Their saying on the cnn what there are more manmade masses on earth than all of the living masses on earth which means diddle skwot becuase manmade masses they do nothing but living masses they have life breathed into them by god and even the masses from the catholic churches dont count because they do nothing to.
The masses on earth are bigger
Posts
Total:
28
-->
@Utanity
Presumably you know the porpoise of what you are on about Mikey..... Whilst quaffing your chardonnay and beer with Justin and Mr Hare.
Masses of what?
-->
@zedvictor4
Masses of what?
You sea if you keep taking the mikey all the time it means your brain doesnt working very good and your saying and thinking very weird things and you dont understand what peoples say also because I said there are more manmade masses on earth than all of the living masses on earth. So your not playing with the full deck.
-->
@zedvictor4
Masses of what?
It is probable that English is not Utanity's native tongue, yet you toy with porpoise? Utanity get's it, entirely [see Einstein, Theory of Relativity]. I understand Einstein was not a Brit, the seat of the English lexicon, and I do acknowledge the OED as the ultimate descriptive of that lexicon, and own it with pride, though being a lowly colonist, but I'll wager Utanity's grasp of our shared language separated by an ocean understands mass in sufficiently more detail than you understand it in Utanity's native tongue. Get off your high horse, Lord Nelson, and do some research on your own.
Utanity: Well played. Bravo.
-->
@fauxlaw
So you presume
-->
@Theweakeredge
As does all scientific theory.
-->
@fauxlaw
No.... you have zero evidence for your claims... as far as we could know, you wouldn't know Utanity's native language. You don't know Zedvictor4's understanding of language, and you certainly presume that asking for clarification is a bad thing, yet you don't actually defend the content itself, how interesting. Also, tu quequo, but anyways, no, science does not presume much. They presume that our reality is real, and that logic exists, but so do you in order to even have this conversation. You are just wrong.
-->
@Theweakeredge
tu quequo
C'est à dire: tu quoque?
That I wouldn't know Utanity's native language depends entirely on examination of English word use, sequence, and, in some instances, spelling in 'not-Enlgish-but-exact-in-another-language in which I may have coincident fluency. I'll wager I can even guess a region, not just an entire country of origin. But that's between Utanity and I. Not giving away the store, because, after all, I could be wrong, and I'll admit the possibility.
Theory:
a. An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts; a statement of one or more laws or principles which are generally held as describing an essential property of something.
b. More generally: a hypothesis or set of ideas about something.
Yes, asking for clarification by mocking is a bad thing. C'est très mauvais; ne faites pas.
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes I mispelled the informal fallacy: Tu quoque, how interesting a point on your part.
Second of all, again, even if you can guess Utanity's can you also guess exactly which language Zed can and cannot understand? Also, again, pointing out something else is doing something has no baring on your actual argument with this, and again science does not presume things. Those definitions of theories literally prove nothing, yes a scientific theory is a collection of relevant facts.
-->
@Theweakeredge
scientific theory is a collection of relevant facts.
No. the operative word is not collection, but contemplation. Entirely different words of differing meaning. Don't confuse them. Contemplation: a meditative practice in which a person seeks to pass beyond intellectual reasoning or reflection to a direct experience. IOW, a passage from the theoretical to the factual. We contemplate existing facts, as far as they are known, to explore the unknown until we can reason out the experience of transition from theory to additional fact to expand our knowledge.
-->
@fauxlaw
I think that you are being conned.
Have a scan through Mr U's forum posts and you will probably see what I mean.
-->
@zedvictor4
Why Mr. U? While I have great respect for the gentleman, I tend to have greater trust in this realm in whoever occupies Newton's Chair; currently, Mr. Green, I believe, replacing Mr. Hawking in 2009.
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you presume
Thats what stanley did and he still founded livingstone so what because we all must be presuming because we dont no everything and if you dont presume then your being a robot and you can still being wrong anyway.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yes I mispelled the informal fallacy: Tu quoque, how interesting a point on your part.
Tu es l'imbecile n'est ce pas.
-->
@Utanity
Tu es l'imbecile n'est ce pas.
Pas tout à fait, mais je suppose que vous l’êtes peut-être.
Blatant attacks on myself now? Why aren't I suprised?
-->
@Theweakeredge
on myself
That means what your doing to yourseld like derr.
Je pense donc je ne suis pas tu.
-->
@Utanity
Blatant attacks on myself now
That is the full context, "on" is a proposition, propositions are words that are supposed to show the relationship between a noun/pronoun and another word in the sentence. That pronoun is "Myself" and the other word is the verb and adverb "blatant attacks". To show that someone is targeting attacks at me blatantly. I suspect you do not understand language.
Your inflammatory french means nothing to me, speak to me with an honest goal in mind or not at all.
-->
@Theweakeredge
That is the full context, "on" is a proposition, propositions are words that are supposed to show the relationship between a noun/pronoun and another word in the sentence. That pronoun is "Myself" and the other word is the verb and adverb "blatant attacks". To show that someone is targeting attacks at me blatantly. I suspect you do not understand language.
My english is much better than what is yours because your used the wrong adverb because it should being me because myself means what is being used by the speaker to refur to himself as the object of the verb or the preposition when he is being the subject of the claws. Just saying so your not getting your jockeys to much twisted.
-->
@Utanity
wrong, the adverb is blatant, because it modifies attack. You have literally no idea what you're talking about, on, can mean at, or something similar, so the sentence works. The object of the preposition is the "myself" and is clearly being interacted as a target by "on". You are very clueless in this regard.
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you mean Lucas's Chair....Though I don't see the connection between that and being duped by Mr U.....Please explain.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Blatant attacks on myself now?
Sea what I mean thats how peoples they start wars because their communicating very bad when their not saying who does the attack and they do the wrong grammer when their choosing the wrong form of the pronoun. Many wars.
-->
@Utanity
"Myself" because I am saying I was the target of attack
"on" because that's where the attack was aimed, at me
You do not understand grammar if you think that the specific preposition must be fixed to the pronoun. Now, there are specific prepositional phrases that require a pairing, but they are far and few between.
-->
@zedvictor4
Same chair. Semantics. What you don 't see is just have the problem. My point is you don't mock someone's use of a non-native tongue. Compare your skill in that tongue, and see how well you're received. The other guy's shoes are more difficult to fill that your own. Respect that.
-->
@fauxlaw
What on earth is a non-native tongue?
If you mean that Mr U, seemingly doesn't have a good command of the English language.
Then I would suggest that you read through their plethora of posts, and you will notice that Mr U's use of the English language is very variable.
And if you look a little closer at the structure and content of their narrative, I think that you will conclude as I have, that it is in fact Mr U who is taking the "Mikey".
And pointing out that it is Lucas's chair, is not semantics....It's correcting an error.
-->
@zedvictor4
What on earth is a non-native tongue?
All the languages on earth in which you are not natively fluent. Natively, as in by birth. You can only be native in a single language unless you parents of natively of two separate languages, and they both teach you their native tongue. Not even naturalization counts as contributor to a native tongue.
Mr. U is not natively of the English lexicon. However, his use of English, I'll wager, is better than your use of his native language. That is why I slapped you for playing games with his syntactic use. Don't need to belittle otehrs when their fluency in your language is not as fluent as you would prefer. You may not agree with what he says, but don't criticize how it is said.
And yes, Newton's chair is known earlier as Lucas' chair, but more recently as Newton's chair. I am aware of Henry Lucas, but Newton is the chair's more famous occupant. And isn't it more correctly called the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, anyway?
-->
@fauxlaw
Why are you so certain that "Mr. U is not natively of the English lexicon".
I would suggest that Mr U's non-native lexicon is far too stylised and contrived to be believable.
-->
@zedvictor4
Why are you so certain
You expect that I give away the store? Use the R-word [research]
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Myself"
What is wrong with me then