Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here)

[BROOK]

This is the 'beauty' of science and of mathematical logistics.
It is easy to 'validate' scientific data in the form of equations and formulae; as these can be dissected and 'checked' for selfconsistency by anyone familiar with the language codes.

So I would be very interested in the "scientific" data to explain this analysis:

If you 'feel' that all or parts of what my message is, 'feels right to incorporate' with your own message then you will HELP and further the Positive Harvesting of 2010-2013.

If you 'feel' that all or parts of what my message is, does not 'feel right to incorporate' with your own message; then you will HELP and further the Negative Harvesting of 2010-2013.

And the "validation" of such a conclusion

[abraxasinas]

Originally Posted by BROOK

So I would be very interested in the "scientific" data to explain this analysis:



And the "validation" of such a conclusion

Hi Brook!

You cannot subject data to scientific analysis, if this data does not contain parameters amenable to such analysis.

I am not here to play wordgames with people.
If you use words like 'validate', the criteria for validation must emerge from the context from which you operate your semantic constructions from.

You are playing wordgames, because my context is applied to constructed sentences which attempt to indicate two sides of a coin say metaphorically - whilst you are asking for 'proof' for the metaphorical coin existing.

Abrax

[BROOK]

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

Hi Brook!

You cannot subject data to scientific analysis, if this data does not contain parameters amenable to such analysis.

I am not here to play wordgames with people.
If you use words like 'validate', the criteria for validation must emerge from the context from which you operate your semantic constructions from.

You are playing wordgames, because my context is applied to constructed sentences which attempt to indicate two sides of a coin say metaphorically - whilst you are asking for 'proof' for the metphorical coin existing.

Abrax

Sorry you feel I am playing word games here...I'm just looking for an answer to your conclusion for such a statement.


So it would appear that your information in that context is "metaphorical"?...and again..it was concluded as not from scientific data...but from information gathered from an outside source. And if that is the case...it, as I stated earlier on...should have validation of some kind..otherwise it is "secondhand"...to those of us who are unfamiliar with it. And being that is the case...it should require some kind of validation to be take seriously...and to be analyzed with great scrutiny.

No word games here...just good old fashioned common sense

I will add it is not my intention to upset you in any way....just looking for some answers to your analysis and conclusions.
So I will bother you no further...as I think you have answered my question sufficiently

Thank you
Blessings
Brook

[abraxasinas]

Originally Posted by BROOK

Sorry you feel I am playing word games here...I'm just looking for an answer to your conclusion for such a statement.


So it would appear that your information in that context is "metaphorical"?...and again..it was concluded as not from scientific data...but from information gathered from an outside source. And if that is the case...it, as I stated earlier on...should have validation of some kind..otherwise it is "secondhand"...to those of us who are unfamiliar with it. And being that is the case...it should require some kind of validation to be take seriously...and to be analyzed with great scrutiny.

No word games here...just good old fashioned common sense

Hi Brook!

Now you are 'putting words in my mouth'.

None of my data is 'second hand' - this is YOUR labeling not mine.
Some of my information uses metaphor.
Some of my information uses advanced semantics of science - this data becomes subject to validation ON SCIENTIFIC TERMS.

What 'validation' do you seek - the prediction of an earthquake or the winning lottery numbers?
I am who I am and my agenda is to share otherwise unobtainable data.
If this data is meaningless or worthless for you this is perfectly in order in the scheme of things.
You are superimposing your preconceived ideas onto my 'expected' response. Iow you are playing intellectualized wordgames with the English language.
Common sense has little to do with your agenda.

I shall not continue to engage with your wordgames of banalities.
If you desire meaningful clarification, ask a meaningful question and I shall answer you to the best of my ability.

I have no ability to engage in dissonant discourses.

Be well on your path into enlightenment and you will find your validations in due course.

Love Abraxasinas

[BROOK]

Originally Posted by abraxasinas

Hi Brook!

Now you are 'putting words in my mouth'.

None of my data is 'second hand' - this is YOUR labeling not mine.
Some of my information uses metaphor.
Some of my information uses advanced semantics of science - this data becomes subject to validation ON SCIENTIFIC TERMS.

What 'validation' do you seek - the prediction of an earthquake or the winning lottery numbers?
I am who I am and my agenda is to share otherwise unobtainable data.
If this data is meaningless or worthless for you this is perfectly in order in the scheme of things.
You are superimposing your preconceived ideas onto my 'expected' response. Iow you are playing intellectualized wordgames with the English language.
Common sense has little to do with your agenda.

I shall not continue to engage with your wordgames of banalities.
If you desire meaningful clarification, ask a meaningful question and I shall answer you to the best of my ability.

I have no ability to engage in dissonant discourses.

Be well on your path into enlightenment and you will find your validations in due course.

Love Abraxasinas

As I stated:
I will add it is not my intention to upset you in any way....just looking for some answers to your analysis and conclusions.
So I will bother you no further...as I think you have answered my question sufficiently

However...now I must add..."secondhand" is My interpretation of it, "My" analysis of such a statement....and "I" feel it needs great analysis and scrutiny to be taken seriously.

As for "validation"...well...if you are who you say you are..you should have known "exactly" what went on in that "room" I spoke of...but you did not...and it gave me "validation" that you are not as in touch with your Draconian friends as you might think you are...again..Only "My" analysis..and conclusion

Now please...continue to "enlighten" everyone here to your findings.

I'm off on "my agenda"...blessed be