andru235_acknowledge_the_futility_of_this andru235 already have, in like five other places here, and so why not make it six. attempting to illuminate people via well-intended verbal communication does not work; such persuasion only succeeds if fear or hate (thus, fear x2) accompanies the message but then that isn't enlightenment, now, is it. "if an argument fails to persuade it must be a false argument" tell that to davinci "who are you to mention davinci?!?" what, are some historical figures off limits to certain observation? oh wait, i forgot about your fear. if i observed that stalin once made genuine love to a lady, does that make me evil too, for suggesting such an evil man ever might have done something good in his life? what if i suggested that ever-revered einsteins, fermis, oppenheimers, etc. (who indeed were mighty intelligent) were unwise to the point of folly, for offering a socially primitive world in the throws of yet another genocidal war? that wouldn't go over too well, would it? it isn't that i fully endorse either of these views but if there hypothetically was an abundance of merit to one of them, acknowledging so would be tantamount to treason in the eyes of the mono-thinkists, well trained as they often are. (it could be argued that double-think was actually *optimism* on the part of huxley, seeing the persistence of mono-thinkism; such an argument, of course, is by its very nature double-think. movin' on up, huh? your almost ready for trinaristicism, or whatever you want to call it) "what does any of this has to do with your futile theories?" thank you for providing a sparkling illustration by asking. "well, your theories are still futile" theories can not be 'futile' any more than they can be 'giggly'. is the gravity theory futile because birds fly up? probably not. is the gravity theory giggly because birds fly up? not around me, it isn't. "your theories can't be tested so they can't be proven" still entranced by the illusionist named 'proof', i see. you must have a lot of faith in proof. "you assert this all as though you have proven it" i assert it, that is correct. and why not? has the world seen so few unproven assertions that you people still find them to be scandalous? no, your world is rampant with unprovable theories; a bridge is being built to the moon, out of toothpicks, and a storm is blowing in. i have this theory that i am typing this blather. however as i will shortly finish, i will have to amend the theory to 'i typed this blather'. since i will immediately cease to retain direct access to the blather, i will have to amend the theory to, 'i typed that blather'. can i test the theory? not really. even a video tape of my typing the blather is not proof, considering the rampancy of computer graphic technology. time travel could only ascertain that a parallel exists where i appeared to be me, typing; but there is no way to guarantee one has accessed the realm where i was existing at the time the blather was posted. see but_andru235_time_is_moving_along_a_2d_line and yet this is all ridiculous because here i am, typing this. there i was, typing that. "i'm still not convinced." of course you aren't, my fellow child. and you won't be unless your personal life experience illustrates it in a manner condusive to your learning style, or, someone scares you into accepting whatever concept and as a result you start to see it play out. and wise foolish boy that i am, i continue trying to offer it up in a friendly, open manner. 050418 what's it to you? who go blather from