My "Gospel of Truth"

[Ajita Kamal]

(18-Jun-2011, 10:26 PM)flashgordon Wrote: I have read your links; you havn't read my article; you havn't disproved any of the facts that I show in my article; your 'refusing to look through the telescope.'

Actually, no you are wrong. I read through your article, because I posted a relevant criticism of it. On the other hand, there is no evidence of you having read the links I posted because you haven't said anything about them. You are dismissing my arguments without addressing them, invoking a non-existent telescope that I propose you are wielding rather unbecomingly.

[Ajita Kamal]

What you need to do, in light of the relevant criticism supplied, is show mathematical evidence collected in a blinded study demonstrating that the likelihood of a "bible code" is clearly significantly greater than chance as demonstrated by the Moby Dick code (or any other sizable piece of literature, for that matter). Until then, my criticism applies as a credible scientific criticism of your arguments.

[Lije]

(18-Jun-2011, 10:26 PM)flashgordon Wrote: I have read your links; you havn't read my article; you havn't disproved any of the facts that I show in my article; your 'refusing to look through the telescope.'

When you claim something, the burden of proof lies on you. Please provide scientific evidence (for ex, a study published in a high impact journal) for your claims. And no more false accusations please.

[unsorted]

(18-Jun-2011, 10:26 PM)flashgordon Wrote: I have read your links; you havn't read my article; you havn't disproved any of the facts that I show in my article; your 'refusing to look through the telescope.'

I did try to read your article when you first posted it; and couldn't make head nor tail of it - I gave up after a few minutes. I then asked you to give us a summary, and you didn't (it's generally a bad sign btw when someone isn't able/willing to summarise an article). And now, given how quickly you've descended into troll-speak, I am not interested in "disproving" the "facts" in your article. Good luck to you.

[flashgordon]

Lije is a nazy, and you guys are vagueness gamers(troll; troll is whatever it needs to be because you don't like it; also, vagueness gaming is nazy as well).

Here's my mathematical analyses of the facts I present; there word for word from orignial sources; hence, one hundred percent accurate!.

[unsorted]

(19-Jun-2011, 05:54 AM)flashgordon Wrote: Lije is a nazy, and you guys are vagueness gamers(troll; troll is whatever it needs to be because you don't like it; also, vagueness gaming is nazy as well).

Here's my mathematical analyses of the facts I present; there word for word from orignial sources; hence, one hundred percent accurate!.

Did you mean "nazi"? We don't allow personal attacks here.

And no, we don't define trolling as anything we don't like. We have a well-thought out definition of trolling, please read it.

[nick87]

(19-Jun-2011, 08:35 AM)unsorted Wrote:

(19-Jun-2011, 05:54 AM)flashgordon Wrote: Lije is a nazy, and you guys are vagueness gamers(troll; troll is whatever it needs to be because you don't like it; also, vagueness gaming is nazy as well).

Here's my mathematical analyses of the facts I present; there word for word from orignial sources; hence, one hundred percent accurate!.

Did you mean "nazi"? We don't allow personal attacks here.

And no, we don't define trolling as anything we don't like. We have a well-thought out definition of trolling, please read it.

Nazis? I see Godwin's Law is still alive and kicking.