even when definitions are supplied for each word.

Again this sad lack of intellectual aptitude and make me wonder about how many brain cells are present in the TTA clique, and the integrity of the connections/relatinships between those that brain cells that exist.

A "majority" of a clique is truly meaningless consideration and that is what we have here, appears to be a fair amount inconsideration that is most likely a resultant of to much glue sniffing in childhood and/or as adult.

Here is link to definition of the word clique, even tho definitions, and rational, logical thought are meaningless to the responding clique here at TTA.

What we really have here with this clique, is a sad lack/failure of moral and intellectual integrity.

Cant grasp three words as 'My Cosmic Heirarchy', move-a-long to a thread where people value glue sniffing. Drinking Beverage Thx

q3 Heart

Pretty sure you are a child who has stumbled into the adult room on the web. Take your meds, and get off daddy's computer.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 08:50 AM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(This is a copy of my post in "Lie to Them" thread, since QQQ refused to address it there and insisted it be done here.)

QQQ - You know that we have the ability to read more than one thread at a time, and that we can retain the essence of an argument across the (imaginary) barrier of "another thread"?

You. Are. Operating. From. A. Wrong. Definition. Of. Universe.

Your false etymology is to take the word "verse", in its modern sense, and split the modern word "universe" into "uni" (one, in the original sense) and "verse" in the modern sense.

But the words did not evolve into English that way. Universe is comprised of Latin roots via French and means "everything in one", essentially, while "verse" evolved further through the Germanic and took on a whole new set of meanings when used alone.

Etymology of Universe:

universe (n.)
1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus).

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe

Etymology of Verse:

verse (n.)
late Old English (replacing Old English fers, an early West Germanic borrowing directly from Latin), "line or section of a psalm or canticle," later "line of poetry" (late 14c.), from Anglo-French and Old French vers "line of verse; rhyme, song," from Latin versus "a line, row, line of verse, line of writing," from PIE root *wer- (3) "to turn, bend" (see versus). The metaphor is of plowing, of "turning" from one line to another (vertere = "to turn") as a plowman does.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=verse

You are making a verbal equivalent of the false argument used by Creationists when discussing speciation, which is to fail to understand that a portion of a population can evolve into a different species while the original population remains essentially as it originally was on the evolutionary timescale.

When you split the word "universe" into its modern English components and apply the newly-acquired definition of verse (even though rooted in the same "turn over" meaning it originally had, but applied in a new fashion to mean something else), which evolved separately, you are being disingenuous about how language is employed.

Then you launch into a huge derivation based upon the initial error described above.

That is why we pointed out to you the simple "you are using it wrong", without going into further detail. Logic is a process that depends on your premises. You started with a false premise, so pointing to your logic is irrelevant, as logic will take a set of false premises to a false conclusion. That is not reasonable, which is our standard here.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-08-2015, 10:15 AM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(25-08-2015 04:30 PM)qqq Wrote:  
(25-08-2015 04:00 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  They accepted me just fine, and I only came here in June.

Yeah you fit in just fine to this clique. Birds of glue sniffing will surely stick together. Thats why they call it glue.

You nor anyone needs to tell me any the countless posts of irrelevancies.

You and others only need to address my comments as stated. I think glue sniffing has blinded you to these obvious facts.

Stick to addressing the topic and or more comments, as stated, or move along to where glue sniffing is encouraged by a clique those who lack moral and intellectual integrity.

You and the other glue snifffers are the ones who need to get over it but your brain cells appear to blocking intelligent thought in regards to the topic of this thread.

q3Heart

Do you understand that your glue sniffing comments are not helping you at all? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(26-08-2015 07:44 AM)Eva Wrote:  Having spent some of today catching up on 3q's posts i'm...well.....

[Image: Nathan-Fillion-Loss-For-Words-Reaction-Gif.jpg]
That's a lie!
I've been reading and re-reading his posts all day and I have yet to turn into Nathan Fillion! Angry

[Image: fdyq20.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LostLocke's post
26-08-2015, 04:12 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2015 04:31 PM by qqq.)
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
Quote:RocketSurgeon76' ---- You. Are. Operating. From. A. Wrong. Definition. Of. Universe.
76, your dissimal of my approach insiuating I was somehow not fair, is unfair of you. imho

Here is definition I give inMy Cosmic Heirarchy, message #14 for Universe Did you read that definition 76?

..."Universe = occupied space as odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy"...

and here is link too google search for define Universe

The key words in two of those definitions is 'all' and 'totality' i.e. all is inherently one fnite set of all verse, or verse's. imho and same goes for the word totality i.e. totality inherently infer one finite set that is all inclusive of all verse's. Whatever verse's may be or entail or whatever we chose to attach to that half of the word, that may relate or associate to it.

Quote:Your false etymology is to take the word "verse", in its modern sense, and split the modern word "universe" into "uni" (one, in the original sense) and "verse" in the modern sense.


1} Yes Uni means one, and that is why it is uni. If you dont think Uni means one in the word Universe, your going to need some better evidence to support such claims. There is a reason why Uni is used in Universe and not some other word, or prefix or whatever we want to call it. If you dont understand that, then you need to so more research.

Quote:..... "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one)....


Yeah this is fits well with any definition, so you've added nothing that invalidates my definitions, and any that ever Ive ever linked too, and have ever intended. and recently linked to another thread I initiated ahere at TTA.

Old news i.e. nothing you state is evidence that the definition I use for Universe is incorrect and you have not even posted my definition of Universe or "U"niverse so as I may more clearly address you claims of some error on my part.

Quote:+ versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus).

Revolve/volvo/orbit/spin/rotate are all likened too your "to turn". Are you suggesting our one finite universe is spinning? Whats the point of going into that? exactly?

Quote:"line of verse; rhyme, song," from Latin versus "a line, row, line of verse, line of writing," from PIE root *wer- (3) "to turn, bend" (see versus). The metaphor is of plowing, of "turning" from one line to another (vertere = "to turn") as a plowman does.

I think the point{s} you need to take to heart here ism ryhme of songs, poems, line of writing and turning is that, poetry in motion, song is motion, turning is motion ergo verse is associated with physical/energy that is posted above from message #14.

You need to read message #14-- if not also #1 -- and address any comments, as stated there, and if they are invalid then give me rational, logical common sense to support your claims.

Quote:You are making a verbal equivalent of the false argument used by Creationists when discussing speciation, which is to fail to understand that a portion of a population can evolve into a different species while the original population remains essentially as it originally was on the evolutionary timescale.

Huh? Irrelevant divergency from my given defintion for my use of the word Universe and "U"niverse. When you actually want to address my given definitions as stated do as Ive kindly asked of you twice and others many times.

Quote:When you split the word "universe" into its modern English components and apply the newly-acquired definition of verse (even though rooted in the same "turn over" meaning it originally had, but applied in a new fashion to mean something else), which evolved separately, you are being disingenuous about how language is employed.

This is irrelevant divergency i.e. you still have not addressed my comments as stated, with any rational, logical common sens that invalidates them. Read above and in message #14.

Quote:Then you launch into a huge derivation based upon the initial error described above.

Huh? Here again what specific comment are you talking about? Please address my comments as stated, with a rational, logical common sense expalnation that invalidates my comments. You have not yet don that. imho

Quote:That is why we pointed out to you the simple "you are using it wrong", without going into further detail. Logic is a process that depends on your premises. You started with a false premise, so pointing to your logic is irrelevant, as logic will take a set of false premises to a false conclusion. That is not reasonable, which is our standard here.

If you mean I started with the word Universe and that word is somehow a false premsis, your need to once again, address my specific comments, as stated, and give rational, logical common sense explanation that invalidates them.

You have not done that. Ive posted ero addressed a specific comment by me. Yo have not.

I addressed two variations of the words Universe in message #14. If you ever choose to address the words and my definitions then I'm all ears. You have not given them nor any rational, logical common sense explanation to refute my given definitions of those two variations of the word Universe.

Please share 76 when you can begin to do that. Also go through this thread as Ive done and you will begin to see a real of irrelevant mental barage of posts from the glue snifffers. Their approach is to shell shock---via a barage ---someone they dont like. For whatever lack of rationality the can conjour, from their remaining brain cells.

Read message #1 and #14--- or have you already? ---where no one here can understand what these three words in combination may mean, even after Ive given links to definitions "My Cosmic Hierarchy'. Glue sniffers lack moral and intellectucal integrity and this thread is evidence of that.

If you dont see that, then your no differrent from them. imho

The repatedly waste space here by mentally whacking me. They should not even post, much less repeated keeping whackin q3. They can go elsewhere, but the do not. This is more evidence of glue sniffer lack of moral and intellectual integrity.

There prefer to mentally to mental whack and repeatedly rewhack another human being over and over and over, instead of minding their own business.

There are other words for the actions of these types of human behaviours. I recall someone mentioning how some humans who torture others, do it because they like doing it. I think there is fair amount of evidence that people who were abused as children are at greater risk of being abusive when there adults.

When you tell them this, it drives them to whack a human even more.
Heart q3 Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:+ versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus).

Revolve/volvo/orbit/spin/rotate are all likened too your "to turn". Are you suggesting our one finite universe is spinning?

RocketSurgeon is entirely correct.

Do some basic research before posting this drivel.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  You need to read message #14-- if not also #1 -- and address any comments, as stated there, and if they are invalid then give me rational, logical common sense to support your claims.

Fine.

You don't understand what the word "universe" means and you made up a bunch of nonsense about quite a lot of other things that you don't understand to go along with it. You don't know what gravity, time, sine waves, dark energy, or any of the other things you talk about actually are and simply rattle them off because you think they sound impressive.

You can't punctuate or communicate your ideas clearly, so your already-nonsensical arguments come across as even more gibberish than they actually are. You color in, bold, underline and add other unnecessary effects to plain text, which makes you look like a six-year-old on cocaine.

You don't understand the etymology of the words involved and think that the meanings which you erroneously assign to words you don't understand somehow give you an insight into what those things actually are.

In short, you're wrong in just about every way you could possibly be.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like Unbeliever's post
26-08-2015, 05:41 PM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2015 06:05 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
ALL RIGHT!! Here we go.


(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:RocketSurgeon76' ---- You. Are. Operating. From. A. Wrong. Definition. Of. Universe.
76, your dissimal of my approach insiuating I was somehow not fair, is unfair of you. imho

Not a good start. I was not insinuating you were not fair, I was stating that you were incorrect in the method by which you broke down the sub-components of "universe" and defined one half of it in its original Latin->French->English literal usage (uni = one, all, every), but substituted the second half in its Latin->Germanic->English metaphoric usage (verse = turned over, as in a furrow of the plowed ground, and then a row of prose), then started your logical derivation from there.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  Here is definition I give inMy Cosmic Heirarchy, message #14 for Universe Did you read that definition 76?

..."Universe = occupied space as odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy"...

and here is link too google search for define Universe

The key words in two of those definitions is 'all' and 'totality' i.e. all is inherently one fnite set of all verse, or verse's. imho and same goes for the word totality i.e. totality inherently infer one finite set that is all inclusive of all verse's. Whatever verse's may be or entail or whatever we chose to attach to that half of the word, that may relate or associate to it.

Has any part of what you have seen here at TTA convinced you that we do not know how to Google?
Seriously, what made you think that was necessary or acceptable, or that we wouldn't know what it said already. Furthermore, in the paragraph you just wrote, you ignored the trouble I went through to explain to you what universe means, both in its literal modern and metaphoric ancient versions.

However, following your Google search hields this result: "all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

Presumably, you refer in some way to part of the second definition found there, the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm

Which still yields us nothing meaningful in terms of deciphering your word-salad, in older posts. Why, then, did you keep pointing to your link, and then do it again as if I don't know how to Google and assuming I didn't check your link in the first place?

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:Your false etymology is to take the word "verse", in its modern sense, and split the modern word "universe" into "uni" (one, in the original sense) and "verse" in the modern sense.


1} Yes Uni means one, and that is why it is uni. If you dont think Uni means one in the word Universe, your going to need some better evidence to support such claims. There is a reason why Uni is used in Universe and not some other word, or prefix or whatever we want to call it. If you dont understand that, then you need to so more research.

How the Hades are you going to quote me saying it means one, and then turn right around and say "If you dont [sic] think Uni means one in the word Universe" immediately after that!?!

That's the kind of stuff that makes us wonder aloud if you have medical conditions.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  ..... "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one)....

Yeah this is fits well with any definition, so you've added nothing that invalidates my definitions, and any that ever Ive ever linked too, and have ever intended. and recently linked to another thread I initiated ahere at TTA.

I was not referring to your use of Uni, as should have been clear to a sixth-grade reading comprehension level, but to your misuse of "verse". That you even talk about "uni" kind of makes me worry about you, after I was so clear.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  Old news i.e. nothing you state is evidence that the definition I use for Universe is incorrect and you have not even posted my definition of Universe or "U"niverse so as I may more clearly address you claims of some error on my part.

Quote:+ versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus).

Revolve/volvo/orbit/spin/rotate are all likened too your "to turn". Are you suggesting our one finite universe is spinning? Whats the point of going into that? exactly?

No, genius, the point is that that's what the Latin speaking Romans who made up the original definition were suggesting. Remember, Ptolemaic model ideas about the nature of the Cosmos were what the Romans adopted into their own culture, and these were heavily concerned with the rotation of the planets and stars "around the earth" (since we didn't know, then, that it was the earth that spun, not the heavens). It makes sense to describe "all that is out there" with a word that refers to rotating heavens. Today, we know better, but we still use the term.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:"line of verse; rhyme, song," from Latin versus "a line, row, line of verse, line of writing," from PIE root *wer- (3) "to turn, bend" (see versus). The metaphor is of plowing, of "turning" from one line to another (vertere = "to turn") as a plowman does.

I think the point{s} you need to take to heart here ism ryhme of songs, poems, line of writing and turning is that, poetry in motion, song is motion, turning is motion ergo verse is associated with physical/energy that is posted above from message #14.

You need to read message #14-- if not also #1 -- and address any comments, as stated there, and if they are invalid then give me rational, logical common sense to support your claims.

No, it's a Germanic metaphor for the rows of lines on a written page resembling the turned earth in a field, and the turning of the word meanings being like the turning of the ground to reveal fresh ideas. It's lovely, and about as poetic as the German peoples get, near as I can tell. But it has nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:You are making a verbal equivalent of the false argument used by Creationists when discussing speciation, which is to fail to understand that a portion of a population can evolve into a different species while the original population remains essentially as it originally was on the evolutionary timescale.

Huh? Irrelevant divergency from my given defintion for my use of the word Universe and "U"niverse. When you actually want to address my given definitions as stated do as Ive kindly asked of you twice and others many times.

I did not address your "definitions" because they were, and remain, based on a false etymology of universe. See the following:

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:When you split the word "universe" into its modern English components and apply the newly-acquired definition of verse (even though rooted in the same "turn over" meaning it originally had, but applied in a new fashion to mean something else), which evolved separately, you are being disingenuous about how language is employed.

This is irrelevant divergency i.e. you still have not addressed my comments as stated, with any rational, logical common sens that invalidates them. Read above and in message #14.

This. This is what I mean. It is not an irrelevant "divergence" from your point, it is the point. You built a false meaning of universe by

1) Taking a word, Universe, that is (Latin prefix + Latin word)
2) Removing the Latin word and replacing it with a Germanic poetic variant.
3) Sticking the Latin prefix back on to the Germanic poetic variant to make new word.
4) Pretending the new word you made is the original word for your whole argument.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:Then you launch into a huge derivation based upon the initial error described above.

Huh? Here again what specific comment are you talking about? Please address my comments as stated, with a rational, logical common sense expalnation that invalidates my comments. You have not yet don that. imho

No. And yes I did address your comments as stated. You built a whole argument out of the you+verse breakdown, which I have shown above (twice, now) is invalid because it's not how the words go together and never was except in your head. No conclusion that is valid can come from a false starting position, and I'm not going to delve into the mad mad mad mad world of U+you+I when it's based on a root word, verse, which was wrongfully employed in the first place. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, that when you say U, you're referring to the logic definitional term for "unity", which is separate from the texting word shortening "you" to just one letter, and ignoring that U and you are unconnected words.)

All of this goes directly to the point, and saying it doesn't address your point changes nothing.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  
Quote:That is why we pointed out to you the simple "you are using it wrong", without going into further detail. Logic is a process that depends on your premises. You started with a false premise, so pointing to your logic is irrelevant, as logic will take a set of false premises to a false conclusion. That is not reasonable, which is our standard here.

If you mean I started with the word Universe and that word is somehow a false premsis, your need to once again, address my specific comments, as stated, and give rational, logical common sense explanation that invalidates them.

You have not done that. Ive posted ero addressed a specific comment by me. Yo have not.

I addressed two variations of the words Universe in message #14. If you ever choose to address the words and my definitions then I'm all ears. You have not given them nor any rational, logical common sense explanation to refute my given definitions of those two variations of the word Universe.

In light of what I have written, what you wrote just there^^ is WordSalad™, because I did address the errors you made, and I don't know what else you're asking me.

(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  Please share 76 when you can begin to do that. Also go through this thread as Ive done and you will begin to see a real of irrelevant mental barage of posts from the glue snifffers. Their approach is to shell shock---via a barage ---someone they dont like. For whatever lack of rationality the can conjour, from their remaining brain cells.

Read message #1 and #14--- or have you already? ---where no one here can understand what these three words in combination may mean, even after Ive given links to definitions "My Cosmic Hierarchy'. Glue sniffers lack moral and intellectucal integrity and this thread is evidence of that.

If you dont see that, then your no differrent from them. imho

Yes, I have obviously read what you wrote. And you still refuse to listen to us. And you continue to insult us and call us dishonest. I will put the following in color so you cannot miss it:

Next time you use the phrase "intellectual integrity" to suggest that we are not being honest simply because we disagree with you, and "glue sniffers" to suggest that we have brain damage and are herd animals, none of which is true, I will ignore you.


(26-08-2015 04:12 PM)qqq Wrote:  The repatedly waste space here by mentally whacking me. They should not even post, much less repeated keeping whackin q3. They can go elsewhere, but the do not. This is more evidence of glue sniffer lack of moral and intellectual integrity.

There prefer to mentally to mental whack and repeatedly rewhack another human being over and over and over, instead of minding their own business.

There are other words for the actions of these types of human behaviours. I recall someone mentioning how some humans who torture others, do it because they like doing it. I think there is fair amount of evidence that people who were abused as children are at greater risk of being abusive when there adults.

When you tell them this, it drives them to whack a human even more.
Heart q3 Drinking Beverage

It's very simple, q3:

1) First, we ask or politely suggest changes the newbie could make to get their point across better or irritate less of the people.
2) Then, we begin to state more firmly, especially if direcly annoyed or counterattacked by the ego of said newbie.
3) Finally, if newbie persists in being antagonistic and refusing to listen, but only speak, and keeps up the pattern of insulting anyone who doesn't agree with their preaching, we begin to get very very very hostile to them.

You are pushing me to that limit.

I am serious. I am trying to be nice to you but you are massively pushing my buttons. And trust me, you do not want me to make a mission of excoriating your every word and deed here.

We all make social choices, and you stand upon the precipice. As a final note, no one calls me 76; that is my birth-year.

-Rocket

P.S. - Can you please try to correct your spelling? It is awful, and makes it even harder to read your already-convoluted wording, when I must also try to figure out what words you intended to use in the first place.

(Editing History: I have gone back a few times and repaired a few grammatical errors and/or spelling errors.)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
26-08-2015, 07:19 PM
RE: My Cosmic Heirarchy: q3
Quote:RocketSurgeon76---Not a good start. I was not insinuating you were not fair,

Any time we state how we feel or felt is a good start. imho. That is how your words made me feel.

Quote: I went through to explain to you what universe means, both in its literal modern and metaphoric ancient versions.

Do you seriously think I have never googled Universe? What is key here is my comments as stated being disscussed and your poor attempts to show incorrectly that they are in some way invalid.

Universe = eternally existent, finite, occupied space as odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy and you have not addressed that statement.

There is more too it in message#14 but that is the initial statement.

Nor have you addressed "U"niverse and the definitions I gave for that. Now I will go and see if you do below.
Quote:Presumably, you refer in some way to part of the second definition found there, the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm

Yeah I used the words 'all' and totality. Old news as far as definition of Universe.

Quote:How the Hades are you going to quote me saying it means one, and then turn right around and say "If you dont [sic] think Uni means one in the word Universe" immediately after that!?!


Your comments splits the word into two and somehow doing that was supposed to some how invalidate my use of the Universe and/or its definitions as I have done. You comments do none of that.

So were in agreement that Uni means one. Old news.

Quote:I was not referring to your use of Uni,
\

Yes you did/were refering to uni.


Quote:q3--Revolve/volvo/orbit/spin/rotate are all likened too your "to turn". Are you suggesting our one finite universe is spinning? Whats the point of going into that? exactly?


Or do you even have a point in regards to my definitions of Universe and 'U"niverse. I dont think you do. I think your putting on a charade to avoid getting the core of your claims, that some how began with an incorrect definition of Universe.

Ive only requoted and added to the initial definition, there was more elaboration i message #14. Did you read it?

Quote:No, it's a Germanic metaphor for the rows of lines on a written page resembling the turned earth in a field, and the turning of the word meanings being like the turning of the ground to reveal fresh ideas. It's lovely, and about as poetic as the German peoples get, near as I can tell. But it has nothing to do with what you're suggesting.

I'm talking about the verse's that involve physical/energy ergo motion as signing, or oral speaking of poetry/verse, or acting out a verse with charades, or patomime, or any number of physical/energy that Universe is expressed via motion.

The one verse is eternally moving, eternally in motion. You dont seem to get the facts of Universe being motion.

As occupied space that has as the first subcatagory of that occupied space as the odd-bird-out gravity and physical/energy.

Now if you ever truly come to address that, please share with some rational, logiical common sense.

All other occupied space are subcatagories of those two, with the possible exception of perhaps repulsive dark energy aka anti-gravity force.

Quote:I did not address your "definitions" because they were, and remain, based on a false etymology of universe. See the following:

If want to ignore my words, then your off on some irrelevant side trip dude. You dont see to get it, tho actually I think you do get it, and you just dont have any rational, logical, common sense explanations that begin with addressing my comments as stated.

If your not going to address the comments as stated, then why I your here attempting to have a disscussion with me. Your having a disscussion with yourself with some ideas that do not actually address my comments as stated, other than the support my comments as stated.

Universe = motion, gravity, physical/ernergy etc....and these are the physiial expressions of verse, to turn over, to inter-transform eternally.

Quote: You built a false meaning of universe
1) Taking a word, Universe, that is (Latin prefix + Latin word)

Yeah Uni and verse as one word Universe and "U"niverse
Quote:2) Removing the Latin word and replacing it with a Germanic poetic variant.

I have not removed any words from the word Universe. You need to look in the mirror to search who may have mental problems.


Quote:3) Sticking the Latin prefix back on to the Germanic poetic variant to make new word.

Huh? Ived changed no prefix. Ive made no new words. Ive changed the appearence of the word not it prefix as claim. Ive changed the appearence to make a distinction between two definitions of the word Universe.

This is plain and simple. I could have used a differrent number after each word or letter or texticonic symbol. YOu need to look in the mirror dude and search for some truth.

Quote:4) Pretending the new word you made is the original word for your whole argument.

Ive never claimed to make a new word. You project that claim on to me falsely. I change the appearence to make a distinction of two differrent definitions of the same word.

Why you cannot handle these fact appears to me, to be divergent charade you want to play--- as all the other glues sniffers do, tho most of them in much more abusive way ---so as to not having to ever offer a rational, logical, common sense explanation as to why you may believe my definnitions invalid.

We will never know, because you fear addressing my comments as stated i.e. you admit yourself that opt out of the scenario before even addressing them.

Your playing mental mind games with yourself, hoping they will distract me from my comments as stated being valid. So you've nothing valid to say in regards to my givens.

Quote:No. And yes I did address your comments as stated. You built a whole argument out of the you+verse breakdown,

I do not see that quote of teh specific words you claim to address.

If you think your talking about the following;

"U"niverse > Universe > universe's is and argument and certainly never claimed it was.

Quote: which I have shown above (twice, now) is invalid because it's not how the words go together and never was except in your head.

Huh? First off I have no idea for sure what words your refering too. You have left us guessing as to what words your talking about specifically.

You state in messsage #69 and I quote you..."I did not address your "definitions" because".....

So again, if you cannot address my definitions i.e. my comments as stated, regarding the word Universe, then your not addressing me, or my comments etc...

Your off on some side trip in your own head addressing only your comments pretending{ charade } that your somehow head trip is somehow addressing my definitions of Universe and your head trips are not addressing my definitions.

You need to lool in the mirror to find this person you find any medical issues dude. imho

Quote:No conclusion that is valid can come from a false starting position,

Your starting position is not addressing my comments and specifically those definitions of Universe Ive offered. now that really is a false starting point, cause your talking to yourself about your head trips regarding universe, not my head trips that I place in this thread.
Quote: (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, that when you say U,

What are comment by me are you feebly attemtping to refernce 76?

"U"niverse is that you think your talking about? Do you even know what it you think your talking about. Please share when you figure out your head with some specific quotes of my comments, if you want to have rational, logical common sense covnversaton.

I'm doubtful that you do.

Quote: you're referring to the logic definitional term for "unity", which is separate from the texting word shortening "you" to just one letter,

Huh? Your stuck in your head and I dont see any connection to my comments above. You need to ask me if you want know what I'm thinking. I dont think you really do, and that is same as the most of the glue sniffers here a Non-Thinking Athiest
Quote: and ignoring that U and you are unconnected words.)

I have no idea what your going on about.

Quote:I will ignore you.

Based on what you've stated above that is not great loss. Hope the glue sniffers do the same.

Quote:1) First, we ask or politely suggest changes the newbie could make to get their point across better or irritate less of the people.

You ignore much of glue sniffers post. Message #14 is explanations with links to definition that only support my definitons. Not single glue sniffer here can get past the word combinations "My Cosmic Heriarchy".

Yeah, you need get out of denial, look in the mirror to find who has medical issues. imho

Quote:
Quote:You are pushing me to that limit.

Your in denial of truth dude. Go back to sniffing glue and maybe you can get unstruck from your personal head trip fantasy.

Quote:I am serious. I am trying to be nice to you but you are massively pushing my buttons. And trust me, you do not me to make a mission of excoriating your every word and deed here.

Your in denial of truth My Cosmic Heirarchy #14. Get unstuck from your head trip and the glue vapors dude.

Quote:We all make social choices, and you stand upon the precipice. As a final note, no one calls me 76; that is my birth-year.

Congratulations, a bicentennial year. 200 + a coming 40.

Heart q3 Drinking Beverage
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: