Re: Choices & Free Will
Problem is you really don't know the details of the comparison I was making, because you immediately avoided engaging me on that comparision. And instead you issued your OWN generalization about the Amish... something about not using the technology "period". I then gave you references to counter YOUR generalization and show you that you really don't know the Amish as well as you may think. And now we come full-circle with TTA's tactics in that the TTA is accusing ME of throwing generalizations! Classical TTA if ever I have seen it.
Typical RMT tactic, your desire to follow strict satisfaction mandates to statements made in simplicity.
Ok, here's the breakdown for you:
Problem is you really don't know the details of the comparison I was making, because you immediately avoided engaging me on that comparision.
You immediately assumed and made a generalization of the TTA's arguments, that your Amish comparison would address anything further I may have been thinking about the use of TT technology.
And instead you issued your OWN generalization about the Amish... something about not using the technology "period".
Yes, and I acknowledged this was a generalization, but also stated that there was a big difference between the TTA and the Amish in the use of such technology.
I then gave you references to counter YOUR generalization and show you that you really don't know the Amish as well as you may think.
I never claimed to know them RMT, I believe you said you're the Ohio boy, so you gave me the reference, and I said thank-you. But keep in mind, you continued your generalization again of the TTA, as was the reason to continue clarifying this comparison.
But I believe you elaborated further in this comparison and did give me further details on it.
â€¦.They are not AS strict as you might imply with your "period" statement. In fact, their "hard-fast" rule is that THEY are not permitted to OWN or operate any of these certain technologies. For example, an Amish person would never own an automobile. But do you think they have a rule of never being allowed to ride in them? (Their rule: "No one shall operate cars or trucks."). This does not prohibit an Amish member from riding in someone else's car, especially in the case of an injury of one of their community. They are not going to tell a city ambulance "no, you cannot take them away to the hospital in that ambulence." There are other examples, so this is just to give you the flavor. You can read up on them in many places. Here is the intro paragraph from THIS WEB SITE:
And now we come full-circle with TTA's tactics in that the TTA is accusing ME of throwing generalizations! Classical TTA if ever I have seen it.
Please read cited text below:
Now let me give an example that will set the stage for some of my rebuttals to your later thoughts
â€¦ I was showing how their attitude towards existing technology in some ways mirrors your arguments, and then asking you to contrast that against the more typical way of life in America where we do accept these technologies. They (Amish/Quakers) might consider our use of this technology "evil", but do WE? iridium said it best: moral relativism.
I never believed they were identical. But I'd bet they are more similar to your arugments than you might believe.
And now again:
And now we come full-circle with TTA's tactics in that the TTA is accusing ME of throwing generalizations! Classical TTA if ever I have seen it.
And this is what I said:
And at best, the example you put forth was a generalization of the TTA's arguments in comparison to the Amish's stance on technology. Which was also shown to be false.
Please show me again RMT where I made the classic TTA tactic of wrongfully accusing of you, in this obvious generalization that you made?
Why do you think this? I certainly do not think it was a waste of time at all. In fact, one of my own personal philosophies in life is that there is really no such thing as wasted time. Just because this debate has not measured up to YOUR intentions, I would ask that you not presume it did not meet mine.
Not my intentions RMT. Simply a pointless show of ego and scientific superiority. But that's just my opinion.
I fail to see how examining something based SOLELY on your interpretation of some subjective experience you have had is looking at this "comprehensively". How can a discussion be "comprehensive" if it all must be based on what YOU alone have experienced, and for which there is no available scientific data (including expert analysis) to support?
And this makes JT discussions for the last 6 yrs any different how?
I'm sorry RMT, I had no idea that this forum was exclusively only using scientific & mathematical concepts to time travel; and no longer allowing everyday common people's ideas for discussion.
Are you then insinuating that this is a good enough reason to not follow a scientific method? Just because we are not at a "real" institute? Sorry, but the RainmanTime does not suspend his scientific mind when he leaves work/school.
No of course not RMT, I wouldn't want you to stop being who you are.
Please, go right on ahead and be true to your self as much as you'd like. If you feel justified to be as radical as you wish, I am certain you have a scientific/mathematical formula that say's it's ok.
Similar to the above, are you insinuating that I should not hold the "facts" that the TTA cites here up to scientific scrutiny? Do you think you should just be given a "free pass" because you don't know science, or the acceptable practice thereof?
Your insinuating an awful lot RMT, isn't this what got you to 'slip up' once or twice in the first place ?
For an engineer, this can be quite dangerous.
But you can certainly think what you want RMT, the TTA simply meant that I cannot give you the objective answers you requested in this debate. As for a 'free pass,' why would I need one, isn't this debate over?
But if you still wish to be an extreme fundamentalist in your scientific approach to a debate that's finished, go right on ahead.
So you are trying to enlist other people to do your science for you? Tell you what... you find the $ to pay my salary for 1-2 years and I will do just that. You can bring all the subjects you want for testing, and I will match them with "control group" subjects. What a ball we could have.
Ok, sureâ€¦ I'll be in contact with you if I ever find the funds, or if I find out of an other study that is underway. Which ever comes soonest !
What's with the "let's"? Let us? Part of the reason I started the debate was because I thought you had some kind of CONVINCING evidence to support your claims. Yet now you are trying to enlist my help to look for such evidence, when really I was just hoping to evaluate it. If you can afford me, then perhaps I might be willing to take on the job. It might be fun, but the RainmanTime is not into charity work that he does not believe is for a worthy cause.
Excuse me RMT, for assuming you were purposing to implement your idea, and be apart of it. Much how you believed and assumed I would be the one to create the guidelines in dealing with TT hoaxers, many months ago.
But really, you don't need to engineer me a lengthy condescending reason why you won't.
A simple 'no thank-you' would have sufficed.
No need for *#&$ waving.
Science (good science) is not just about choosing what is on the shelf. You accuse me of using a bad analogy above, and yet this one is quite a bit worse. If the premise which is trying to be scientifically verified REQUIRES a large soft drink, then guess what? The experiment cannot be executed (nor data collected) until all the REQUIREMENTS are satisfied. To do anything less would invalidate the experimental data.
I'll leave it to you to find an accusation, where there isn't one.
As for the analogy: A large soft drink is not part of the requirement for the experiment in the analogy, but simply to show the relentless desire of the experimenter for what he believes he needs to complete the experiment, not necessarily significant to the conclusion. i.e. smaller group, smaller facility, smaller budget.
No, really it cannot go without saying. And your "specifics" are hardly specific. What PRECISELY do you mean by "confirming the double-digit numbers"? Could you put this into a recipe-like format (step a, step b...) and perhaps even define specific measurable quantities that would be part of these "specifics"?
If you know of a better way to test for paranormal manifestations, I'd like hear about it it.
And how did you account for the people who may have an opinion, may be lurkers, but did not vote? And how do you know this vote is not "tainted" by any number of cloaked IPs?
Why would I care about people who have cloaked IP's RMT?
Before you go through the trouble, why not tell me, hypothetically, how you are going to prove it? What "evidence" do you plan to show me? Or is that some big secret?
My presence alone will clearly show I have nothing to hide, and that there is no way I could have thought up of being JT and others who use cloaked IP's in a lengthy face-to-face conversation/interview. Really, I have much more important things to do in life then to waste my time creating hoaxes.
And all of them are "certain" that it is the abuse of TT technology that is causing it?
I don't know, I never asked all of them, I never said it was also this way for all of them, but the common factor is that they don't need me to tell them the impact this has had on their lives.
I am merely bringing up coincidences to add to the coincidences shared by Cipher. And if you recall, I insinuated to you how I HAD to vote in your last poll, given the way you worded it. And if I am so "harassing" why do you continue?
I am not the only one you've harassed RMT, and you keep continuing.
I am sorry that you have interpreted this in this manner, and I apologize if that did offend you.
Please pardon me if I don't take your apology as sincere right away. I have not finished reading the rest of your post.
However, history has shown the TTA to be quite a sly character (all RPGs have at least one)... always using well-chosen words to try to "slip by" in a discussion or debate. Can you blame me for wanting to continually set this record straight, knowing the TTA's record as I do?
Please elaborate for me again, I don't know what you mean? Slip by?
For another example, I have also continually tried to get you to admit that we cannot rightfully assess the ethics of TT until we know (scientifically and quantifiably) how it works. You have not yet conceded this, and so I will continue to state this until you do. Now you could call that "rubbing it in your face", but I call it keeping you honest.
I thought I told you already? I acknowledged that my claims may be subjective for the moment being and that they may not prove the ethical outcomes to TT, yet.
Quite honestly, I could have really pulled out some "Classic RMT" that would have been much less nice.
Classic RMT. Ok, let's see it.
Again you try to pencil me into what amounts to a yes/no statement (and obfuscate the original point at the same time). For the third time now, I am pointing out your duplicity: You have derided certain New Age philosophies because they don't show alignment with science/math, and at the same time you offer subjective "evidence" of your experience which does not align with science/math. And I will again ask you: Which way do you want it, because you can't have it both ways?
As for pencilling you in, with a yes/no statement for the third time, please bring them all out so we can discuss them.
Furthermore, what have I derided about certain New Age philosophies because they don't offer science/math? Please keep me honest and cite those things that I have said so we may discuss them as well.
Perhaps I did, and perhaps I was wrong. We will never know because (a) I never explicity named any types of New Agisms that I thought you were referring to, but more importantly, (b) You have also not laid-out specifics for what you call "New Age". If you were to clear-up point (b), then I would not have to speculate about what you mean.
Yes RMT, and despite this, one can still perhaps be wrong. Thank you for conceding that point.
Free will subjugation which you still cannot verify/validate as being real and actually being utilized. I am sorry that you think I am "rubbing your face in it" but I have to come back to this point every time you try to slide by with the implication that this stuff is real, it is going on, and it is due to abuse of TT. It is not rubbing your face in it, it is reminding you that you cannot assume this is true and use it as part of your argument.
If other people are really experiencing these very real experiences and mine just happens to be linking it to TT influence, what further can I say as my argument? I obviously can't prove it to you or anyone.
My arguments regarding this with you on this debate have ended already anyway's RMT, even you agreed that since it's not quantifiable there is no further debate.
So yes, you are continuously rubbing my face with it.
Yes, I know... it is all about other people, and the TTA is the tireless workhorse for ethical use of TT. If you were to find a cross, drag it around a bit, and work out how you can have yourself nailed to it somewhere conspicuous you could really play that card to the hilt. (Classical RMT coming out here, I am afraid.)
Fine by me Classical RMT. You can be as much of an @#$ as you want to be.
I noticed that (so far) you have made the choice to NOT answer a question about where LRH tech came from in another thread. Why don't we "discuss" that a bit before we evaluate the LRH version of the tech? Who knows, we might be able to trash LRH tech altogether and appeal to its ORIGINAL source (which is much older than LRH)?
You're too nice to consider me your trashing buddy in this endeavor. But I believe I stated before, it would not be prudent for me to go into further details of the Co$. But you're certainly free to do so.
And you said earlier you have already identified the perpetrator. Could you kindly specify their name or organization? Or do you just wish to keep the vague "New Ageisms" umbrella for this?
I believe one may get more respect from Jack Sarfatti for lack of scientific/mathematical data, then from you. Why I believed you would be civil with the TTA in this debate, is a mistake in giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Your poll, as with other polls you have crafted, is another piece of sly work. THREE varying choices for how people can vote to allow you to stay, and only one cut-throat way for them to vote you off the island. Why not just two choice: (A)Should he stay? or (B)Should he go?
Simplicity avoids people always having suspicions about intentions. BTW, I haven't voted as yet, but I will inform you when I do (if you wish).
Sly work you think!
And another RMT exclusive scientific hypothesis.
Just for being so nice to the TTA, you won't mind if I stay a little while longer, will you RMT?
And I am sure we will get along eventually, after much further word play .
It's your choice RMT, truce or shall we go at it again?
I am extending my hand out to you.