h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's great the way you think it's all about you.

RF

No, it's just all around me. RF, please don't talk to me. You bluntly said you don't like me with no provocation. You shouldn't appear to be double-teaming me, you know.

What are you, 13?

Get your head out of your arse and try to behave like a grown-up.

RF

Like what, youngster? Read the very first two letters of your own Journal. You know he's said he's never going to speak to me, and it simply looks like you're his surrogate.

Xiory


And there are scientists who believe there are gods...messing about with numbers and making them appear to do what you want with them proves nothing apart from the fact that you 'know real mathematics'.

If numerology was true there are plenty of other mathematicians who would have studied the same stuff. Written peer reviewed papers and it would be mainstream mathematics...it isn't it's as woo as homeopathy and dowsing.

It's all about mistakes in chess and life where there's a conflict. Other people are making obvious mistakes and failing to correct themselves. When I make a mistake, I think it's better to correct myself as quickly as I can. This is just common decency in politics, and it's what makes mathematics and science. It's religious people who hold fast and don't correct their own mistakes most of the time. Sometimes atheism can be a little like a religion unfortunately. That's reality for you.

>> Like what, youngster? <<

What are you on about?

>> Read the very first two letters of your own Journal. <<

Which journal are you on about? I have several. The most recent starts with HI, which is an abbreviation for "her indoors". What are you inferring from that?

>> You know he's said he's never going to speak to me, and it simply looks like you're his surrogate. <<

Who is this "he"? Who are you talking about?

RF

I'm not doing numerology, 3Dots. I'm doing mathematics right now to justify numerology of a specific new kind that I haven't even shown yet. That's going to be the matter of my next Entry. The mistake I believe you are making is not recognizing the evidence of my uniqueness.

Ready Freddy: If you say so, I guess it must be true.

By the way, Arthur C. Clarke judged dowsing as a 4 out of 5 on a likelihood-that-there-is-something-to-it scale, but I don't buy it.

Apparently, you're mistaking my abbreviation HI for Honest Iago.

That's quite funny.

Where's your head?

RF

Well, if that's true I suppose it's just one of my strange coincidences that you started this nonsense today. I'm not going to think about it very much. Too many measurable coincidences to consider.

Okay, I'm basically done on this thread aside from reading it. I'd still like opinions on my post 813.

>> that you started this nonsense today <<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_(psychology)

Nuff said.

RF

Oh, check out the news thread, anybody who wants to find true dishonesty in the last posting. Now, I'm done.

Indeed, I invite them to do so: F19585?thread=502685&skip=6914&show=1

Once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_(psychology)

RF

>>By the way, Arthur C. Clarke judged dowsing as a 4 out of 5 on a likelihood-that-there-is-something-to-it scale<<

Mmm well that's solves it then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI

I said I didn't buy it, too. Good to know it's debunked!

Like quoting people out of context, I see.

I didn't imply you believed it Xiory (it's obvious you don't if someone read your post which I did) I was merely commenting on the idea that Arthur C Clarke opinion (great author I have Sentinal, all the 2001 series, Rama and Childhood's End) counts when it comes to whether or not something has weight. As the video shows double-blind experiment's are the way to go.